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.

Guest Post by Douglas Groothuis on the Problem of Evil

I have a number of Christian scholars I regard as friends that I allow posting here at DC for comment (hit the tag "Christian Scholars" to see a few of them). Doug is writing his magnum opus titled, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Christian Faith, which should be out by August of this year. He emailed me and asked that I publish a short article of his on the problem of evil which appeared in The Christian Research Journal, asking for comment. He'll have a chapter on this topic in his book too.

After reading it I responded:

Read more »

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.

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.

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.

Background Beliefs and an Internal Criticism of Christianity Based on the Problem of Evil

I'm having a discussion with a Christian named Drew, who has a B.S. in philosophy, which can be read here. Let me summarize some of the main arguments so far concerning what I've previously called The Most Asinine Christian Argument I've Probably Ever Heard...

I have argued that the more often Christians have to resort to background beliefs—the more often they have to resort to their overall religious worldview to defend a particular tenet of faith—then the less likely their faith is true. I realize we all retreat to background beliefs here and there to support a weak plank in our worldviews, an anomaly, so to speak. But the more one has to do this then the weaker his whole position is. And I claim that on any given issue I wrote about in my book, one after another, a Christian cannot defend that issue on its own terms. Instead he must resort to his background beliefs to do so, time after time, after time. THAT'S why I say my case should be judged as a whole. It's because it will become crystal clear that the Christian cannot fall back on any background belief since I attack each and every major background belief he has, one after another, from the existence of God, to miracles, to the resurrection of Jesus.

When it comes to the problem of evil I made an argument that a Christian must deal with based upon what he believes, not upon what I believe. Based upon what he believes about God and this world he must reconcile the two on its own terms. It’s an internal problem to his belief (not mine) about the existence of a perfectly good God given the massive amount of suffering there is in this world.

Here is my argument:

If God is perfectly good, all knowing, and all powerful, then the issue of why there is so much suffering in the world requires an explanation. The reason is that a perfectly good God would be opposed to it, an all-powerful God would be capable of eliminating it, and an all-knowing God would know what to do about it. So the extent of intense suffering in the world means for the theist that either God is not powerful enough to eliminate it, or God does not care enough to eliminate it, or God is just not smart enough to know what to do about it. The stubborn fact of intense suffering in the world means that something is wrong with God’s ability, or his goodness, or his knowledge. I consider this as close to an empirical refutation of Christianity as is possible.

Is this a logical argument? Yes, even though it's written for the average college student and not for the professional philosopher. Is it an evidential argument? Yes, since I'm looking at the evidence in this world. This whole distinction between a logical and evidential argument is blurred.

The way Drew describes an "internal critique" means I must show his beliefs to be logically impossible by use of deductive logic based solely on the things he believes. And he maintains that an "external critique" depends on my having ultimate standard for objective morals (a separate problem I have dealt with head-on without skirting the issue). So Drew thinks he has me choosing between two horns of a dilemma where I reject BOTH horns. It's a false dilemma. On the one hand, I reject the claim that my logical argument (above) must show his beliefs to be logically contradictory. That's a near impossible standard that isn't required of most ideas we reject. On the other hand, I reject his notion that by offering a so-called "external critique" of his present beliefs means I must have some sort of ultimate standard for objective morals to do so as an atheist, since my argument is not an atheist argument at all; it doesn’t led to atheism. It's an argument that Drew needs to consider in reconciling all that he believes, since he believes God is the author of all truth. Regardless of whether as an atheist I press this argument against him or not, and regardless of whether he agrees with me or not, he must still consider my argument to reconcile his beliefs. This is evidenced by Christian thinkers who have become process thinkers.

This stuff is elementary to me. I think he's been informed by ignorant people who feel the need to justify ignorant beliefs.

Drew said: While both approaches can be affirmed by a single atheist, they are separate critiques and cannot logically be combined into one argument.

Yes they can! I use a cumulative case argument that uses both approaches to come to the same conclusion. As I said, it’s one argument, a comprehensive one, utilizing many other arguments, both logical and inductive. Yes, each one is separate argument. That’s correct. But since no single argument can topple your whole worldview, or anyone’s for that matter, these separate arguments, while seemingly defective on their own terms, present a comprehensive and cumulative whole case.

Drew said: Note: If the atheist says of the Christian’s definitions, “Those definitions are just wrong. Christians have defined God (evil/gratuitous/greater good) incorrectly,” then the atheist has entered evidence outside the Christian worldview, and has therefore switched to an external critique.

What you must remember, is that the argument from intensive suffering is not an atheist argument. An atheist uses it, of course. But since it does not lead to atheism, it’s not an atheist argument at all. Process theologians, deists and pantheists can look at that argument, agree with it, and conclude that the Christian conception of an Omni-God is improbable while retaining some belief in God.

And it's just false to say that as an atheist I’ve entered into an external criticism of your faith by arguing with you about the correct definitions of God and evil. Because every single argument I offer has been considered by a thoughtful Christian who wants to reconcile his own conception of God based on the evidence of suffering. Some of these thinkers will remain Christians after having thought through this, while others have become process thinkers and/or atheists.

As I’ve argued on page 58 in my book, it is a solid Christian principle that “all truth is God’s truth.” Experience, for instance, has always been a check on Biblical exegesis and theology, whether it comes to Wesleyan perfectionism, perseverance of the saints, second coming predictions, Pentecostal miracle workers, and so on. While experience is not the test for truth, the Christian understanding of the truth must be able to explain personal experience. The whole science/religion discussion is an attempt to harmonize the Bible with what scientists have experienced through empirical observations of the universe. My contention is that other disciplines of learning, including experience itself, continually forces the believer to reinterpret the Bible and his notion of God, until there is nothing left to believe with regard to either of them. Is this external? It cannot be. For according to a Christian “all truth is God’s truth.” He's supposedly the creator, so he must be the author of all truth! No Christian can possibly say that all truth—all truth—is found in the Bible. Is rocket science found in the Bible? So my argument is neither an external one, nor is it an atheist argument.

What exactly is an external argument given the Christian view of truth? If an external argument is merely one that the Christian doesn't accept at the present time then that’s irrelevant, for Christian theology has adjusted itself numerous times by arguments and evidence that the previous generation did not accept. Christians should adjust their views here too, just like they’ve done with a rigorously literal view of the Genesis creation accounts in the light of modern science. They should adjust, just like they've adjusted to liberal views on women when compared to Christians of earlier centuries. They should adjust, just like they've done by condemning racism and slavery, unlike Christians who justified these things in the American South. They should adjust, just like they do with their liberal views of hell when compared to the Middle Ages. They should adjust, just like they do with regard to their liberal and heretical ideas of a free democracy when compared to earlier times of the divine rights of kings. They should adjust, just like Christians have done who no longer think the Bible justifies killing people who disagree. If these previous Christians replied to the evidence, as you do now, that such arguments are external to their faith, you'll see my point. Since Christians have historically changed their views based on this so-called “external evidence,” what they believe is now considered to be internal to their faith.

Drew said: If the atheist is making an external-evidential critique, then the atheist’s worldview must account for that evidence.

At some point, yes, and I think I have. But I do not need to make that argument before I make my case based upon the suffering in this world.

Drew said: Overall, it looks like the internal critique, but he refers to the “extent of intense suffering”.

If I cannot force the believer to look at what we find in the world itself to show his beliefs wrong, then that believer lives in la la land. You might as well be a solipsist. You MUST look at the world that exists and reconcile it with your beliefs about God. This problem, even though I point to the world that exists, is still an internal one for your beliefs.

I am distinguishing what I think about evil from what a Christian thinks. I’m claiming intensive suffering is a problem for the Christian theist. This is not my problem. It’s yours. I’m arguing that this kind of suffering is what you should consider an “evil.” That’s what this debate is all about at this point. I’m trying to argue that it is an evil from YOUR perspective. What counts as a moral evil from MY perspective can and is much different. For instance, the law of predation is not considered by me to be a moral “evil” at all. This is what I expect given evolutionary biology. But I’m arguing that it is an evil from your perspective. I think it’s you who is confused here about that which I’m arguing about.

If I cannot convince you that your faith is improbable then that does not matter. I claim it is. I use your standards to do so. Why you don’t see it is strange to me. As I former Christian I became persuaded of these things, so why is it impossible for you to do so? The answer is that it is not impossible for you to see that you’re wrong, just like I did. That’s how we change our minds, and we all do. Who knows, you might end up a panentheist after further considerations of these arguments. Who knows, right? THEN what will you say about my arguments? You will say they helped you to see the improbability of your prior beliefs.

You cannot answer YOUR problem by skirting the issue. You cannot say “you too” when you must answer an argument that you must deal with even if NO ONE pressed it against you! You must think about this problem for your faith on your own. The beliefs of a person who makes this or any argument are absolutely and completely irrelevant to the problem you yourself face. Again, if you believe all things can be reconciled by your faith then you and you alone must do the reconciling. You can say you have done so all you want to, but since human beings have an overwhelming tendency to intellectually defend those beliefs they have been brought up in, and since they treat those things they believe with an insider perspective, they must come to grips with the arguments of outsiders just to test what they believe.

I’ll have to admit Drew is tenacious, something that’s both annoying and at the same time rewarding. It’s annoying that I have written so much about the internal/external problem without any success with you. It’s rewarding because it forces me to go deeper and deeper with him.

Drew responds by saying…

An internal argument assumes the truth of the worldview, position, or argument in question in order to derive a contradiction from that assumption. Loftus is completely incapable of supporting [his arguments] with anything other than either (1) evidence of evil that is external, or (2) some other evidence against God that is unrelated to the problem of evil. If Loftus chooses option (1), then he must account for that evidence on his own worldview. If he chooses option (2), then he’s making a tacit admission that his position is weak [per what I, John, argued above with regard to retreating to background beliefs supporting a weak plank in what we believe]. The point is, explanation of how the Christian worldview accounts for certain facts is not in any way “presupposing” what one is trying to prove. If it is, then Loftus is guilty of the same thing every time he explains some feature of his worldview in order to defend it.

Loftus then argues against hell, attempting again to do it internally. His basic argument is that the “punishments don’t fit the crimes”. (p. 256) He also says that the reality of the majority of people suffering in hell is “incompatible with the theistic conception of a good God.” (p. 256)

I had to read that statement a couple times. The Christian theistic conception of God holds that He does condemn some people to hell. What “theistic conception of a good God” is Loftus talking about here? It’s not the Christian one. If the Christian conception of a good God conflicts with Loftus’ conception of a good God, or anyone else’s for that matter, so what? I know he’s trying to make it an internal argument by claiming there’s an incompatibility, but he keeps jumping outside the Christian worldview when he says things like, “the punishment doesn’t fit the crimes.” I have to ask, “by what standard?” Not the Christian one, so which one? And why is that standard true?

Here’s the problem Drew.

My particular argument in chapter 12 is not directed at the Calvinistic conception of God, per se. As I’ve already admitted, I dismiss such a Calvinistic conception of God. And it’s not supposed to be a defeater of the whole Christian worldview, since my case is a cumulative case, even if I say it’s an “empirical refutation” of such a God (which is rhetoric, although I believe it). Nor is it a logical disproof of the theistic God, although it is a logical argument. Therefore, your criticisms of my arguments are not aimed properly against that which I am arguing against. In that sense there should be several occasions where you would be found saying: “Yes, John is absolutely correct, given the nature of that which he’s arguing against.”

Even at that, I take a swipe at your conception of God when I shared John Beversluis’s argument:

“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.”

As I said, there is no real distinction between an internal and external criticism given that you believe all truth is God’s, for you must still account for the external evidence of intense suffering in this world. Besides, in any deductive argument ABOUT THE WORLD (in contrast with abstract entities) there is always an appeal to induction from the evidence found in the world, while in any inductive argument there is always some deduction that must be concluded from the evidence.

Reductio ad absurdum arguments can either be used to show what you believe is logically impossible or they can be used to show that your beliefs commit you an improbabilities. I’m saying something like this, “Let’s suppose you are right. If so, these are the absurd consequences. My argument is that your beliefs commit you to accept improbably absurd consequences. I’m not arguing that your beliefs are internally contradictory. Now let’s say you deny or reject the consequences that I point out. Okay. Fine. That does not mean I haven’t used a reductio ad absurdum argument. It’s clear that I have. But in order to reject my arguments you must retreat into other background beliefs to do so, and that’s when I say “the more you retreat into background beliefs the less likely your faith is true.” When it comes to the problem of intense suffering I maintain this is just another example of you retreating to these background beliefs. Once I make this point let’s move on to the next chapter, and the next and the next, until I make my whole case that you have no probable background beliefs from which to fall back on.

And so I find it completely ignorant for you to still maintain that the force of a particular argument depends on the beliefs of the one making it. Just show me one other argument that depends on the beliefs of the one making it. There is a widely accepted strategy called “the Devil’s Advocate” in which the arguer merely argues for the sake of seeing how someone responds. It would do absolutely no good once it’s realized that someone was playing the devil’s advocate to dismiss his objections at that point, for his arguments must still be met and dealt with.

Finally, as I have said, no single argument can debunk a whole Christian worldview. Yet you claim that “an internal critique must assume one's worldview at the outset for the sake of argument.” The argument I’m making in my chapters about suffering is narrowed to this problem alone. I am not taking on your whole worldview at this point. Given the nature of worldviews I can’t do that…no one can. I’m dealing strictly with one aspect of your worldview. Other chapters, such as the arguments for the existence of God, are dealt with elsewhere. If I had to abide by your rule and assume your whole worldview with everything in it, then you have given me an impossible task when dealing with any single belief in your worldview.

Worldviews, anyway, are almost but not quite incommensurable, if you know what I mean. They are elusive to an outsider’s criticisms. They account for nearly everything within it as insiders. That’s why I also argue for the “Outsider Test for Faith.” To use the insider language of a whole worldview would make it near impossible to offer any outsider criticisms of that worldview. Have you ever tried to critique pantheism as an insider? Try it. In the meantime read what Christian philosopher James Sire said about it in his book The Universe Next Door. Here’s a snippet:

“What can Westerners say? If they point to its irrationality, the Easterner rejects reason as a category. If they point to the disappearance of morality, the Easterner scorns the duality that is required for the distinction. If they point to the inconsistency between Easterner’s moral action and amoral theory, the Easterner says, ‘Well, consistency is not virtue except by reason, which I’ve already rejected.’…If the Westerner says, ‘But if you don’t eat, you’ll die,’ the Easterner responds, ‘So what? Atman is Brahman. Brahman is eternal. A death to be wished.’ It is, I think, no wonder Western missionaries have made so little headway with committed Hindus and Buddhists. They don’t speak the same language, for they hold almost nothing in common.”

That’s exactly how I feel with you. We live in different worldviews. I cannot critique your whole worldview by criticizing one issue, and we don’t speak the same language. You must simply “See” things differently. If I cannot help you to see things differently then I’ve still done the best I can. I do the best I can to bridge the worldview gap between us that I think is possible, despite your insistence that my arguments are not consistently internal (or inside) to that which you believe. I maintain they are the best that an outsider can do (they are the best I can do anyway).

Let me put this into perspective, Drew. You say God is sovereign and can do whatever he wants to with us as human beings because we’re sinners deserving of hell. This does not make him less than perfectly good, you maintain. He’s perfectly good. We deserve what he sends our way as punishment. We have done this to ourselves.

That, in brief, if I understand it properly, is your Calvinistic position…your theodicy. Granted there is much more to it, okay?

I have already argued that since we cannot behave differently, or desire to do to differently, or even believe differently than what we do, this defeats the whole notion of the God you believe. But leaving that insurmountable problem to the gerrymanderers, since it seems perfectly clear we do not deserve the treatment God punishes us with, there's more to say about this.

How then can I make you see the improbability of your beliefs? It reminds me of James Sire’s discussion above with a pantheist. You see the problem now? We see things differently. To assume this whole explanation of yours as a basis for my argument about intense suffering in this world is to assume too much for one argument. I dispute these other assumptions of yours in other parts of my book. I dispute the existence of God. I dispute the claim that we alone are responsible for our sins because God supposedly created us. And I dispute the whole notion that our sins deserve punishment in such draconian ways as we experience on earth and later in hell. I dispute the concept of hell. I dispute the concept of Satan. I even argue that you should approach your faith as an outsider.

All of these arguments converge against you when attempting to dispute my rejection of Christianity, plus more.

It’s the best anyone can do. It is certainly the best I can do.

So it’s simply false that I must assume your whole worldview (an impossible task) when disputing any single tenet insider your worldview. Such a task cannot be done when looking at any single tenet inside your worldview. But I have examined each major tenet you believe in the many other chapters in my book, all which converge to make the over-all case that your faith is delusionary.

As I said, you must continually retreat, over and over, on each and every issue I write about, to background beliefs to defend a weak plank in your worldview. You must do it for each chapter I write about. You’re doing this here on the problem of suffering. You will do it when it comes to the resurrection (since you will say miracles are not impossible if God exists). You will do it when it comes to the existence of God (since I cannot prove God does not exist). You will do it with regard to my chapter on miracles (since if God exists this would not be impossible for him). And so on and so on.

Have I made my case about the problem of suffering and the existence of God? I think so, as an outsider. But whether you think so will depend on what you think of my whole over-all case against Christianity. As I said, you must deal with my book as a whole. Maybe you’ll do that, I don’t know. But what I’ll look for is how many times you must retreat to background beliefs to support the each and every chapter in my book, beliefs which I debunk in subsequent chapters, one after another. The more you do this then the more circular your approach becomes and the less likely it has explanatory power in defending what you believe.

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!

Why I Became An Atheist

I'm John W. Loftus, the author of the book Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.

It's unfortunate that the subtitle to my book is a bit misleading. Skeptics think "a former preacher" never knew much to begin with, while Christian philosophers think "a former preacher" cannot challenge them. But my book is being recommended by Christian apologists like Drs. Norman Geisler, James F. Sennett, Mark Linville, Dan Lambert, and Richard Knopp. It's being used in apologetics and atheism classes in both Christian and secular colleges.

My book is being hailed as the "best atheist book of the decade," a "tour de force," the "golden standard," containing the "definitive refutation" of Christianity that stands "head and shoulders above all others." It's being described as "mind-blowing," "a 428 page monster of reason and logic," "awesome," "comprehensive," "fresh, audacious and thought-inspiring." Readers are saying it's "a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity" containing "a crushing cumulative case," which is "invincibly fatal" to the faith.

I don't claim these recommendations are deserved. But that's what readers are saying. If what they're saying is even partially true, then don't let the subtitle mislead you. Just get it and judge for yourself.

Here's what they're saying:

First, a few recommendations from Christians:

 ----------------

Dr. Norman L. Geisler, Christian apologist and author of The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics: "John’s book is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face.”

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

Dr. James F. Sennett, Christian philosopher and author of Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy: "I think his book by Loftus is an important contribution to the current intellectual defense of unbelief and appreciate it for the seriousness with which it takes faith and the intellectual case to be made for it. Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe. John W. Loftus is a scholar and a former Christian who was overwhelmed by that sophistication. His story is a wake up call to the church: it's time for us to start living in, and speaking to, the real world."

In a published review for the Winter 2010 Stone-Campbell Journal Sennett wrote: "Loftus presents a compendium of well-reasoned arguments (wrapped together nicely in a steadily developed “cumulative case”) against the central beliefs of Christianity. His arguments are not the easily-refuted caricatures so often offered in Bible college textbooks and Sunday school materials. They are the genuine article – clear, well-articulated statements of plausible arguments by one who finds them overwhelmingly convincing. I dare say very few preachers, teachers, and Bible students have its likes on their shelves. And it should be there."

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

Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: “Of the spate of books coming from the so-called 'New Atheists' that have appeared in the past few years—Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al—John W. Loftus’s critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today’s premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist.”

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

Roscoe on Amazon wrote: "I was a Christian for 26 years, two of which I was on staff with Young Life Ministries, after reading this book I willfully set my "faith" down. This book helped me realize that my God was a myth and that the Bible was indeed a product of man and not God. When doubting Christians ask me what one book they should read, I say without hesitation, Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus. I currently have two of my Christian friends reading his book and they are stumped."

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

By "Fox" on Amazon. This book changed my life: "As a former fundamentalist Christian of 26 years, I shudder to think what my life may have turned out like, had I not randomly spotted this book at my local Good Will. I picked it up, expecting to have a good laugh at the stupid atheist. I never expected it would completely alter my life forever.

When I picked up this book I was 100% certain that the Bible was the infallible word of God. When I finished it, I was 90% on my way to complete Atheism. All it took to get me to 100% were a few You Tube videos about the "big bang" and evolution. Once I realized that these "theories" were actually equatable to scientific certainties, I was a full-on Atheist."

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

By rowley32256 wrote: John's book "is the "Gold Standard for Atheist Apologetics. As a believer, I found this book by far the most impressive justification I had ever read of atheism and commend it to fellow theists who are under the mistaken impression that atheists are necessarily narrow-minded, ignorant or irrational."

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

The following recommendations are by non-believers :

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

Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry April/ May 2010: "Doubting Christians beginning to doubt will find this book a juggernaut. If you seek an encyclopedic compendium of arguments against almost any imaginable defense of the Christian faith, this is your book. The reader seeking a comprehensive disproof of Christianity as contemporary evangelicals defend it can do little better than to consult this volume."

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

Dr. Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness Without God: "John's book addresses almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail. Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing."

"One of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test. Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal." To read more see this post.

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

Dr. John Beversluis, author of C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: "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."

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

Dr. Valerie Tarico, author of The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth: “What is unusual about Loftus is his breadth and depth of research in defense of the Christian faith before finally rejecting his faith. Loftus applies himself in this book with the same intellectual rigor he had applied to defending the faith, and effectively dissects those very same arguments. I found myself marveling at the impressively contorted reasoning used by apologists through the ages in defense of their received traditions. They are worth reading from the standpoint of cognitive psychology alone.”

-------------------------
Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True wrote:

I want to give two thumbs up to John Loftus’s book, Why I Became an Atheist. Despite its title, it’s far more than the story of Loftus’s journey from Christian minister to outspoken atheist. It’s really a thoughtful and well-documented dissection of religious arguments and theological claims. And there are two nice chapters on the “problem of suffering,” in which Loftus takes on and destroys the pathetic arguments offered by the faithful for why a good and powerful God allows gratuitous suffering. Link

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

By Johnathan Pearce (on Amazon U.K.): "A tour de force in the world of philosophy and theology. This far outdoes the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens et al, because it argues against theism using a theistic viewpoint. It is a much more capable and thorough approach than work from other such writers and offers serious food for thought. The Problem of Evil chapters are absolute winners, and should be read by anyone who might believe in an omnipotent/scient/benevolent God. Should be on the bookshelf of every critical thinker." 

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

David Van Allen, webmaster of ex-christian.net: "This book is an absolute 'must have' for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion. While the book starts out explaining some of his experiential reasons for leaving Christianity, the volume goes far beyond a mere personal testimony and dives deeply into the elemental contradictions of Christianity. Loftus deals evenly with the issues, carefully explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Loftus' coverage of the problems inherent in the claims of Christianity is comprehensive. Much of what he wrote sounds like an echo of many of my own introspections except expressed through the well oiled mind of an academician."

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

David Mills, author of Atheist Universe: "John W. Loftus is to atheism what Tiger Woods is to golf, or what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Loftus has provided, in this superb and entertaining volume, the crown jewel of the new atheist movement. As much as I admire and enjoy Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, Loftus is, far and away, my favorite author on this riveting subject. Loftus' esteemed reputation within the freethought community is indeed richly deserved. But this book exceeded even my highest expectations."

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

Dr. Hector Avalos, Biblical scholar and author of The End of Biblical Studies: “Why I Became an Atheist combines a dose of Augustine's Confessions with a cauldron of unremitting rationalism to yield one of the most potent antidotes to Christianity on the market today. If there is such a thing as the New Atheism, then John W. Loftus is one of the standard bearers. Loftus is a former Christian evangelical apologist who became an atheist, and he tells us why in a detail and a depth worthy of the best atheist writers today. It is a well-written, informed, and potent critique of religion and Christianity.”

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

Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism ranks the book among the best books on both sides of this debate. He goes so far as to say it's the "best atheist book of the decade" which is extremely high praise given that he goes on to recommend books by Graham Oppy and Nick Trakakis.

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

Christopher Hallquist, president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: “The Outsider Test for Faith chapter should earn Loftus a permanent place in the history of critiques of religion.”

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

Edward Tabash, Chair, First Amendment Task Force, Council for Secular Humanism: “This is a wonderful book! I believe that there is no ex-theist who has done a better job of profoundly refuting the claims of religion. You are one of the most precious intellectual treasures an otherwise benighted society can have.”

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

Dan Barker, author of Godless: "John has taken the claims of Christianity seriously, diving in with both feet (full immersion atheism!), unflinchingly examining the exact sources that believers urge us to ponder. When you read Loftus's penetrating analyses, you have no choice but to discard the truth claims of Christianity. As a former fundamentalist minister who has followed a similar path from apostle to apostate, I empathize completely with the deep struggle Loftus had to make in order to shed his former cherished beliefs. I respect his scholarship, but more than that, I admire his courage. There are many treasures in this book, as well as provocative and controversial arguments, all presented with a crystal-clear and brutal honesty that is rare in religious scholarship. Loftus is a true freethinker, willing to follow the facts wherever they happen to lead." 

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

Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine, and the author of How We Believe, The Science of Good and Evil, and Why Darwin Matters. "There is trend sweeping American culture today on the God question, with commentators on all sides ringing in with their opinions and theories about whether God exists or not, the origins of morality with or without God, and the origins and importance of religion. What is unique about John W. Loftus's book is his perspective: a one time Christian apologist who changed his mind and became an atheist. Here we get both sides of the debate between two covers, an honest and honorable look into the soul of belief and what it means to be a nonbeliever."

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

Jeffery Amos, Blog owner of Failing the Insider Test: "In the last year I've devoured numerous books on religion. My rankings are based on their relevance to the question “but is it true?” In order of best to worst:

1. Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity– John W. Loftus. Head. And. Shoulders. Above. All. Others. If your book shopping is based on my recommendations, stop reading my blog and go buy it right now.

This is the best refutation of Evangelical Christianity that I have read. Most of his arguments are a one-two punch of philosophy and biblical analysis. The first hit shows how (insert doctrine of choice) is meaningless/contradictory/impossible and the second hit undercuts the support for the idea actually being true. His philosophical analysis is consistently stellar - he dismantles all the little things in theology that you are supposed to learn but not think about. His biblical arguments switch between the rifle and shotgun approach - he spends the better part of a chapter on a few individual problems, and with others issues his gives a long lists of problems with little elaboration." See here to read more.

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

Jason Long, author of Biblical Nonsense,and The Religious Condition: "John's book is the book I wish I could write. It is probably the best comprehensive book of the issues I’ve read. If you’re looking for an in depth scholarly discussion of apologetic views, by all means, read John’s book."

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

Joe E. Holman, founder of www.ministerturnsatheist.org, and author of Project Bible Truth: A Minister Turns Atheist and Tells All: “The book's central strength lies in its information-rich content. John speaks the language of competent and well-known Christian scholars and apologists of both liberal and conservative affiliation, employing their own words against them, demonstrating that they themselves recognize the grave position they are in when facing the critical eye of a skeptical, modern world. The Outsider Test for Faith is one of those chapters that says what every doubter of religion has always thought but perhaps never said so well. The chapter is an absolute jewel. This work covers some ground that is seldom touched on in other comparable freethought works.”

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

Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God: “John W. Loftus has written an important book that should be read by every Christian who cares about truth and reality. This is not the angry rant of some disgruntled former believer with an axe to grind. Loftus is thorough, fair and convincing. As a former Christian minister and apologist who became an atheist, he knows both sides of the belief question very well. The insights and detailed information contained in this book make for enlightening reading. The chapter on superstition in the Bible was nothing less than mind-blowing. I highly recommend this book."

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

Dr. Frank R. Zindler: "In the cracks between the spaces in time I have been reading your magnum opus and am enjoying it a lot. You produce a crushing cumulative case. Bravo!"

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

Ken W. Daniels, author of "Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary," wrote: "As a former evangelical missionary who lost my faith nearly a decade ago…I believe the process could have been cut significantly shorter if John's book had been available to me years before my crisis finally came to a head. The value of this volume lies…in its bringing together in a single accessible package most of the important criticisms that have been advanced against the Christian faith (and theism in general) since the Enlightenment.

I found Loftus' treatment of the Atonement to be particularly incisive. I have not read a more succinct and effective rejoinder to the penal substitution theory than his.

John's book is an unremitting battery of helpfully organized arguments against orthodox Christianity. Well done, John!

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

Jeffrey Mark, author of Christian No More: "John Loftus is not only a former preacher as the title says, but a trained theologian with advanced degrees. He spent enormous amounts of time learning and perfecting the philosophical arguments that he would later come to refute with this book. Loftus meticulously breaks their arguments down and shows why, when given careful consideration, they fall apart, ultimately leaving no God, no Jesus, and no Holy Spirit. The problem with many atheist vs. Christian debates is that the parties involved have drastically different training. But Loftus, on the other hand, is in a unique position, as he can see eye-to-eye with the Christian theologians. He knows and understands their arguments and can speak their language. This book will change minds. Already many people have let go of their beliefs as a result of this book, and surely many more will."

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

Dr. A.M. Weisberger, non-theistic philosopher and author of Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism: Loftus writes with great honesty and candor about his experiences from both sides of the theistic/nontheistic landscape. His chapters on the problem of evil offer a fine overview of the complex historical debate over the obstacle that evil presents to rational theistic belief. His writing is admirable for maintaining conceptual accuracy while engendering accessibility for the non-technical reader. Highly recommended -- both as a valuable sourcebook for all involved in religious debate, and as a good read.

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

Dr. Robert M. Price, author of The Reason-Driven Life, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and The Paperback Apocalypse. “In this fascinating work you will witness the profound processes that led John W. Loftus out of a deep but finally wrong-headed commitment to Christ and the Christian worldview. There is no way the book will not be of great help with your own journey. For years, apologists have thrown down the gauntlet. Now it is being picked up--by their own students!

 ----------------

Mike Tenenbaum, author of Blessed Assurance? A Demonstration that Christian Fundamentalism is Simply False: "I found this book to be very thoughtful, intelligent, well written, and, what can I say, it was a hard book to put down. I also have written a book critiquing Christianity. But I have to say, if you're going to only read one book on the matter, read John's. If you're interested in a second, maybe check out mine. lol ;) But having been immersed in the faith for myself for many years, and since becoming an atheist, having read many books along these lines, I have to say that John's book sets the gold standard."

 ---------------------

Keith Parsons: "WIBA is a serious book that deals with serious arguments. It is two or three cuts above most of the "new atheist" polemic."

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

Peter Phua, writing for a CFI Blog said my book, "...outlines a comprehensive series of arguments - both philosophical and historical - against the truth claims made by the Christian religion."

"Loftus shows great breadth in the topics he covers, and he discusses the important issues at hand with an appropriate degree of depth, succinctly addressing the best replies to his arguments. The problem of evil is dealt with particularly well. Loftus does not straw-man his opponent's arguments, rather, he summarizes them in their strongest form and takes them head on. It's a book I highly recommend for current (and former) Christians who seek to familiarize themselves with an excellent contemporary summary of the strongest criticisms against the Christian faith."

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

Jeffery Jay Lowder on the Secular Outpost: "I give this book two thumbs way up. In addition to courageously sharing his personal story, Loftus applies his considerable training and expertise into developing a cumulative case against Christianity and for atheism. I cannot think of another book like it on the market. Loftus is clearly familiar with the work of evangelical apologists like Copan, Craig, Geisler, and Moreland, as his book is filled with references to their work and objections to their arguments. In fact, his book might best be described as a “counter-apologetics” textbook. Anyone who reads this blog (The Secular Outpost) but has not yet read Why I Became an Atheist should do so.

 -----------------

Skeptic Dave wrote: "Loftus has succeeded in giving us a very nice all-inclusive overview of every possible card the Christian apologist will play, and refutes them well. Naturally, would you expect anything less from someone who used to play all those cards?" It is a "428 page monster of reason and logic."

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

Dr. William Harwood, author of Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus: “Loftus wrote his book primarily to explain why he ceased to be a believer, but its main value is that it spells out the falsifying evidence that finally cured him and will cure anyone who reads it. Loftus has brought together sufficient evidence of religion’s Achilles’ heel to cause all but the most intransigent believers to ask themselves: Could he be right?”

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

Fintan Amphlett on Facebook wrote: "I would honestly rank your book alongside the best I've ever read of Hume and Russell."

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

A. Hawkins: “If there was one book that I would recommend to a Christian to make him see his religion from the outside it would be this. It's written in a language that a Christian would understand. I believe that John's approach is the best and more notably I think it will have the greatest affect on the Christian. The writing and argumentation shows many years of dealing with the debate at the highest level. Come on Christian, read it. You won't encounter a better attack of your faith."

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

Jennifer Weisbrodt: "'Why I became an Atheist'" by John W. Loftus is excellent from cover-to-cover. This is one of my absolute favorite books that deals with Atheism and I will continue to suggest it to others and use it as a source-book for my own future reference as well…this book is fresh, audacious and thought-inspiring, and I recommend it to all."

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

Sarah Schoonmaker wrote: "Loftus’ book offers the college level a solid introduction to Atheist arguments, while offering thorough responses to popular Christian Theist claims. This resource introduces Atheist objections to Christians, which many have never dealt with them. For even the seasoned Christian apologist, this work still presents a solid challenge.

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

Chris Knight-Griffin: “If you have questions about your faith, read this book. Those nagging questions are addressed and exposed. Every skeptic should have this concise reference book on the desk, dog-eared, tagged, and highlighted. I’ve read Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith, and Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. The other books hit the target but John’s book hits the bulls-eye. I doubt anyone with faith could walk away from this book with that faith intact. Awesome book!!!! It is honestly everything I've been looking for so far in my ‘quest’ for knowledge. Thank you!”

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

Andrew Atkinson: “I have read hundreds of Christian Apologetics books. I have read all of Lewis, all of Schaeffer, all of Peter Kreeft, all of Dr. Geisler’s works along with the writings of Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, N.T Wright, Paul Copan, etc. I was until recently enrolled at Dr. Geisler’s school to study apologetics and philosophy. This year I decided in order to be fair and honest to read all the top skeptical books on religion. John’s book was one of the first I read. It was the first skeptic book I read that made me seriously realize that I could be dead wrong! I think John has written by far the best overall refutation of Christianity in print. John’s book is much more accessible, it covers a lot more arguments, it has the best chapters on the problem of evil you can find, it is more interesting to read, it refutes more apologetic arguments then any other book, and it addresses more central issues.”

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

Greg Meeuwsen: “I have read numerous publications on this topic, but I don't believe I've ever seen as many great reasons to reject religion in one place. John’s arguments are numerous and rock-solid. The level of research and brutal logic applied to the Bible is absolutely stunning, as is the sheer number of examples given. There is "no stone unturned", as Loftus takes on nearly every apologist angle ever conceived. This book will give more insight into scholarly unbelief than you ever thought possible.

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

By D. Weatherford (Spanish Fork, Utah): "This is the best all-encompassing critique of Christianity that I have been able to find so far (and I have read A LOT)....if you want a convincing interpretation of the findings of biblical scholarship, archaeology, and philosophy, this is the book you are looking for...the book is so great that I will likely use it often as a reference for further study. Highly recommended!"

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

Stephanie wrote: "I have read numerous books regarding the subject matter you covered in your book and by far, John, yours is the best one for Christians to read. There is no drug we can give a Christian to get them to see how irrational Christianity and all other religions truly are. However, in my opinion, this book is next best thing."

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

R. Baldwin (Panama City, FL) wrote: "Definitive Refutation." "After reading the slew of atheist works published in the last 5 years or so, I was pleasantly surprised by Loftus' comprehensive refutation of every supposedly rational support of Christian positions. This book saves me a lot of research because of Loftus' knowledge of the Bible, the theological and philosophical arguments of contemporary Christian apologists as well as the great Christian theologians and deist philosophers of the past. Only a former pastor and Christian apologist could have written a work of this depth. Every Christian should read this book and judge for themselves whether their arguments stand up to a true spirit of objective analysis. Every skeptic, freethinker, agnostic or atheist who already observed the fact that agnostics and atheists have the best arguments on their side will enjoy the clarity and power with which their point of view is expressed in this book."

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

Kirby Wiese of Vacaville, CA, wrote: "I've been studying religion for most of my life...I've concentrated on Christianity, since that is what I was brought up on, and since I have to deal with it every day in some way living in this country. Having read the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al I wanted to let you know that, in my opinion, while those books drive nails into Christianity (and religion in general) your book drops a ton of bricks on it! I think your handling of the problem of evil would convert any CLEAR THINKING person away from the Christian concept of God."

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

Dave Perry (Tampa, Florida): "I recently completed reading Why I Became an Atheist and would highly recommend this book to both Christians and Atheists. Loftus is a brilliant thinker who methodically and poignantly addresses controversial issues regarding the Christian faith. In doing so, he demonstrates courtesy to Christians and their faith as he thoughtfully and painstakingly addresses a myriad of apologetic arguments, acknowledging their merits while at the same time exposing their flaws. The book is truly a scholarly work."

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

Stephen St. Clair wrote: "I just completed your book and....To say I found it insightful and worthwhile would be a gross understatement. I have yet to read ONE book that addresses all of the issues more cogently (and accurately in my opinion), and I have read a great deal on both sides of this eternal debate/inquiry. Moreover, I compliment you on your efforts to maintain a writing style that made it “comfortable” read. In short, thank you for taking the time to author what should be required reading for everyone."

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

Matthew J. Green: “This book is one of the best introductory texts on the philosophical problems with Christianity.”

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

Geoff M. Arnold (Seattle, WA): "Loftus is a scribe: the apologist, the teacher. He was the defender of faith against its critics, and with the detailed knowledge that he acquired in this role, he has become the sharpest critic of religious apology...If you have read some of the authorities that Loftus cites - Mackie, Martin, et al - I would still recommend his book, because he pulls all of the threads together in a compact and accessible manner. If you are unfamiliar with the literature, Loftus may be all you need."

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

Anthony Lawson (Kentucky USA): "I thoroughly enjoyed this book and at times just couldn't put it down. John's deconversion story was very moving and I'm sure rings true for a great many that have gone through the heartache of abandoning the Christian faith. John covers a lot of material in as little space as possible. He deals with each topic adequately and gives the reader references for further reading in the notes and bibliography. All in all one of the best books that I have read on the subject and highly recommended."

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

Paul Harrison: “If you read Christian apologetics, you owe it to yourself to have this anthology of the best arguments against Christian apologetics in your library.”

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.

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.

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?

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:

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