John Loftus exits in infamy.

I've know John Loftus for several years, now.  We've talked about doing a debate (my idea), we've talked about writing a book (his idea).  (Update: we did a debate.)  I've challenged him and his friends many times, including in sometimes no-holds-barred reviews of their books, and Loftus has sometimes responded crudely and dismissively.  At other times, he's said kind things about my writing, and posted "likes" on my Facebook page on neutral subjects.

In turn, I've often defended Loftus to other Christians.  I've argued that he can write well, especially in his books, that he knows more about evangelical Christians than most New Atheists, and that one should cut him some slack for his temperamental personality and often haphazard argumentative style. 

The conversation may be over, now.   Having people swear at you is one thing, but it has also become apparent that Loftus is just not serious.  I'll quote our recent "dialogue" below, so you can see for yourself exactly how that candle was snuffed. 

Three issues precipitated our final quarrel: how Christianity affects women, Loftus' hypocritical bating of the Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan, and an e-book JP Holding wrote called "Hitler's Christianity."  Some preliminary remarks about these issues are needed to show how Loftus has painted himself into the corner -- really, into three corners at once, which is a neat gymnastic trick -- and thus why he snarls.  I'll give the first issue the most time, to drive home just how empty skeptical responses to our "Jesus Liberates Women" series here have been.  The argument, I grow increasingly confident, is a winner. 



Does Christianity Enslave or Liberate Women?

Two years ago, Loftus posted an ugly cartoon of a woman held in a dungeon with Bible verses surrounding her (a woman, I might add, who certainly did not let her beauty be external, as one of those verses said -- in fact she looked like a neck-less mutant).  Loftus claimed that Christian oppression of women was one of the main reasons he abandoned the faith:

"I am against sexism, most emphatically, without any doubt at all.  In fact, one of the main reasons I do what I do is because of what religion has done and continues to do to women.  I  argue against religion for that reason alone."

I responded by issuing a challenge to debate the issue:

Resolved: That the Gospel of Jesus has done more to help more women than any other teaching in the history of Planet Earth.

I challenge you, John.

Loftus did not then, and has not since, risen to this challenge.  At first, he pleaded time constraints, said he'd take a "rain check," and claimed he and Rauser were writing about the subject for their upcoming book, God or Godless.  (This is, indeed, the subject of Chapter 10.  Loftus does not answer any of my arguments in that chapter, however -- not one.  He quotes numerous Bible verses, mostly from the Old Testament, not one from the gospels, and without a systematic exegesis or even the vaguest historical argument.  To be fair, Randal Rauser didn't offer much of a rebuttal in this chapter.)

In lieu of a response to my arguments, Loftus did provide links to three books on Amazon: (1) The Womens' Bible Commentary, by Carol Newsome and Sharon Ringe; (2) Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible, by Susanne Scholtz; and (3) God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says, by Michael Coogan. 

I have not yet read those books.  Why should I?  My claim is historical, not exegetical: that the "Gospel of Jesus" has "done more to help women" than any other teaching. 

And that is a proper rebuttal point to Loftus' original claim, that Christianity traps women in a dungeon adorned by enslaving New Testament verses.

The titles of these books make it clear that they can neither support Loftus' historical claim, nor undermine my own.  Nothing on the Amazon pages for theses books suggests otherwise. 

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the Bible really is full of nothing but abuse of women and theological justification for it.  (Of course we've already seen that is untrue, see link below, but bear with me.)  Would it follow even then, that the Gospel could not have helped women? 

Of course not. It might be that someone read this horrible Bible, and was so appalled that they instituted reforms that swept the Earth.  This is the Tao, the law that extremes often inspire their opposites.  Or it might be that Gentiles read "Love your neighbor as yourself," failed to realize that the original Hebrew term mistranslated as "neighbor" only referred to right-handed, cross-eyed males of the tribe of Levi, and were kind to women out of sheer pagan ignorance.  Or maybe the Bible kept science from developing, thus saving the women of the Western hemisphere (since western imperialism never gained the technological moxie to develop) from dying of small pox.  Or perhaps that the Old Testament contains nothing but rapes, women walking ten paces behind their menfolk, and ritual sacrifice of wives who burn the bagels of their husband-masters.  But maybe Jesus treated women better, and his example inspired a trajectory of reform among his followers that swept the world.  History often takes winding paths, and one cannot rule such outcomes out a priori.

Both Loftus' claim that "religion" has harmed women, and mine that the Gospel has helped women, are historical.  Neither can be resolved merely by studying the Bible.  Exegesis alone is not enough to prove historical causation.   So arguments to support our conflicting claims must be historical and sociological. 

Prodded by Loftus' followers, even though Loftus himself declined to debate, I wrote a series here entitled "How Jesus Liberates Women."  In that series, I (a) discussed methodology; (b) "gave my testimony" about how the Bible inspired me to try to help girls who had been forced into prostitution; (c) cited a 99-nation United Nations survey that showed that the status of women is almost always higher in countries with a Christian background; (d) cited a wealth of historical evidence that Christianity did in fact have a radically positive impact, not only in Christian countries, but around the world; (e) analyzed every relevant verse in the gospels (f) and Acts of the Apostles, that touch on the status of women, showing that the life of Jesus is a plausible cause to the salvific effects I had already traced, and (g) then had some fun rebutting the "top ten" silly responses to my argument, including contributions from John Loftus and from the famous vampire novelist Anne Rice, who also chimed in on another site. (We try not to discriminate against the Undead or their biographers, here.)  I have also posted several various other rebuttals on this subject here.

In God or Godless, to which Loftus alluded while it was still being written, and for which Loftus requested a "blurb" from me (which I gave, because I thought it was a pretty good book),  Loftus likewise began with a claim that encompassed the Bible AND history:

"A religion should be judged based on how it treats the defenseless.  Women have largely been defenseless in a male-dominated society stemming in the West from what we find in the Bible.  Given the cruelty toward women that we see there and acted out in history, all civilized people should reject Christianity as nothing but a religion created in a barbaric, sexist era." (85)

So Loftus promised both a biblical and an historical argument in his book, too.  But as on his blog, he delivered only the former (to some extent), not the latter.  He gave not the ghost of an historical argument that society has been "male dominated" in the West (as compared, say, to India, China, or the Islamic world?), still less that western "cruelty" stems historically from the Bible.   Loftus referenced more than twenty Bible passages in his opening argument on this subject (some of which Rauser showed were not really relevant), but offered not the thinnest slice of evidence that societies which the Bible has influenced, were especially unkind to women, still less that that unkindness derived from the biblical example. 

In short, John Loftus has not answered my argument that "the Gospel of Jesus has done more to help more women than any other teaching in the history of Planet Earth," at all.  He has not walked one step up that mountain, picked one petal from that flower, or dipped one toe in that sea.    


Loftus Challenges Matt Flannagan and Paints Himself into a second corner

Given how Loftus "responded" to my challenge about Christ and women, and other issues over the years (including his tepid responses to my review and my book-length challenge on the Outsider Test for Faith in his book, blog, and in our debate), I found a challenge he issued recently to the philosopher Matt Flannagan, richly ironic. 

Two weeks ago, John posted a brief complaint entitled "Why Have My Critics Fallen Silent?"

"My book, The Outsider Test for Faith, came out in March where I responded to all of the criticisms coming from Christian apologists Matthew Flannagan, Norman Geisler, Mark Hanna, Steve Lovell, David Marshall, Rados Miksa, Randal Rauser, Victor Reppert, David Reuben Stone, and Thomas Talbott.  Here it is, six months later, and no response has been forthcoming from them or their supporters, with the exception of Marshall's ignorant non-response in a review on Amazon.  It's hard not to conclude I have silenced them."

Notice that he claimed to have responded to "all" our criticisms.  In fact, he did no such thing: he totally ignored three of the four reasons I gave to claim that Christianity passes the "OTF," misrepresented the other, and wasted pages on a silly rant about how I supposedly disparage science.

I replied:

"Non-response?  The non-response was your book, and the total failure of you or your followers to explain why my rebuttal of that slender portion of your book that actually attempted, willy-nilly, to engage my arguments, was incorrect.

"As for 'ignorant,' you know, and have in the past admitted, better than that.

"I did slightly tweak my chapter for True Reason, which will apparently be coming out from Kregel later this year, if all goes well -- a slight tweaking being all that proved necessary, somewhat to my regret.

"But I'm sorry your OTF book hasn't sold any better.  If it had, I'm sure you'd get a bigger response . . . "

Rauser also answered on John's blog.  Loftus ignored the substance of our responses, and asked us how we thought his argument did against Matthew Flannagan's arguments.  I hadn't read those arguments, so was not able to answer that question. 

Then five days ago, Loftus posted a more specific challenge to Flannagan:

"Over three years ago I asked Flannagan to respond to five questions. So far he hasn't done so. Here they are again."

The next day, Loftus continued with the following:

"So, let's say you want to be a Christian apologist, someone who defends the Christian faith. Then what must you do?  The eleventh thing you must do is to ignore objections to your faith that cannot be answered.  (Loftus' emphasis)  Sweep them under the rug in hopes the faithful won't hear of them.  Evangelical philosopher Matthew Flannagan once again forces me to conclude this, but William Lane Craig does the same thing.  If there is anything that leads non-believers to conclude Christian apologists are intellectually dishonest then this is it."

So now it appears that if one fails to answer a challenge from an opponent, one is not just lazy, one is intellectually dishonest. 

Does John Loftus thinks he has answered my challenges about Christianity and women?  (Or, for that matter, on why Christianity passes the OTF?)  Or is he here admitting to being intellectually dishonest?

Loftus then took a few similar digs at William Lane Craig, then returned to Flannagan:

"Mathew Flannagan is doing the same thing.  Flannagan said: "As to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) you'll see I have pointed out that argument is incoherent."  Really?  For a refresher on the OTF see this and the links to follow.  Over three years ago I asked Flannagan to respond to five questions.  So far he hasn't done so.  Here they are again.  Will he answer them?   He runs away and will repeat that he has shown the OTF to be incoherent at a later date.   No wonder he is a prime example of an intellectually dishonest apologist.  He's had three years to think of his responses.  So far I see nothing.  Why is that?  He can't answer these questions unless he changes his mind, and his faith won't allow him to do it."
 
Let's reword this last paragraph to apply to the case of John Loftus and the impact of the Gospel on the status of women.  Very little needs to be changed-- even the time frame is about right: 

"John Loftus is doing the same thing.  Loftus said: 'I run "Deconstructing Christianity" because Christianity has harmed and continues to harm women.'  Really? For a refresher on how the Gospel has actually helped billions of women in profound ways, see this and the links that follow.  More than two years ago I asked Loftus to show why my historical and sociological arguments are wrong.  So far he hasn't done so.  Will he answer them?  He runs away and continues to repeat, in God or Godless and elsewhere, that he despises Christianity because of the historical harm it has wrought on females.  No wonder he is a prime example of an intellectually dishonest Gnu apologist.  He's had more than two years to think of his responses.  So far I see nothing.  Why is that?  He can't answer these questions unless he changes his mind, and his blind Gnu faith won't allow him to do so."

I didn't say that, because I understand that people are busy.  People are free to answer my arguments, or ignore them, if they like.  Maybe they have other priorities. 

But let Loftus' condemnation circle around and bite him in his own rear end, now.
 

Was Hitler a Christian?

Before (finally) giving our recent conversation, let me more briefly mention the third precipitating issue behind it.  This was a book by the Internet apologist, JP Holding, called Hitler's Christianity.  JP argues that Hitler was neither an atheist nor an occultist, but affiliated himself with a heretical cult called Positive Christianity.  JP kindly sent me a copy, I read the book, which I found fair and enlightening, then interviewed him on this site a week ago.  Some of you may have read the interview.

I then sent an e-mail to four persons I thought might be interested in the interview, including John Loftus. 

So with all the back story properly in place, here's our conversation.  (Note: Loftus has threatened legal action for my posting his e-mails.  Not being sure of the law in this case, instead of quoting him directly, I'll paraphrase his comments.  So the comments in purple below are my actual remarks, those in blue are a paraphrase of what Loftus said in response.) 


Conversation: Loftus in a Third Corner

DM: Good morning!  I thought the four of you might find my freshly-posted interview with JP Holding, on his new e-book, Hitler's Christianity, of interest . . .

The book is on a popular level, but I found it fair-minded and an interesting read.

JL: (Says this is nothing new.  Says he wishes someone would pay him whenever a Christian denied Hitler was a real Christian.)

DM: I wish I had a dollar for every time you dismissed an argument without offering any arguments at all, and then complained when Christians did the same. 

JL:  (Says neither ever happens.  Asks why I won't accept book citations as an argument.)

DM: Why don't you just let Matt know that all you want is a book reference or two?  And presumably Bill Craig could satisfy you with a short bibliography. 

Perhaps you're thinking of my "How Jesus Liberates Women" series.  (Though you could have your OTF book in mind, or probably other things.)  Aside from the fact that a citation is not an argument, none of the books you referenced appeared to actually address my arguments.  I conclude that you just skimmed them, at best, and then threw out whatever first came to mind . . .

But it's not my book, and I don't really care if you read it or not, or, much, the interview.  Just thought you might be interested.  Maybe you're one of those skeptics who has had bruising battles with Holding in the past, I know he likes to wade into it.

JL: (Accuses me of anti-intellectualism.  Claims that the books he cited address my arguments that Christianity has helped women.  Advises me to begin reading books, finally.) 

DM: Yeah, I'm an anti-intellectual who hates books.  You sure nailed me, John.  I spit on them whenever I see one.  Clearly, you have an unerring eye for judging human nature. 

But here was the actual sequence of claims:

JL: "I am against sexism, most emphatically, without any doubt at all. In fact, one of the main reasons I do what I do is because of what religion has done and continues to do to women. I argue against religion for that reason alone."

DM: "Resolved: That the Gospel of Jesus has done more to help more women than any other teaching in the history of Planet Earth.  I challenge you, John."

Both of these are historical claims, extended into the sociological present.  You can't answer an historical argument with an exegetical study.  History doesn't work that way. 

I understand that you would prefer to play to your own strength rather than extend yourself and learn something new, and perhaps disconcerting, about history.  But I don't apologize for taking your claim literally, and playing to my strength (and interests) by answering it directly. 

I'm prepping for a debate with Phil Zuckerman in two weeks, in California.  One thing I like about Phil's writings, is his empirical approach to the effect of religion . . .

JL: (Tells me he doesn't want to explain what's in the books, I need to read them for myself.  It will, however, damage my Christian faith if I do so.)

DM: Yes, well, given that we both know none of the books you recommended even pretend to address my arguments, we both know you're just blowing hot air.  But I'll pass your excuse for not replying to arguments that blow your supposed reason for leaving Christianity out of the water, on to Matt: he will, of course, be fully justified in brushing you off in the same way, by citing irrelevant books, glancing impatiently at his watch, and urging you to get an education.
 

JL: (Resorts to brief profanity.) 

Tempest in Teapot blows itself out . . . 

So how does the legal aphorism go?  "If you don't have the facts, argue the law.  If you don't have the law, argue the facts.  If you don't have either facts or law, and you're backed so far into a corner that your butt is making mince meat out of ants on the wall, turn blue in the face, call your opponent a ## fundie idiot, and stalk out of the courtroom in a huff." 

Since the courtroom has emptied, I guess I'll leave, too.  Let me simply recommend to any Christians arguing with John Loftus that he has given us a license to reply to his taunts in the same manner in which he has replied to my detailed empirical rebuttals of his claim about Christianity and women.  Cite irrelevant book titles, glance impatiently at your watch, and urge him to stop hating books and get an education. 

By his own account, Mr. Loftus is an "intellectually dishonest apologist."  By mine, he is acting the hypocrite. 

And I think I've had enough of that for a while. 

I do continue to welcome sincere attempts by skeptics to rebut the substance of my arguments in the "How Jesus Liberates Women" series, however -- assuming there are still sincere skeptics, out there, some days I wonder.  (But on the other hand, on the Medievals and science, see this!)