Consider the last sermon I preached at the little church in the town of Zhonghe, in Taiwan, when I was going to seminary. It was on love. It ended with the pastor and the most useful person in the church standing up and yelling at one another.
Apparently this talent for instigating war by preaching peace has not deserted me.
A couple months ago, the atheist writer John Loftus asked me to endorse the "debate" book he co-wrote with the Christian philosopher, Randal Rauser. I read it on the plane to and from the UK, and enjoyed it very much. I wrote the following:
This is not a quarrel, nor one of those flame wars of the deaf that rage across cyberspace then spills angrily into print, nor even that stuffy, artificial creation, a ‘religious dialogue.” What we have here is conversation: at times witty, at times tendentious, often humorous and almost always engaged on emotional as well as intellectual levels. Rauser is master of parables with a philosophical point: Loftus makes an art form of heart-on-his-sleeve pragmatism. Both land blows, yet the book contains hardly a trace of bitterness: at best, it reaches the level of a mythical, Platonic debate in a pub. Almost no one will fully agree with either writer, nor fail to enjoy the rhetorical flow.
Well it wasn't a quarrel, but it soon became one, and the "rhetorical flow" soon became less enjoyable. Loftus cited the review on his blog, and made a few minor quibbles. Rauser then cited both the review, and Loftus' quibbles, and made his own quibbles about those. Our friend Crude launched an attack on Loftus. John replied with profanity and gusto, and deleted his original blog post.
Among other things, John wrote off Christians in general, again:
I will not be linking to any Christian blogs at this point from now on. I have given them too much of an audience as it is. You're all on your own now, delusional people on a par with Scientologists, and I mean that. Damn, it's hard dealing with * for brains and acting like they have them.
Now if you go to that region of Debunking Christianity, you find instead an article (actually from a day or so previous to this little tempest in a teapot) entitled "Why is Everyone on the Internet So Angry?"
Gee, I don't know. Beats me.
And today John announces a new Skeptical Blog Network. Why do we need one of those? Because PZ Myers, the doyen of the alternative Freethinkers Blog network, is (as is widely recognized) rather a jerk, a bit of a megalomaniac, and had a vocal, angry falling-out not just with John Loftus, but with a popular anti-creationist gotcha-artist calling himself Thunderfoot, and with a whole range of atheists whom he considers insufficiently feministo. (Apparently they don't hate men enough, or something.)
 |
| Little-known historical footnote: Mr. and Mrs. Giraffe quarreled and ultimately divorced over who got to ride shotgun. |
And you wonder why God sent the Great Flood.
15 comments:
Our friend Crude launched an attack on Loftus.
Hold on.
What's the difference between launching an attack, and very frankly giving my opinion of the man's abilities and credentials? Because I think anyone who reads that conversation would conclude that John attacked *me*. Granted, I offered a very open, thorough criticism of him. But an attack? Compare and contrast, I welcome anyone to do so.
And I want to repeat something I said in that thread: not only did I make my criticisms of Loftus, but he proceeded to unwittingly back up my criticisms with evidence. He accused me of lying about him - I demanded to know what these so-called lies were. His response was to curse me out several times and abandon the thread. I said he had little rhetorical skill and questioned his professionalism. Examine his conduct - I'll let anyone judge if I was dead on.
He's now screaming (again) that all Christians are delusional and stupid, when recently he was playing up on how he treats Christians with respect (something I vigorously questioned, to say the least.) One thing I recently criticized him regarding was his claim that he treats Christians civilly and with respect. I said, this is complete nonsense, look at his track record. Well, his track record grew even after that point.
So I reject this idea that I attacked Loftus, and Loftus attacked me back, as if what we did were mirror images of each other's acts.
Another note.
There are two reasons I tend to lay into Loftus.
1) He gushes with praise of himself, in my opinion, undeservedly. Writing a mediocre book, having middling talent, isn't a problem - I'm not exactly a titan of ability myself. But there's something rank and foul about a man who goes on and on about how great and glorious he is, when anyone can tell he's actually substandard-to-average by all applicable measures. Especially when a lot of his praise is of the 'I am better than so-and-so' or 'I decimate so-and-so' variety.
2) Loftus relies on ridicule, openly and often. He insults and belittles just about everyone - his latest post is yet another condemnation of Christians across the board, and whenever someone (even an atheist) criticizes him, he typically dives for the ridicule and insult. Now, again, he's not even very good at it. He is, however, shameless with it, and will dump it on anyone, including people who treat him with (undeserved) respect, merely when they argue against him effectively - which is pretty easy to do.
I want to stress: when Loftus has been called on this in the past, his response has been to admit he uses ridicule, to admit he uses it as an apologetic tool ('Maybe if they aren't convinced by my arguments I can mock and shame them into agreeing with me!'), etc. So my response is simple: ridicule him, or at the very least, launch criticisms of him, when a good opportunity arises.
His response to all this clearly makes this guy an example of someone who can dish things out, but not take it. It's real typical Cult of Gnu stuff - he wants to ridicule people whenever he wants, but the moment he's on the receiving end, he shatters. You'd think this would lead him to say 'well, maybe I shouldn't ridicule people anymore'. But if he did that, he'd have to rely on his arguments, his grasp of the details, and his literary skill - and he reasonably doesn't want to go into these conflicts unarmed.
Crude: I like you. I'm glad you comment here, and appreciate your essential rationality and often interesting perspective.
But I read the thread. Randal read it, too, and seemed to see the same thing.
You have every right to respond when people criticize you. But Christianity is not just about holding the right opinion, and defending it well. And calling someone a "mediocrity" and a "hack," and saying you have a low opinion of his skill and intellect as well as (though here it's hard to argue, as indeed his response did prove) his professionalism, is what in rhetoric we would call an "attack." These are things you may think true (I agree on some, disagree on others), but one does not need to say everything one thinks.
I guess you and John don't like one another, and no doubt you both have your reasons. But I think it wouldn't hurt you to dial it back, a bit. I'm not denying that I might need the same advice, from time to time.
David,
No need to put on any kid gloves with me. If you don't like what I say, say so, and feel free to be blunt. I will not freak out, I will not hold it against you, and I will not lose respect for you as a person and writer alike.
And calling someone a "mediocrity" and a "hack," and saying you have a low opinion of his skill and intellect as well as (though here it's hard to argue, as indeed his response did prove) his professionalism, is what in rhetoric we would call an "attack."
If you want to call it an attack, fine. But then let's be clear about what my attack was: I appraised his skill, I called him a mediocre thinker, and I criticized his professionalism. I will stand by each and every accusation I lobbed at him not only as true, but as fair, and things I can rally evidence in favor of.
I didn't go after his personal life (which frankly would have been fair, since he writes about it in his books.) I didn't go over the top, saying he's a completely deluded moron (something he accuses Christians of wholesale regularly, and which he accuses his critics of.)
I guess you and John don't like one another, and no doubt you both have your reasons.
Not really. I mean, personally? I don't know him by anything other than his online demeanor, which I find foul. It's not like I say the things I do dishonestly - "I think he's a really brilliant man, great with rhetoric, and very professional - but oh, I should say these things about him to attack him!" No, that's all honest appraisal. My dislike of him extends to a professional and civil level, and little more.
But I think it wouldn't hurt you to dial it back, a bit.
Here's the problem: I think Christians tend to dial back too much, as a rule. I think they strive to remain calm, cool and collected even in situations where it would not only be reasonable, but moral, to be outraged, or strongly critical.
But, I'll tell you what. You have my email. If you truly believe I should dial it back, if you think my behavior towards John is a mistake from a professional or even Christian point of view, I invite you to email me. Tell me why, give me advice, point out where I erred or where you disagree. I may object and explain my view in turn, but I promise to take your input seriously.
I stand by my behavior in Randal's thread. And I do not think one can fairly equate my behavior with John's. Yes, I "fired first", but I think my criticisms were measured and valid, even if stinging. John fired back, and I don't think his responses were either of those things (despite his intent on the latter).
@David, I think that it is interesting to figure out why internet threads do get so angry. The post you linked to about that seemed right on point.
It is very pronounced on The Blog That Shall Not Be Named (the one that begins with "P" and ends with "gula"). Tempers constantly seem short, even if one tries to be as reasonable as possible; like a sports bar where people are either rooting for the home team, or shouting down the fans of the other team.
I certainly got angry at Crude (on the other thread, here.) I think in person we would have sorted things out.
@Crude, you might consider whether you think what you said could make Loftus a better person. Not whether it did, but whether it *could*. Remember that the tongue kindles fires (Ep. of James).
Umm, reading over my post, I realize it sounds like James wants us to kindle fires, when it is just the opposite. @Crude, DON'T kindle fires!
@Crude, you might consider whether you think what you said could make Loftus a better person. Not whether it did, but whether it *could*. Remember that the tongue kindles fires (Ep. of James).
Two things.
First, I think it could. I'm being honest with John. I could have played the game where I pretended John was a drooling idiot who can't even type - my harshest comments lately have been 'he's not that bright' and 'he's mediocre.' I've been honest in my estimations of him, and frankly I think my estimations are very accurate. I'm doing him a favor, because quite a lot of what he does likely stems either from the absurd belief that he's some kind of atheist juggernaut, or the belief that others think he is. Perhaps the reality will sink in, and reality may do him some good.
Second, you should really be aware of something: John is a bully. Or at least, a bully wannabe. He has expressly endorsed ridicule as a means to convert people to atheism. Let me bold that, because I don't think this is appreciated: he has expressly endorsed ridicule as a means to convert people to atheism.
So you tell me to consider what would make John a better person, I reply to you: and how will you deal with the people John wants to make into worse people? John wants to have an effect on others, and if he has to make them feel like trash, make them feel stupid, make them ashamed even when they shouldn't feel any of these things, he's going to do it. And I question the moral and ethical calculus of anyone who turns a blind eye to that.
Mind you, I don't think John can pull that off with any but the slowest and most easily preyed upon of people. As I said, the man's not bursting with talent or rhetorical skill. But the fact that he attempts and justifies it is despicable all the same.
I'll throw this out too. I'm being chided for my ridicule of John. Fair, to a point, insofar as it's a reasonable opinion that I thus far disagree with. But in turn, I chide others for their tolerance of his antics, the effective turning of a blind eye to his behavior, past and present. Sometimes a person engages in behavior that should remove them from the realm of polite and intellectual discourse. Certainly when they refuse to apologize and make a sincere effort to amend their ways. I think John has reached that point.
Others may disagree - and I won't press too hard when they do. I can understand how they see things differently, and still remain within the realm of reason. Maybe you guys can understand the same of me.
@Crude, I only wanted to know whether you had considered it, and you had. That is enough for me.
I'm not sure what to do about the ridicule thing. I think people need to start thinking of it as a form of violence ("Thou fool!"), but our society is full of other ways of glorifying violence (see: most video games, lots of movies, etc.) and I have no idea how to attack that either; what's more, they appeal to me just as much as to anyone else. I guiltily watched former governor Arnold S. blowing things up on cable not two weeks ago, while exercising.
@Crude, I was mainly thinking of John Loftus' idea of ridicule when I wrote that last post, not your ridicule on that whole blurb thread. (Though I guess I should go tsk, tsk, or something, for moral consistency). Is John Loftus the one who originated that idea? I've run into that idea before (I think just described on the Slacktiverse blog, not advocated.)
Loftus, having an original idea. Surely you jest.
No, that's more or less the Cult of Gnu MO. Dawkins himself has said it explicitly before.
And for the record, I don't use ridicule to convert people. The idea of ridiculing someone into Christianity or even theism is something I find deplorable. Now, ridiculing someone out of acting like a jackass? That I can justify more easily.
By the way, to comment on this...
And today John announces a new Skeptical Blog Network. Why do we need one of those? Because PZ Myers, the doyen of the alternative Freethinkers Blog network, is (as is widely recognized) rather a jerk, a bit of a megalomaniac, and had a vocal, angry falling-out not just with John Loftus, but with a popular anti-creationist gotcha-artist calling himself Thunderfoot, and with a whole range of atheists whom he considers insufficiently feministo. (Apparently they don't hate men enough, or something.)
There's another reason John would try to start another blog network.
Because he was a blogger at Freethought Blogs, he was outperformed by the other bloggers, and he wanted to make money from blogging.
To keep everyone from the foulness of my little blog, here are some quotes from Loftus' final FTB entry. Find the hilarity in them yourself.
My aim is to reach Christians in ways they can understand. I treat Christian beliefs respectfully for the most part.
...
This blog is just too busy with ads for my readers, which is okay since we’re here to get paid for blogging. Getting paid to blog first attracted me to this site. But since I don’t write on the same kinds of topics, many of the Freethought bloggers link to each other’s posts rather than to mine. This boosts their traffic and income over mine since we get paid based on the overall percentage of page loads per month, leaving me less of the financial pie simply because I don’t write on the same topics. I’m not complaining.
So now, he's thinking "Well maybe the anti-Myers brigade is big enough that I can launch my own network. Hey, more money and attention for me!" So let's not pretend he's doing this because Myers is an internet thug and someone has to stand up to him. In fact, one of his biggest criticisms of Myers - that he (Loftus) treats Christians with respect, while Myers doesn't - was a joke before, and has freshly gone into the toilet again.
The man has consistency problems.
Crude: I'm not blind to John's faults. Yes, I know he wants to make money -- as do I, though not through blogging. Yes, he's an emotional, erratic person -- which he knows, himself.
But I think you have a consistency problem, too. You're too consistently concerned about John Loftus. Who cares? We've all got our faults, at least I know I do.
If you want to obsess about John Loftus, why don't you take his best anti-Christian argument (one you see the strength in) and systematically and rationally refute it? (Not the OTF -- that's been done to death, and I'll probably have to rebut whatever John says against my last rebuttal in his new book.) Maybe his argument that Jesus predicted the end of the world and was wrong, say. (Doesn't matter if its entirely original.) Write up your rebuttal without bile, and if you can't find anywhere better to post it, and it's done well, I'll post it here. That would be more interesting than your telling people John Loftus can be an emotional wreck, and I think would be more healthy.
David,
I'm not blind to John's faults. Yes, I know he wants to make money -- as do I, though not through blogging.
I wouldn't say wanting money is fault. But when John decides to launch some blogging network to rival PZ Myers', I think it's fair to point out some of his history with Myers, some of his stated motivation for leaving Free Thought Blogs, and yes, his hypocrisy.
But I think you have a consistency problem, too. You're too consistently concerned about John Loftus. Who cares? We've all got our faults, at least I know I do.
I don't think that's fair. Check my own blog if you wish. Check my comment history elsewhere. The amount of time I spend talking about Loftus is extraordinarily thin compared to the attention I give other subjects. When his name comes up at a blog I frequent, I comment and lay out my objections and criticisms. Granted, I'm discussing him here. In a thread you made about Loftus. Would you really fault me for that?
What's more, this isn't about mere faults, but relevant faults. When he claims he treats Christians with respect, I question that claim and provide evidence. When he criticizes PZ Myers for his tone and style, I contrast it with Loftus' own style to see if he's being consistent in his criticisms. What about this is unfair? Is it the fact that John completely freaks out when I do it? If PZ Myers absolutely went nuts whenever anyone accused him of rotten behavior, would that mean we should keep quiet about his behavior out of politeness? Or would the response be, Myers really has to learn how to take criticism and owe up to his mistakes?
If you want to obsess about John Loftus, why don't you take his best anti-Christian argument (one you see the strength in) and systematically and rationally refute it?
Easy: because he doesn't have any. You've ruled out the OTF, his signature argument, which is just as well because the only thing original about it was the question-begging way he presented it. The arguments that do have strength aren't original to him, so why would I ever include his name in any takedown of the arguments?
I appreciate your offer to host my post - that's generous of you. But it's not like I'm looking for an outlet. Regarding your 'obsession' accusation: I've been commenting on your blog for a while now - when have I brought up Loftus' name when the post wasn't about him, or when he didn't show up in the thread? Check my own blog, type 'Loftus' into the search engine. See how many results you get. (Answer: 2)
That would be more interesting than your telling people John Loftus can be an emotional wreck, and I think would be more healthy.
This isn't a fair rendering of what I've said. I haven't been telling people that "John can be an emotional wreck". I've criticized his skill, his professionalism (which is pretty lousy even when he's not having a meltdown), and his claims. I've highlighted his behavior, which amounts to open and unapologetic bullying. I've referenced past dishonest actions on his part (the fake blog incident) which he's never apologized for.
Tell me this straight up: are you saying that Loftus' failings shouldn't be pointed out? That when he openly embraces ridiculing Christians in the hopes of getting them to deconvert due to the ridicule, this shouldn't be condemned or even brought up - that we should say 'Well, we all have our faults' and move on? When he attempts to get an endorsement, dialogue or attention from someone, it's not right to bring up the fake blog incident, or his past actions ('He won't review my book, that shows he's a coward and afraid of me!' / 'He reviewed my book and found it poor. That shows he's a coward and afraid of me!')?
I think, Crude, that you, and I, should try to "speak the truth in love." I've never faulted you for not speaking what you perceive to be the truth.
Jesus did harshly rebuke the Pharisees, and others. But imagine if he had said:
"You brood of vipers! How will you escape the fire of hell? Your intellects are second-rate, too, and you're not very good at Hebrew."
The latter comments would be taken as evidence that Jesus was not just concerned for righteousness, but that he really had it in, in a personal way, for these guys.
It wasn't my purpose in the OP to go after you, so much. I actually criticize John much more than you, if you count words. But I have seen you go after John with gusto on other blogs, too. I'm not saying that in itself is wrong, necessarily. But in a friendly way, I don't think it would hurt you to examine your motives. We all need to do that, from time to time, and doing so makes our criticism of error and dishonesty stronger, not weaker. If you say you have examined your motives, and believe you are going after John in compassion (not just for him, of course, but him, too), then I will drop the subject, and hopefully we can talk about something more interesting, next time. Or, if you tell me it's none of my business, that's fine, too.
The latter comments would be taken as evidence that Jesus was not just concerned for righteousness, but that he really had it in, in a personal way, for these guys.
What if they were bad at Hebrew and not really as smart as they thought they were?
Keep in mind, David, who I'm going after: not exactly a humble guy. In fact he's repeatedly lauded himself as some kind of atheist juggernaut of monstrous skill and talent. Saying "you're a pretty middling intellect" sounds cutting, like kicking a man when he's down. It sounds less so when the man this is said to constantly engages in self-praise.
But I have seen you go after John with gusto on other blogs, too.
I admit, I have my fun. But again, keep in mind who I'm doing this with. Loftus doesn't eschew ridicule. He brags about it, and touts himself as a master at it. And frankly, I think any man who embraces ridicule as a means to an end - certainly when they use it as a rule, not as a result of a slip-up or a very particular situation - deserves ridicule in exchange. I think people can behave in ways or support things that should remove them from being considered for polite intellectual discourse. Your view may vary.
If you say you have examined your motives, and believe you are going after John in compassion (not just for him, of course, but him, too), then I will drop the subject, and hopefully we can talk about something more interesting, next time.
I will say I believe my criticisms are fair and measured. I pull plenty of punches, for as biting as I can be. That said, I'll say one thing I said to Rudy: this isn't just about John. It's about the people he bullies. It's about the way he lies and smears. It's about him mocking and ridiculing someone out of their faith, who apparently later turned out to be someone with a serious mental illness RL. It's about him shamelessly, obviously using people.
Now, you counsel me to keep John in mind in compassion. I will try. In exchange, I suggest the following: keep in mind the people John targets, however ineffectively. I think there's just as much danger in giving too much respect to a man who doesn't deserve as there is in over-criticizing a man. Truth be told, I think there's more danger in the former.
Post a Comment