I started visiting John W Loftus’ DC blog as an enquiring potential atheist. Initially I was drawn by what seemed to be some real reasons to reject theism. I admit to being sceptical, perhaps that is why I visited DC in the first place. Obviously I encountered the work of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, and began to realise I was finding little of substance there – they are clearly not theologians and should perhaps stick to what they know best. But here was JWL – the ‘insider’ turned atheist – perhaps he had it right. However, as I worked through the arguments of JWL and his DC team I came to realise that his atheist arguments were really just the ‘emperor’s new clothes’.
It was JWL’s site that lead me to the strong theist position I now hold – and I thank JWL and his team at DC for this. So, as I am appreciative of what JWL has done for me personally - why then am I contributing here on Truth be Told’s blog to debunking him? I admit I don’t agree with everything the other contributors here say or even the way they say it, but it is a focused platform and so I participate …
In part because I am astounded at the lack of scrutiny with which JWL’s ideas are accepted.
In part because I think there is place for rational debate around some of his ideas.
In part because JWL is fond of calling theists deluded - while ignoring his own delusions.
In part because he claims that any one of his arguments are powerful enough to turn a Christian to atheism – I have found the opposite.
In part because his arguments are just bad arguments.
In subsequent posts I will systematically work through John’s arguments as he presents them in his Why I Am Not a Christian: A Summary of My Case Against Christianity (2008) posted on DC. I have chosen this as the basis because it best lends itself to blog length comments. JWL can reply with full argument from his books if he wants.
Now in his defence JWL will often say that his target is Evangelicals and that it directs his arguments. JWL has rejected the version of Evangelical Christianity which he embraced – OK. Unfortunately JWL has extrapolated his reasons for rejecting Evangelical Christianity, not only to all Christianity, but also to all religion and finally to the existence of God.
The arguments in Why I Am Not a Christian: A Summary of My Case Against Christianity (2008) form the basis of JWL’s atheism. Certainly stretching his arguments from Evangelical Christianity to reject theism per se is irrational and itself a leap of faith - but this is what he does!
JWL’s document has a lengthy introduction, so I will start there and cover it off in this my introduction.
In his introduction he talks about ‘control beliefs’, top down and bottom up approaches; rejecting those that start with the premise that God exists as he rightly considers it may lend bias towards a theist conclusion.
JWL then states his own ‘control beliefs’. His primary control belief seems easy to accept Anyone who subsequently moves away from that default position [scepticism] has the burden of proof, for to accept a religious set of beliefs is to accept a positive truth claim. I note though that he does not see atheism as needing to be subjected to sceptical review as apparently it requires no belief in anything.
He then presents two further control beliefs:
A) There is a strong probability that every event is a natural one to be explained by natural forces alone. I think he implies if God existed God would be unnatural.
B) The scientific method is the most reliable (and probably the only) guide we have for determining the truth about the world. well a world devoid of art, the law or philosophy and theology any way.
… and he sees no problem presenting these control beliefs as a rational sceptical startingpoint!
If JWL was actually concerned with impact of preconceptions then he should have stated that he was open to any explanation that was supported by the evidence – that would have the rational thing to do. It seems as if he considers bias fine when it is his.
JWL urges us to be sceptical It is my view that everyone should approach religion in general, and Christianity in particular, from the default position of scepticism. ... and so we should be … and so we should extend that scepticism to atheism in general and JWL’s arguments too.
So the first point of JWL’s I debunk is that he is rational in his approach:
In presenting his control beliefs as a valid starting point – no he claims a superior starting point – he is being irrational. The rational starting point is one that is open to any conclusion; JWL is apparently not.
We should remember this bias as we read what JWL writes and recognise the irrationality implicit in him presenting them as the starting point of the rational sceptic.
JWL says Christianity failed the “insider” test, the test of one who comes from within Christianity. Certainly he can claim the Evangelical Christianity failed the JWL test, but no more than that.
I would say that when JWL found that God did not seem to fit the rigid model of founded on an inerrant and literalistic approach to the bible he was faced with a simple choice.
1) Either God is not the same as the God he had in mind … OR …
2) There is no God.
The rational response would be (1), yet JWL defaulted to the latter. Had he explored (1) his arguments would not be so confined by his Evangelical thinking.
Herein lies the fundamental flaw in most, if not all, of JWL’s arguments; they rely on the inerrant and literalistic approach to the bible that he had espoused. I will demonstrate this in subsequent posts where I will show that his arguments in relation to the existence of God are either:
* Irrational,
* Misguided
* Irrelevant or
* Erroneous
Hamba kahle - peace
Sunday, March 15, 2009
22 comments:
If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.
Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.
READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.
NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Everyone concerned would do much better to not keep pushing the idea that the other guy's position is held dishonestly/delusionally, or the like.
ReplyDeleteSimply point it out if he says so himself about you, but beyond that, why not just let it go?
You're making each other spend way too much time defending their integrity, and I don't even see how you're coming out looking better doing it.
John's first book reflected his then transitional belief of "honest doubter," and I wish that that's where it had stayed, but I don't see him as being deluded as an atheist now.
I hope he's wrong, but this can only be established by a discussion of the points he makes in the book.
You're doing this for the most part, but, like the theologians he mentions favorably (who unfortunately aren't available for daily discussions), why not refrain from any personal remarks yourself?
Well, well, akakiwibear. A better person for the job has arrived, but still far below what it will take to debunk my views. It looks like you're going to do what a Christian philosopher attempted. But I already made a good case that this strategy is a lesson in how not to argue against me. You might learn your lessons from what I said to him.
ReplyDeleteWould YOU state for the record whether or not you've actually read my book, Why I Became an Atheist?. So far it seems to me this site has not done its research if it wants to claim to debunk me when the writers have not read my book.
BTW akakiwibear, since you've joined this abusive and obnoxious blog you are banned from DC. Them's the rules.
ReplyDeleteAnd TruthBeTold, where do you ever find me specifically stating that this blog of yours is a place where I won't respond? Provide evidence or own up to the fact that you cannot read.
I've redated my two posts on this site and JP Holding. They are no longer on the front page. I archived them and I included this note at the bottom:
Edit: I wrote this post on March 10, 2009. But in order to get it off DC's front page I'm redating it. Now that I've alerted people to this site I'm not planning on linking to it again since that would get him excatly what he wants, attention. If attention is what he craves then I'll help starve him of it. Later on I plan on dating this post correctly again once it will no longer be on the front page.
I'm not expecting you to understand my reasons even though I clearly stated them, though.
BTW akakiwibear, since you've joined this abusive and obnoxious blog you are banned from DC. Them's the rules.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure akakiwibear is going to be just devestated, John...
I suppose you never read what the man said here did you, you intolerant snob? For one, he pretty much hinted that he's read your book, along with other popular atheist literature. Second, it's for the arguments in your book that he's found unconvincing and unpersuasive, which is why he did not turn to atheism in his search for answers. I know John, your efforts didn't work well enough and now someone has turned to the "Dark Side" (as if there is a dark side when it comes to opposing your system of morals).
And TruthBeTold, where do you ever find me specifically stating that this blog of yours is a place where I won't respond? Provide evidence or own up to the fact that you cannot read.
Riight..okay..John. Here's one example: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/03/to-respond-or-not-to-respond-that-is.html
Ah...wait a minute! Here's something interesting: "...I figure it won't do any good to respond because if they couldn't think critically in their first post they won't be able to do so a second time..."
Whether you explicitally stated it or not, your whining about how much of an "abusive" blog this is doesn't seem to correspond with your behaviors when you return again and again and again. But there are other examples as well, like...uh...I dunno...TWeb maybe?
Don't give me the 'reading technicality' bullshit games you try to play. You tried this with your fake blog before, remember?
When are you going to stop being such an egomaniacal ass and come to grip with yourself that you're so self-righteous it's difficult for you to see beyond the horizon. And especially after your blog incident. Even after you were proven wrong, you still denied it, yet you weren't intelligent enough to keep its secrecy sealed in your own self-defenses. The folks over at TWeb were and are right: You lost your trustworthy value the minute you tried dodging the issues.
I've redated my two posts on this site and JP Holding. They are no longer on the front page. I archived them and I included this note at the bottom:
Do whatever you like with your blog, John, it's your perogative. But even if you do try to cut off association to this site, you have no control over the linking from other sites, which are just as old if not older than yours. Typically, an older site has larger traffic, and, if we were to play fair here, I already have three followers, two links from popular Christian web blogs (including Holding's site) as well as those that are willing to contribute (such as akakiwibear).
So if this is all about the traffic to you, you severing any associative ties aren't going to hurt me all that badly. Sucker.
I'm not expecting you to understand my reasons even though I clearly stated them, though.
I'm not expecting you to understand that you have a sort of demigod complex and don't know it, and I'm definetly not expecting your adement admirers to actually see who is really the dishonest one. At any rate, the more you go on with your typical behaviors and manipulation, I suspect the more people will come here to have free reign where they weren't given the chance to have it. Trust me, these types of folks are not all Christians, either...
Have a wonderful day Dishonest John!
Ismellarat, I try not get into personal attack, where I slip up and come across as attacking the person rather than the idea I apologise when it is pointed out. For me this is not about John Loftus, but about the arguments he presents – that is why I use JWL to refer to his arguments rather than a more personal form of address – when I say John I am usually addressing myself to him.
ReplyDeleteThat said I do have reservations about the robust personal style of this blog, but sometimes I see John being personal on his blog – I guess if you dish it you have to take it – both ways. I have no intention of joining the melee.
John, I acknowledge you somewhat backhanded compliment, thanks I like to think there is mutual respect for sincerely held and thought out views – xept kors yours be ‘ll wrong.
So I am now persona non grata on DC. Is that a form of recognition or simple a form of censorship – I accept your right to restrict commenting on you bolg on the basis where else people comment … sort of like an ethnic cleansing of your blog.
But then … you have avoided responding to the substance of my comments on DC for a while now so you limited my options, although I am happy to engage with you elsewhere.
I am sorry I missed your exchange with Guthrie on DC. I have now read it. He covers some of the same ground I will. It is disappointing that you were not prepared to really get into the topics. Perhaps he & I are wrong to ask you to “defend” your summary (and yes you do deal with some of his questions more fully in your book but from what I saw that still leaves much unanswered). I think you sell yourself short by not really addressing serious minded criticism of your arguments. We could learn from the exchanges.
As for your book (2nd) – I have spent enough on atheist & theist texts over the years so I have not bought it (that is what libraries are for) and confess I have not read it through –selected bits that attracted my attention. Perhaps because I was already familiar with your views I found it did not engage me and had little new (all the arguments have been expounded by others over the years if not centuries) and little that effectively dealt with the criticisms that for instance Guthrie raised. Yes it had some novelty – your approach to PoE is a little different as is your insider/outsider position. That said it was well written and well constructed, but I was worn down by what I see as the flawed thread through the JWL arguments – the dependence on the fundamentalist perspective of Christianity being correct.
Hamba kahle - peace
akakiwibear, you are banned from DC. Get the point. I don't care what you think of this banning but you are never to come back. You have your forum, here. Use it as you see fit. But at least have the personal integrity to stay away when asked. You are not welcome at DC. You made your choice. Now live with it.
ReplyDeleteThat makes TWO people who have not read my book who post here.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I guess, but if that's what you call research then no wonder you are attacking me.
And TruthBeTold, once again, where do you ever find me specifically stating that this blog of yours is a place where I won't respond? Provide evidence or own up to the fact that you cannot read. I saw you offer no evidence. If you cannot read then how can you ever expect to offer a critique of that which you read?
ReplyDeleteSuch idiocy baffles me to know end.
Perhaps I WILL stay away. I don't suffer fools gladly. You have admitted that you have not read my book and now when asked to back up something with evidence you do no such thing.
You don't deserve any comments from me.
For added emphasis and to correct something:
ReplyDeleteSuch idiocy baffles me to NO end.
aki has been polite and respectful, and yet you ban him anyways. Sad.
ReplyDeleteYou're even more ban-happy than Dembski at "Uncommon Descent", and that's saying something.
Aka, not aki, sorry 'bout that...
ReplyDeleteAnd TruthBeTold, once again, where do you ever find me specifically stating that this blog of yours is a place where I won't respond? Provide evidence or own up to the fact that you cannot read. I saw you offer no evidence. If you cannot read then how can you ever expect to offer a critique of that which you read?
ReplyDeleteSuch idiocy baffles me to know end.
I'm tired of going through and having to search for your statements. But I'm sure anyone else with the right amount of willpower will find you saying the following:
1) This blog is full of "ad-hominens" and "non-sequitirs" which you don't even bother specifying.
2) In your post about the emails you receive from blogs such as these, you use those same terms in your reference to them.
3) Now, even though any averagely intelligent person would have concluded that you were being implicit about my blog, you challenge me that I need to obtain a statement of you directing those attacks on this blog specifically. What???
John doesn't seem to understand that one can communicate without being EXPLICIT in their sayings and or body language.
How many masters do you have again?
If you never return John, I'll probably be happy. Your frequent presence here is disturbing and rather quite sickening by your immoral passions, and the fact that a flock of mindless sheep are willing to follow you. The reason why this country is declining is because of people like you and your followers. Those who can't seem to grasp that the politics of our day are not based on "change" but "progression", none of which was mentioned in the previous Presidential election. And it still hasn't been brought up.
I'm not the smartest person in the world, and nor do I strive to be. I'm not perfect. I don't have college degrees yet. Does all of this make you happy John? Your materialistic takes on the world and your smarminess towards anyone that knows you for what you are clearly reveal the transperancy which is your moral character. And personally I believe none of the statements that say you are a different person in reality. I've watched some of your videos, and they are of the same substance as your "lighting" argument.
Anyways John, good luck, and I'll see you next month, when JP decides to post yet again. Cheers. :)
My own little grammatical correction:
ReplyDeleteABOUT blogs, not from them.
TruthBeTold, you are either not who you say you are or you're being used by Holding. I predict if it's the later you will someday come to your senses and disown him just as Matthew Green did. The scenario is the same and I am the one who is warning you just like I warned Matthew. Surely this should make you reconsider now before embarrassing yourself further. In any case if you are a Deist as your TWeb profile says then you and I have much more in common than you and Holding. There must be a reason why so many skeptics hate him. Haven't you noticed what he does to anger us yet, or are you blind?
ReplyDeleteJohn I wanted to read your book, really ... but my BS filters just kept on rejecting it.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments I read were not any kind of challenge to my theist position. Finishing it was just not worth the effort.
That said ... I notice you once again that you fail to respond to my challenge to provide a substantive argument for rejecting theism that does depend on a fundamentalist literalistic inerrant bible platform.
I know I kept repeating this challenge on DC and I guess banning me will let you off that hook.
I know when pushed you describe yourself as being open to deism, or when pushed further you call yourself an atheist leaning agnostic. But this is not what your 2nd book is about is it? It is about atheism so provide a substantive argument for rejecting theism that does depend on your fundamentalist literalistic inerrant bible platform. ... can you?
hamba kahle - peace
TruthBeTold, you are either not who you say you are or you're being used by Holding. I predict if it's the later you will someday come to your senses and disown him just as Matthew Green did. The scenario is the same and I am the one who is warning you just like I warned Matthew. Surely this should make you reconsider now before embarrassing yourself further.
ReplyDeleteMatthew's article is sort of based on false expectations. Additionally, Holding doesn't insult anyone who merely "disagrees" with him. I am an example of this, as well as Veil of Absence and Anon (whom I believe is a good friend of yours?) on TWeb are all well respected by Holding.
In any case if you are a Deist as your TWeb profile says then you and I have much more in common than you and Holding. There must be a reason why so many skeptics hate him.
That's rather easy to explain. It's the same thing as when people defend you and they say that you are a different person in reality than you are on the virtual web. You seem to appeal to this argument, so are you a different person? If so, what is different about you, and why do you act the way you do here?
Haven't you noticed what he does to anger us yet, or are you blind?
I already told you that I was not appreciative of Holding's tactics at first, and I never thought I would be associating myself with him. But none of which you speak of, is at heart, truly instigated from the beginning. It's how people have reacted to his criticisms of skeptical onlookers that has set the stage for this apparent conflict. Holding can get carried away at times, but there are certain things about his personality that might need to be searched more indepth before coming to conclusions.
If Holding were exactly as you make him out to be, I would have no association with him. I've found, however, through personal interaction and reading through some of his intial criticisms of other people, that this isn't the case at all.
You are simply blind as a bat, TBT, much like a religious believer. You'll apologize to me someday, I'm sure of it. And in case you want to know, I'll accept your apology and be your friend 'cause I know how Holding can be.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the fact that John gets trolled by Holding when that's not even what Holding is TRYING to do speaks limits about his intelligence. Or rather, how much his intelligence is being blinded by his emotions.
ReplyDeleteYou know what? There's my Blogger too. Obligatory links to my other blogs that have nothing to do with theology because... well BECAUSE. Maybe I'll get to writing that article on the Game Genie like I been meaning to.
I still don't understand why anyone takes John seriously. In his latest book, in the first chapter, he says that two of the three reasons he deconverted were emotional, not intellectual.
ReplyDeleteFurther, those emotional reasons are based on his own version of events, involving cheating on his wife, lying to his congregation, and being distrusted by his own cousin.
Given that we know he makes things up about people, the best example being the Holding site, how is any even semi objective observer to know how much of his "deconversion" story is even true?
Indeed, does John himself even know anymore. The man has serious issues, and could probably benefit from counseling.
Andrew, you're a stalker of mine that goes by the name of KC_James and D. Christensen on Amazon, and Grady and so many others I can't keep them straight. I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs counseling if anyone does. Of course, maybe we all need it.
ReplyDeleteAndrew you say I still don't understand why anyone takes John seriously. In his latest book, in the first chapter, he says that two of the three reasons he deconverted were emotional, not intellectual.
ReplyDeleteClearly this is the case - the reasons have to be emotional (they certainly are not logical).
What I take seriously about John is that he presents his pseudo rational thinking as conclusive argument.
His boast is that one of the "arguments" in his book are persuasive enough to lead to deconversion - that is nonsense!
He has yet to respond anywhere to my challenge for a substantive argument that is not trapped in the flaw of an inerrant literalistic bible.
Hamba kahle -peace
Akaki,
ReplyDeleteYou said: If JWL was actually concerned with impact of preconceptions then he should have stated that he was open to any explanation that was supported by the evidence – that would have the rational thing to do. It seems as if he considers bias fine when it is his.
There's proably not a more accurate statement that I've read about the way John views evidence etc. He discounts ANY evidence period. Totally irrational (like many of his atheist friends) and yet he calls Christians delusional.
Peace.