John W. Loftus said:
Thank you. This let's the reader know the perspective of the reviewer. Now you should probably also explain why others have reviewed my book differently. The question is whether or not you've read the same book they have.
By Dr. James Sennett, “Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe.
By David Van Allen, "This book is an absolute 'must have' for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion.”
Matthew J. Green, “This book is one of the best introductory texts on the philosophical problems with Christianity I have read."
Richard Carrier, “The logic of it is insurmountable, in my opinion, even by a so-called reformed or 'holy spirit' epistemologist."
Yes, it does indeed sound as if they read a different book than I did. And that’s because, as I explained at the outset, I chose not to comment on the biographical sections of his book.
Clearly these reviewers are commenting on a different part of his book, a part which I myself did not review.
And I know exactly what they’re referring to. You see, Loftus raises one atheological objection which is so devastating that it left me speechless and shaken to the very core of my fragile faith.
But now that Loftus has exposed me for the biased reviewer than I am, I have no alternative but to fess up and come clean.
The technical name for this objection is the argumentum ad femme fatalum.
As Loftus puts it:
"I was having problems with my own relationship with my wife at the time, and Linda made herself available. I succumbed and had an affair with her."
"There’s so much more I’d like to say about this, but few people would believe me. I believe she was a con artist, and she conned me. As a former stripper she had it in for preachers, and she took out her wrath on me…Why did God test me by allowing her to come into my life when she did? All of this devastated me” (22-23).
As you can see, this example raises the problem of evil to the very pitch of inscrutability. If God is both benevolent and omnipotent, how could he allow this painted woman to force herself on his helpless servant?
How could such a God ever allow a scarlet woman like Linda to take advantage of an unwilling victim like Loftus?
Even without Bill Curry attempting to quantify this objection in terms prior probabilities, the level of scholarly sophistication and insurmountable logic is utterly crushing.
Only a blind fideist could continue to believe in a God who permits defenseless men to be exploited by the untoward advances of a wanton, man-eating seductress.