skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Good day John, I've been spending most of my Sunday morning with a large mug of tea and The Christian Delusion
, re-reading my favourite parts : and then it struck me - there really has been nothing worthy to refute any significant part of TCD since its publication! Within a few days after its release there were some blogs and general eye-rolling about how wrong you have it all and so on, and then - crickets chirping.
Now there can be three reasons why this is so:
(1) the armies of the Lord are busy with their research and we are soon to be regaled with a stunning, jaw-dropping tome that just shuts us all up, to the point that some of us will convert to the unassailable logic of Christianity (cough, on to number 2) ;
2. TCD is not worthy of the effort, and it is insignificant. This would be quite removed from the reality of the publication. Some of the blurbs written by Christians at the time certainly proves otherwise, the mumble and grumble raised by the faithful at the time of publication shows otherwise, and some of the sections, specifically your chapter on animal suffering, are really on the cutting edge of counter-apologetics.
3. Now could it be, heaven forbid, that the third option is more accurate? That there are no significant rebuttals, because .............. gasp! - there are none that hold up to scrutiny?
I read very widely, including the Christian and atheist websites available, and I would say that I am up to speed with the best in both camps. And there is nothing out there that makes a dent in TCD.
A lot of these books tend to fade after their original impact, but it seems to me as if TCD is growing in stature, quietly, and while the armies of the faithful have one more thing to dismiss as being insignificant despite its cold rationality. I expected a whole gaggle of apologetic efforts, but so far we have practically nothing.
This to me is one more example of how the poor old believer is forced to simply pull up the drawbridge and live in HappyLand, content with "Faith" and all that wonderful pseudo-science, while the rest of the real world passes by.
My renewed congratulations, John, to you and all the contributors to this monolithic work.
Regards, Andre
9 comments:
I am tempted to go with some combination of options (1) and (2) (I am preparing a couple things myself, but don't think everyone is paying John's book much mind).
However, Andre's assumption is just wrong. I rebutted Avalos' chapter in some detail already, as is clear in the discussion under my review of Christian Delusion. If you disagree, feel free to read that discussion, and explain which of my original claims in the review was refuted! If Carrier had deigned to respond this time, I suspect he would have had either to backtrack on his weaker claims, or bluster and go on a personal attack as diversion, like Avalos did.
I'll be posting a rebuttal of John Loftus' "Outsider Test" on my christthetao blog within a day or two. I also have a rebuttal of two important claims by Carrier and Avalos in the works.
The "assumption" was not that no-one wrote about TCD, it was that nothing significant was written in rebuttal. Your advert for your blog hardly qualifies.
Remember, you calling your efforts a "rebuttal" doesn't make it so. In any event, if you are so confident about such "rebuttals" you should write a book. Surely that would be the way to deal with TCD.
Mind: A strange and argumentative response. Do you really expect books to have been published just a few months after an anthology (selling at about 15,000 on Amazon)?
John's correspondent seemed to want to see rebuttals of The Christian Delusion. I pointed to where he can find some.
"Rebuttal" is a carefully chosen, relatively neutral term. "Refutation" would have been the stronger -- and perhaps more accurate, as some third parties have affirmed -- word to use.
David
The post under discussion is my own, I sent it to John under my own name, not the username I use on the discussion board.
I find your comment about my reply being "strange and argumentative" rather defensive after the language and tone you used right off the bat, in your very first post. I know that arrogance and bluster come naturally to a lot of Christians, and that you guys hardly notice it unless directed at you by someone else, but your first post certainly set the scene.
Your first post is simple bluster and bravado, mixed with a bit of self-advertising. Your blog posts are woeful and inadequate attempts at dealing with TCD, and it is clear from some of your arguments that far from having the answer you are struggling to understand the questions. I can understand why Avalos and John are so, shall we say, underwhelmed by your efforts. There is nothing new there, same old package, same old content.
Your second post raises the possibility that the books in reply to TCD may still be in the process of being prepared. Have you not noticed that I raised the possibility right there in option 1? Have you not noticed how quick the faithful hordes were in writing the spin-offs from The God Delusion? In any event, the possibility has been conceded. We all await such efforts.
The refutations / rebuttals (either would do for me) that you have referred to are insignificant amateur efforts, not even gaining any significant support in Christian circles. They constitute mere isolated echo chamber efforts at plugging the holes the old ship has sprung. Again, they offer nothing new or of any value to the debate - a point I made in my original post to John.
Your argument, together with the references you have cited, has simply emphasized my original impression of the situation, and if anything strengthened my initial assessment.
So far, TCD stands untouched by any significant argument. And again, please remember that personal hobby-horse blogs or reviews of other people's books do not advance your argument.
Andre: Aside from empty bluster, I don't see much in your comment to respond to. I critiqued Avalos and Carrier in some detail. I asked, above, which of my criticisms (in the original Amazon review) fail, and why. No response.
If you've read our discussion, and have much sense, you'll continue to say nothing of substance, and stick with this gaseous, content-free style of criticism.
For example, I critique Avalos' interpretation of a passage in Acts. Do you maintain that Avalos' interpretation is correct? It's no good to just claim my argument is "amateurish" and "hasn't gained significant support in Christian circles." In fact, I cite a dozen or so scholars and groups of scholars, some Christians, some not, who agree with MY interpretation against that of Avalos. So the assertion is just nonsense.
One could make the same point about many other issues in dispute between Dr. Avalos or Dr. Carrier and myself. Aside from silly and inaccurate personal attacks, where's the beef?
Well, David, do we need to traverse the contents and quality of your cited "scholarship" again? I think Hector AValos in particular has said all there can be said - in polite company at least.
So let's recap what we have had so far on this episode of "Playing Chess With Pigeons" so far, shall we :
1. I make the comment that TCD stands unaffected by any meaningful criticism and I give several options for why that may be so ;
2. You post something to the effect of "Hu-uh, I have rebutted that in my blog, and I will do so some more soon" and you complain that I am argumentative ;
3. I point out that you have done no such thing regardless of your own opinion and that I have good reason to be argumentative ;
4. You go on to say that I have nothing to say and that your isolated efforts, which have been roundly ignored by all and sundry, are actually of great significance and that they disprove my original points. You tell us with some confidence that those books dismantling TCD are probably on their way.
So : we have TCD having earned its colors, and in the other corner we have ..... your blog efforts and some arbitrary, isolated apologetics ineffectively dealing with a very small portion of the TCD material, .
Was there anything else?
Avalos is just gripping because he lost. What else can he say? Among 23 pages of personal attacks, he couldn't even bring himself to mention the fact that I'd rebutted some of his CD arguments, and direct readers to our prior arguments. What does that say about his level of confidence?
Notice you don't even answer my question. Talking specifics is dangerous, isn't it? Either you admit Avalos belly-flopped on that point, leaving open the possibility that my allegedly poor scholarship was better than Avalos alleges, and the "crickets" might win the day on other points, too. Or you argue against the overwhelming weight of scholarship, based (it appears) on nothing at all.
It's a tough choice, but until you make it, your argument is empty bluster. As was, it appears, your e-mail to John.
Are you referring to this exchange, David? If so, I don't think "lost" means what you think it does...
Ildi: No, I didn't respond to him on that thread. I'm referring to two things: (1) Mainly, our debate on Amazon.com, following my review of Christian Delusion. (Which inspired Hector's outburst in the blog you point to.)
(2) I'm only referring to our debate over slavery, not here on John's blog, but also my responses on my blog, to a lesser extent:
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2010/08/i-why-hectoring-dr.html
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2010/08/ii-slave-to-cherry-picked-footnotes-19.html
Yes, I think the substance and tone of Avalos' attacks on me are debunked in those posts and further -- if you read them. I think in some respects, in fact, he embarrasses himself, especially by his tone, but also by his refusal to admit even the most flagrant errors, of which he committed many.
But of course Avalos is playing to his strength on slavery. He's written and researched much more on the subject than I have, which is why he chose that point of attack. But sure, read the whole discussion, and I think my main points about slavery in The Truth Behind the New Atheism seem to have survived his attacks pretty well.
Post a Comment