June 2, 2010
-
(archive) How Not to Debunk John Loftus
In case some of my readers are unaware, I'm not just picking on John Loftus with my review of the Christian Delusion. I'm also actively defending him. Weird, huh? It's like there's a plus and a minus column to everyone n stuff. Loftus has made some embittered enemies over the years. While I'm sure it's partially from his immature behavior, that doesn't justify misrepresenting him. Loftus has been very open about his personal failings in his original book, "Why I Became an Atheist" and anti-Loftusian Christians have formed an anti-Loftusian group think narrative that would like to completely separate the emotional reasons of his deconversion from his intellectual reasons (to the extent that he must have no intellectual reasons). And they claim Loftus even admits this! Well not quite. They just lack reading comprehension.**actually, they're just really biased against him. I'm sure they read the Bible just fine.
So the following is my latest comment to one such Loftus Debunker.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett,Whoops, I totally let this thread get away from me. I do apologize. Anyway, if it's not too much trouble, I think I can point out where you may be going astray in your interpretation of Loftus. You said:
That kindergarten age of the universe argument doesn't intimidate anyone with an ounce of biblical knowledge. At least not me for sure!It seems you are confusing your subjective reaction to the evidence to the age of the universe with someone else's. You can't just trivialize the impact because you happened to have a different response. If I'm going to take for granted that it has little to no impact on you, then why shouldn't I take Loftus' testimony equally seriously if he claims it had a more significant impact on him? We're not mind readers and plenty of people lose their fundamentalist faith in Christianity over the age of the earth.
As HE states it had nothing to do with arguments against Christianity.Dude, that's just not what he says at all. He says the exact opposite. Maybe he's flagrantly lying, but that's just not what he *says.* He says there were three reasons and one of those reasons is (page 24), "Larry brought new information into my life."
However, not to be dissuaded with facts, you say:
I already have responded to in my previous post, took effect "2 years" later according to him Pg. 27.Now we have EVEN MORE cherry-picking on your part to fit your desired narrative. Do I have to quote it all? (page 26-27) "While [Larry] didn't convince me of much at the time, he did convince me of one solid truth: the universe is as old as scientists say it is [...] This was the first time I really considered the theological implications of the age of the universe. Two corollaries of that idea started me down the road to being the atheist I am today." He then elaborates on those and THEN says it took those two years you mentioned to take full effect. In other words, it wasn't abrupt and arbitrary as you portray it, completely unrelated to the Larry incident. It was a gradual progression of unraveling his faith until it "all just came crashing down."
...he admits on pg. 30 that it didn't happen "strictly" because of epistemic reasons...Dude. People are emotional/intellectual agents. You can't fully separate one from the other. You are blaming him for being *human.* Aren't you human, too? Don't you know what it is like?
Where is that blame? Point it out where he blames himself.Well, okay. Easy enough: (page 26) "I was supposed to be smarter and better than that, or so I thought. How could I have done this? How could I have an affair with her and sin like that against my God and against my family? How could I allow my reputation to be sullied by claims that I and raped her?" We call that blaming ourselves in these parts. Don't know what you Christians think. So as you can see, I've quoted right up until the point where Loftus ALSO blames God. Apparently there's a little rule in your book, that says if you blame God, by definition you can't possibly be blaming yourself, too.
Loftus isn't of that school of thought. And he continues that theme even in his most recent book, "The Christian Delusion." (page 198) "Christians just want to blame human beings, not God, no matter what the problem is. [...] both sides involved are probably at fault to some degree."
Oh, but you still have MORE excuses to suit your pejorative narrative don't you? Not good ones though. Let's look at your hairsplitting:
This nut, questions himself and his action Pg. 26 then IMMEDIATELY follows up with blaming God. [bold emphasis mine]But I'm not going to let you get away with that. Because if we go with your theory here:
There is no acceptance of blame in his statements.We have to note that Loftus must only be QUESTIONING, *not* blaming God in the "IMMEDIATELY follows up with" part. Because, and I quote, "The biggest question of all was why God..." [emphasis mine]
Ta da! You're wrong.
But you STILL protest. How many convenient misrepresentations later? Just one more:
As I stated name the place where he says that it was John Loftus and his sad decisions that brought pain into his life...HE never says that now does he?Well, I quoted that part above. Page 26. You just explained it away. You arbitrarily labeled that "questioning" and the blaming God part "not questioning" to fit your anti-atheist prejudices. The evidence is right there in front of you. You've just trained yourself not to see it.
You have no case. Why can't you just let John Loftus be the fallible human being that he is? It doesn't mean you can't disagree with his worldview.
Ben
