"The Most Impressive Thing Loftus Brings to the Table"

I'm curious when I see my name mentioned on a forum to read what they're saying about my work. Let me say that it's no fun getting shot at from both sides in this debate, but that's what I see. Let me tell you also that I know what I'm doing. I know the evangelical mindset very well. I know how to speak to them. I said in my book that skeptics won't all appreciate why I argue the way I do, and that's true. But I am interested in changing peole's minds. And while Christians will assail me for it from time to time I know how to speak their language. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN PREACHING TO THE CHOIR! For a case in point over at the Rational Response Squad forum there has been a discussion about an argument I made and my work. They don't even list my book on the sidebar as an important one.

I have no clue who these people are, but one person said this:

I think the most impressive thing Loftus brings to the table is his apparent credentials in the scholarly-believers/apologists circles. He's the only 'new atheist' I know of who's gotten significant positive blurbs from apologists such as Norman Geisler.

I'm reading his book right now, and while it is not particularly thought-provoking to me, his real target audience is educated believers, and he takes the time to address them thoroughly, as opposed to say Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, or Harris. He approaches it from their perspective, moreso than not.

To put it one way, he 'takes the ridiculous seriously'. In other words, he takes likely arguments theists might make and takes the time to thoroughly debunk them. Whereas other 'new atheists' would basically just blow off the ridiculous arguments with a brisk "... but that's an obvious non-sequitur".

I think Loftus makes a good bridge from atheist language to apologist language. For instance, his arguments do not go into depth into logic, but instead use argument from authority and other informal fallacies which -- like it or not -- actually do hold weight with believers.

Another useful thing Loftus brings to the table is how he repackages old atheist rejoinders into full-fledged arguments against theism. Probably his strongest example of this is his Outsider Test (chapter 4; 10 pages). Whereas an atheist will respond to theist arguments with something like: "Well if you believe in biblical miracles, why don't you believe Mohammed flew on a horse to heaven?" or "The burden of proof is on he who claims". Instead, Loftus takes the time to spell out all the gory details about why these rejoinders make sense. He makes a thorough case for why theists have an intellectual responsibility to examine their own beliefs as if they were outsiders from the belief. Christians should look at Christianity from the perspective of non-Christians, etc. Loftus uses his own personal deconversion story to add emotional/anecdotal weight to his argument.

In short, while I agree his arguments are not as strong as other 'new atheists', he brings a valuable angle to the table that other 'new atheists' do not, probably because it doesn't occur to them that they need to take the time to explicitly detail what 'should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about logic'.

I'm quite excited actually, that Loftus can start a new phase in the conversation that Sam Harris said he was trying to start with The End of Faith. I hope Loftus inspires other hardcore-theists-turned-rationalist-atheists to pick up the baton and run with it. The goal after all is to actually convince people, remember. If it takes a little anecdotal reasoning to get people to start to question, it can't hurt. There is no one way. It takes all kinds.
Now I dispute some of the things he said, but you can read through that thread beginning here with his post. (scroll up to start reading).

I wish I could convince more skeptics that I know what I'm doing and why I argue the way I do. If they could just get behind my work we could make a bigger impact. Ahhhhh, but after all, we're freethinkers, and you cannot corral freethinkers like you can believers. ;-)

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, on second thought I know who started that thread, AIGbusted from our sister site Debunking Creationism. Thanks!

Damian said...

Hey John, I'm looking forward to reading your book at some stage in the near future. From what I've heard about of it so far it sounds like a much-needed dimension to the current groundswell against theistic thinking.

I'm from a Christian background myself and often cringe when I see some of the 'rational' arguments against theism. Not because they're not logical or correct, but because I know that I wouldn't have found them compelling when I was still a believer.

(For that matter, I'm not sure what I would have found compelling but I think your angle is an important one.)

Cheers!
Damian

Jason Long said...

John, if you go around searching the internet for ignorant reviews to destroy, you'll eventually drive yourself insane. I could barely keep up with the absurd stuff in my inbox, and that became a chore.

Jeffrey Amos said...

I'm only half done, and your book is already my universal recommendation to friends, together with Beyond Born Again chapters 5-7. (And given my social setting, I should rack up 5+ sales...) Its target audience is literate Christians, and these are the people holding Christianity together. Of course they should be the target audience!

Anonymous said...

Jason, I don't go searching for stuff, but I do run across it and people alert me to it. I am after all a curious Georgie. ;-)

Jeffery, I love the title of your Blog! Surely the idea came from my Outsider Test in reverse. Let's see, Christianity not only fails the outsider test but it also fails the insider test! Again, I love it.

AIGBusted said...

Correct a mundo, John. It was me who started the thread.

; )

Paul M. Harrison said...

I still stand by my endorsement Prometheus included in your book, that it is one of the best refutations of Christian apologetics I have ever read. It's far more academic and engaging than the rhetoric of the New Atheists and the tone is more to inform and challenge than to combat and ridicule. Who understands Christians and their arguments better than a former Christian who happens to be a former professional as well?

Warren said...

I have a question John...

First, background:

My background is evangelical. I still attend the evangelical baptist church I did when I was trying to believe.

I researched Creationism as a creationist and became an Evolutionist - and so went Biblical literalism.

But other principles of evangelical belief I had already started to recognize as highly doubtful, when I came across Richard Dawkins in all his confidence. I simultaneously felt both a duty to defend my faith and overwhelming reality that truth was on his side.

I then found Hitchens, then Harris. (Sam Harris, I found to have the most convincing arguments).

I finally admitted to myself, I don't believe - there's no reason to believe. I'm an atheist.

So my question to you is not whether your argument style is better than the "canonical" "new atheists" for bringing reality to the evangelicals, but whether your arguments, per reader, have been more successful in actually doing so.

I know you can't know the answer, because there's no data, but I would think you'd have a pretty good feel for it. I ask this because you've argued that several apologists have praised your arguments, but it seems they remain apologists. I hope I'm not rude by saying that could also mean your arguments are simply more easily dismissed by evangelicals, which they like. Many, for instance, equate Marx' arguments with atheist arguments and say "see he makes good arguments, but in practice, it doesn't work".

Do your arguments actually convert more, do you think, than the canonical four horsemen?

(I have not read your book yet).

Anonymous said...

Warren, thanks for your comment. I do know that my book has single-handedly convinced a couple of devout Christians who argued against us here at DC.

The reason why a few Christian philosophers and apologists recommend my book is probably multifacted. Two of them are my friends, and like Michael Shermer's recommendation of Dinesh D'Souza's book, that's what friends sometimes do.

But they wouldn't do this if it embarrassed them to do so, would they? Norman Geisler likes it because of my personal story of sin in it. He thinks what leads people astray is because we don't want to believe, so by recounting my sins it bolsters his view. Someday soon I'll say why I included my personal story in the book. I actually think it's got some bit of genius to it! ;-)

The bottom line is that Christians want a worthy opponent just like a chess player or basketball player or pool player. Yes, they think I'm dead wrong. But at least I'm a worthy opponent.

Anonymous said...

I am currently in the middle of your book and what I see you doing is something that nobody else does. You take the argument fully into the Christian field, when Hitchens or Dawkins makes an argument it is from the outside and nobody wants to hear someone from the outside arguing against your beliefs.

I greatly appreciate what you are doing because it is a perspective that is very rarely see in the discourse between Theism and Atheism. I personally find that I have trouble talking to Theists in my family because they are arguing from a different perspective and most of the time our arguments go right past each other.

Your book strikes at the problems with Christianity without missing the reader and still makes a fantastic read.

Thanks ~John P

said...

I have to disagree with the commenter at RR. I'm currently working through your book for the rhird time--running a highlighter dry--and I am finding it to be a worthy addition to the atheist literature. Sam Harris argues against revealed religion from the political angle; Dawkins does so from the scientific standpoint; and you, John, do the same from a more philosophical standpoint. Different opponents will respond to different arguments.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi John,

Just to let you know, I have purchased your book and look forward to reading it when it arrives from 'The Land Of The Free...'

I do plan on reviewing it on my new site

http://christianityversusatheismliterature.blogspot.com/

I would appreciate your comments.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

P.S. By the By I agree with your concerns with some atheists and love your bubbly yet respectful rhetoric. From my observation your arguments are considered and powerful.

Anonymous said...

Rev Phil. I don't believe we've crossed swords much before. This should be interesting. Yes, I'll comment. Maybe you can teach me a thing or two in the process.

Rob Harwood said...

Hi John, I posted the original comment, and also this follow-up comment:
"Hi John,

When are you going to get out there on the debate circuit? I think it would be really interesting to see you debate people like Albert Mohler, for instance. See http://www.dts.edu/media/play/?MediaItemID=2c91a646-af23-4a26-99a0-8950c9501e5c.

Do you have any recent media appearances that might be of interest (radio, podcast, whatever)? I heard you on the Infidel Guy's YouTube channel, which is what prompted me to buy your book."

Rob Harwood said...

@Tommy Holland:
"I have to disagree with the commenter at RR. I'm currently working through your book for the rhird time--running a highlighter dry--and I am finding it to be a worthy addition to the atheist literature."
I never said it wasn't a worthy addition to atheist literature, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. My only critique was that his arguments weren't as compelling to me as other authors. I think the book is definitely valuable as a bridge between atheists and believers, which I thought I made clear in my original comment.

Rob Harwood said...

By the way, John, if you were on the IG show and the FFRF show, you would probably be interested in being on the RRS show. You may want to contact them to suggest an interview.

Jonathan MS Pearce said...

John,

Just to give you some positive feedback, I am reading your book and enjoying it immensely. I meet down the pub once a month with a group of friends to discuss theology and philosophy, and we are pretty heavy debaters. This month I jumped ahead to the Problem of Evil chapters, circulted them, and used them as the focal point to the debate.

It proved to be quality evening, and those chapters are a tour de force in arguing against an omni-everything god. The group consists of atheist, panentheist, agnostic deist/atheist and hardline christian viewpoints. We have 2 Christian theologians to pit our wits against.

These chapters gave much food for thought to all involved.

However, what annoys me about seemingly intelligent and reasonable theologians, is that, given a very strong cumulative case against an omni-God, as long as there is a logical possibility for such a being, then it is almost impossible to shift those with faith into the realms of common sense.

Most Christian theologians will rather accept a logical possibility, than a logical and reasonable plausibility, even though it weighs so much lighter on the scales of sense.

That said, this chapter, more than anything else we have talked about, has highlighted some glaring chinks in the armour of omnibenevolent-God believing theologians.