A Review of John Beversluis' book C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: Revised and Updated

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Philosopher Dr. John Beversluis wrote the first full-length critical study of C. S. Lewis's apologetic writings, published by William B. Eerdmans, titled C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (1985). For twenty-two years it was the only full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’s writings.

Beversluis was a former Christian who studied at Calvin College under Harry Jellema who inspired Christian thinkers like Alvin Plantinga (who was already in graduate school), and Nicholas Wolterstoff (who was a senior when he entered). Later he was a student at Indiana University with my former professor James D. Strauss. He became a professor at Butler University.

In this first book, Beversluis took as his point of departure Lewis's challenge where he said: “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it” (Mere Christianity p. 123). Beversluis thoroughly examined that hypothesis and found the evidence Lewis presents should not lead people to accept Christianity.

According to Beversluis, his first book “elicited a mixed response-indeed, a response of extremes. Some thought I had largely succeeded. I was complimented for writing a ‘landmark’ book that ‘takes up Lewis's challenge to present the evidence for Christianity and ... operates with full rigor’” (p. 9-10). But the critics were “ferocious.” He said, “I had expected criticism. What I had not expected was the kind of criticism…I was christened the "bad boy" of Lewis studies and labeled the "consummate Lewis basher" (p. 10).

In his “Revised and Updated” book published by Prometheus Books, which was prompted by Keith Parsons and Charles Echelbarger, Beversluis claims “this is not just a revised and updated second edition, but a very different book that supercedes the first edition on every point” (p.11). According to him: “Part of my purpose in this book to show, by means of example after example, the extent to which the apparent cogency of his arguments depends on his rhetoric rather than on his logic…Once his arguments are stripped of their powerful rhetorical content, their apparent cogency largely vanishes and their apparent persuasiveness largely evaporates. The reason is clear: it is not the logic, but the rhetoric that is doing most of the work. We will have occasion to see this again and again. In short, my purpose in this book is not just to show that Lewis's arguments are flawed. I also want to account for their apparent plausibility and explain why they have managed to convince so many readers” (pp. 20,22).

Additionally, Beversluis tells us, “My aim in this revised and updated edition is twofold. First, I will revisit and reexamine Lewis's arguments in light of my more recent thoughts about them. Second, I will to reply to my critics and examine their attempts to reformulate and defend his arguments, thereby responding not only to Lewis but to the whole Lewis movement—that cadre of expositors, popular apologists, and philosophers who continue to be inspired by him and his books. I will argue that their objections can be met and that even when Lewis's arguments are formulated more rigorously than he formulated them, they still fail” (p. 11).

C.S. Lewis’ writings contain three arguments for God’s existence, the “Argument from Desire,” the “Moral Argument,” and the “Argument From Reason.” Lewis furthermore argued that the Liar, Lunatic, Lord dilemma/trilemma shows Jesus is God. Lewis also deals with the major skeptical objection known as the Problem of Evil. Beversluis examines all of these arguments and finds them defective, some are even fundamentally flawed. Lastly Beversluis examines Lewis’ crisis of faith when he lost the love of his life, his wife. (He denies he ever said Lewis lost his faith).

I can only briefly articulate what Beversluis says about these arguments here, but his analysis of them is brilliant and devastating to Lewis’ whole case. The Argument From Desire echoes Augustine’s sentiment in his Confessions when addressing God that “You have made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.” Lewis develops this into an argument for God’s existence which can be formulated in several ways, but the bottom line is that since humans have a desire for joy beyond the natural world, which is what he means by "joy," there must be an object to satisfy that desire in God. Beversluis subjects this argument to criticism on several fronts. How universal is the desire for this "joy"? Is "joy" even a desire? Is Lewis’ description of "joy" a natural desire at all, since desires are biological and instinctive? Do all our desires have fulfillment? What about people who have been satisfied by things other than God, with their careers, spouses and children? In what I consider the most devastating question, he asks if there is any propositional content to the object of Lewis’ argument? Surely if there is an object that corresponds to the desire for "joy" then one who finds this object should be able to describe it from such an experience. Based upon Lewis’ argument she can’t. In fact, Beversluis argues if she cannot do that how does she even know it's an object that corresponds to her desire for "joy" in the first place?

Lewis’ Moral Argument is basically that all people have a notion of right and wrong, and the only explanation for this inner sense of morality must come from a Power behind the moral law known as God. Beversluis claims this argument is based on a few questionable assumptions related to the Euthyphro dilemma, and it depends on the theory of ethical subjectivism from which Lewis only critiques straw man versions rather than the robust versions of Hume and Hobbes. And if that isn’t enough to diminish his case, deductively arguing that there is a Power behind this moral law is committing “the fallacy of affirming the consequent.” (p. 99). 1) If there is a Power behind the moral law then it must make itself known internally within us. 2) We do find this moral law internally within us. .: Therefore, there is a Power behind the moral law. As such this argument is invalid. Of course, there is much more here in Beversluis’ argument.

The Argument From Reason, as best seen in Lewis’ book, Miracles, “is the philosophical backbone of the whole book,” from which “his case for miracles depends.” (p. 145). Lewis champions the idea that if naturalism is true such a theory “impugns the validity of reason and rational inference,” and as such, naturalists contradict themselves if they use reason to argue their case. If you as a naturalist have ever been troubled by such an argument you need to read Beversluis’ response to it, which is the largest chapter in his book, and something I can’t adequately summarize in a few short sentences. Suffice it to say, he approvingly quotes Keith Parsons who said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.” (p. 174).

Lewis’ Liar, Lunatic, Lord Dilemma/Trilemma is one of the most widely used arguments among popular apologists, in variations, where since Jesus claimed he was God, the only other options are that he was either a liar or a lunatic, or both, which Lewis argues isn’t reasonable. Therefore Jesus is God, who he claimed he was. Even William Lane Craig defends it in his book Reasonable Faith. But it is widely heralded as Lewis’ weakest argument as he defended it, and fundamentally flawed. Beversluis subjects Lewis’ defense of it and his defenders to a barrage of rigorous intellectual attacks. There is the problem of knowing what Jesus claimed, which by itself “is sufficient to rebut the Trilemma.” (p. 115). Also it is a false dilemma. Even if Jesus claimed he was God he could simply be mistaken, not a lunatic, for lunatics can be very reasonable in everyday life and still have delusions of grandeur. And it’s quite possible for someone to be a good moral teacher and yet be wrong about whether he was God. Furthermore, the New Testament itself indicates many people around him including his own family thought he was crazy. In the end, Beversluis claims, “we can now dispense of the Lunatic or Fiend Dilemma once and for all….If the dilemma fails, as I have argued, the trilemma goes with it. In the future, let us hear no more about these arguments.” (p. 135). I agree.

In Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, he deals head on with the Problem of Evil coming at the heels of WWII. Suffice it to say, as Victor Reppert summarized the argument of his first book, Beversluis: “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.”

This is must reading if you think C.S. Lewis was a great apologist, and it's part of the Debunking Christianity Challenge. Beversluis’ arguments are brilliant and devastating to the apologetics of Lewis and company.

C. S. Lewis Resources, Pro and Con (compiled by Edward T. Babinski)

1. CHRISTIANS WHO PRAISE C. S. LEWIS'S WRITINGS

2. CHRISTIANS WHO CRITICIZE C. S. LEWIS'S PRESENTATION OF CHRISTIANITY

3. ADMIRING READERS OF C. S. LEWIS WHO LATER LEFT CHRISTIANITY

4. CRITIQUES OF C. S. LEWIS'S ARGUMENTS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. CHRISTIANS WHO PRAISE C. S. LEWIS'S WRITINGS
(Forgive the shortness of this list, there's nearly 1 & 1/2 million hits for "C. S. Lewis" on the web, and the vast majority of them are from people who praise his writings. So, I shall name a few fairly prominent representatives who have praised Lewis recently.)


Josh McDowell -- Author of Evidence That Demands a Verdict, apologist/evangelist for Campus Crusade


Rev. N.T. Wright -- Anglican Bishop of Durham, England, and author of scholarly and popular books, most recently, Simply Christian. Wright's address, “Simply Lewis,” was delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in mid-­November, 2006, and besides praise, it contains a few paragraphs critical of some aspects of Lewis's thinking:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-02-028-f

Dr. Francis Collins -- Head of The Human Genome Project, and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
http://cslewis.org/francis_collins.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html


Tom Tarrants -- Raised Southern Baptist, became KKK terrorist, read the Bible in prison and converted to Christianity, now head of the C. S. Lewis Institute in Washington, D.C.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23764


~~~~~~~~~~~


2. CHRISTIANS WHO CRITICIZE C. S. LEWIS'S PRESENTATION OF CHRISTIANITY


Biblical Discernment Ministry critique of C. S. Lewis's teachings and beliefs
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm

C. S. Lewis-Who He Was & What He Wrote by Good Things For Your Family, including links to Questions and Answers From Readers: Lewis Bashing? C.S. Lewis Errata?
http://www.keepersofthefaith.com/BookReviews/BookReviewDisplay.asp?key=4

The Heterodoxy of C. S. Lewis
http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/index.php/t-10805.html

Did C. S. Lewis Go to Heaven? by John W. Robbins
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103

C.S. Lewis Discussion Board: Lewis didn't go to heaven...
http://www.cslewis.com/discussion/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002008

Beware of C. S. Lewis by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/bewareof-cslewis.html

C. S. Lewis: The Devil's Wisest Fool by Blessed Quietness Journal
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/homemake/cslewis.htm

C. S. Lewis: An Author to Avoid by "Take Heed" Ministries
http://www.takeheed.net/Lewisavoid.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~


3. ADMIRING READERS OF C. S. LEWIS WHO LATER LEFT CHRISTIANITY


"J Milton" [a pseudonym], and his brief testimony, "Paradise Lost" at http://www.exchristian.net -- posted Thursday, October 26, 2006 -- "I... came to the christian faith via more of an intellectual, mystical path... through the writings of John Milton, Edmund Spenser, C.S. Lewis, and the spiritualist and mystic Renaissance man known as William Blake... If you haven't read Paradise Lost, I highly encourage you to do so. It truly is wonderful... as is the Faerie Queene by Edmund Spenser as well as Lewis' Narnia series... they all create mythological worlds on top of the bible, and in my mind, make it all come to life... I still believe in the ethereal plane, sans any man-applied dogma. John Milton will always mean something to me and Paradise Lost will always have a place in my heart... [But I am a] freethinker... exchristian."
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/10/paradise-lost.html


Valerie Tarico -- Psychologist, author, graduate of Wheaton College, her favorite Christian author during her Evangelical years was C. S. Lewis (Wheaton College features one of the most impressive collections of "Lewisiana" in the world). Chapters of her book about leaving the fold were published on ex-Christian.net:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/06/chapter-1-leaving-home.html
Her blog: http://awaypoint.spaces.msn.com/
Chapters of her book at her blog:
http://awaypoint.spaces.msn.com/blog/cns!C0984D45E2D3590C!206.entry
http://awaypoint.spaces.msn.com/blog/cns!C0984D45E2D3590C!236.entry
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/10/paradise-lost.html


Edward T. Babinski -- If It Wasn't For Agnosticism I Wouldn't Know What to Believe, a chapter in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/babinski_agnosticism.html


Ken Daniels -- From Missionary Bible Translator to Agnostic (2003)
Mentions his earnest love of Lewis's writings, and how they saved him from apostacizing even earlier than he eventually did. He also mentions having read my own book, Leaving the Fold.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/daniels.html


John Stephen Ku -- Philosophy PhD student, Started Fall 2002, U of Mich. -- C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: A Memoir
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/memoir2.html


Kendall Hobbs -- Why I Am No Longer a Christian (2003)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/hobbs.html


Dr. Robert M. Price -- Former campus minister, now a theologian with two Ph.Ds. and an author, wrote, "...C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters considerably advanced my progress in piety"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/intro.html


A cold and broken alleluia: How did a former minister become an atheist?
http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_cold_and_broken_alleluia/


Chris Hallquist -- College student. Read The Screwtape Letters a month before becoming an atheist, see his blog entry, "How I Became an Atheist" [Oddly enough, Chris seems to have read the same passage in The Screwtape Letters that the ex-minister did in the testimony directly above this one, and that passage influenced both of them to become atheists.]
http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-i-became-atheist.html


Posted by Hawk on August 17, 1999 at 18:23:55:
"I [was raised Christian, but] shrugged off Christianity around age 16 after a teacher told me that Moses created monotheism. David Koresh was running around claiming to be divine about the same time, so I figured Jesus was some nut like Koresh. I got real into philosophy in general, and I am an engineering student, so I have taken plenty of science classes, but I never got into creationism or philosophy of religion. I was never a serious christian as a kid, so when I read Pascal's "Thoughts," I decided to give church a try. Well I was 19 1/2, and the places here on campus were nothing like any church I had ever been to. I read C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, Schaeffer, Geisler, Moreland and all those guys. I became converted. Unfortunately, I read up on atheistic arguments and evolution, for the purpose of crushing the atheists on this board with my arguments. I lost faith finally a few months ago. I guess I am sort of a don't know don't care agnostic right now, who just enjoys studying religion. My religious time only lasted about 3 years."
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/iidiscussion_conversions/40306.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


4. CRITIQUES OF C. S. LEWIS'S ARGUMENTS


Philosopher John Beversluis composed in 1985 what has become the leading (and perhaps only) book-length critique of the apologetics arguments of C. S. Lewis, a book that also includes Lewis's replies to letters Beversluis wrote him. The book is titled, C. S. LEWIS AND THE SEARCH FOR RATIONAL RELIGION, and the revised and updated edition is due to appear July 2007 -- In it Beversluis critically yet sympathetically examines Lewis's "case for Christianity," including Lewis's "argument from desire" -- the "inconsolable longing" that he interpreted as a pointer to a higher reality; his moral argument for the existence of a Power behind the moral law; his contention that reason cannot be adequately explained in naturalistic terms; and his solution to the Problem of Evil. In addition, Beversluis considers issues in the philosophy of religion that developed late in Lewis's life. He concludes with a discussion of Lewis's crisis of faith after the death of his wife. Finally, in this second edition, Beversluis replies to critics of the first edition. {250pp, July 2007; Prometheus Books }


Joe Edward Barnhard (philosophy professor, author and a former Christian whose testimony appears in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists), has an article online titled, "The Relativity of Biblical Ethics" that includes quotations from a few of C. S. Lewis's letters to John Beversluis.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/bibethics.htm#BIBETH
[at the site above, scoll down the page till you get to Barnhard's article]


Francis Collins, the theistic evolutionist author of books about God and science, and who heads the Human Genome project, employs C. S. Lewis's argument concerning the miracle of morality. Collins's Lewisian argument is critiqued here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/francis_collins_2.html#comments


"C.S. Lewis, Instinct, and the Moral Law" -- Discusses an argument by C.S. Lewis that aimed to show that we must believe in God because nothing else could explain the high levels of intersubjective agreement on moral issues we(apparently) observe.
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/?p=1207
Source: PHILOSOPHY CARNIVAL #33
http://philosophycarnival.blogspot.com/


N. F. Gier -- author of God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 10, "Theological Ethics"
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/theoethics.htm


Dr. Robert M. Price on C. S. Lewis's arguments -- Google Robert Price (or Robert M. Price) and C. S. Lewis together to find where Price mentions and critiques statements by C. S. Lewis for instance, Lewis's misunderstanding of Hume is mentioned in Price's article, "Glenn Miller on Miracles"
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/price_miller.html


Jack D. Lenzo "The Jackal" (Murrieta, CA USA), reviewing The Born Again Skeptic's Guide To The Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green (raised Methodist): "I've read much of CS Lewis and considered him the 'thinking man's' proponent to Christianity. After reading 'The Book of Ruth (Hurmence),' I feel logically duped by Lewis' Mere Christianity. Ruth sets it straight using the Bible itself. A divinely inspired book should not have to use subtle logic employed by Lewis. I wonder what he would say to Ruth's clear, dead on approach that he hasn't said about Freud? Hmmm..."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1877733016/104-9910193-3787145?v=glance&n=283155


Edward T. Babinski on C. S. Lewis's views:

The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience -- A lengthy article that mentions C. S. Lewis numerous times (do a page search for his name). Besides a separate section devoted solely to discussing Lewis, other parts of this article compare C. S. Lewis's tolerant attitude and beliefs with those of the Christian apologist, Josh McDowell:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/christian_experience.html

C. S. Lewis’ “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_theology.html

C. S. Lewis, Jesus, Boswell's Johnson, and the Usefulness/Uselessness of Literary Criticism to Nail Down Historical Truth
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_jesus.html

C. S. Lewis's "Man or Rabbit?" and Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer"
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/man_or_rabbit.html

C. S. Lewis and the Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/lewis_naturalism.html

The "Born Again" Dialogue In the Gospel of John
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/gospel_john.html

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/golden.html

John Beversluis Has Died at the Age of 86, But He Will Speak from the Grave!

John Beversluis was 86 years old when he recently died. His life was lived between these two days, November 10, 1934 and May 22, 2021. From his obituary we read:

John received his Ph.D from Indiana University and his Bachelor of Arts from Calvin College. He taught Philosophy and Ethics at Butler University (Indianapolis, IN), Emory University (Atlanta, GA), California State University, Fresno, Clovis Community College, Monterey Peninsula College, the University of the South (Sewanee, TN), and Grand Valley State College (Allendale MI). He participated in three National Endowment for the Humanities seminars for College Teachers: at the University of Illinois (Urbana, IL), the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas. He presented papers at the American Philosophical Association, various universities in the United States, and at Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom. While at Oxford he also presented several papers to the Oxford C. S. Lewis Society. His publications include works in the areas of Ancient Greek Philosophy (focusing on Socrates and Plato), the Philosophy of Religion, Kantian Ethics, and Philosophy and Literature. SOURCE.

In 2008 I got to know John in an exchange of emails. I had contacted him about his masterful book, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: Revised and Updated, which had just been published by Prometheus Books (PB) on November 29, 2007. I had bought it and loved it. Let me tell you this interesting story.

John Beversluis Required One Textbook in the Philosophy of Religion for 42 Years!

I'm posthumously posting a few chapters from the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). As I was re-reading his first chapter I found a gem from him on teaching philosophy of religion students. Which book had he recommended to them for 42 years? This one!

If you use Thomas Paines's The Age of Reason as a required textbook in a Philosophy of Religion course, as I have done for many years, your students will not eagerly devour its contents and shower you with tears of gratitude for providing them with this eye-opening experience of what is really in the book they revere as the inspired Word of God. Nor will they be shamed by the astonishingly detailed knowledge of both the Old and New Testaments that Paine and Jefferson possessed. On the contrary, when such students are required to read The Age of Reason and to discuss it in class, they become (by degrees) irritated, belligerent, and finally downright angry. Inter-Varsity and Campus Crusade for Christ types are the most vocal and the most argumentative. I welcome (and even solicit) their objections. Having heard them out, my response is always the same: “I didn’t write The Age of Reason; Thomas Paine did. Is he wrong? Did he misrepresent what the Bible says? I don’t think so. But don’t take my word for it. Go home and read your own Bibles. Check him out. If you can find a single passage that he has misquoted or manufactured or misinterpreted, write an essay in which you convincingly demonstrate his error(s) and I will give you a grade of “A” for the course and urge you to submit your essay for publication in a reputable philosophical or religious journal with my enthusiastic recommendation.” I have been teaching philosophy for 42 years and during that time no Paine-incensed student has ever submitted such an essay. The reason is clear: The Age of Reason is accurate and his documentation is irrefutable. [End Quote]

And the Beat Goes On: More Bluffing and Lying for Jesus

The misfortune of a flat learning curve  

In my article here two weeks ago, Three Christian Gods Missing in Action, and last week, Bluffing, Talking Piffle and Lying About Jesus, I did not discuss Jesus mythicism, i.e., the arguments made by some scholars that Jesus was a mythical figure. Our resident troll, Don Camp, responded at length to the first article, and my rebuttal was the second. When he jumped back in to continue the conversation, he commented, “Everyone here seems to have bought into the Jesus myth myth.” Which can be done, he pointed out, by “writing off the textual evidence for the Jesus event.” 

 

Strange, my topic wasn’t Jesus mythicism, and I doubt very much that “everyone here” at the DC Blog accepts it, but this was Mr. Camp’s attention grabber. He doesn’t seem to grasp that many of us accept that there might have been a Galilean peasant preacher, but whoever and whatever he was has been hopelessly obscured by the layers of myth, folklore, fantasy, and magical thinking piled on by the gospel writers. A real Jesus could have become mythicized. Virgin birth and resurrection, for example, are symptoms of that. In the Wikipedia article on resurrection beliefs in the ancient world, we find this:

John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 5:2

I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). This is part 2 of 2 parts of his fifth chapter on the virgin birth narratives. I would disagree with Beversluis that Jesus was good moral person who offered good moral advice, but he was influenced by Thomas Paine and Jefferson's writings. [On this issue see Dr. David Madison's excellent newly dropped book!]

John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 5:1

I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). In this fifth chapter Beversluis writes about the birth of Jesus. This is part 1 of 2 parts. I've highlighted a few gems from him.

CHAPTER FOUR: A PREGNANT VIRGIN:

Matthew and Luke are the only Gospels that record the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:1-23 and Luke 2:1-19). Mark says nothing about it and starts his Gospel thirty years later with the appearance of John the Baptist on the scene. The Gospel of John is, as always, a case unto itself. It starts with a famous (and Hellenistically flavored) passage about “the Word” (logos) that existed “in the beginning” and goes on to say that this Word was not only with God, but was God (John 1:1). The only allusion to the birth of Jesus is the subsequent remark that this Word “was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:11)—a remark that is so oblique that anybody unfamiliar with Matthew and Luke would never guess John was talking about the same person whose birth they record in their Gospels. John has no interest in the so-called “baby Jesus.” He sees his birth in cosmic metaphysical terms—as the incarnation of a pre-existing celestial Logos who not only was God, but who also the Creator of universe (“All things were made by him; and without him was not made anything that was made” (1:3). This heavy-duty (and stoically-influenced philosophical) terminology is completely foreign to Matthew and Luke who are comparative lowbrows concerned only with various factual details about the story.

John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 4

I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). In this chapter Beversluis makes mincemeat of the characters in the Nativity Narratives as being confused and/or irrational if we take the story as historical truth. I've highlighted a few gems from him.

What Do the London Times, The Society of Biblical Literature, and Prometheus Books Have in Common? Lil Ole Me.

Here are some exciting developments for this no-name first time author...

The London Times Religion editor is going to review my book soon. He wrote:

"The role of science in bringing – or not bringing – us to the threshold of religious belief is discussed in The Future of Atheism (SPCK) and other new books such as John Loftus’s Why I Became an Atheist (Prometheus Books) and David Ramsay Steele’s Atheism Explained (Open Court). Watch out, too, for a different kind of work – I Don’t Believe in Atheists (Continuum) by Chris Hedges, a journalist on the New York Times. Though himself an unbeliever, Hedges has harsh things to say about some of religion’s contemporary despisers. He warns that the science-religion debate is far from resolved, and that fundamentalism does not infect one side of the argument alone. The TLS will carry reviews of all these books in the near future."

Here's the Link.

-----------------

Along with Dr. Hector Avalos I've been invited to the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans to be on a panel discussing Bill Maher's Religulous movie.

----------------

Prometheus Books just gave me the initial approval for a book of chapters I proposed to edit by people such as Drs. Hector Avalos, David Eller, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Robert M. Price, along with Harry McCall, Dan Barker, Edward T. Babinski, Matthew Green, yours truly, and some others. More on this later but not now.

Dinesh D'Souza and Modesty

Dinesh D'Souza reports that Michael Shermer recommended his book What's So Great About Christianity, using these words: "Whatever your beliefs, you should read Dinesh's book...It is the best defense of Christianity that has ever been published."

Hmmm. Isn't that interesting? I wonder what the criteria was for Shermer to say that, since there have been some historically great defenses of Christianity down through the ages?

Anyway, D'Souza is trying to maintain some modesty, and he wrote about this struggle here.

In reporting on how most people thought he won his debate with Christopher Hitchens, D'Souza wrote:

Atheists like to think of themselves as akin to champions of the round earth, confronted by religious ignoramuses who keep insisting that the earth is flat. But is it even conceivable that a round-earth advocate should lose a debate to a flat-earth advocate? To put the question differently, if atheists are truly the party of reason, and believers like me are truly the party of "blind faith," how come reason keeps getting its butt kicked?

So, in order to help D'Souza maintain some modesty let me make a few comments about this.

For one thing, D'Souza hasn't debated people like Hector Avalos, John Beversluis, Keith Parsons, or me yet ;-)! D'Souza is planning on debating some of the top skeptics and saving them in an archive for future prosperity, so maybe he will! Besides, as far as I know people didn't conclude D'Souza decisively won his debates with Michael Shermer.

Debates do not decide the truth anyway. Few people are convinced because of watching a debate one way or another. They are entertaining and educational. They are a sparring match between two people, and that's it. Someone on one side can legitimately say the debater on the other side won the debate and still think his position is wrong for other reasons not stated by the person representing his side.

Anyway, I've read D'Souza's book and I must say it's premised to a very large extent on one big non-sequitur, and it's very interesting if he doesn't see it. He argues that Christianity has been good for western society; that it is growing in numbers in today's world; that it produced modern science; ended things like slavery; and was the foundation of limited government. He argues that atheism has been bad for society and that the Christian past isn't as bad as the atheist past.

Little of D'Souza's argument defends the claims of the Christian faith over against the claims of atheism, although he does argue that the supposed design in the world points to a creator.

The fact is that even if I grant him that Christianity has been good for western society in contrast to atheism (and I don't, not by a long shot), it does not follow from what he says that Christianity is true. Maybe true ideas produce bad results? Maybe delusionary beliefs produce good results? His is largely a pragmatic argument which first demands a defense of the Pragmatic theory of truth, and with it a denial of the Correspondence and Coherence theories of truth, something I think that as a Christian he wouldn't want to do, but of this I don't know.

I have challenged him to debate me. Maybe he won't do it. If not, I'd understand, after all, why would he risk losing a debate now? ;-)

Hi Dinesh!

An Update On What I've Been Doing Lately

For people wondering why I haven't participated much in some of the discussions here at DC, or that when I do, I seem out of it, or a bit cranky, I'd like to explain what I've been doing lately.

Lately I've been working on the copy edits of my book, Why I Became an Atheist. I know I'm the author and so you’ll want to take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but I dare say with Eddie Tabash that this book is the "finest refutation of Christianity," evangelical Christianity, in print. It helped to change Andrew Atkinson's mind, who was well-read and planning on entering Norman Geisler's Seminary. It is also being recommended by Norman Geisler, who said my book "is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face." It’s being recommended by James F. Sennett, who said it is "a wake up call to the church." And it is being recommended by many skeptics, like Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker and David Mills. In addition to these recommendations of my self-published book, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Andrea Weisberger, and Charles Echelbarger will be taking a look at the Prometheus Books galleys for a blurb to be placed with the others on the back cover, and inside pages of the book. The Prometheus Books edition is a major revision of my former book. I'm completely satisfied with it. It's sure to make an impact.

So I'm putting my all into what I'm doing. I want to make it the best damn counter-apologetics book, bar none. Even if I don't achieve that goal, it's still a worthy goal.

Then I'm also in the beginning stages of putting together a "Contra-Christian Reader" for Prometheus Books, to come out on the heels of my first book. A rough draft of the first chapter can be found here.

I’m also planning on turning my self-published book into a companion volume with the best from Debunking Christianity, decisions and permissions will be forthcoming.

In the midst of this I'm in a financial crisis and looking for ways to earn some more money. This economy is bad, very bad, for my business where I live, and rather than spend extra time drumming up more business I've spent too much time Blogging and writing. I think I may be in for another career change. In the meantime I'd appreciate any donations you might be able to give me during this time. I have a hard time asking for help, so when I do, it’s dire.

While I'm pre-occupied with these things rest assured that everything at DC is under control. Your administrators are Lee Randolph, Joe Holman, Harry McCall, Evan, and Ed Babinski. They help me with moderating comments to keep the discussions going fluently. I appreciate all of them and their keen insights as they have the chance. They make DC the best place to discuss the issues that divide us, in my opinion. To read about our contributors here at DC, see this link.

Eddie Tabash Recommends My Book!

Today I went to the Grand Opening of the new Center for Inquiry Indiana, where Paul Kurtz, Toni Van Pelt, Joe Nicholl and Eddie Tabash were the main speakers. Tabash spoke on the topic, “The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms,” and it was very motivating for me.

Eddie was talking to some people before he spoke and I went up to listen in and to introduce myself. He read my name tag before I could do so. Then he asked me, "did you write the book against Christianity," and I nodded. Then he turned to the people he was talking to and said, “John’s book is the finest refutation of Christianity I have read. I use it in my debates.” Then turning back to me he said, “I bought twelve copies to give away.” As the author of the book I think what I wrote is good too (of course), but hearing it from someone like him, whom I admire so much, felt really good. I saw a video of the debate he had with William Lane Craig before he had read my book (shown below). He did such an excellent job it’s hard to see how my book helps him in his debates. But he said it does, and for that I’m very grateful.

He joins the ranks of others who recommend it…

…like skeptics Daniel Dennett, Paul Kurtz, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Carrier, Edward Babinski (who wrote the Foreword to it), Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, David Van Allen, Matthew Green, Joe Holman, Chris Hallquist, and others. Kurtz said my book "has the makings of being a great book,” and that he’s “eager to see it in print." On the back cover and inside pages of the Prometheus Books edition there will probably be recommendations by Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Robert M. Price, Andrea Weisberger, and if the time frame permits him, from Jeffery Jay Lowder (at least, they all have expressed an interest in seeing it for a blurb).

On the Christian side of the fence, Norman L. Geisler and James F. Sennett both recommend it too. Other Christian thinkers who have expressed an interest in seeing it are Paul Copan, Michael Murray, Richard Swinburne, Mark Linville (who is potentially planning on using it in an apologetics seminar), and William Baker (the editor of the Stone-Campell Journal--my former denominational journal). Bill Craig knows about it and will surely take a look at it when it comes out. Scot McKnight is writing a chapter describing the reasons why Christians lose their faith and is highlighting my story.

I don’t tell my readers these things to bore them, or to pat myself on the back (even though it’s nice to be patted by others), or to make money off the sales (of course, if it can help pay a few bills that would really help me out), or to make a name for myself (although, as a middle child we learn that negative attention is still attention). No. My number one goal is to produce the best damn counter-apologetics book on the market today that does not just preach to the skeptical choir, so to speak, if possible (and if not, it’s still a worthy goal). The reason I want to do this is because the better I can make my book, the more it will be read, and I want people to read it! If I hadn’t written the book I would still want people to read a book like this one. If Eddie's recommendation and the others are even somewhat on the mark, my book has the potential of changing the thinking of Christians in America, and the reason why I want to do this was expressed very eloquently by Eddie today in his talk!

The debate between Tabash and Craig:

The Gateway to Doubting the Gospel Narratives Is The Virgin Birth Myth

There's an argument that marijuana is the gateway drug leading to dangerous drugs. [I think it's largely false but don't get sidetracked on it.] There is however, a gateway to doubting the whole Bible that I want to highlight here.

I focus on the virgin birth of Jesus because this is the gateway to doubting the gospel narratives, just as Genesis 1-11 is the gateway to doubting the Old Testament narratives. It was for me anyway. It was the first tale in the gospels that led me to doubting it all. You can see this double doubting of both Testaments in this LINK of the --> five most important books that changed my mind, and this LINK of the -->the five most powerful reasons not to believe.

Apologists focus on the resurrection of Jesus primarily because they have studied it so much more than the virgin birth narratives. They now use LINK to --> the minimal facts approach to the resurrection to sweep off the table what nonbelievers unanimously agree on, especially that the virgin Mary was the mother of God's Son! 

The reason this agreement should stay on the table is because it speaks directly to the credibility of the gospel narratives as a whole. Since there's no good reason to believe the virgin birth myth, there's no good reason to believe the resurrection myth either. After all, the virgin birth narratives are in the same gospels that contain the resurrection narratives (Matthew & Luke anyway). If the narratives about the virgin-born incarnate God are non-historical myth, then so too are the narratives about the resurrection of this same virgin-born incarnate God. For one thing, without a credible virgin birth story, Christians are left with no explanation how an incarnate God came became a human being!

So here's the scoop on the virgin birth. LINK! 

This undercuts the Gospel of Matthew. LINK! 

Before you go:

Probabilities. The historical method doesn't allow for possibilities, only probabilities, as Bart Ehrman explains. LINK! 

Dr. John Beversluis, wrote a devastating piece on the inconsistency in the genealogies.  LINK. There are ten posts. Click on his name at the end to read others.

A former Christan who went by the name "Dagoods" claims "John the Disciple did not write the Gospel of John" LINK. He also asks an interesting question: "Why didn’t the Jews just stone Jesus?" LINK.

Harry McCall wrote a detailed post titled, "The Illusive Search for Truth in the Biblical Foundations of Judaism and Christianity." LINK.

I have discussed why Judas Iscariot didn't exist, LINK, and that Joseph of Arimathea didn't exist, LINK. If they didn't exist this is damaging to Gospel credibility, is it not?

The kicker is that the author of the Gospel of John fact-checked earlier Gospels, as biblical scholar David Madison shows. LINK. How else should we think about these Gospels?

Thank you profusely for reading! [First published on 6/13/20] 

Nitpickers Have Started to Attack

The more educated and intelligent a scholar is then the more that scholar argues against the main argument of his opponent. You can actually tell from what they attack whether they are scholarly or not. They do not nitpick at minor points unrelated to the main argument itself, unless they have first dealt with his main argument.

Well, the nitpickers have started attacking my book.

Layman over at Christian Cadre wrote something about a list of professing Christians I claimed who don’t believe in the empty tomb. He disputes some of them, and he may be right, but I don’t think so. Nonetheless my argument in that chapter stands on its own merits and he has said nothing about it. Nothing. Yup, that's right. Nothing was said against the arguments I laid out in that chapter. That's nada, zip, zilch, zero. Big deal if he’s right on a couple of these names. If all that's required is to nitpick a book for errors in a list of names then have at it, as I said.

But some people have come away thinking with Brad Haggard, that I have "no credible sources" and therefore my "whole argument is undercut." And so it must be that "the list was blatant mischaracterization." Why does he conclude this? Because he has not read my book to know what my argument is, that’s why.

My book covers the topics of God, man and the universe, using the disciplines of science, theology, apologetics, philosophy, history, Biblical studies, and so forth. No mere mortal can have a good grasp of it all, as I told Layman in an email. I even admitted that I know I'm wrong about some things, so I'm willing to learn. Whether Layman is correct or not I'm not sure, and that's my final word on it.

Here's what John Beversluis wrote about my book:

"No review can begin to do justice to an ambitious book of this scope or to the sustained theological, philosophical, scientific, textual, and historical critique of Christianity that it contains. Suffice it to say at the outset that I have never read a book that presents such a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity, and I have seldom read a book that marshals evidence (from such a wide variety of disciplines) and documents its claims in such painstaking detail."

But along comes Layman nitpicking about a detail. Others will do likewise. I am a mere mortal. I did the best I could with what I was doing. I do not have to defend the minutia. Deal with my larger case.

My contention is that at best so far, all I have seen are mischaracterizations of my book, personal attacks on me, nitpicking at small details, and sloppy reasoning in trying to refute it.

Another nitpicker is Matt Flanagan who wrote a post about slavery claiming with others that the slavery in the American South was not Biblical and should never have been justified from the Bible. He quotes me in it where I say the results were horrific for Frederick Douglass and his aunt.

You can read our exchange there, but I said this:

What I find interesting, Matt, is that you have not addressed my main question in my book:

“Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?...why didn’t God tell his people, “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves,” and say it as often as he needed to? Why was God not clear about this in the Bible? Just think how Copan’s own arguments would resonate with him if he were born into the brutal slavery of the South! What would he think then as his blood was spilled at the hands of a Bible-quoting master? Sam Harris claims, ‘Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest—and the easiest—moral question our society has ever had to face.’”

Was your God as clear on this issue as he was about murder? Oh, that's not a good analogy because, well, you know, genocide, the witch hunts, heresy trials and the crusades. Hmmmm. Okay, let’s try this one: Was your God as clear about this as he was that we should love our neighbors? Oh, that's not a good analogy because, well, you know, the question was "who is my neighbor?” right? But once you get my point you'll have no good answers to this problem and you know it, so instead you side-step it as you did here. That's what it takes to believe, Matt, side stepping problems because you cannot reasonably explain them. Skeptics say believers are ignorant, and they are, but they’re not unintelligent. It takes a great deal of intelligence to find ways around these types of problems in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance they create.

I find your post absolutely pathetic. Oh, that's right, everyone should've seen the truth about slavery as you do based on hindsight. Does this require that believers should be able to study the Hebrew and Greek? They had the King James Version. They came to their own conclusions as Protestants without requiring Catholic ecclesiastical interpretive authority. So, what does God require here?...that they become scholars and figure out by hindsight like you have on these issues? Yeah, right. In fact. I'll bet you think your views on women, heresy trials and the crusades should’ve been plainly obvious to the historic church too. They were just stupid on a par with a rock, right? No, better ease your mind with the idea that they just did not care to follow God, that they purposely twisted the Bible knowing they were wrong for, oh, three centuries when it came to the witch trials. No, they weren't sincere, were they, or Christians, because Christians always understand the truth and they always behave godly, right? Yes, there are insincere professing Christians, but in my experience people agonized over knowing what God's will was for them--the overwhelming majority did. And given the threat of hell why wouldn't they? And let’s not forget that the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit just did not do his job.

Another One Leaves the Fold...Is there Anything Comparable on the Christian Side of the Fence?

For more of his videos see here.

I just want to note that what is common to every team member here at DC, along with Robert M. Price, John Beversluis, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, Bart Ehrman, William Dever, and so on, is that we were very serious about our faith and studied to defended it against the skeptics, but in the end we abandoned the effort and abandoned our faith. Is there anything comparable on the Christian side of the fence with skeptics who were very serious about their skepticism and studied to defend it against Christianity who subsequently abandoned the effort and became evangelical Christians? Surely if Christianity is true, serious skeptics who adopted the Christian faith should be commonplace. Where are they?

On Being Passionately Self-Promoting in an Oddly Humble Way

Since David Marshall describes me as "being passionately self-promoting in an oddly humble way," I thought I wouldn't disappoint him by doing it again. ;-) One thing I've noticed is that people are reading my anthologies The Christian Delusion (TCD) and The End of Christianity (TEC) more than my magnum opus Why I Became an Atheist (WIBA), probably because of the wonderful blurbs and contributors. So to help remedy this let me offer just three blurbs about WIBA:

What's Wrong With the Courtier's Reply of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins

Trust me, I'm very thankful for the brilliance of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. There's no doubt about that. In some sense they are my intellectual heroes. But the Courtier's Reply as an answer for theology needs to be discussed critically. First off, I do not expect anyone to understand any particular theology in order to reject it. We all do this easily. I doubt very much anyone understands all of the religions they reject. I don't. No one does. We reject them all for the same reasons, because they have not met their own burden of proof. So I agree very much that neither PZ Myers nor Richard Dawkins needs to fully understand the various forms of Christianity in order to reject them all. They can certainly use the Courtier's Reply, and for them it's legitimate, as it is for me when rejecting Hinduism, which I know little about. Christians do not fully understand the other Christianities they reject, so why should anyone expect this from skeptics?

But here's the problem. PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins, and others, have the clout to recommend those of us who do understand the various Christianities that exist who know how to debunk them on their own terms. But perhaps, and I'm only suggesting perhaps, they are so committed to the Courtier's Reply when it comes to their own lack of understanding of Christian theology that they don't realize this will not do if they want to change the religious landscape. If they do, then may I humbly suggest they recommend the work of Biblical scholars like Robert Price, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman and others like them, as well as philosophers like John Shook, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Keith Parsons, Matt McCormick and others like them. But they can't do it, because they are committed to the Courtier's Reply, and that's a shame. I can embrace the Courtier's Reply when it comes to religions I reject. But given the power and influence of Christianity in particular, they need to recommend and embrace those of us who know it and argue against it. The Courtier's Reply may some day be the blanket response to religion. It isn't yet. Until then let them recommend those of us who do understand the dominant religion of our land, both philosophers and biblical scholars. It takes all of us together with all of our talents, all of our knowledge, and all of our abilities.

More On Being Passionately Self-Promoting in an Oddly Humble Way

Dinesh D'Souza's new book is out, Godforsaken: Bad Things Happen. Is there a God who cares? Yes. Here's proof.In it he does not mention my arguments against a good omnipotent God, even though he has read my book Why I Became an Atheist, and said to me that it contained some things he "hadn't considered before." David Wood's chapter on the problem of evil in Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science,likewise ignores my work. I debated them both so they know of it. It's hard for me not to conclude that they are ignoring it because they cannot answer my arguments. ;-)

You Can Now Pre-Order My Revised Book, WIBA

Click here: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.It has 536 pages, a 110 more than the previous edition. It's such a massive revision my publisher is treating it as a new book.

Read My Review of John Beversluis's Book, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, in Philosophy Now.

As you can see I highly recommend his book.