Shifting the blame

Loftus: “But you have to resort to this reasoning way too often when it comes to so many questions, I believe, that it's more reasonable to deny the Bible--but that's me.”

i) Actually, I gave four different reasons, of which this was just one.

ii) Either the Bible is what it claims to be (the word of God), or else it is not.

If it is the word of God, then one can never resort to it too often. Divine revelation is the gold standard of truth.

If the Bible is not the word of God, then one should never turn to it.

So I reject your quantitative criticism on either count.

“And I have noticed that there is an exacting correspondence between the way Christians behave which is in keeping with my belief that there is no Holy Spirit guidance, power, or fruits. They act no different from those who do not believe.”

i) You need to spell out what you mean.

ii) There’s also an exacting correspondence between the way which Scripture describes or predicts Christian behavior of Christians, and the way they actually behave.

I said: “iii) There are some very intelligent unbelievers who go to desperate lengths to deny the obvious or silence dissent in order to justify their unbelief.”

He said: “And Christians don't? Kettle, meet black pot. Pot, meet black kettle. Call each other black all you want.....”

I said: “This evasiveness and irrationality is a telltale symptom of a guilty, haunted conscience.”

He said: “This evasiveness and irrationality of believers is a telltale symptom of a belief motivated by fear and ignorance.....”

Actually, there is only a partial parallel, and it is parallel where you’d expect it to be parallel.

Christians who are not very bright or astute may well resort to the same behavior.

However, I don’t find that pattern among Christian intellectuals, whereas I do find that pattern among secular intellectuals.

Astute Christians sometimes indulge in special pleading or blacklisting when they defend their particular theological tradition, but when it comes to defending Christianity in general, sophisticated believers do not, as a rule, resort to special pleading, whereas some of the most brilliant unbelievers are the very ones who, in their fanatical commitment to secularism, become quite irrational or evasive.

I’m thinking of things like eliminative materialism or the refusal to brook any dissent on the possibility that evolution might be mistaken, caricatures of the ID movement, and fact-free arguments for evolution (e.g. computer simulations).

Besides, you need more than moral equivalence to make your case for atheism.

I said: “iv) There are also unbelievers who are quite open about how their ethical or political agenda is driving their unbelief.”

He said: “Ethical and political agenda? Are you aware of the Christian Right in America?

Where's that black pot.....”

Notice how his reply is unresponsive to my statement.

It was not merely a matter of having an ethical or political agenda, but rather, having an ethical or political agenda which is “driving their unbelief.”