An Email of Appreciation and My Response
I get these types of emails from time to time. This one I thought I'd share with readers of DC.
The name of the person who wrote to me is Esteban Roth from Newport Beach, CA. What he wrote is in quotes below.
There are Christians who are responding by personally attacking me, however. These believers never actually engage my arguments. It's as if they can't deal with them so they think attacking me is the next best thing. One Christian just recently nitpicked at a small detail and made a big deal about it without also dealing with the case I presented in a particular chapter. Big deal. To him I say nitpick away if it makes you feel better.
Thanks for writing. Let me know how your friends are dealing with my book.
Best,
John W. Loftus
The name of the person who wrote to me is Esteban Roth from Newport Beach, CA. What he wrote is in quotes below.
Kudos on the book and blog. Thus far you've been the ONLY author to convince a number of friends and acquaintances to reassess their beliefs. That you caused such a challenge for them is remarkable considering that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Russell provided my pals with no uncertainty!Really!? That's fantastic! Please spread the word.
What is also surprising me about your book is that I have yet to see a reputable Christian blog or 'name' attack it (there may have been some but I haven't seen them). Groups like Reformation21 and Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds have been silent regarding you. Which is both surprising and not. Surprising in that the Reformed tradition prides themself on being intellectually superior and having a ready response. No mention of you by D.A. Carson, the Westminster Theological Seminary crew, Albert Mohler, etc. Not surprising in that they seem to avoid serious threats to the faith by either ignoring the threats or engaging in strawman tactics (see the treatment of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks).I'm not really well-known, that's probably why. My book is scheduled for review in the London Times Literary Supplement though, so they won't be able to ignore it for long. ;-)
My question: Are you surprised that the Reformed crowd is ignoring you thus far? (By 'Reformed Crowd' I mean those who have degrees, teaching positions, and some level of 'fame' in the theological world...not their delusional fans whose education consists of apologetics books and nothing more.)My book is being used in both Christian and secular college classes on atheism and apologetics. Still, I'm rather unknown at this point. We'll see in the future.
I think you DESERVE their attention as you have the best contemporary critique around. I'd be interested in how someone like Timothy Keller, K. Scott Oliphint, D.A. Carson or Carl Trueman would respond to your work. Unfortunately, I can imagine their underwhelming response (despite the mentioned men being rather intelligent).Thanks so much! Silence can sometimes be the best response. I think this is the real reason William Lane Craig won't debate me, because by doing so it would make people aware of me and my book, which he just doesn't want to do. Maybe it's just better not to let people know of it. Dinesh D'Souza got my book and read it when it first came out in August. He told me he was planning on writing a review of it. But the last I heard from him about it in September he said "it contained some new thoughtful stuff I hadn't considered before," and he never wrote that review! Again, silence can sometimes be the best response.
There are Christians who are responding by personally attacking me, however. These believers never actually engage my arguments. It's as if they can't deal with them so they think attacking me is the next best thing. One Christian just recently nitpicked at a small detail and made a big deal about it without also dealing with the case I presented in a particular chapter. Big deal. To him I say nitpick away if it makes you feel better.
Your book is quite popular at the local library here in Newport Beach, CA. It's often checked out and with several hold requests following it. And some people are fond of putting your book in the center of the "Atheist" section at the local Barnes and Noble. It's often blocking other books in the "Religious" section as well! Small moves that show people are interested in and promoting you.Well, isn't that interesting!
Thanks for writing. Let me know how your friends are dealing with my book.
Best,
John W. Loftus
10 comments:
John, I had to come out of hiding for this one. That "nitpicking" Christian you refer to (where is the link, btw?) raised a serious question about your sources. If you have no credible sources, then your whole argument is undercut. Are you just going to attack him personally, or are you going to deal with his argument?
For anyone interested, the post concerns John's use of scholarly opinion as evidence against the empty tomb. Half of the list was blatant mis-characterization. It is at christiancadre.blogspot.com.
John, surely you still remember to "pull the plank out of your own eye before you pull a speck of out someone else."
Brad, he has no argument. Anyone who thinks so must be a Christian desperately trying to save the faith. Yeah, that's right, BTW, I have "no credible sources" and therefore my "whole argument is undercut." And so it must be that "the list was blatant mischaracterization."
Sheesh, when will you juveniles grow up? I don't think you'd be saying such things if you've read through my book. My contention is that at best so far, all I have seen are mischaracterizations of my book, nitpicking at small details, and sloppy reasoning in trying to refute it.
My argument stands on it's own merits. You did see what he said about my argument, didn't you? Nothing. Yup, that's right. He said nothing against the arguments I laid out in that chapter. That's nada, zip, zilch. All he thinks is that a few of the names I mentioned do think the tomb was empty. Big deal if they do. if this is all that's required is to nitpick a book for errors in lists then have at it like I said.
How many times do you claim that an apologist is a "Christian trying to save their faith?"
Anyways, if you read the post again you'll see that I didn't indict your whole book, or even the chapter, I just said "if"...
But if your argument is based on certain scholars arguing a position that they don't argue, then that specific argument fails. Perhaps you have other arguments to get to that point, I know you can't tell everything you know in one post.
I gotta say, though, I thought you weren't even going to address this, so I am genuinely impressed that you responded to the article.
Yo Esteban
Why don't you just french John already. Sheez.
Dear John (if I may):
I read your book a few years ago and even gave it a last minute mention in my first book, Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals (Wipf and Stock, 2007). [Although I didn't interact with it directly--which is apparently what you are looking for someone to do according to this post.]
Your book is chock full of philosophical musings. You spend quite a bit of time in the beginning explaining what upheavals in your life contributed to your reconsideration of how intellectually grounded your beliefs "really" were. This background discussion strikes me as a prelude to a pragmatic, cumulative argument with some philosophical considerations that will help fill it out along the way.
Two boxed quotes on pgs 18 and 19 appear to me to sum up your starting points that you hope will (should?) appeal to your readers: 1) the presumptions people start with play a big role in what people believe and 2) although there are plenty of people who presumed Christianity to be true have come to change their minds, it doesn't seem to you that there are nearly as many people changing their minds from skepticism to Christianity. (Implication: if you start from skepticism you can't ratioinally end up with the Christian position.)
Am I right to understood your book as being a pragmatic argument that seeks to bring people through gradual phases of disbelief until finally reaching complete unbelief or, at the very least, a more cuttingly critical attitude toward their own evangelical understanding of things? The read reminded me a little [at least in form] of Dallas Willard's argument for the existence of God that proceeds through four (from what I recall) gradual stages of belief.
I interpreted your cumulative, pragmatic argument as stemming, at least in large measure, from pragmatic considerations: "What makes someone change his or her mind?...I'm not sure how my crisis prepared me, but I do know I was puzzled with why God allowed it, and why his people didn't seem to care." These are interesting questions some believers might deem worth asking, but how salient they are (should be?) to various Christians everywhere is unclear. [Are you saying that they should be equally salient to Christians everywhere?]
If I might ask you: what is it exactly that you see about your book that makes it some kind of "last word" on the topic? [Incidentally, what is the topic? is the topic why do people change their minds? why do people believe in evangelical Christianity? why can't evangelicals turn into skeptics and then try to substantiate their faith so that they can learn that it's impossible to do so?]
I, for one, found some of the questions in your book interesting (What makes someone change his or her mind on religious topics?) but I'll try to provide you with another person's reaction to your book (namely mine).
I read it and thought to myself "These questions are not where I am right now and simply not pressing to me." What's more I have no time or desire to take it on even if it were THE book that needs to be refuted at all costs. To be honest, I failed to appreciate the force of the question you appear to be asking now in this post: Why isn't the book I've written (meaning your book, Why I Rejected Christianity?) changing more minds? Are you perhaps confusing a desire/expectation for people to give you some feedback on the work you've done with the desire to win the "battle" of ideas you are waging against evangelical Christianity? [Are you saying something like "Ha! I've left the faith and there is simply no way left for someone to argue me back into it from the skeptical vantage I now adopt"?]
That's all I have time for for now.
Grace and peace (and wishing you all the best in your continuing studies),
Carlos Bovell
C Bovell, I read the footnote where you referred to me and my 2006 edition of WIRC. I see the book was published by a reputable publisher but I also see it's not selling too well. I'd be interested in a summary of what you're doing there.
Did you know my book went through several editions? You have the 2nd edition. There was a 3rd edition. My book through Prometheus is to be regarded as the 4th edition. There will be a 5th and final edition in a year or two. With each new edition I correct the minor errors, and the nitpickers have shown me a couple of others to change for which I'm thankful.
But to say that my book is merely a pragmatic justification for why I no longer believe is such a gross mischaracterization of it that I have no words to waste on arguing with you otherwise.
While I do not think my book is "THE LAST BOOK" on the topic or even "THE" book to get, other readers of it say otherwise.
Is it possible that to ease your own mind about me it's simply better for you to think it is a pragmatic justification of change so that you don't have to deal with the arguments it contains?
John,
I didn't see myself as asking you to waste words arguing with me. Actually, I didn't see myself arguing with you at all, much less asking you to argue with me.
I simply wanted to provide some feedback. I thought you might find it useful, take it or leave it, that's all.
It's very possible I was easing my own mind when reading your book. It's possible, too, I was making a practical (possibly even astute) judgment given the information available to me at the time. Or maybe a little of each, or maybe neither at all.
I'm happy to hear you've been able to improve your book based on feedback from others and that it's running through several editions. I wish you well in your continuing studies. Oh and thanks for pointing out that my book isn't selling too well...
Grace and peace (and signing off),
Carlos Bovell
Carlos, I noticed some high recommendations of your book. Seems as if we agree about this. What do you affirm?
"Carlos Bovell has written a thoughtful book on the
challenges, both intellectual and spiritual, faced by a
new generation of evangelicals as they engage the
question of inerrancy. While one possibility would be to
simply abandon this doctrine, another course of action is
preferable: to subject this important idea to critical
scrutiny with the intention of reconstructing it for the
contemporary setting. I believe that this is an important
task and that Bovell's work deserves careful attention
from those of us who continue to affirm this doctrine. We
ignore these questions at our peril."
--John R. Franke
"Here are the 'recognitions' of a young evangelical
scholar whose spiritual formation was stifled, not to say
arrested, because he has been led to believe that the
only acceptably orthodox way was a belief in biblical
inerrancy. The author argues that the dogma of
inerrancy left him woefully unprepared for engagement
with modernist and postmodern biblical scholarship and
plunged him into a fundamental spiritual crisis. This
book should be a welcome read for anyone who, like the
author, can no longer make sense of the evangelical
inerrancy credo."
--James H. Olthuis, Emeritus Professor of Philosophical Theology, Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto
"Bovell knows the evangelical world inside out, and
speaks on behalf of younger evangelicals , who cannot,
or do not wish to, reconcile themselves to the doctrine of
inerrancy. He calls biblical teachers to account, and
campaigns for candour in facing up to the unsoundness
of the doctrine. His argument is both scholarly and
personally engaging, and should be read by students
and tutors alike, especially those involved in ministerial
training."
--Rev. Dr. Harriet A, Harris
University of Oxford, author of Fundamentalism and Evangelicals
"Carlos Bovell has exposed one of the guilty secrets of
the Evangelical Tradition, that is, its ironic ability to
provoke theological and spiritual rebellion in its own
ranks. Those who want to arrest this tragic development
should begin by reading this book and facing squarely
the challenge it presents."
--William J. Abraham, Albert Cook Outler Professor of Wesley Studies, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
Hi, John.
I'm on my way out so I'll be signing off here. I appreciate your talking with me, though.
I affirm that if evangelicalism presents an ultimatum to believers to the effect that it has to be either inerrancy or unbelief, then there's going to be a number of believers who are going to be painted into an unbelieving corner just by the dynamics of evangelicalism itself.
My second book takes a critical look at biblicism and suggests a preliminary genealogy for it.
As for what I affirm in terms of biblical authority, that's still a work in progress. When inerrancy failed for me, I had to go back to the drawing board, which is where I am presently.
Some conservatives see my work as opening the door wide open for non-believing arguments against the faith. I've been told, for example, that my work is leading countless souls to perdition. My talking with you now, I guess, could be interpreted as an extension of that--at least by some of these online ultra-conservatives.
Well Carlos, you can see I link to some important evangelical books in the sidebar.
Yours seems to be another one of them so I'll probably link to yours too.
Cheers.
Post a Comment