Intro:
This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web. I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them. I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to advancing our collective conversation about these important roadblocks to solidarity in our culture.
The following is a "CliffsNotes" page of my review. TCD has 5 different sections, so I'll be breaking this up accordingly (although I've lumped in Dan Barker's Foreword and John Loftus' Introduction here). I've copied and collected all the contents pages from each post so there can be a meta-overview that is easily accessible. It will be easy for those interested to have an idea of the book's various failings and will also work well for me to skim through to find links to particular sections when I need to self-link in future posts.
If anyone knows the html coding for collapsing sections of a post, I'd love to apply it here.
Note, you can search the entirety of my review (which is already a book in length on its own, just by chapter 5) with this custom google search I've set up.
Contents of this Contents Page:
Part 1: Why Faith Fails
Dan Barker's Foreword:
I respond to John Loftus on Dan Barker's reputation:
Is Dan Barker a dick?
Loftus believes I've insulted Barker with my original review. I point out why Barker deserves the criticism.
Barker tells instead of shows: Are atheists really that interested in the facts?
In a contentious context, no one listens when you tell them what to think. You have to show them why they should think it. Barker goes way overboard trying to tell us just how desperately interested in the facts the contributors of this book are.
There might yet be hope for the book: Is TCD intellectually challenging and respectful in tone?
Christian reviewer, James McGrath gives me some confidence that perhaps Christians won't be terribly offended by the contents of TCD. Although he's an overly tolerant guy.
Barker is careless with his praise: Does TCD defend the mythicist position?
Barker bothers to bring up mythicism (the idea that Jesus never existed as a historical person) in a book that does not defend mythicism. I demonstrate what a horrible misstep this is in terms of our Christian audience.
Random:
Outro: Not rated.
Barker sets a fairly bad precedent that is unfortunately continued so far throughout TCD (I'm only on chapter 5 at this point) of "telling" instead of "showing." Ultimately that means an underlying tone of the book is "us vs. them" when we could have been all in the same boat reasoning together.
Introduction, by John Loftus:
Random:
Understanding TCD:
Do we need to read "Why I became an Atheist" before we read TCD?
Short answer: Loftus trips over his own words, but reading WIBA would help a bit more than Loftus lets on, unfortunately.
Loftus is unclear: Are Christian presuppositionalism and fideism new?
Loftus seems to think these ideas came about in his lifetime. Perhaps they were more developed in his lifetime?
Short answer: Yes. Plantinga is making an implausible exception when we compare theistic properly basic beliefs to the intimate checks and balances we place on other properly basic beliefs.
I respond to Christian reviewer, Cory Tucholski: Does Loftus misrepresent Craig and Plantinga's Holy Spirit defeater?
Short answer: Yes and no. Craig can be found to play both sides of the fence and there is no coherent way to represent his views.
Loftus' imagination fails: Should annihilationists fear hell?
Loftus demonstrates his failure of imagination since there is plenty of reason to fear non-existence if you have the chance to live in bliss for eternity. It would also be especially humiliating to be singled out on Judgment Day, and there be a brief period where you are burned up into non-existence in front of everyone else who is on their way to heaven.
Loftus fails to prove his case: Can modern exegetes get it right with so much historical fail?
Loftus tries to play different Christian exegetical conclusions against each other, but fails to give good examples.
Outro: Not rated.
The introduction amounts to sloppy, educated sh*t talk. Loftus wants to intimidate and overwhelm average Christian readers, but is probably going to cause himself more problems than it's worth.
Chapter 1, "The Cultures of Christianities," by David Eller:
I guide the readers over the journey to figure out what exactly Eller's argument even is. Then we realize his argument is outright fallacious.
Turns out, Eller declares premature victory over all Christian arguments and evidence with sentence twoof chapter one of TCD. Christians are not impressed.
I respond to Eller's response to my review: Should "openly atheistic" books pass their own outsider test for faith?
Loftus emailed the original version of my review to Eller who clearly didn't get the point.
I agree with Christian reviewer, Looney: Can there be a true religion after all?
Despite the hype for TCD, there is in fact a very obvious and typical "somewhere to run" for Christians.
Random:
I chastise the atheist movement:
Should secular humanists be developing a well-rounded culture to satisfy human needs?
I use the arguments from Eller's chapter on the influence of enculturalization to show that atheists should be working on their own cultural paradigm. Eller might actually agree.
Eller abuses a common atheist metaphor: Would religious people be feeble without their "crutch"?
Eller says we shouldn't use the "religion is a crutch" metaphor, and I point out it doesn't have to be an insult. A wide range of "strong" and "weak" people are bound to be equally encultured by religion, so many people are simply unnecessarily letting religion rob them of things they could just as easily be doing themselves.
Eller is "one of those" philosophers: If years aren't real, does time even exist?
Obviously the idea that the delineation of time is arbitrary makes perfect sense, but after a painful chapter, one does not wish to see things stated so badly in "philosopherese."
Outro: 3 out of 5 stars
Important content for a book like this, but poorly presented. Bad start for the book.
Chapter 2, "Christian Belief through the Lens of Cognitive Science," by Valerie Tarico:
Tarico Vs. Eller:
I respond to Christian reviewer, Looney: Has Christianity converged on manipulative techniques or is it too plastic to even label a single entity?
Both the similarities and differences need to be explained and the orthodox Christian interpretation is not the best explanation.
I respond to Christian reviewer, Patrick Chan: So which is it, cognitive science or culture?
Both! And then some.
I respond to Christian reviewer, Paul Manata:
If Christians were unified on what that one right belief was, there might be a contradiction between Eller and Tarico.
Manata quote mines Eller pretty hardcore to pull this "contradiction" off.
On Certainty:
I respond to Christian reviewer, jayman777: Can humans be trusted with metaphysical conclusions?
Jayman777 objects that Christians aren't supposed to be any more infallible than atheists, but Tarico's point is that humans can't really be trusted to evaluate far-reaching metaphysical claims.
Um...only if you take her rhetoric to an incoherent extreme. But why would a charitable reader do that?
I respond to Hays:
Psychology Vs. Religion:
I respond to Looney (and Rauser): Has psychology explained religious experiences?
Looney says he's familiar with how this kind of psychology works and asks why he should care? I explain that though his interpretation is possible, naturalism is a sufficient explanation and in any event there are many Christians who should probably at least be informed about what is attributable to psychology even if God may still be responsible in some way or some circumstances.
I respond to Hays:
It seems Hays didn't read carefully, and even a fellow Christian contributor to The Infidel Delusion (TID) knows better.
No. Tarico never implied it did. See Richard Carrier's chapter.
I respond to Chan: Does Tarico commit the genetic fallacy to explain away religious experiences?
Um, no. And even Manata admits this elsewhere in TID.
I respond to Manata:
Tarico never claimed every congregation does things the same way. Manata doesn't get into how he actually converted and maybe he should.
Um, given how much the authors of TID and other Christian reviewers didn't pay close attention the first time around, wasting their review on obnoxious misrepresentations and red herrings, they really don't have the right to complain.
For some reason two reviewers here seemed to think Tarico was only explaining one aspect of religious psychology. While she never claimed to be covering everything, there were several other factors covered in the chapter.
Jayman777 complains that skeptics tread dangerously close to being in denial that Christians have any religious experiences at all. I sympathize, but ultimately this is about interpretation of actual experiences and arguments to the better explanation in context of a vast and arbitrary religious landscape (plus all of the anomalous non-religious experiences, too), rather than denial.
Then we'd have some really good evidence wouldn't we?
Why not show that one of them is true first?
Random:
I respond to Looney:
Why didn't evolution favor a predominantly atheistic mentality?
I attempt to answer on Tarico's behalf (assuming evolution had much to do with religion at all) that atheism has no content and doesn't enable mental shortcuts for framing the human experience like theism tends to do.
I respond to jayman777:
I respond to Rauser:
Is Tarico unreliable as a guide to the heart of Christian belief?
Rauser gets a little picky, but can he hold his point?
I respond to Engwer:
Maybe, but not nearly as much as Engwer misrepresents their statements.
Engwer complains that a hallucination doesn't account for all the evidence very well, but he ignores the lameness of the best evidence (Paul's own words) in favor of what isn't as credible on the same issue (Luke-Acts).
I respond to Chan (and Dusman):
I respond to Manata:
Is it better to be somewhat ignorant and know when you are being bamboozled by sophistry, or is it better to act like a jerk and be flagrantly wrong like Manata?
Awesome chapter. Well written.
Chapter 3: "The Malleability of the Human Mind," by Jason Long:
Long's rhetoric is too high strung:
Are only believers biased?
I spend quite a bit of time pointing out how overblown a lot of Long's rhetoric is and what the consequences will likely be for the average Christian reader who may be looking for something to react to.
I survey the mostly justified Christian blowback created from the high strung rhetoric of Long's chapter.
I respond to Christian reviewer, Steve Hays:
As with the last two chapters on culture and cognitive science, intimate awareness of ubiquitous human bias has to cut deepest against the less conservative claims of religion.
I respond to Christian reviewer, Jason Engwer:
I respond to Christian reviewer, Paul Manata:
Only if Christians have burned all the dictionaries.
Is science dead?
Even with human bias in the scientific world that promotes rigorous standards (and occasionally fails to uphold them), is religion equally objective with it (and should we overlook its anti-objectivity faith standards)?
Is x more credible than y?
When you find out what x and y actually are, Manata doesn't sound quite as correct. Surprise, surprise.
Is Long a presuppositional skeptic?
Only if one ignores Long's modern experience of a magic-less world.
Can science and religion get along?
Can the majority of religious scientists come to some supernatural conclusion already?
Random:
Long promotes the studies that seem to show that IQ correlates well with atheism (assuming those studies are being interpreted properly), but seems to not recognize how this fits right into how Christians profile atheists.
Outro: 3 out of 5 stars.
I thought I would give Long 4 stars initially, but was ultimately overwhelmed by how inappropriate much of his rhetoric is.
Chapter 4, "The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited" by John Loftus:
Loftus revisits David Eller's chapter 1 and Jason Long's chapter 3:
For Better and Worse?
Loftus seems to manage to retroactively save Long's chapter, and eventually says all the things Eller should have said in his chapter, but still quotes more Eller uncritically.
Loftus overstates a claim: Are all religions exclusivistic?
Since a great many religions are not mutually exclusive (even in method), Loftus' OTF is left a bit fuzzier than he presents it.
I respond to Christian reviewer, jayman777: What about religious people who convert for thoughtful reasons?
Loftus overstates a claim: Are Christians and atheists too delusional to get it right?
Human psychology seems to be portrayed as completely helpless and it's no surprise that Christians get the idea that they are supposed to "snap out of it" because we hypocritically said so.
Loftus is too simplistic:
Are Christians really methodological naturalists when it comes to other religions?
I imagine most Christian intellectuals who will read this book will likely not be so strictly confined. And even if they are, long standing apologetic alternative supernatural explanations are not hard for them to find.
I respond to Hays: Do many Muslims claim that demons inspired Christianity just like many Christians claim demons inspired Islam?
Hays bizarrely tries to deny it with a few variations of hairsplitting, but fails.
I respond to Christian reviewer, Jason Engwer: How does the OTF apply to appeals to modern paranormal phenomena?
If mainstream science or scholarship was against the position of your opponents, typically you'd dismiss them outright.
I respond to Hays:
Hays wants to portray it as covert atheism even though it is the most responsible open ended research program possible even if some version of supernaturalism happens to be true.
If Hays really wants to put Hiter 'staches on atheists for saying that gods, angels, devils, and magic aren't common ground, more power to him (to the demise of his credibility, that is).
Um...no...but supernatural things have to be admitted by all to at least be rare.
The materialistic world is our common ground and explaining why it is the way it is is a debate to be had.
Should distant third-parties who believe in the miraculous on this absentee basis?
Perhaps when Christians solve the problem of induction that will be a fair question.
Without consistency of standards (a la OTF), every cloud of anecdotal hearsay would generate an ontological artifact from Bigfoot to UFOs.
Have they happened yet? Have they happened yet? Have they happened yet? No. Hmmm...miracles seem rare [begin conversation over again]
The materialistic world is literally our backyard, the differences between views on them is not so great, and all naturalistic worldviews would be falsified with the vindication of just one supernatural claim.
Did Hays and Engwer call Loftus demon-possessed?
No, but Loftus' inference was not completely unjustified since Hays is known for making those kinds of accusations.
I respond to jayman777:
To an extent, when required.
Yes, but not quite Loftus' version of it. See Richard Carrier's response instead.
I respond to Christian reviewer, Randal Rauser:
Yes. Next stupid question.
I respond to Hays:
Why is Steve Hays so dense?
Using various quotes from Hays, I demonstrate some of the reasons why this is such a difficult conversation to have with him.
Hays appears to be offended by McGrath's use of the Golden Rule in terms of being fair with competing religious claims.
Hays demonizes agnosticism as though every possible position is equally biased just because it can be called a position.
Hays can't just assume we all have the same intuitions and so if the arguments from natural theology actually work, they can be presented to pass the OTF.
Does everyone have to rigorously justify their worldview to have justified beliefs?
No, but if you are going to make claims well beyond the realm of human expertise (or include a lot of "I'm not that sures"), then you have to have your worldview justifications sorted out.
Does God jump start everyone with clear knowledge of his existence?
The Bible says that demons know God exists and shudder, but can all humans be expected to do the same kind of confidence-based shuddering?
Is it okay for Hays to make statements about the mental states of unbelievers since he has Divine Revelation on his side?
Am I allowed to say I have a crystal ball that tells me Christianity is false (and that Hays knows it) without actually proving it?
If Hays has such arguments on his blog, then he should be able to present them to pass the OTF.
Since Hays presents no evidence to pass the OTF, he can't quite justify calling us criminals, now can he?
Hays said we all know it's true, so yes.
People live in a lot of different kinds of mental states all the time and the evidence from nonbelievers (and everyone else) reflects this spectrum.
Hays doesn't think he has to present any evidence to show this, whereas Loftus does (in addition to probably allowing for people being honestly mistaken, whereas there's no such thing for Hays on nonbelievers).
Some do, but not all of them.
Even when atheists aren't moral relativists, Hays just has an excuse for that as well.
Christian beliefs are not conservative claims about reality (that are well outside the realm of human expertise) and many people have different kinds of innate intuitions and subliminal mental processes contrary to Christian doctrine.
Hays gets offended when Loftus calls the people in Biblical times superstitious as though it doesn't point out genuine methodological distinctions in thought patterns between even modern Christians and the cultures of ancient Bible times.
Holy Spirits:
Do Mormons have a genuine self-authenticating inner spiritual witness to their faith?
Hays tries to defend Plantinga's idea of properly basic religious beliefs, but basically avoids the main issue with technicalities which Christians ignore in practice.
Hays never explains why he thinks this is the case.
We give human minds, the past, possible worlds, numbers, and morals more credit because they are much more universally defensible in one way or another than a particular kind of god.
No, I pointed out when we need to raise the standards accordingly since mutually exclusive propositions are getting in via similar means.
Hays isn't very helpful since he doesn't bother showing us how anyone would know their self-validating religious feelings beat other people's contrary self-validating feelings in a world where none of them have to correspond to any supernatural reality.
It should have been obvious from context that Loftus is generally on the same page as me.
Probably not, but the vagueness hardly helps the case for the supposed reality behind the experience.
They certainly can be, but the particular philosopher from the Blackwell Companion that Hays referenced does not make as strong of claims as he does.
This is irrelevant since there is a multitude of religious people who do and this is the brand of justification that we are talking about.
Hays claims that the OTF is lopsided and that it presupposes Christians don't already know Christianity is true.
Did Loftus smuggle atheism into the OTF?
Only because Hays can't part with the idea of Jesus in even hypothetical terms.
Hays confirms that he is uncritical with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit since he calls it a given.
Of course the debate is about what the experience means, not whether there has been an experience or not.
Skeptics are pointing out that self-authenticating experiences of God aren't so self-authenticating after all or that whatever is supposed to be self-authenticating about it doesn't likely have anything to do with correspondence to a real God.
Yes, one that is all in your head, just like God.
Would we not apply Loftus' standards in any other field of inquiry?
Just how does Hays think science gets done anyway? By asserting your conclusion and not having to prove anything?
Does Loftus prejudge believing in the Christian faith as "gullible?"
No, it's explained why in the premises of the OTF.
Therefore let's not be skeptical about Christianity, okay?
Does Loftus need to justify all of his beliefs via the OTB before he applies the OTF to Christianity?
Only if we pretend like there's no possible common ground to work with.
Doesn't Loftus need to justify epistemic duties with an OTB?
Hays believes that atheism undermines a genuine interest in truth.
If life just ends, doesn't that affect one's capacity to enjoy it in the meantime?
It might for some people, but not for others.
What if you know that after your amazing vacation you will be kidnapped and tortured?
With this analogy Hays bizarrely confuses what happens in an atheist's worldview with what happens in his Biblical Christian worldview.
Hays says no, but the Bible says few will be saved.
If we are just picking appealing worldviews, one would not choose this divine extortion and predominantly unhappy never-ending.
Doesn't Robert Adams provide concrete examples of grounding epistemic duties in his two monographs on the subject?
It appears he grounds morality in the concept of appraised excellence, but he doesn't seem to prove God exists or tell us why the concept of excellence cannot be appreciated in its own right on naturalistic terms.
Do atheists have principled motivation to tend to epistemic duties?
Hays appears to want to say any motivation that is not absolute is unprincipled, but he does not bother defending that unjustified assumption.
Isn't a meaningless life a recipe for gratuitous suffering?
Hays invents necessary suffering for all the nonbelievers he's never met.
Don't atheists just distract themselves from this misery and live a lie?
Yes, Steve, it's a conspiracy of wanton happiness.
Aren't the rules of an atheist's life artificial?
If Christianity is false, then surely living a fake Christian life would deserve the title "artificial."
Is Ben's contribution to this cultural conversation foolish?
Maybe, but it can't be more foolish than Hays' responses.
No, probabilities will do, and it doesn't matter since if Loftus is mistaken, presenting the reasons that these religious people have for their beliefs by definition passes the OTF.
Technically yes, but practically no. Hays assumes his theistic tacit knowledge is genuine without argument and so Loftus is vindicated in the end.
Technically that would make Hays even more delusional than your average Christian (if Christianity is false) since he is literally flying in the face of a great deal of the evidence and argument against his position.
Hays' version of attacking it on its own terms was grossly superficial and even the further replies here lack any indication that substance will follow.
Is TID at the same level as TCD?
I have to say that if TCD aimed low (which wasn't consistently the case), TID aimed even lower and didn't help the case for Christians not being delusional.
They can be I'm sure, but attacking them doesn't help Hays here or prove that there aren't Christians who are pathetically trying to hold on intellectually to wish fulfillment.
Hays seems to think that the difference between defensive and offensive apologetic strategies he says he employs entitles him to conveniently misrepresent the truth.
I don't know what Hays is referring to since they have zero kills by my count (whereas I have hundreds here). 
I respond to Engwer:
I respond to Manata:
Does Loftus need to pass 20,000 more OTFs to be consistent?
Not if the overlap of the Christianities dies one death.
Is the OTF a logical truth or a theorem?
It's a probabilistic rule of thumb designed to simply illustrate a typical religious person's inability to be consistent with their standards of evidence and avoid special pleading they'd never accept anywhere else.
How does Loftus get a "highly likely" from a "very likely?"
Manata corrects the equivalent of a typo! Yay!
If all religions are probably false, then why bother even taking the OTF?
If you'd like to believe the one you've inherited is honestly true despite the odds, then evaluating it impartially makes perfect sense.
Can't Christianity still be true despite the initial low probability against it?
Yes, just like every other worldview might be true.
Does Loftus' OTF commit the genetic fallacy still?
Manata seems to be under the impression we are likely to learn new math skills from taking drugs.
Doesn't the Bible say we're supposed to know Christianity is true by the Holy Spirit?
Do you listen to con artists and apply the investment justifications suggested by infomercials?
Isn't the OTF beside the point if you can just present good reasons why Christianity is false?
Presenting reasons Christianity is false is an extension of using consistent standards of evidence and often times mere consistency of standards is what entails that Christianity is false.
Isn't the OTF too vague?
Only if words don't mean things.
Who would take an "outsider test for philosophy" if it had the same structure as the OTF and what standards would we apply?
I would hope so! And whatever standards we'd apply, hopefully they'd be consistent.
Is Loftus' OTF conclusion related to his OTF premises?
If being probably correct about your worldview is your goal, then yes.
Does Loftus disagree with Tarico on whether humans are rational?
Yes, if the Bible contradicts itself when it gives conflicting advice about answering a fool according to his folly. [In other words, no.]
Aren't a large majority of our culturally inherited beliefs also perfectly rational?
The ones we can verify independently certainly are.
Does the OTF get rid of original thinkers?
Yes, just like health care reform means the government is going to kill grandma.
Are some religions more probable than others?
If only we were allowed to have an opinion on that.
Should we treat beliefs that have a low probability of being true as probably false?
By definition, yes.
Is Manata defending his right to be inconsistent with his standards?
It sure does seem like it.
Would Manata be in a state of cognitive paralysis if he took the OTF?
Most definitely. But a more reasonable person wouldn't.
Would Loftus take a test to see if his cognitive faculties are reliable?
If he could, he would, but that doesn't give religion a pass.
Does Loftus prove that Manata holds double standards?
Loftus' chapter was mostly about setting the standard, not applying it, or addressing every nuance of Manata's personal convictions.
Is Christianity the only reason we can know anything (as C. S. Lewis said)?
Lewis' unverifiable perspective appears to deny the experience of others.
What happens to the OTF when people vastly agree about things at the expense of atheism?
The reverse of the OTF is not blind acceptance of popular beliefs, especially when those beliefs are beyond the realm of human expertise.
Should we evaluate our moral values as outsiders, should Loftus test the "kill babies for fun" moral theory, and are moral relativists in denial of substantial moral common ground across cultural barriers?
Manata manages to address his own materialistic anxieties if only he'd read himself in context of his other related statements.
Does Loftus' OTF fail at every level?
Nope. Manata's rebuttal does though.
I respond to Manata's 1st response to Loftus:
I respond to Manata's 2nd response to Loftus:
Random:
Outro: My Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Despite the polemical missteps, the vast majority of what Loftus says works just fine.
Outro:
That does it for Part 1 of TCD.
Ben
Recent Comments