![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/09\/Loftus.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist<\/span> John W. Loftus<\/a> back in 2006. We dialogued about the<\/span> problem of evil<\/a>, and<\/span> whether God was in time<\/a>. During that period I also<\/span>\u00a0replied to an online version of his deconversion<\/a>: which (like my arguments about<\/span> God and time<\/a>) he didn\u2019t care for at all<\/a>. I\u2019ve<\/span> critiqued many<\/em> atheist deconversion stories<\/a>, and maintain a<\/span> very extensive web page about atheism<\/a>.\u00a0In 2007\u00a0I critiqued his \u201cOutsider Test of Faith\u201d series<\/a>: to which he gave no response.\u00a0Loftus\u2019 biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a<\/span> \u201cbrief testimony.\u201d<\/span> He wrote in December 2006 (his words in<\/span> blue<\/span> henceforth):<\/span><\/p>\n Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . .\u00a0I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . .\u00a0Do you accept my challenge?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:<\/span><\/p>\n If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I\u2019d be more than happy to critique it. I won\u2019t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . .\u00a0<\/span>You railed against that, saying that it was a<\/span> \u201chandout.\u201d<\/span> I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus\u2019 website, Debunking Christianity<\/em>,<\/span> no less than 35 times<\/a>. As of this writing, they remain<\/span> completely unanswered<\/a>. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison\u2019s, till Loftus decided I couldn\u2019t do that (after having<\/span> claimed that I \u201chate\u201d atheists<\/a> and indeed, everyone<\/em> I disagree with).<\/span> I replied at length<\/a> regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus\u2019 explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this:<\/span> \u201cWe know we can respond. It\u2019s just that we don\u2019t have the time to do so. Plus, it\u2019s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.\u201d He also claimed that Dr. Madison was<\/span> \u201cplanning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:<\/span><\/p>\n When the history of Christianity\u2019s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This was<\/span> underneath an article<\/a> where Loftus claimed:<\/span> \u201cI\u2019ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.\u201d<\/span> I hadn\u2019t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly<\/span> ten days later<\/a>: \u201cI cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n These last three cited statements put me \u201cover the edge\u201d and I decided to buy a used copy of his book,<\/span>\u00a0Why I Became an Atheist<\/em> <\/a>(revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover<\/span>, on 8-27-07<\/a> he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book:<\/span> \u201cI challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that\u2019s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.\u201d<\/span> His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret<\/em> it), and this will be my primary project (as a<\/span> professional apologist<\/a>) in the coming weeks and probably months. <\/span><\/p>\n Despite all his confident bluster, I fully\u00a0expect<\/em>\u00a0him to ignore my critiques. It\u2019s what he\u2019s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I\u2019m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and \u201cBible Basher\u201d Bob Seidensticker, who also<\/em> has ignored 35 of my critiques<\/a> (that he<\/em> requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually\u00a0defend<\/em> his views, I\u2019m here; always have been. And I won\u2019t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.<\/span><\/p>\n The words\u00a0of John Loftus <\/span>will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n John Loftus\u2019 chapter 2 is entitled, \u201cFaith, Reason, and My Approach to Christianity\u201d (pp. 39-63).<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s well beyond my purview and purpose in these critiques to tackle all of the various brands of philosophy of religion and strains and varieties of Christian apologetics. Reasonable Christians (and atheists) can differ in good faith about their relative strengths and weaknesses. <\/span><\/p>\n So I\u2019ll confine myself to what I think are outright misunderstandings of misrepresentations of\u00a0 Christian views: particularly as expressed in inspired Scripture. I agree with Loftus when he writes (p. 44):<\/span> \u201cI understand these are complex issues, which unfortunately, I can\u2019t devote the needed space to . . .\u201d He knows that this is a \u201clarge and lumpy\u201d area of thinking; so do I.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I maintain a very extensive<\/span> Philosophy, Science & Christianity web page<\/a>, if readers want to see how I argue various positions, and how I come down on all the internal differences about how to defend Christianity and larger theism. I summed up on Facebook \u2014 in a very \u201cnutshell\u201d way \u2014 my overall philosophy of religion:<\/span><\/p>\n My Opinion on \u201cProofs for God\u2019s Existence\u201d Summarized in Two Sentences<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n My view remains what it has been for many years: nothing strictly \/ absolutely \u201cproves\u201d God\u2019s existence. But<\/strong><\/em> . . .<\/span><\/p>\n I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In my first installment<\/a>, I noted how Loftus stated that \u201cI present a cumulative case argument against Christianity. . . . I consider this book to be one single argument against Christianity, and as such it should be evaluated as a whole<\/em>.\u201d (p. 15; his italics)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I replied:<\/p>\n That\u2019s exactly how I view my body of apologetics (50 books and over 2500 blog articles) in favor of Christianity and (in particular) the collection of diverse argumentation I have set forth in critique of atheism.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just as Loftus considers his overall case against Christianity long and multi-faceted and complex (laid out in<\/span> \u201cone single argument\u201d<\/span> in a densely argued 536-page book); likewise, I consider my case for Christianity and against atheism to be very multi-faceted and complex and only able to be fully understood with very extensive reading of my 2500+ articles and 50 books (not all, of course, but quite a few!). <\/span><\/p>\n What our views have in common is that we both regard them as<\/span> \u201ca cumulative case.\u201d<\/span> There is no one single argument on either side (I think he\u2019d agree, as I\u2019m pretty sure would most atheists and apologists and philosophers of religion) that is a \u201cknockout punch\u201d. Loftus agrees, on page 54:<\/span><\/p>\n When it comes to Christian apologetics, the best approach seems to be the cumulative case method<\/em> of the late Paul D. Feinberg . . . This best explains why there is no single apologetical approach that will cause people to convert, and it bets explains why there is no silver bullet argument that will convince believing Christians to abandon their faith.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Scientific evidence, the evidence of the senses, and reasoning based on this evidence is what counts. (p. 44)<\/span><\/p>\n [W]hen I came to see things differently, sufficient evidence derived from science-based reasoning became the only game in town, so to speak, . . . the scientific method is the best (and probably the only) reliable guide we have for gaining the truth . . . (p. 57)<\/span><\/p>\n Here is where Loftus runs into what I consider to be insuperable problems, and self-refuting tenets. What he just described is empiricism, which is the philosophical outlook that senses and observations of physical things allow us to discover facts and truth. It\u2019s fine as far as it goes (it\u2019s the fundamental basis of science), but it just doesn\u2019t go far<\/em> enough or explain everything<\/em>. There are many different ways of knowing (even mathematics and logic: both basic building-blocks of science, are axiomatic and non-empirical). We readily observe that this very sentence<\/em>\u00a0from Loftus is self-defeating:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) He makes an epistemological statement about<\/span> \u201cwhat counts\u201d<\/span>\u00a0[strongly implied, all<\/em> that counts] in determining truth.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) This very statement is not<\/em> empirical. It is strictly philosophical, or metaphysical: about the relative value or worth of empiricism<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n 3) But if empirical observations are all that we can trust, and all that \u201ccount\u201d, then his sentence has to be discounted<\/em>, since it is not an empirical observation.<\/span><\/p>\n 4) Ergo, it is self-defeating and self-refuting.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve dealt with this false, misguided, tunnel vision \u201cscience only\u201d or \u201cscientism\u201d mentality (very common in atheism) many times and from many different angles:<\/span><\/p>\n Atheist Myths: \u201cChristianity vs. Science & Reason\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(vs. \u201cdrunkentune\u201d) [1-3-07]<\/p>\n Reply to Atheist Scientist Jerry Coyne: Are Science and Religion Utterly Incompatible?<\/a>\u00a0[7-13-10]<\/p>\n Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science\u00a0[<\/a>8-1-10]<\/p>\n Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields<\/a>\u00a0[8-20-10]<\/p>\n Simultaneously Dumb & Smart Christians, Atheists, & Scientists<\/a>\u00a0[10-9-15]<\/p>\n Is Christianity Unfalsifiable? Is Empiricism the Only True Knowledge?\u00a0<\/a>[5-6-17]<\/p>\n Science, Logic, & Math Start with Unfalsifiable Axioms<\/a>\u00a0[1-6-18]<\/p>\n Science: \u201conly discipline that tells us new things about reality\u201d [???]: Scientism or Near-Scientism as a Very Common Shortcoming of Atheist Epistemology<\/a>\u00a0[8-9-18]<\/p>\n Rebuttal of Seidensticker\u2019s Anti-Christian Science \u201cHistory\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[8-11-18]<\/p>\n Exclusive Empirical Epistemology?: Dialogue w Atheist<\/a>\u00a0[2-25-19]<\/p>\n\nDialogue with Atheist: Are Christians \u201cUnscientific\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[5-27-19]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI have never thought that Pascal\u2019s wager was a particularly strong argument: if an argument at all<\/em>. But it is a clever thought experiment and something to definitely seriously consider. Again, this is beyond the purview of my purposes, so I\u2019ll pass. Though I love Pascal (and Alvin Plantinga, Kierkegaard, William Lane Craig, the Late Norman Geisler, gary Habermas, and others he mentions in this chapter), I\u2019m not here to defend every school and argument of the entire history of apologetics. I\u2019m already devoting what will be many hundreds of hours to this long project. My purpose is to critique errors I see in Loftus\u2019 own<\/em> views, per my titles: \u201cLoftus Atheist Error # . . .\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOn pages 50-51, Loftus develops an interesting (though thoroughly fallacious and weak)\u00a0<\/span>\u201cNew and Better Kind of Wager.\u201d <\/span>He reasons that it would be a better state of affairs if God asked us \u201cif we want to be born, knowing the risks involved\u201d<\/span><\/span>: including the calculus and consideration of a possibility of ending up in an eternal hell. \u201cWhy wouldn\u2019t God give us a choice in the matter? It seems unethical for him not to do so . . . If I were given the choice, I would simply say, \u2018No, count me out! Put me out of existence now.\u2019 \u201c<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThis stimulates several responses in my mind (which is a major reason why I absolutely\u00a0love<\/em>\u00a0dialogue and back-and-forth discussion: because it can do<\/em> that):<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n1) I think it\u2019s foolish to imagine and posit that he himself and many or most people would choose<\/em> to be annihilated<\/em> rather than to live a life on the earth. There is no good reason to believe this, that I can see. It\u2019s essentially the view that we would all commit suicide, given the choice in the beginning: except that it would be an assisted suicide, with God\u2019s help. I see no indication \u2014 by analogy of how relatively few people commit suicide in this world \u2014 that many folks would make this choice. <\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAnd if Loftus would have done so, then<\/em>, by his own reasoning (and a reductio ad absurdum<\/em>) he would have to argue that people (including he himself) should kill themselves\u00a0today<\/em>\u00a0(if they thought there was a God and a hell, or even that both might<\/em> exist), since the potentialities and hypotheticals remain the same. Atheist or no, the great bulk of people in the world are simply not that hopeless and nihilistic.\u00a0\u00a0Of course, Loftus doesn\u2019t believe in God, and all of this is a mere hypothetical and mind game. But he is attempting to make a reasoned argument against the biblical God, and this doesn\u2019t succeed in that purpose at all.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n2) I note in passing (consider this a \u201cfootnote\u201d) that it is highly ironic that a person who believes in legal abortion is making an argument that all of us: at the beginning of our existence, should be asked whether we want to live or not. To be consistent, the one who is pro-abortion and who has an abortion, would contradict this: all the more so in the atheist\u2019s case, since they eliminate the only life that baby will ever have (there being no afterlife). If Loftus thinks<\/span> \u201cit seems unethical for him [God]<\/span> not to do so\u201d<\/span> I don\u2019t see how he can possibly favor legal abortion, since it is radically anti-choice for the baby about to be killed (and in atheist metaphysics and ontology, annihilated and made nonexistent forever).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n3) I submit that it is absurd for God to ask a question of a human baby (which would presuppose that God temporarily gave them a mind that could reason enough to even have<\/em> such a momentous discussion) about these things, when there are so many unknown factors. Obviously, in Christian belief, God is omniscient, and He deems it a good thing for human beings to \u201cbe fruitful and multiply.\u201d For God, and for us Christians and pro-lifers, who consider life infinitely valuable and priceless, the very scenario is meaningless. Of course<\/em>, life and creation as a whole is good and wonderful, and it is better to exist than not to. This is virtually self-evident for all who haven\u2019t committed suicide, and the extremely strong instinct to preserve our own lives is evidence of it as well.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n4) In making his argument, Loftus smuggles in many notions that are false premises<\/em>, to start with: thus making his conclusion erroneous or at the very least, dubious and indefensible. <\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\na) He says<\/span> \u201cwe might not be raised in the right Christian family and might therefore be sent to hell because of it.\u201d<\/span> This is silly, simplistic argumentation. Granted, we all can have good or bad influences in many ways, that was beyond our choice.\u00a0 But in the end, the biblical view is that<\/span> each individual is given enough grace and power to be saved<\/a>, if they make that choice, and that each will be individually responsible:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
Ezekiel 33:17-20<\/strong> (RSV) \u201cYet your people say, `The way of the Lord is not just\u2019; when it is their own way that is not just. [18] When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. [19] And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it. [20] Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.\u2019 O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nRomans 14:10-12<\/strong>\u00a0Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;\u00a0\u00a0[11] for it is written, \u201cAs I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,\u00a0and every tongue shall give praise to God.\u201d\u00a0[12] So each of us shall give account of himself to God.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nWe\u2019re not sent to hell, so much as we choose<\/em> to go there, by rejecting God\u2019s free offer of grace for salvation and eternal life in heavenly bliss:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
Joshua 24:15<\/strong>\u00a0And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nb)<\/span> [T]he odds, according to most evangelicals anyway, are that most of the people who are born in this world will end up in hell.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFirst of all, Christian theology is not determined by a head count of evangelicals, but by Scripture and unbroken apostolic tradition, passed down. Appealing to what evangelicals think is silly on two levels: 1) it\u2019s the<\/span> genetic fallacy<\/a>, and 2) evangelicals are only a portion of Protestants, who are a small minority of all Christians, now and through history (they didn\u2019t even exist<\/em> until the 16th century).<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSecondly, the mainstream Christian position is that we simply don\u2019t know<\/em> how many end up in heaven and hell, proportionately. Jesus said:<\/span><\/div>\n