David Marshall Not Only Lies, He's Mastered the Art Of Mischaracterization

Somebody Please Stop ME!! David Marshall has dogged my steps on at least a weekly basis for several years now. I don't do that with him. I have hardly ever commented on his blog and have not reviewed any of his books [Edit: Correction, I reviewed one of them, see comments below for explanation]. If it wasn't for the fact that Marshall dogs my steps (which means he thinks what I do is important), and that Christians believe whatever a person with a doctorate says about my books without reading them to know for themselves, and that Marshall somehow has earned a doctorate and asserts without being fully informed that they are bad, I could have saved 100's of hours by not responding to him. He's relentless and indefatigable. Surely he'll consider that a compliment. He's also stubborn, which can be a compliment. But he's also ignorant, deluded and even a liar for Jesus. He's like the proverbial sophomore in college, who has gained just enough knowledge to be overly confident in his intellectual acumen, but still ignorant and not know it. Or, someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. I dislike having to deal with the likes of him. But I must do so.

This is to preface what David Marshall is doing once again, reviewing my recently released book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.He's doing it on his blog and getting almost everything wrong. He did get it right that I wrote the book though. *Whew*

If you are not already convinced Marshall is as I say he is, then do two things. First get and read my book up to chapter five. Then read what he says through chapter five right here. No, you need not have to read my book.

The facts are in. Our brains lie to us. I said that early in my book. Now Marshall can say what he wants to about this fact, but it is indeed a fact. I'm dealing with it by questioning everything. I'm dealing with it by eschewing faith-based reasoning. I'm dealing with it by demanding hard cold evidence before accepting claims about the nature of nature and its workings. I'm dealing with it by asking science to help me determine what I should accept and what I should reject with no double standards. Marshall is dealing with it by using the "you too" informal fallacy. "You too!" he cries out, as if this is something I am not fully aware of and trying to deal with the best that I can. What is he doing about it? How is he dealing with it? THAT is the only question he needs to answer. It does nothing to say the fact applies to us all.

Since the focus of his post has to do with my numbers then I'll just repeat the comment I left on his blog (whether you read what he wrote is up to you):
David, in that chapter (5) I'm dealing with apologists not the rank in file Christian. I'm dealing with apologetical methods in that chapter. And I don't claim to know how many apologists fall into which camp. I used the conditional "if" when hypothetically saying 80% of them might reject evidentialism.

"If we grant that an equal number of Christian apologists defend these respective approaches, then any given one of them is rejected by 80 percent of all Christian apologists."

Did you notice the big "IF"?

When I say other apologetical schools of thought reject something I mean they reject something. As a disciple of Francis Schaeffer's apologetics in Seminary we rejected evidentialism. It is indeed a rejection of evidentialism as a method. It is not a rejection of the evidence. What apologists reject is the primary basis for defending the Christian faith. And we rejected evidentialism. You apparently don't know what you're talking about, but I find that typical of you.

You also missed my main point which is obvious.

Care to tell your readers what it is?
I'm still waiting for an answer to that last question.