The Cowboy Who Wasn't There: E-book Companion Site

Monday, August 9, 2010

James McGrath's Clouded Moral Loftusvision

It’s become clear that James McGrath, who wrote an ill-advised endorsement of John’s book The Christian Delusion, has a wee little problem with the practice of truth-telling. What we mainly have here is someone who doesn’t tell the whole story and then behaves like the child who has been caught pocketing Skittles at the five and dime. I’ll comment on a few other things as well.


McGrath: I was astonished at the level of ire from someone with whom I had never exchanged e-mails or otherwise communicated at any previous point. Is it just a sign of my old age that I think people would normally be properly introduced before attacking one another?


I don’t know about “old age” but it is definitely a problem of narrow perspective. This idea that you have to be “properly introduced” before you can go critique people’s work is a peculiar fancy, one that seems designed to shut down deserved criticisms by hedging them in with a host of contrived rules and regulations.


McGrath is a person with a public record (as am I). I attacked/addressed nothing but the contents of that public record: His book, his endorsement of Loftus’ book. The contents of these things are hardly of insufficient depth for a criticism to be unwarranted.


For years I have been “attacked” by atheists who have never “properly introduced” themselves (whatever that might be defined as this week). I never complained of it on those terms once. Nor have countless other apologists, whether Christian, Mormon, etc. I can’t imagine Daniel Peterson of FARMS, for example, making such a transparently contrived excuse. He and I have had our moments both ways, but neither of us has complained that the other had not been “properly introduced” to us.


If McGrath can’t stand the scrutiny of being a public figure who issues comments on matters of public interest, he should stick with Twittering and stop writing books and book endorsements.

Throughout history, criticism has been leveled by perfect strangers against one another. Jesus and the Pharisees did not hoist beers together before Jesus let them have it. Paul didn’t sit down for hot dogs with the pro-circumcision party before he blasted them. From the other side of the fence, Robert Ingersoll certainly didn’t sit down with the authors of the Bible before he wrote all of his works taking them to task.


McGrath needs to stop making up rules that are obviously designed to stop him having to endure the rigors of criticism.


I found it particularly ironic because this individual's main complain (sic) was that, by suggesting that Christians could learn from reading a certain book by multiple authors that presents atheists' viewpoints, I had associated with a person (the editor of the volume) who is, in this apologist's words, ‘of such disreputable character.’ Since when did writing something like this (just click through and search for my name) constitute an endorsement of the behavior of a volume's editor?


McGrath here is hiding much of the truth. I did far more than simply point out the disreputable character of Loftus with a mere vague phrase. I gave some rather concrete examples – this is exactly what I said in the email:


Your endorsement of John Loftus' latest book, The Christian Delusion, is something I found exceptionally disturbing. Apart from the fact that the quality of the arguments he and his crew produce is exceptionally poor, he is an unusually despicable character who has an extended track record of dishonesty. He is willing to do anything to promote or justify himself; in particular, he debated a friend of mine on an online forum, whom he afterwards derided as a
‘handicapped Wal-mart clerk’ after the consensus emerged that he had lost the debate. He gave his own earlier book a glowing 5-star review on Amazon, which he later erased, and later denied having written. That is just the tip of the iceberg and not the worst of it.


I can forgive McGrath for not realizing that TCD is composed of poor arguments, since it is clear that he isn’t much of a critical thinker himself. But he has continued to refuse to acknowledge the specific serious moral lapses of Loftus that have been presented to him, both in this message and in subsequent postings by others on his blog. This is not honest.


If McGrath would simply have replied to my email by saying:


“I was not aware of these things. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.”


..it would have been enough. But no: He has chosen the route of disingenuous self-justification instead.


As for the last bit, I have never directly said that what McGrath wrote was an endorsement of Loftus’ behavior. However, it may as well be in practice.

Generally, it is recognized that when a person is of a certain level of moral degeneracy, they are supposed to be isolated and cut off from normal human interaction. To use an extreme example for illustrative purposes, no one with any moral sense would write an endorsement of a book written by Pol Pot, even if it were on the subject of tomato gardening. The excuse would not do (as McGrath tried) that the purpose was to encourage others to listen to others’ viewpoints. As I also pointed out to him, but to which he has never replied:


Good point about listening to a range of atheist viewpoints. How about you next write one for say, Kenneth Humphreys, so that we can have a ‘useful opportunity’ to ‘listen to a range of viewpoints’ about how Jesus didn't exist? Better yet, there's a UFO cult I know of that would love to have others get a "useful opportunity" to "listen to a range of viewpoints" about how we can all get a UFO ride to Paradise. Can I put you in touch? And if you're really bold, maybe Prometheus can get you to write one for one of their X-rated videotape guides. A lot of people find those ‘viewpoints’ to be ‘useful’.


In a nutshell, McGrath here puts utilitarianism above moral consideration. The only real question is whether Loftus has done enough to be placed in the category of a moral offender serious enough to be shunned.


He is no Pol Pot of course, but major figures have been shunned for far less serious offenses than denigrating the disabled publicly, or creating fake blogs. (Funny too: McGrath is on about those who conduct “anonymous” criticism on the Internet – that’s exactly what Loftus did with his fake blog about me.)


McGrath: Or do we live in an era in which, before writing a blurb for a book, one is expected to first spend time searching the internet for evidence of inappropriate behavior?


To put it in a nutshell, yes. The Internet has made it possible to do this, and it takes no more than five minutes – McGrath spends more time than that on Twitter each month. He also has a huge blogroll listed, and a huge list of “interesting sites,” as well as offering listings of interesting blog posts he is reading. He can’t take a few minutes from this busy, important list of tasks to check out the background of someone for whom he is writing a book endorsement – one that will appear in a book that will be purchased by, say, at least a dozen people? (wink)


Perhaps all of this chatter on McGrath’s blog is a sign that McGrath has become one of Foreman’s “pancake people” – “spread wide and thin, as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” In that case it is quite understandable that he is not up to the task of being a responsible information broker.


In this day we have even fast-food employers scouring online looking for prospective employees’ Facebook pages. When it comes to responsibly brokering information, we should expect no less from a reputedly serious scholar like McGrath.


If we're supposed to search online and get to know those we interact with, then there is still further irony, since it was clear that this apologist had never read my blog (since he sarcastically asked whether I would endorse someone who says Jesus does not exist.)


How would this make any difference? McGrath wrote the endorsement for a book of atheists, which implies that he didn't have any objection to writing endorsements for books he had such wide disagreements with. His lack of epistemic consistency means that I have no reason to think he would never endorse a Christ-myth book. Even a direct profession that he would not wouldn't prove he would not at this point.


I’ll leave McGrath’s further comments about alleged hostility aside; I have some comments on those on TheologyWeb, save to point out that McGrath isn’t really succeeding in obscuring his own passive-aggressive hostilities. His own posting is an act of “war” by his own definition. Just because he decorates his gun with perfumed flowers doesn’t mean he isn’t shooting to kill.


Bottom line though – it’s not hard to see why he wrote an endorsement for Loftus. He has the same problems telling the whole truth.

23 comments:

  1. Wow. Loftus must be more effective than you care to let on. Otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much of your nasty self concocting such "subtle" character assassination."

    Once again, backwards thinking.

    Look at the situation more objectively. And I do mean, MORE OBJECTIVELY. Loftus makes Holding look like a saint. Take a look:

    Lying about a blog that was purposefully made against the other person (Loftus).

    Developed a track record for displaying bigoted and degrading remarks about the handicapped and their circumstances (Loftus).

    Flipped a lid when they found out they were pranked and made a pronouncement of obscenities towards other "skeptics" declaring that they would leave the internet forever and never did so (Loftus).

    Continually makes statements which are deceptive in that they are either only partially true, misrepresenting, and or not aligned with reality. Continually makes promises and dramatic declarations without backing them up or providing any justification as to why his statements should count for any credibility in regards to ethics and logic (Loftus).

    Has a tedency to get aggressive with people who have fundamental disagreements with them in terms of critical thinking and general debate (Holding).

    Oh gee, yeah, Holding is sooo much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Your left handed "Loftus is worse" defense is pretty darned shallow."

    If you want to call it that. There's another admirable quality I forgot to mention, seeing as John fancies himself as a "freethinker": Censorship. Call John on his bull and he'll ban you. Nuff said.

    "Again, I'm not very familiar with either of them but unlike Holding, Loftus seems to have learned a lesson. He's getting some positive attention. That must get Holding's ample panties in big old bunch."

    Your self-admitted ignorance on these matters leads me into confusion as to why you think Loftus is the lesser of the two evils. Honestly. It doesn't take much homework to see the reality of the situation for what it really is.

    Come on over to TheologyWeb and you'll notice Holding has more than one non-Christian/religious skeptic comrade, who sees what's REALLY UP and has experimented with Loftus. This picture that you and so many others try to paint is so ludicrous it's just a plus that you actually admit to being ignorant about it all.

    Loftus hasn't learned shit. And if you honestly think that by looking at all the documentation out there, your priorities are seriously backwards. I presume that neither myself nor Holding nor anyone else you could pin as "bullies" or jerks or whatever has the actual intent of demeaning people. It certainly isn't mine. It is making a honest and most humanly possible objective observation. And the recipient handles it in the way they see fit, by which point in time if a negative reaction ensues, it is not the responsibility nor the concern of the informant if what they are saying is true and with good intent.

    And as I see things, there is no other way of honestly and truthfully describing John Loftus than to label him a weasle. Because he continually demonstrates these characteristics. He believes in an egotistical type of utilitarianism. And that's why he is a weasle. It's not because of his beliefs, his looks, or the sound of his voice. It's because that's who he is, and has chosen to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nothing like a contrived definition to make yourself correct!

    Other critics would say I was being a "coward" for refusing to deal with "small fry" on their level.

    Maybe someday they'll come up with some sort of consistency...in the meantime...go stand in the corner, little girl.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Truth Be Told,

    Ah yes, the weasel factor. A time honored tradition. If arguments can't be dismantled what tactic does the weasel turn to? That's right, character assassination.

    A good example is deist and a founding father of the greatest nation on God's green earth, Thomas Paine. Critics will almost invariably paint him as a raging alcoholic. (Stock one truck and they call you a truck stocker.)

    If Holding was a drunkard or a glutton or an adulterer or a big fat repulsive slothful pig, should that weaken the strength of his arguments?

    Spending ten years engaging in weasel tactics and piddly internet insults with nobodys like me shows something inside that boy ain't right. Again, the repetitive self-important ego displays on the internet makes him look more and more like what he seems to be. A small fry bully.

    You've established that Loftus ranks higher on the weasel scale than Holding. How about you?

    Are you a bigger weasel or a smaller weasel than Holding?

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>>If Holding was a drunkard or a glutton or an adulterer or a big fat repulsive slothful pig, should that weaken the strength of his arguments?

    You left your brain at kindergarten today, did you?

    I never said such a thing and nor did TBT. What we did say is that someone with such a poor moral profile should never receive endorsements from others.

    So, are you one of those moral sewers who would have written an endorsement for Josef Stalin if he wrote a book with good arguments in it?

    As for Paine, it's more than that he is an alcoholic, but that he displays the sort of "logic" one finds in those whose minds have been pickled in alcohol.

    Not surprising.

    Go sit in the corner again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Ah yes, the weasel factor. A time honored tradition. If arguments can't be dismantled what tactic does the weasel turn to? That's right, character assassination."

    You forgot about the ignorance factor, something which applies to you, especially in this case. Do the homework like I suggested.

    While logic does state that a person's personality is without regard to argumentative veracity, if someone lacks a moral fiber and tells almost nothing but lies to get by, how do you expect them to make an actual argument?

    A compulsive liar could never make a good argument, at least they could never make one sound. And if John lies so often that it clouds his own introspection, then you should be wary of the arguments he makes in general. Logic doesn't encompass everything, even if logic contains the rules of argument and debate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You've established that Loftus ranks higher on the weasel scale than Holding. How about you?
    Are you a bigger weasel or a smaller weasel than Holding?"

    Test Loftus, I DARE YOU. Try it. See where it gets you. I guarantee you this much: The manner in which you present yourself to Holding won't be handled so well with that egomaniac. And how you are presenting yourself isn't even that serious. So just do it. Take Loftus up on the challenge of morality. And if you aren't willing to do that, go ahead and just admit your surrender outright. Because that's what it is until you can prove you're not just full of sympathetic pleas for scuzzballs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps J.P. will one day let us know how much scholarly study was involved in his conversion to Christianity. At what age did he convert? What level of education had he attained before he converted? What tracts and/or books did he read before he converted?

    And how does one go from being raised Bahai (as J.P. was raised) to wanting to become a verbal Torquemada?

    Lastly why would anyone think that a phrase such as, "you left your brain at kindergarten today," was a riposte worth voicing?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Lastly why would anyone think that a phrase such as, "you left your brain at kindergarten today," was a riposte worth voicing?"

    Why would anyone think that a strawman and red herring factory like you would come up with anything worthy of attention?

    Jesus Edski, you never stick to the topic. You're a troll. And it's starting to get a little irritating.

    ReplyDelete
  10. J.P. HOLDING: "For years I have been 'attacked' by atheists who have never 'properly introduced' themselves."

    I could say the same about being "attacked," and for more "years." But by Christians. (I started having discussions on the internet in the early 1980s--the Prodigy network.)

    The first time I ran across something composed by J.P. Holding it was an article published in The Skeptical Review. Perhaps it was the first article of J.P.'s that Farrell Till ever published. Not nearly as fiery as the situation would grow between then over the years, and both seemed to have introduced themselves to one another.

    The next time I recall reading something by JP was after the Secular Web began critiquing Josh McDowell's ETDV. I don't recall JP introducing himself to each contributor to the Secular Web's project before commenting on their chapters. He was willing to forgo cordialities. Neither did he link to their chapters in his online critiques, but he let everyone know about his critiques as they appeared, so as to generate hits at his site, but no hits out. Or perhaps because infidels don't deserve the benefit of a link. The strategy worked for him and he kept it up.

    JP's first general apologetics book was titled Blowing the Doors Off.

    JP hands himself virtual trophies, imagining he "wins" every debate.

    In an earlier incarnation of his Tektonics website, instead of the cartoon image of a professor there used to appear a photo of a Klingon preaching from behind a pulpit.

    And the "dove" represents to JP not peace or tranquility or relative harmlessness (when compared with serpents and wolves), but rather he interprets the parable of the serpent vs. the dove in Jesus' teachings to leave plenty of room for righteous violence for the sake of purity of truth.

    I suspect that JP has made a name for himself on the web via attacks and counterattacks ad infinitum (making "getting in the last word" a 24 hour duty in fact), and would like to be admired both for being a verbal pugalist and a scholar. Rather than chose a single path he has chosen a hybrid one. He seems to imagine he's the most imaginative wit since Paine, Voltaire and Twain, and a master punster.

    But JP also admires Christian writers and evangelists like Chuck Colson, Kennedy and Piper, who do not complain so much about "being attacked," even though they have had people pick apart their arguments and beliefs. Partly I think it's because those men tend to attack targets like "Darwin," or "higher criticism," without naming names.

    Lastly, I will say this about the whole John Loftus vs. JP Holding farago, that so far John has not mentioned JP Holding in any of John's published works. But JP Holding has contributed apparently to two books aimed precisely at John Loftus, his life, his loves, and everything else Loftus.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Truth be Told, Nice riposte. You think I'M irritating. And you have a website site and two books devoted to one single human being, John Loftus.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Truth be Told, Nice riposte. You think I'M irritating. And you have a website site and two books devoted to one single human being, John Loftus."

    I don't know what's worse Edski. The site or the fact that you TROLL it, and deliberately, I might add.

    And what do you propose we name this name, Edski? Let's see:

    Debunking Atheism? Taken.

    Debunking Atheists? Taken. Enough with this agenda stuff already.

    Debunking Crap? Oh wait, no, that's taken too!

    Debunking Skepticism? "Whaaaaaaa?"

    Debunking Debunking Christianity? Taken. And too long.

    I have something for you Edski the Troll: Come up with an alternative name for this blog that hasn't been done over already and doesn't have a Christian overtone too it. And I might change the name of this blog altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Lastly, I will say this about the whole John Loftus vs. JP Holding farago, that so far John has not mentioned JP Holding in any of John's published works."

    Oh Ed, your claims would hold more weight if it weren't for the fact that John says he ignores us. In reality, he peers from behind the bushes.

    "It's not stalking if you're not seen!"

    ReplyDelete
  14. To Ed "I'm Talking and I Can't Shut Up" Dumbinski:

    "it was an article published in The Skeptical Review."

    No one cares about your pitiful life experiences, Edski, but FYI: Till reprinted that article WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Given McGrath's latest traipse through the same moral sewer of intellectual property infringement, that's rather ironic.

    "both seemed to have introduced themselves to one another."

    No, we didn't. Unless you mean the time he called my house to make an unnecessary, harassing phone call and got his ears burned off by my beloved Mrs H.

    "but he let everyone know about his critiques as they appeared, so as to generate hits at his site, but no hits out."

    Whatever that incoherency was supposed to mean. But don't look at me, Edski; I didn't own or code the site that was on at the time, and I didn't "let everyone know" anything myself.

    "Or perhaps because infidels don't deserve the benefit of a link. The strategy worked for him and he kept it up."

    True, you trailer park scholars don't deserve anything. But as for what it "worked" I have no quantifiable measure for anything it "worked" to do externally and no other purpose in it other than to show you rubes the intellectual contempt you richly deserve.

    "JP's first general apologetics book was titled Blowing the Doors Off."

    That's nice. So what? FWIW I didn't choose the title, it was chosen by the head of a local ministry who had always dreamed of having such a book done.

    "JP hands himself virtual trophies, imagining he 'wins' every debate."

    And you sure don't do much to show I don't. Cowering in your corner and rambling at 5000 words per minute won't help.

    "In an earlier incarnation of his Tektonics website, instead of the cartoon image of a professor there used to appear a photo of a Klingon preaching from behind a pulpit."

    And it worked just as I intended in scaring you and making you look silly commenting on it. ;)

    "serpent vs. the dove in Jesus' teachings to leave plenty of room for righteous violence for the sake of purity of truth."

    And you're no more adept at showing I'm wrong about that than anyone else, which is why all you can do is comment and posture as here.

    "I suspect that JP has made a name for himself on the web via attacks and counterattacks ad infinitum"

    Sorry, but the "name" recognition has come from people who say they appreciated the detailed scholarship in places like the Tacitus article. OTOH the Coulter mode has done well to attract popular support. I manage the best of both worlds that way.

    "(making 'getting in the last word' a 24 hour duty in fact)"

    No, as bad as your material is, it's more like a 10 minute duty.

    "He seems to imagine he's the most imaginative wit since Paine, Voltaire and Twain, and a master punster."

    Haven't got any idea where I'd rate in there, but I'm sure millions of places ahead of you in terms of wit. But heck, a tomato slug is that far ahead of you in wit too.


    "Partly I think it's because those men tend to attack targets like 'Darwin,' or 'higher criticism,' without naming names."

    Nope. I would rather people DO name names so I can go out and look up their material.

    "But JP Holding has contributed apparently to two books aimed precisely at John Loftus, his life, his loves, and everything else Loftus."

    As TBT noted, that's a sham on John's part. But Edski is so narrow in his horizons that he doesn't notice that Johnny and friends has actually occupied less than 1% of my time this year. It seems that he and Lofty have the same "ego problem" in thinking it's all about THEM.

    Get back to work, Edski. You have books that need labels.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mister Groyser Tsuleyger Holding,

    So you like playing the dozens, eh? My people would have you stammering and near tears in sight of five minutes.

    I checked some videos. I can see why you stay in Smallfryville. You have no personality. Because you know you're a fraud.

    You boast about how special you are but do you even make a living at this?

    Ten years. You must be a trust fund baby.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I checked some videos. I can see why you stay in Smallfryville. You have no personality. Because you know you're a fraud."

    Care to share with us what those videos are?

    ReplyDelete
  17. >>>So you like playing the dozens, eh? My people would have you stammering and near tears in sight of five minutes.

    Your people? Who might that be, little girl, your collection of Cabbage Patch dolls?

    >>>I checked some videos. I can see why you stay in Smallfryville. You have no personality. Because you know you're a fraud.

    If only she knew just how deep in her mouth her foot was... :D

    I suspect she saw those vids I did for Forerunner, TBT, It would never occur to someone like her who's been watching cartoons all her life that "no personality" is the persona you're supposed to use for a documentary.

    >>>You boast about how special you are but do you even make a living at this?

    Don't you wish you did? Or that you HAD a life for that matter?

    Keep that foot in place...more will join it if you keep going.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If the little girl does not answer this question, any further postings of hers here to me will be deleted. Then if she persists, I'll go back and delete prior postings of hers.

    Question:

    Other critics say I am a "coward" if I refuse to engage "small fry". You say I should not engage them. Explain why you are right and they are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. J.P.,To correct your misrepresentation of what I wrote. I claimed that you made sure you always got in the last word, working overtime to do so. That goes for you and everyone with whom you've dialogued, not just John. I also said that there was a blog and two books contra Loftus, not that you spent much time writing them. God knows anyone can tell just reading them that you did not. Now go act like the vicious Christian dove you pride yourself on being, and stick your pecker in your own bloody ear till you drool out another bucket of holy riposte.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was tempted to trash Edski's last post for the language but I figure hey...since we've peeled away the veneer and shown what the real Edski is like, we'd better keep it up. In fact I'll repost it below in case he tries to deny and erase it.

    Sure suits the deviant Edski is that I've heard about from other sources close to him.

    As for an answer:

    Edski, quit trying to re-interpret what you wrote after the fact. That's the same mentality you used to make excuses for the Bible when you claimed to be a Christian.

    Now here's a repeat in case he tries to erase/deny it:

    "J.P.,To correct your misrepresentation of what I wrote. I claimed that you made sure you always got in the last word, working overtime to do so. That goes for you and everyone with whom you've dialogued, not just John. I also said that there was a blog and two books contra Loftus, not that you spent much time writing them. God knows anyone can tell just reading them that you did not. Now go act like the vicious Christian dove you pride yourself on being, and stick your pecker in your own bloody ear till you drool out another bucket of holy riposte."

    By the way, Sheila says you're too much of a wuss to date her. :D

    ReplyDelete
  21. Since the little girl has refused to answer, I will slowly delete her comments as promised.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The question is more ambiguous than its presentation suggests. Perhaps you can restate it more clearly for me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. That's just an excuse.

    Two more messages get deleted.

    ReplyDelete

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.