Last year, John Loftus and some colleagues published a book titled The End Of Christianity (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2011). The back cover and inside endorsements describe the book as "the sharpest set of intellectual criticisms [of Christianity] found under the cover of a single volume", "tremendously useful", "superb", and "exceedingly well-researched". One endorser claims, "This book should win the game: Christianity, it's strike three and you are out!" Another tells us, "No collection better demonstrates how taking Christianity seriously reveals its all-too-human origin." We're told that "Loftus and his friends annihilate the Christian Goliath".
Steve Hays and I have written an e-book in response, which you can read here, titled The End Of Infidelity. We'd like to thank Peter Pike for editing it. We wouldn't have been able to release it so soon, and it wouldn't be so readable, without Peter's help.
Those of you who haven't read Loftus' book can find an overview of it here. You might want to read each chapter summary on the page I just linked before reading each of our chapter responses.
Steve and I most likely will have more to say about Loftus' book, especially if we get a response from the authors.
In one of his recent posts I made the following comment...
ReplyDeleteBesides, how can Christians be "impaled" on these horns if even you (John W. Loftus) said "It's Possible That Evangelical Christianity is the True Faith". That implies to me that you admit that 1. it's logically possible that Evangelical Christianity is true; 2. there is no evidence or argument against Evangelical Christianity (broadly speaking) that absolutely and necessarily makes Evangelical Christianity false. BTW, this is something I think you would have to have if you expect to win a debate against William Lane Craig (which you want so much to happen).
In his response, Loftus said
"...I think the chance of Christianity being true stands at about 0.00000000000000001."
Nevertheless, I find it interesting that (by his own seeming admission) he can't point to one piece of (e.g. inductive) evidence OR formulate one (deductive or inductive) argument that would totally rule out the possibility of the truth of Christianity.
Er, why should that be so interesting, pinoy? As far as I can see, we simply don't live in a world that allows us to "totally rule out the possibility" of any conceivable worldview, if we're honest about what words can do. But even if I can't "totally rule out the possibility" of Santa, or ufos, or Jesus, life goes on anyway.
ReplyDeletecheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Good job, guys. I look forward to reading this. Keep up the good fight.
ReplyDeleteSame. I really appreciate the excellent material you guys regularly make available for free.
ReplyDeleteBig thanks and many blessings to Triabloguers Steve Hays, Jason Engwer, and Peter Pike for writing this book in response to the atheists/apostates of Loftus, et al.
ReplyDeleteSome excellent thought in here. Thanks for taking the time, guys.
ReplyDeleteSteve, having just found out about it in "The End of Infidelity", I just finished your book review of Loftus' "Why I Rejected Christianity". Great book review!!! I can't wait to begin this new review and critique by you and Jason.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, you Triabloggers have been doing an ***epic*** and historical work for the Lord in your daily blogs and periodic book reviews/criticism [ I'm so jealous ;-) ]. I'm sure other regular readers of your blog think the same thing, but like me hesitate to say it because they don't want to make you guys blush. Though, I'm sure the eternal rewards for your sacrifices and efforts can't be diminished by the occasional praise of fellow Christians in the here and now. Keep up the great work!
I suspect you guys keep many young sheep from straying from the fold by your laborious efforts; as well as strengthening and informing the faith of many older (but not necessarily maturer) believers (myself included). Not to mention "shutting the mouths of obstreperous" anti-theists and anti-Christians.
Thanks again Jason, Steve and Peter for the new book. I trust it'll live up to the past quality and monumental nature of past Triablogger works. You guys exemplify the "earnestly" of Jude 1:3!!!
The "End of Infidelity" doesn't seem to mention these other Triablogger book reviews. So I'm posting them here for further reference.
ReplyDeleteSteve's review of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" (click here).
Steve's preliminary review of "The End of Christianity" (click here). It's an edited and condensed version of his parts of the above new review, "The End of Infidelity".
Paul Manata's audio review of Christopher Hitchens' book "god Is Not Great" on The Narrow Mind internet radio podcast. This link provides parts 1-8 (click here)
zilch said:
ReplyDeleteEr, why should that be so interesting, pinoy?
With the degree of bombast atheists often have and use against Christianity, one would think that they have irrefutably disproved Christianity. Yet, Loftus admits he can't disprove *Evangelical* Christianity. Even though, it's a conservative form of Christianity, and therefore (hypothetically) an easier position to refute precisely because it's not as nebulous as more liberal forms of Christianity. Maybe Loftus will change his position and claim that Evangelical Christianity can be refuted, but not Christianity in general. But as his statement stands, he seems to imply that there's no apparent Biblical or theological contradiction or discrepancy (e.g. historical and scientific) that would rule out with absolute certainty the truth of Evangelical Christianity.
As far as I can see, we simply don't live in a world that allows us to "totally rule out the possibility" of any conceivable worldview, if we're honest about what words can do.
Deductive arguments and the use of reductiones ad absurdum arguments can show some worldviews are false. For example, worldviews that claim there are no absolutes or truths. John Loftus is aware of the various deductive arguments employed in books like "The Impossibility of God" by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. Yet, he still doesn't think there's a knock down argument against Evangelical Christianity. I think that's good news for Evangelical Christians. You might not be that thrilled about it, but I wouldn't expect you to be.
But even if I can't "totally rule out the possibility" of Santa, or ufos, or Jesus, life goes on anyway.
The concept of "Santa" has it's origins in Christianity and was originally based on the life of Saint Nikolaos of Myra. Depending on the conception of Santa and the basis for such claims and beliefs, one could disprove the existence of "Santa" or at least show there's no evidence for such an entity. That's in contrast to the positive evidence that can be provided for Jesus and [sic] UFOs. I don't know what UFOs are, but I have my theories. Nevertheless the fact remains that Unidentified Flying Objects have been documented. UFOs aren't synonymous with extra-terrestrials. Also, even if E.T.s exist, that doesn't affect the truth of Christianity.
Yes, life goes on, but the implications of the truth of Christianity have greater ramifications than the reality of Santa or UFOs.
Steve and Jason,
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading this. Probably not for any reason you'd appreciate though. hehe
Annoyed Pinoy,
In the immortal words of Dumb and Dumber, "So you're sayin' there's a chance!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA It's "interesting" that Christians are so disinterested in a "probably correct" worldview.
Ben said...
ReplyDeleteIt's "interesting" that Christians are so disinterested in a "probably correct" worldview.
I don't understand what you're saying. Can you rephrase that or elaborate? Which worldview are you referring to and what about it?
I'm talking about the disconnect between abductive reasoning and ad hoc reasoning prevalent in Christian thinking (and really any system of thought that is predominantly just taken for granted for the sake of personal satisfaction rather than intellectual impartiality). There doesn't have to be a particular alternative worldview one is shooting for to recognize the poor justifications of a proposed worldview like Christianity. Hays' response to "agnosticism" is just to define it out of existence conveniently without telling us that he believes we all secretly know his basic worldview is true and are repressing it. Of course, he doesn't bother justifying that claim. Abductive reasoning is morally superior to ad hoc reasoning because ad hoc reasoning can justify literally anything and is therefore useless. Abductive reasoning harnesses the overall power of mutually converging lines of evidence and argument. While this does require the assumption of the uniformity of the universe and our experience, no one can claim to do better than that if they want to participate in the "truth game." Theists have to merely add even more assumptions to our basic experience bubble and they won't take responsibility for that on balance, because it knocks the wind out of their sails. I've already comprehensively responded to the philosophical underpinning claims the Triabloggers made about the 1st 4 chapters of The Christian Delusion that apply just as well to this ebook. Steve complains Loftus and friends didn't respond, but I sure did. He just gave up. http://war-on-error.xanga.com/727220775/book-review-the-christian-delusion---table-of-contents-for-my-review-part-1-of-5/
ReplyDeleteBen, I've gone on record many times saying I believe in using abductive arguments. see this post, and this post for proof.
ReplyDeleteMany other apologists use abductive arguments (inference to the best explanation). William Lane Craig uses it in his cummulative case for Christianity when he attempts to show that Christianity has the greatest explanatory power and explanatory scope. Ronald Nash advocated Abductive presuppositionalism and considered E.J. Carnell's Systematic Consistency/Coherency Presuppositionalism and Francis Schaeffer's Practical Presuppositionalism as examples abductive methods of apologetics. The problem with abductive arguments is that working hypotheses can still nevertheless be wrong. The classic example is how Newtonian physics can get a man to the moon and back even though one of the theories of Relativity (I forget if it's the Special or General theory) suggests that Newtonian physics is wrong. Axiomatic Presuppositionalist Gordon Clark used the example of how some veterinarians were curing milk fever by injecting Lugol into the udders of cows because of their theory that it was caused by bacteria. Yet, when a veterinarian ran out of Lugol and tried using boiled water, that seemed to cure it too. Same with the injection of air. Thus showing that working hypotheses can still be wrong.
Abductive reasoning is morally superior to ad hoc reasoning because ad hoc reasoning can justify literally anything and is therefore useless.
The Triabloggers, as well as regular commentators like myself know what Ad Hoc arguments are. You haven't demonstrated that Steve or Jason used ad hoc arguments, hypotheses or rationalizations. You've only asserted it so far in this [present] blog.
While this does require the assumption of the uniformity of the universe and our experience, no one can claim to do better than that if they want to participate in the "truth game."
But as Steve and other presuppositionalists have pointed out, the uniformity of nature isn't something you can just take for granted. You need a metaphysical foundation for the expectation of uniformity. Technically speaking, Christians believe in ordinary providence and special providence not the absolute uniformity of nature. Christianity can account for the epistemic presumption and metaphysical/ontological underpinnings of an orderly and predictable universe. Atheism has a difficult time doing that (if it can at all).
Theists have to merely add even more assumptions to our basic experience bubble and they won't take responsibility for that on balance, because it knocks the wind out of their sails.
Not serious apologists like Steve or Paul and the other Triabloggers. The fact is that atheists usually take for granted the uniformity of nature rather than be willing to account for its possibility or the presumption of it. Usually it's presumed for pragmatic reasons rather than rational ones.
See Paul's debate with Dan Barker
link 1 or
link 2
You claim you've "already comprehensively responded to the philosophical underpinning claims [of] the Triabloggers." That's up to the Triabloggers if they want to visit your site and interact with your statements there. Or you could engage them here yourself.
Ben, given (strong or weak) atheism isn't it possible that contingent (causeless), freak events happen as well as contingent beings pop into existence (causelessly)? If so, then it seems to me that reality is either 1. ultimately ordered 2. ultimately contingent or 3. partly ordered and partly contingent. On your atheism which of the three options do you believe and why? Why assume that the likelihood of you believing the right position (33%) is correct? Do you believe it for inductive reasons? Deductive reasons? Abductive reasons? Reductive reasons? Or a combination of those types of reasoning? Do you believe it for pragmatic reasons or do you attempt to rationally justify it?
ReplyDeleteBtw, if you affirm that some causeless contingent events happen (or can happen) in this world, then that calls into question any assumed order since contingent events are by definition unpredictable and uncontrollable (cannot be harnessed). In which case, a small amount of contingency "today", could potentially swallow up all of reality "tomorrow" (i.e. the fabric of space-time and so alter the past, present and future). Do you deny/affirm that the past changes? Do the apparent laws of nature change or remain the same? What's your answer to 1. the epistemic problem of induction as well as the 2. metaphysical problem of induction? Which theory of time do you subscribe to? The A-theory, or B-theory? Do you hold to presentism, possibilism, or eternalism? Why?
Note: For contingency, I could have used the word "chance" but the word is too ambiguous. It could refer to 1. metaphysical contingency, 2. mathematical probabilities, 3. our own ignorance of all the relevant factors, 4. coincidence, 5. randomness, 6. a power or entity that can determine things (sometimes called luck or fortune etc.) [something which Christians obviously deny].et cetera
With the degree of bombast atheists often have and use against Christianity, one would think that they have irrefutably disproved Christianity. Yet, Loftus admits he can't disprove *Evangelical* Christianity.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point here, pinoy? I personally don't know of any atheist who claims to have "irrefutably disproved Christianity", whatever that could mean. Maybe there are some, but Loftus would not seem to be among them. So what's your beef?
Deductive arguments and the use of reductiones ad absurdum arguments can show some worldviews are false. For example, worldviews that claim there are no absolutes or truths.
I guess you have a different definition of "truth" than I do. What's yours? As far as I can see, truths are descriptions or models, and such descriptions or models can only be "absolute" within circumscribed systems of symbolic logic, such a mathematics, where you can have, for instance, the absolute truth that 2+2=4 by definition, in Euclidean arithmetic. The concept of "absolute truth" is not applicable to the real world, as far as I can see, because of our limitations of knowledge.
Zilch, I have a last minute appointment with my financial adviser and I have to prepare my documents. So I don't have much time to respond. Quickly then....
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point here, pinoy?
I suspect you get my point and that you're trying to downplay the significance of Loftus' statement.
I personally don't know of any atheist who claims to have "irrefutably disproved Christianity", whatever that could mean. Maybe there are some...
Yes there are. For example, the well known atheist debater, and co-President of Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker. He considers himself a weak atheist when it comes to gods *in general*. But when it comes to the God of Christianity *in particular*, he repeatedly (in multiple debates and interviews) affirms he's a strong atheist. That's because he claims to have deductive arguments that prove the conceptions of 1. the Biblical God as well as 2. conservative/Evangelical Christianity's God (if they are or aren't the same) to have internal contradictions that make it impossible for such conceptions of God to be true. Therefore, (as he says), the Christian and/or Biblical God does not exist.
I guess you have a different definition of "truth" than I do. What's yours?
While there are various theories of truth (e.g. Coherence, Correspondence, Consensus, Constructivist, Pragmatic etc.), Evangelical Christianity isn't committed to any particular theory.
Though, from a theological perspective, in general, Christians believe that truth is that which corresponds (either analogically or univocally) to God's knowledge and thoughts (hence the phrase "thinking God's thoughts after Him").
The concept of "absolute truth" is not applicable to the real world, as far as I can see, because of our limitations of knowledge.
You say "our". Who are you to speak for the rest of us (or some "others") if you admit that *you* can't have absolute truth? You can only speak for yourself. Nor can you deny others the claim that they can and do have absolute truth, or else, it seems, you'll end up contradicting yourself.