Catholic Reviewer of My Book on Amazon: "Poor Research"
That's what one reviewer claims, despite what others say about it.
The first line states...
The hidden premise here is that if I did more research I would believe, and behind that premise lurks what I've argued is the Christian Illusion of Rational Superiority, which, Christian philosopher James F. Sennett agrees with me about; that it is an illusion.
Besides, this "out of date" charge is unjustifiably leveled at non-believers far too often. There are many more Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers, many of whom are paid to do little more than research, so of course they are spitting out new books every single day, each one of which might be considered the latest research. Atheists are in a minority. Many who teach in the universities who are not tenured are scared of losing their jobs if they write against the Christian faith, and most all of us do not get paid to do research into these topics much less produce as many books in response to this latest research. Just look at the number of “fleas” Richard Dawkins has in response to his book! Neither he nor any other atheist writer can hope to answer the volumes of books written in response any one of our books. There will always be updated knowledge, anyway, and with the numbers of Christians writing, atheists cannot hope to compete in terms of books and articles. Maybe in the future atheists will outnumber Christian writers and then we can level that charge against them!
When it comes to the latest research here is a dilemma for Christians who make this charge: if the latest research is needed to defend the Christian faith, then either the reasons to believe prior to it were less than sufficient, or if the latest research is not needed then why should believers care about it now?
Having said this I don’t doubt that I’m wrong about some things. I’ve admitted this, and I’m willing to learn where I am wrong. But I do not think my errors undercut my overall case at all, until or unless my substantive arguments are undercut rather than nitpicking out a minor error or more, here and there. My argument is that how we see things is based upon control beliefs. They control how we view the evidence. And that case of mine was never undercut by this reviewer.
From looking at the other reviews this person wrote on Amazon he or she is a Catholic. Why is it that Catholics seem to be the most outraged at my book? Is it because I dismiss their faith and instead take aim at evangelicalism? I used to be a Catholic in my upbringing. But I reject their faith with the same confidence they reject Islam. I claim that since the Catholic church was seriously wrong with regard to the Inquisition, Slavery, Crusades, Witch Hunts, and protecting child molesting priests in today's world, I have no reason to trust her. I defended this view from another Catholic reviewer right here.
Furthermore, while I might be wrong about some things in my book, since I am just one person and I cover so many different topics in it, I think the reviewer grossly mischaracterizes my book. To say I've "never heard" or that I "ignore" or that I have "no response" to something is such an unfair characterization that I suspect the reviewer feels the need to lie in order to defend his or her faith. Here's just one example: it says that when writing about the problem of evil I "ignore the concept of heaven." Not so. See pages 251-52, and 256-57, and 261. Did he or she skip those pages? And on it goes. From this review one could think there is no value at all to my book or that it doesn't contain any good arguments, even though several scholars on both sides of the fence say otherwise.
This is not a review that anyone can trust overall. It has an axe to grind. With the reading skills displayed no wonder he or she believes. It is not fair or objective in any sense at all. I'm still waiting to learn from an educated Christian reviewer who has no axe to grind who will be fair and balanced with my book. Are there no such reviewers? The level of objectivity revealed by this reviewer and others shows they do not have a semblance of objectivity, and if that's the case, how can they claim to have any objectivity at all with regard to their faith? So far, I haven't seen it.
The first line states...
If Loftus became an atheist based on the information in this book, then he badly needs to do more research because his facts are wrong or out of date.The reviewer levels this charge against me several times.
The hidden premise here is that if I did more research I would believe, and behind that premise lurks what I've argued is the Christian Illusion of Rational Superiority, which, Christian philosopher James F. Sennett agrees with me about; that it is an illusion.
Besides, this "out of date" charge is unjustifiably leveled at non-believers far too often. There are many more Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers, many of whom are paid to do little more than research, so of course they are spitting out new books every single day, each one of which might be considered the latest research. Atheists are in a minority. Many who teach in the universities who are not tenured are scared of losing their jobs if they write against the Christian faith, and most all of us do not get paid to do research into these topics much less produce as many books in response to this latest research. Just look at the number of “fleas” Richard Dawkins has in response to his book! Neither he nor any other atheist writer can hope to answer the volumes of books written in response any one of our books. There will always be updated knowledge, anyway, and with the numbers of Christians writing, atheists cannot hope to compete in terms of books and articles. Maybe in the future atheists will outnumber Christian writers and then we can level that charge against them!
When it comes to the latest research here is a dilemma for Christians who make this charge: if the latest research is needed to defend the Christian faith, then either the reasons to believe prior to it were less than sufficient, or if the latest research is not needed then why should believers care about it now?
Having said this I don’t doubt that I’m wrong about some things. I’ve admitted this, and I’m willing to learn where I am wrong. But I do not think my errors undercut my overall case at all, until or unless my substantive arguments are undercut rather than nitpicking out a minor error or more, here and there. My argument is that how we see things is based upon control beliefs. They control how we view the evidence. And that case of mine was never undercut by this reviewer.
From looking at the other reviews this person wrote on Amazon he or she is a Catholic. Why is it that Catholics seem to be the most outraged at my book? Is it because I dismiss their faith and instead take aim at evangelicalism? I used to be a Catholic in my upbringing. But I reject their faith with the same confidence they reject Islam. I claim that since the Catholic church was seriously wrong with regard to the Inquisition, Slavery, Crusades, Witch Hunts, and protecting child molesting priests in today's world, I have no reason to trust her. I defended this view from another Catholic reviewer right here.
Furthermore, while I might be wrong about some things in my book, since I am just one person and I cover so many different topics in it, I think the reviewer grossly mischaracterizes my book. To say I've "never heard" or that I "ignore" or that I have "no response" to something is such an unfair characterization that I suspect the reviewer feels the need to lie in order to defend his or her faith. Here's just one example: it says that when writing about the problem of evil I "ignore the concept of heaven." Not so. See pages 251-52, and 256-57, and 261. Did he or she skip those pages? And on it goes. From this review one could think there is no value at all to my book or that it doesn't contain any good arguments, even though several scholars on both sides of the fence say otherwise.
This is not a review that anyone can trust overall. It has an axe to grind. With the reading skills displayed no wonder he or she believes. It is not fair or objective in any sense at all. I'm still waiting to learn from an educated Christian reviewer who has no axe to grind who will be fair and balanced with my book. Are there no such reviewers? The level of objectivity revealed by this reviewer and others shows they do not have a semblance of objectivity, and if that's the case, how can they claim to have any objectivity at all with regard to their faith? So far, I haven't seen it.
2 comments:
LOL. "Poor research." Those are the absolute last two words I'd ever use to describe your book. One could attempt to argue it's wrong, though it's not. One could attempt to argue it's boring, though it's not. One could attempt to argue it's arrogant, though it's not. But one could never attempt to argue "poor research" with a straight face. It's too bad these idiots get equal weight with their reviews.
And yes, there are too many apologists for us to answer who receive funding to do nothing but write. I've often argued that feeling secure with Christianity on the basis of the number of such authors is a mental form of argumentum ad numerum:
The importance of this point is that religious veracity is not a matter of deciding which major world religion with widespread publication is the right one. Circumstances independent of the veracity of those religions’ claims created the current distribution of observation. Fundamental beliefs in aggressive conversion, rapid changes in social structure, and localized advances in information technology all certainly play a role in the availability of literature that supports a particular viewpoint on a global debate. All things equally considered, any of the ancient religions might be correct. It is not logically sound to disqualify a belief system from consideration as the correct one just because a very small population observes it. Conquering and converting for several centuries might very well increase the number of adherents, but these methods do not increase the likelihood of the conquerors having the correct religion. Since the number of followers of a religion has never been (and probably never will be) empirically demonstrated to correlate with the veracity of that religion, Christianity is just as likely to be true from the onset as Jainism, for example. Again, there are religious scholars of every belief system who contend that they can prove the veracity of each of their respective religious beliefs. There is simply no consensus among unbiased scholars as to which, if any, makes the most reasonable claims. It is a great intellectual dishonesty to think that your religion has 'something to it' simply because it has the highest number of authors who support its veracity.
John, you wrote:
//Having said this I don’t doubt that I’m wrong about some things. I’ve admitted this, and I’m willing to learn where I am wrong. But I do not think my errors undercut my overall case at all, until or unless my substantive arguments are undercut rather than nitpicking out a minor error or more, here and there. My argument is that how we see things is based upon control beliefs. They control how we view the evidence. And that case of mine was never undercut by this reviewer.//
Exactly. I think any extant reviews or forthcoming reviews of your book should be judged in terms of worthiness, whether the reviews are negative or positive in nature, based on their review of your central theme. Even if some knowledgeable expert comes along and challenges every single detail of your specific Christian critique, if he or she leaves off or poorly criticizes the OTF and control belief position, it would still not be a sufficient review by any means.
It's funny that someone of a particular denomination felt "left out" in this review. Of course you can't possibly make a comprehensive review of every denomination - you'd have a dictionary-sized book by the end, and when you finish it and get it published, a hundred new denominations would have popped up wondering where their critique is (think of how quickly the emergent church came around!). But the Catholics do still have the lion's share of believers and the more I look at Catholicism the more I see how wide the chasm is between them and the Evangelicals. Perhaps another book as a companion to your main one is in order ...?
Post a Comment