Why Did Randal Rauser Recommend "God and Horrendous Suffering"?
Inquiring Minds Want to Know!
It should be noted that despite his high recommendation of my work, Rauser is on a mission to discredit it, pejoratively calling me a "New Atheist" and a "Fundamentalist". He did a video about this where the only comment under it after 13 hours is, "This is stupid", by WCB. Hardy har har har!
Now it's true that in an article for The Secular Web I defend the so-called "New Atheists", many of whom were new atheists before the media decided to name them with the rise of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. My defense of them went through a peer-reviewed process with their board of directors. One board member told me it was the best article he's ever had the chance to approve. It challenges both Christian apologists and philosophical atheists. It takes issue with belief induced justifications by apologists, and dismissive attitudes of "New Atheists" by elitist atheist philosophers and their advocates. The main issue is Bayes' Theorem and its proper use, as opposed to "Pop Atheist" Hitchens' Razor. LINK!
Rauser says, Loftus is an amateur philosopher of religion. Okay then, if so, he should write a rebuttal to my Secular Web article. But more importantly we might question his integrity for writing such a glowing blurb for my book on horrendous suffering. For the record, I wrote a substantive Introduction, and five lengthy chapters in that book, nearly one third of it in length.
We saw his dishonesty a few years back when he accused me of saying that my friend Peter Boghossian didn't care about the truth. This was a serious infraction and I dealt with it as swiftly as I could. There is no room for allowing that kind of thing to be said. I never said such a thing, yet Rauser claimed I did.
The "Fundamentalist" label indicates I'm unwilling to change my mind. In reality, after forty years of study and reflection, I have amassed a whole lot of data on behalf of five powerful reasons not to believe, and I see nothing in the future that could change my mind.
There are just three more things I need to say about Rauser. First, scholars ignore him. That's what several of them have told me on both sides of the fence. Second, he and others act like the only book of mine worth discussing is Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Yet very few of them have read it. They only discuss the snippets they find online. And they almost always miss its main points. I was writing to atheist philosophers who already agree that there is no truth for religious faith. I was not writing to convince Christians. Christians should read my other works. But they attack that book so they can skip my other works. Third, methinks he is conflicted about me, on the one hand he acknowledges my brilliance ;-) but he has a need to discredit me because of how badly I trounced him in our debate book, God or Godless? A complete catalog of the reviews on Amazon should make him shy completely away from me. ;-)
----------------
John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 12 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against Miracles, God and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon. Thank you so much!
As a Christian apologist, I can say that there is no intellectual objection to Christianity more daunting than the problem of horrendous suffering. In this important new book, John Loftus has gathered a diverse collection of voices that seek to build a comprehensive, multi-pronged critique of Christianity based on this most difficult problem. No Christian apologist can afford to ignore it.You can get this book from the Global Center for Religious Research. To read a nice summary introduction of the problem of horrendous suffering read this.
-- Dr. Randal Rauser, Professor of Historical Theology, Taylor Seminary, and co-author of God or Godless. Source.
It should be noted that despite his high recommendation of my work, Rauser is on a mission to discredit it, pejoratively calling me a "New Atheist" and a "Fundamentalist". He did a video about this where the only comment under it after 13 hours is, "This is stupid", by WCB. Hardy har har har!
Now it's true that in an article for The Secular Web I defend the so-called "New Atheists", many of whom were new atheists before the media decided to name them with the rise of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. My defense of them went through a peer-reviewed process with their board of directors. One board member told me it was the best article he's ever had the chance to approve. It challenges both Christian apologists and philosophical atheists. It takes issue with belief induced justifications by apologists, and dismissive attitudes of "New Atheists" by elitist atheist philosophers and their advocates. The main issue is Bayes' Theorem and its proper use, as opposed to "Pop Atheist" Hitchens' Razor. LINK!
Rauser says, Loftus is an amateur philosopher of religion. Okay then, if so, he should write a rebuttal to my Secular Web article. But more importantly we might question his integrity for writing such a glowing blurb for my book on horrendous suffering. For the record, I wrote a substantive Introduction, and five lengthy chapters in that book, nearly one third of it in length.
We saw his dishonesty a few years back when he accused me of saying that my friend Peter Boghossian didn't care about the truth. This was a serious infraction and I dealt with it as swiftly as I could. There is no room for allowing that kind of thing to be said. I never said such a thing, yet Rauser claimed I did.
The "Fundamentalist" label indicates I'm unwilling to change my mind. In reality, after forty years of study and reflection, I have amassed a whole lot of data on behalf of five powerful reasons not to believe, and I see nothing in the future that could change my mind.
There are just three more things I need to say about Rauser. First, scholars ignore him. That's what several of them have told me on both sides of the fence. Second, he and others act like the only book of mine worth discussing is Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Yet very few of them have read it. They only discuss the snippets they find online. And they almost always miss its main points. I was writing to atheist philosophers who already agree that there is no truth for religious faith. I was not writing to convince Christians. Christians should read my other works. But they attack that book so they can skip my other works. Third, methinks he is conflicted about me, on the one hand he acknowledges my brilliance ;-) but he has a need to discredit me because of how badly I trounced him in our debate book, God or Godless? A complete catalog of the reviews on Amazon should make him shy completely away from me. ;-)
----------------
John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 12 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against Miracles, God and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon. Thank you so much!
0 comments:
Post a Comment