most <\/em>religious traditions. Rational discourse is endangered when people accept flawed heuristics, whether the particular claim is \u2018God did it\u2019 or \u2018some children were diagnosed with autism after vaccination, therefore parents should opt out.\u2019 Taking any of these seriously when they lack evidence hurts discourse.<\/p>\nAnd that brings me to the heart of my problem with John\u2019s approach. Although he has helped evangelicals leave the faith, and I\u2019m glad for that, I don\u2019t think his approach does much to promote rationality and reasoned discourse. By focusing exclusively on the intellectually weakest opponents, Loftus need not offer a truly compelling case for atheism, only a dichotomy between atheism and a particularly weak, albeit destructive, vision of Christianity paired with some simple defeaters for a wrongheaded faith.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s put this a different way: many viewers of Fox News hold views that are unambiguously false and patently absurd. And, especially after Tuesday, it\u2019s beyond question that, in a democracy, these misguided views pose a danger to our side and our values. If my goal is only to deal with the danger of their votes, it doesn\u2019t matter how I try to decrease turnout, whether by pointing out factual inaccuracies or by engaging in actual voter suppression by paying them not to vote.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m still achieving my base objective, and if I\u2019m correct that mine is the side of truth, I am helping my opponents by preventing them from voting for policies and politicians that would hurt them and everyone else. But, in either case, I am not giving them the chance to improve themselves. I am shunting them over to my side by discrediting my opponents, without encouraging people to consider all the evidence, even though I do<\/em> believe it\u2019s in my favor. I\u2019m not strengthening my opponent\u2019s ability to reason rationally, merely engineering a betrayal so they\u2019ll turn their loyalty to me instead.<\/p>\nThis is a valid short-term maneuver, but it does demonstrate complete contempt for the other side in a way I believe to be unproductive for Christians and atheists. By not addressing stronger opponents, even if they are less politically dangerous, Loftus does atheism a disservice, especially given his prominence in the skeptical community.<\/p>\n
About which, more in part 2<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/4256452356987023523-5912345410522693866?l=www.unequally-yoked.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"