I see that his publisher has posted the table of contents for John Loftus’ magnum opus: Why I Rejected Christianity.
After the ubiquitous autobiographical filler, we get to his “cumulative” case, which consists of the following topics:
The Outsider Test For Faith…
Faith and Reason
The Christian Illusion of Rational and Morality Superiority
Does God Exist?
The Problem of Unanswered Prayer
The Lessons of Galileo, Science and Religion
Science and Creation
Science and Genesis 1-11
The Strange and Superstitious World of the Bible
-Pseudonymity in the Bible
-Archaeology, the Exodus, and the Conquest
Historical Evidence and Christianity
Do Miracles Take Place?
The Self-Authenticating Witness of the Holy Spirit
Was Jesus Born of a Virgin in Bethlehem?
“The Passion of the Christ”: Why Did Jesus Suffer?
Did Jesus Bodily Rise From the Dead?
The Devil Made Me Do It!
Hell? No!
Prophecy and Biblical Authority
The Problem of Evil
The Achilles Heel of Christianity
Then, after some more autobiographical padding, we have some appendices, including:
The Pharisees: Were They That Bad?
A few quick observations:
1.What we have are a series of stock objections to the Christian faith, viz. faith & reason, the Euthyphro dilemma, unanswered prayer, science and the Bible, ancient superstition, pseudonymity, the argument from silence, the possibility of miracles, the “myth” of God Incarnate, the Resurrection, hell, prophecy, the problem of evil, the new perspective on Paul, &c.
Clearly he has no original objections to level against the Christian faith. Just a bunch of warmed over, mouse-eaten scraps and leftovers of a bygone era.
2.For those of us who bother to monitor his blog offerings, there is obviously a good deal of duplication between his book and his blog.
And, indeed, what we’ve witnessed at his blog is not a cumulative case for atheism, but the cumulative unraveling of his case as every major argument of the Debunkers is shot down as soon as it pops its head above ground.
3.Also, if you glance at the pagination you’ll see how skimpy the treatment is on many major issues, viz. existence of God, pseudonymity, prophecy, archeology, miracles, &c.
Entire books have been written on each of these subjects. Entire books on just one aspect of each subject.
4.Needless to say, Loftus is hardly an expert on all these issues. He’s not a scientist or archaeologist.
A word of advice: save your money.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMock if you wish Steve, but I'm not only going to destroy a few of your fellow weak-minded Christians, but I'm going to make a few bucks doing it too. Once the general reading public gives my few paragraphs on each topic a quick skim, Christianity will no longer even be thought of as a legitimate world religion. Churches will close, people will see the light, unbelief will rule the day! AAhhhhaahahaha *cough* *cough*........anyway, I thought you might like to read what I put on the dedication page, "To Steve Hays, my ignorant widdle Christian apologist rival, the enemy of all the faithless, I dedicate this book. You have inspired me to organize all my blog entries and at least make some money in this meaningless empty life. Thanks, buddy."
ReplyDeleteI know, touching isn't it? Well, I owe it all to you! Ha Ha...
who wants to bet that "wrightsaid" is either loftus or babinski?
ReplyDeleteNo birdman argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIt has to make the next tome.
Squawk Squawk, Baby
At the risk of stating the obvious, Loftus has been plugging his book with a link to the publisher.
ReplyDeleteIf you follow the link, it will take you to some excerpts, including the table of contents, a forward by Babinski, and an autobiographical intro by Loftus.
This is clearly a come-on, giving the prospective buyer reasons to purchase this title. So I’m simply answering Loftus on his own level.
If these teasers should be treated as potential reasons to buy the book, then they should be treated as potential reasons not to buy the book.
It cuts both ways.
Beyond that, as I also pointed out, Loftus has a blog. And this gives us ample opportunity to sample the quality of his argumentation. I do so on a regular basis.
So I can’t be accused of shirking my apologetic duties.
But by the same token, why should I buy something when I can get it for free?
If the quality of argumentation on his blog is so rotten, why should I invest in his book? Same topics. Same arguments.
To the extent that he’s recycling his book material on his blog, what more do I need to know?
Or are you saying that Loftus puts all the crummy arguments on his blog, but saves the good stuff for his book?
Now, that would certain explain the quality of his blog.
Thank you Wrightsaid, I'm glad to see that someone takes notice of superior apologetics, even if it isn't from his side of the fence. And I do appreciate that you mentioned that I studied under Willaim Lane Craig--not enough people know that, you know. Hey, we have a spot open at DC, so if you ever have any doubts or come to your senses about this Christianity thing, please let me know. You sound like a good candidate for our staff...
ReplyDeleteyou know wrightsaid, no one is taking you seriously because you're clearly lying about being a Christian and you're cleary partisan in this instance.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows the "W" in John W. Loftus stands for "William Lane Craig."
ReplyDelete"I have respect for Steve Hays as an intelligent man (which means I can't be anyone from DC)"
ReplyDeleteFunny, John Loftus has said the same thing before.
John, you're a real hoot, sqwak sqwak!
"I welcome a serious investigation into the questions that I myself as a highly trained apologist could not answer to my own satisfation."
ReplyDeleteLOL!
John, I'll review your book if you send me a free copy.
ReplyDeleteWrightsaid:
ReplyDeletethe table of contents or the bibliography of your new publication, This Joyful Eastertide
This Joyful Eastertide isn't a 'publication,' and Steve has hardly made this work the marking stick that Loftus has made his. Loftus' book, additionally, is widely promoted among the DC crowd, and considered to be the reference point for many issues.
While you stand amused at the table of contents, others haved moved to the meat of the book and perhaps discovered questions they cannot answer.
If they discover 'questions they cannot answer' in this work, then it was probably unwise for them to read it in the first place. So either way Steve does the church a service: he both keeps strong Christians from spending their money on this work and prevents weak Christians from stumbling. In other words, the book isn't significant enough to stock your library (why eat the regurgitation when you can have the original?), but also not helpful to biblically uninformed Christians.
Philosophically speaking, they provide a key to the rest of the cummulative argument
So would you say that Loftus, given his understanding, was justified in his rejection of Christianity?
As our GOD is a GOD of reason, then those among us who are truly superior in intellect to the atheists who write such books have an obligation to respond well if they are to respond at all.
There's a difference between responding and not buying. I don't believe Steve's point in this post was, "Everybody, offer bad responses, now!"
though not so much as to encourage anyone to think that buying the book would be a waste of time
From a Christian standpoint, who, exactly, would the book benefit?
that really is a bit much given that you did not simply decide, in private, to ignore the work but told your readers it really was, in itself, a waste of time
The teaser wasn't a private teaser but a public one. So Steve's response was a public response.
It makes his work appear spread too thin
Spread too thin for a blog that interacts with many topics?
I do not agree that this is what Mr. Hays has done here.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, that wasn't the purpose of this post. If you think that able apologists should take the time to examine works from an opposing position and refute them, then I agree!
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your criticism of Loftus' attempt to market and promote his book
Don't forget that I was responding to a comment you made about Steve's This Joyful Eastertide. So I was responding to you on your own grounds, showing how a comparison cannot be drawn. If Loftus' book is supposed to be the marking stick for leaving Christianity, and yet we are given nothing either unique or substantial, then what is the point?
This is a curious way of reasoning. So, the burgeoning apologist should not investigate any criticisms of the faith until he (or she) can answer them all?
You took my statement out of context. I was referring to weak Christians. You yourself agree that the work of apologetics, or at least extensive apologetics, is reserved for those, in your own words, who "have a calling" for that.
Let's not forget that I had divided the church into two groups, both of which Steve's post benefited. It benefits strong Christians from spending their money, and weak Christians from confusion.
Now, without examining a single page, how would Mr. Hays know that the book "isn't significant enough to stock" or that it is a "regurgitation"?
I'm not sure how familiar you are with Triablogue, but we have been responding to John Loftus on a daily basis since last winter (or so). That is quite a few responses to his work and the work of his cohorts. So we are well acquainted with the nature of his arguments. Now, are you really telling me that Loftus argues one way when he is conversing with Christians, but saves all of his good arguments for his book, never to be disclosed unless one pays the $19.95?
But, aside from this, there are two reasons for even sophisticated Christians to have the book.
The reasons you list may indeed be benefits of the book. But they're beside the point of Steve's post. The premise for this post was "Why spend the $19.95 when you can get it for free?"
Mr. Hays may say, “Bah, that’s been refuted,” but that’s not an answer anyone can use, especially when he’s never read what he’s denying, unless everyone is now to take Mr. Hays as inspired
Again, Steve was responding to the teasers (and Loftus' promotion) on their own grounds. If the teaser promotes it as new and earth-shattering, and yet that same teaser has us reject such a notion...
If anything, others might be encouraged to take the atheist case more seriously after witnessing such a display of empty preening on our side.
Oh please. We can do without this nonsense.
You're reading way too much into this post. This is a blog post, half-serious, half-tongue-in-cheek, written about a book teaser. This never claimed to be a refutation of Loftus' book.
The teaser was at least written by those who had read the book before rendering their opinion on its contents
And, again, the purpose of the teaser is so that the reader may create an opinion of the book before buying it.
You emphasized the word “blog” as though it provided some measure of immunity
Measure of immunity from what? From having your work spread too thin? For writing about various topics?
Certainly, a blog does not free a Christian from good character. But it shouldn't be criticized in the way a doctoral dissertation would be.
Yes, Steve, my argumentation is getting deeper and deeper and deeper, so deep that I'm going to bring everyone down into that black abyss with me. On my blog I write things on the fly, because I think if there was a God He should have made us with wings (but we've already gone over that one) anyway, my book is the real thing because I actually had some serious "me" time, so that I could thoughtfully reflect upon my meaningless life. It's great to only live for the moment, yeah, woohoo! Steve-O.....
ReplyDeleteAnd CalvinDude, the "W" stands for "Wooohooo!"...
ReplyDeletewrightsaid,
ReplyDeleteAt this point, we have both expressed our perspectives. So I'm not sure if it would benefit either one of us to drag this out further.
I very much appreciate your motive: you want to be fair. You want to be scholarly. You want to 'do all things to the glory of God.' I greatly appreciate this.
So I'll just respond to a few of your statements:
isn't that precisely what Dr. James White is always complaining about in his detractors
Since I get to witness this on a regular basis, I know that Dr. White's exasperation comes from Roman Catholics (or other opponents) who speak publicly about him but barely know his name and have only heard gossip about him. They haven't read his works, aren't familiar with his articles, and know little of his character.
But I think that is hardly analogous to this situation, in which we are very familiar with John Loftus, and in which he is also very familiar with us.
Further, this is an objection which deals with the content of a book which Mr. Hays has never read
The table of contents contains chapters with titles identical to titles of articles I have read on Loftus' blog. Yes, I'm sure the "Outsider Test" is more eloquently presented in the book, but I doubt the basic construct of the argument is any different. If anything, the articles on the blog should be better than those in the book (at least in substance) because they are newer and Loftus has been able to think more deeply about them.
he chooses to now review works he's never read on the basis of sloppy inductive assumptions he would not appreciate being the victim of.
Again, you need to respect genre. For someone who is arguing that responses should be framed from a well-informed understanding of the opposing side, you sure are sloppy when it comes to understanding this post that you are responding to. What was the purpose of this post? It wasn't a 'review.' It wasn't even entirely serious. This post is nothing more than it claims to be: an initial teaser response to the teaser we are presented.
but I do believe that Christ cannot be glorified without a good measure of godly discipline
I appreciate the concern, and recognize that we can all grow.
I read John's book and found it enlightening.
ReplyDeleteTake that as you will.