![\"\"](\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_b7Eh98KJ_qI\/TRPWBFt51EI\/AAAAAAAABLo\/SKoI2Jz-LWE\/s1600\/loftus.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nSome time ago, prominent atheist (and ex-Christian minister) John Loftus and I had a bit<\/em> of a disagreement<\/a> about the best way to debate Christians. \u00a0Loftus said then that critics should wait to draw conclusions until he had the full list of questions posted. \u00a0They\u2019re up<\/a>.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve posted the list below with some comments interpolated in bold. \u00a0If you want me to expand on one, say so in the comments, but I can only comment to a point, since I don\u2019t know what kind of evidence either side is planning to muster. \u00a0And I\u2019d love to hear from Christian readers if you\u2019ve struggled with any of Loftus\u2019s questions or if his interlocutor is asking the questions that you\u2019d put to an atheist. \u00a0Here we go\u2026<\/p>\n Who is this god and what did he command?<\/strong><\/p>\n I still think Old Testament attacks are of limited utility. \u00a0Plenty of Christians have plausible enough defenses (some books are historically unverified, God was laying law down specifically for Jews at that time that was not meant as universal law, etc). \u00a0Many Christians have higher levels of confidence in the New Testament, and are unlikely to be phased by OT problems. \u00a0For total\u00a0literalists, this line of attack makes more sense, but it\u2019s not always worth arguing with them. \u00a0If they are completely ignorant of the content of the Bible, perhaps, but, if not, the argument can feel like a fight with Bre\u2019er Rabbit. \u00a0Every time you try to throw a reductio ad absurdum<\/em>, they\u2019re delighted you finally understand their position.<\/p>\n God does not care:<\/strong><\/p>\n Anyone who believes about human exceptionalism can\u2019t be expected to get too upset about that last one. \u00a0I\u2019ve heard Christian defenses of #1 (Paul isn\u2019t expected to completely transcend his time, etc). I\u2019m not always satisfied, but I also can\u2019t claim that it\u2019s my main objection to Christianity. Number 2 appeals more to me, both for the obvious reason, and because it\u2019s a question that modern Christians need to address on a day-to-day basis, rather than a problem of finding historic justifications for past actions.<\/p>\n God is ignorant:<\/strong><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know what kind of argument Loftus is going to make in these sections. \u00a0I assume #2 is about the way Jesus\u2019s apostles had the impression that the Second Coming would occur in their lifetimes, \u00a0which does seem problematic. \u00a0He may have a different target in mind, though.<\/p>\n I\u2019m less confident about #1, because, usually when I\u2019ve seen these kinds of attacks, they\u2019re about Genesis descriptions not corresponding well to the Big Bang, and Christians tend to cry \u201cMetaphor!\u201d or \u201cLimited Understanding of the Mortal Transcriber of God\u2019s Word!\u201d (Admittedly, the second is more of a mouthful. \u00a0But, again, I\u2019m not really sure what the target is, so I could be totally off base.<\/p>\n God is incompetent:<\/strong><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know where these are going at all and my guesses are too wide ranging to speculate (problem of evil, maybe?). \u00a0I\u2019ll just place a bet now that \u2018ineffable plan\u2019 comes up somewhere in the answer.<\/p>\n So far Randal\u2019s first three topics (i.e., canards) are:<\/p>\n That last is obviously stupid. \u00a0The contention atheists make is that some religious people try to use faith as a substitute for science, not that science has anything to say about religion (besides that some of its empirical claims are empirically false.<\/p>\n As for the first two, they are more interesting. \u00a0The trouble is, that this argument never seems to get resolved, since both sides have different standards of what is required for a valid grounding of morality. \u00a0(Or whether it\u2019s necessary to fully understand the metaphysics to be able to understand moral law and act accordingly).<\/p>\n Some time ago, prominent atheist (and ex-Christian minister) John Loftus and I had a bit of a disagreement about the best way to debate Christians. \u00a0Loftus said then that critics should wait to draw conclusions until he had the full list of questions posted. \u00a0They\u2019re up. I\u2019ve posted the list below with some comments interpolated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5],"tags":[211],"class_list":["post-274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atheism","category-debatetactics","tag-loftus"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n