Ole' Yeller Strikes Again

For the new year John somehow thought it would be a great idea to re-post his "Outsider Test for Faith" with some additional updates. These key "changes" he makes are found in his recommendation for atheist and counter-Christian apologetics literature. And...once again, he isn't shy of speaking highly of his own published works, and putting them at the very beginning of his list of recommendations:

The problem this year is that I have five books published in five years and I cannot resist the supposition that my books are the best, sorry. Wouldn't you?

That depends on the criteria of comparison that is being used and just how intellectually honest a person is, John. It's all too easy to make the argument that your books are the best because they are your books.  And if you were to look at this with an honest lens, you would realize that it doesn't get much more complicated than this. You tell us (the readers) as the author of these groundbreaking books why they are the best. It isn't a matter of asking the readers if they would judge your books to be best if they were in your shoes or if they happen to be fans of your blog (though the only reason anyone could be a serious fan of yours would be for strictly entertainment purposes). What standard are you using to make such a statement? And why should I take it seriously?

In response Christians typically reply to this yearly challenge with their own list of books. So let me state for the record that I have probably read more Christian apologetics books and articles in 40 years then most of them will read their entire lives. So for comparison purposes, if a Christian apologist responds with such a list then tell us just how many atheist books you have read in comparison to me? I'd like to know. I've probably sold or thrown away more of them than you have read. I've probably read 300-350 Christian apologetical works and thousands of articles. 

Again John, you fail to realize that advertising what you view to be accomplishments and things of worthy note are not actual indicators of your credibility or even your smarts. Someone who continually speaks of their educational history in the manner in which you do would know better than to do that, especially if you are a philosopher. And as a philosopher, this shows your ignorance, tackiness, & carelessness that you would even employ such tactics.

Even if what you say is mostly true, none of this shows that you have a grasp or understanding of these read materials. For instance, I have read John Hick and one of my philosophy classes was based largely on his works. Your critique of Hick among other things glossed over some of his core arguments & contentions. So to say that you have read more than the average joe is not something that should be used to impress or inflate...but it is a dead give away as to how desperate & pathetic your want for recognition is. 

You might notice that there aren't any philosophical books on this year's list. That's because I only have respect for a scientifically based philosophy, that's why, although I value philosophy in general.

Another thing to be aware of here John...it also doesn't add to your case when you admit to being an asshole and having limited perspective when at the same time you tout your merits as a "philosopher." How on earth can you manage to criticize someone like Hick with scientific philosophy when their focus is epistemological & theological philosophy? Oh and by the way, I think it would be a really good idea if you decided to become better versed in ethics, because you could use some friend! 

Again, what do you have to lose?

Time & critical thinking skills???

NEXT...