tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post5665610225801573516..comments2024-03-18T03:29:09.653-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: "Woman, what has truth to do with you?" Annie Laurie Gaylor fibs about the Bible, women, and Christian history. Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-64448523231731578932014-12-13T10:36:35.903-08:002014-12-13T10:36:35.903-08:00Patrick II: Exactly. I've run across Christia...Patrick II: Exactly. I've run across Christian ministries to those falsely accused of witchcraft on three continents, myself. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-814114641269719732014-12-13T03:26:17.343-08:002014-12-13T03:26:17.343-08:00(I’m another Patrick)
Patrick: “The causation for...(I’m another Patrick)<br /><br />Patrick: “The causation for the Witch hunts is not all that fuzzy. It arose in a Christian culture and religion and was based on various biblical verses.”<br /><br />As for Exodus 22,18, in my view it is far from clear that it played the role attributed to it with respect to witch hunts. In my view one has to show that this passage had the supposed effect. After all, for all I know, there have never been any witch hunts among Jews, and in Christianity it took about 1500 years until people arrived at the conclusion that one should hunt witches. On the other hand there had been a long tradition in Christian theology to dismiss belief in witchcraft as a superstition. The following reference from a scholarly book is very informative in this respect:<br /><br />H. C. Erik Midelfort, Witch Hunting in South Western Germany 1562-1684: The Social and Intellectual Foundations, Stanford/Cal. 1972, pp. 10-66.<br /><br />More often than not pastors preached against the belief in witchcraft, as it was contrary to the doctrine of God’s providence, according to which God sends diseases and other adverse events in order to punish sinners or to put to test the faithful, as He did with Job. Consequently, if adverse events were attributed to the work of witches instead to God its educational effect was thus undermined. For further information is this respect in the following contribution is very informative:<br /><br />Stuart Clark, Protestant Demonology; Sin, Superstition, and Society (c. 1520 – c. 1630), in: Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen (eds.), Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, Oxford 1990, pp. 47-81.<br /><br />In the following contribution it is argued that in Denmark the decline of the number of witch trials can be put down to the activities of pastors preaching against the belief in witchcraft:<br /><br />Jens Christian V. Johansen, Witchcraft, Sin and Repentance: The Decline of Danish Witchcraft Trials, in: Acta Ethnographica Hungarica 37 (1991/92), pp. 413-423.<br /><br />Furthermore, there have been witch hunts in cultures other than the Judeo-Christian culture. As for belief in witchcraft and witch hunts in such cultures the following books are very informative:<br /><br />Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London 1922;<br /><br />Edgar Evan Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, Oxford 1937;<br /><br />Clyde Kluckhohn, Navaho Witchcraft, Boston 1944;<br /><br />Sohaila Kapur, Witchcraft in Western India, Hyderabad 1983; <br /><br />M. Stephen, Sorcerer and Witch in Melanesia, Melbourne 1987;<br /><br />Philip A. Kuhn, Soul Stealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768, Cambridge/Mass. 1990;<br /><br />Deward E. Walker (ed.), Witchcraft and Sorcery of the American Native Peoples, Moscow 1990;<br /><br />C. W. Watson and Roy Ellen (eds.), Understanding Witchcraft in Southeast Asia, Honolulu 1993.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-15555874761914810182014-12-09T20:55:38.075-08:002014-12-09T20:55:38.075-08:00Patrick: I've read tons of stuff Loftus has pu...Patrick: I've read tons of stuff Loftus has put out. More than a thousand pages. It's hardly too much to ask him to read my articles, specifically written by an historian to answer his own challenge that he says is so important, and full of empirical data. <br /><br />As I explained above, since I'm analyzing the primary sources directly, if the question is what those sources say, the tertiary texts he recommend are quite unnecessary. If you want to know if there's a pig in your garden, go look: don't site obscure articles in Porcine Bimonthly Journal. But historical evidence is more diffuse, and must therefore be gathered. <br /><br />I don't argue that all good deeds are the result of the Gospel, of course. Obviously you haven't read any of my books, either. But follow the logic of Loftus & Co on other issues. They say if Christianity didn't inspire science right away, then it couldn't have been the cause later in the Middle Ages. Well Christianity didn't inspire witch-hunts right away, either. <br /><br />Furthermore, persecution of those perceived as using magic is worldwide; inventing science is not. Fear of the occult was common in Europe before Christianity arose, and there were laws against black magic and tough prosecution. In addition, there is not a hint in the NT that anyone should be persecuted for such things, or a hint of fear on the part of the heroes. And Christians are, you know, supposed to follow Christ. So yes, quite fuzzy. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" doesn't begin to explain it. <br /><br />Yes, there is medical care even in primitive societies. We're talking scale, here. <br /> <br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-47558854625017136792014-12-09T20:16:12.548-08:002014-12-09T20:16:12.548-08:00Slavery was hardly unknown in the Americas
I don&#...<i>Slavery was hardly unknown in the Americas</i><br />I don't deny it. Rather, most every culture had some form of slavery. My point here is that Christians continued to perpetuate it rather than stop it. Christians should have been the one to stop it but they held slaves for hundreds of years instead.<br /><br /><i> read the articles</i><br />Interesting how you ask me to do this but when Loftus asked you to read something you refused. Perhaps I should follow your example.<br /><br /><i>The Witch Hunts can, I admit, be placed on the other side of the ledger, though the causation is a little fuzzier than that...but that the Gospel did have a hugely positive influence on women around the world.</i><br /><br />The causation for the Witch hunts is not all that fuzzy. It arose in a Christian culture and religion and was based on various biblical verses. If you are going to argue, basically, that all good deeds are a result of the gospel but bad deeds, well the cause is harder to determine then you are not being objective. While it is true that Christians in the European culture developed hospitals it can easily be argued that people, in general, are nice and caring and have always been concerned about the health of others this is true in other cultures, too. Most every culture has some form of medicine. Almost every group and culture care about those in the group. Europe had science which helped them develop good medical practices.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-55498716179834723452014-12-09T17:10:07.356-08:002014-12-09T17:10:07.356-08:00Patrick: Slavery was hardly unknown in the America...Patrick: Slavery was hardly unknown in the Americas before white folks (whom you call "Christians," some were) showed up. (See Rodney Stark, Secularism, RIP, on Medieval Christianity, or lack thereof.) <br /><br />But read the articles: many of your questions are answered in them. Follow the "Christianity and Women" label link, pay particular attention to, I think it is three or four. Yes, billions, and in more than one way. <br /><br />Greek and Roman societies did NOT treat women better: again, read the articles, or Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity. <br /><br />The Witch Hunts can, I admit, be placed on the other side of the ledger, though the causation is a little fuzzier than that, I think. Jenny Gibbon's article on the "Burning Times" (she's a neo-pagan) is balanced and enlightening. Stark and Girard also offer crucial insights on this subject. <br /><br />Yes, some cultures are better and some worse, even without the Bible, and they change in various ways. For instance, the Zhou was worse than the Shang towards women, but less inclined to bury people in tombs, towards the later Zhou, under the influence of Confucianism. I don't claim there are no other variables, nor that the "western" record is spotless, but that the Gospel did have a hugely positive influence on women around the world. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45678090376464543532014-12-09T16:54:19.945-08:002014-12-09T16:54:19.945-08:00Reading your blog someone would get the impression...Reading your blog someone would get the impression that Christianity has been nothing but good for women but this would be far from the truth, wouldn't it?<br /><br />Since you talk historical evidence then let's keep in mind that people burned and drowned women because of the bible. Women were treated as second class citizens or worse for centuries because of the bible. And as far as slavery is concerned it was Christians who introduced slavery into the Americas. It was only because of a war in the US that slavery was finally ended. There is no verse in the bible that states that slavery is even wrong or evil.<br /><br />You also provide no support that <b>billions of women</b> benefited from Christianity. What is billions? Can you be more specific as to the number of women?<br /><br />While Christianity does treat women better than some other societies other societies there is nothing surprising about this. If you look at all societies around the world they would fall everywhere along the line from bad to great in regards to their treatment of women. It would not be unusual to see that some societies treated women worse than Christianity while there are other societies that treated women even better than those in a Christian society. If you are saying that Christians treated women better than other societies because of the gospel of Jesus then what do we attribute to those other societies (such as the Greek and Roman societies) who treated women even better than those Christian societies?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-35035069219949706352014-12-09T12:07:49.912-08:002014-12-09T12:07:49.912-08:00(2) Nietzsche wasn't perfect, but he was brill...(2) Nietzsche wasn't perfect, but he was brilliant. Perhaps the most important aspect of his writing was he was an expert at hiding his true meaning from people who didn't want to see. People argue to this day about what he meant, but not people like you, you only see the veneer. Also Sprach Zarathustra is actually about people like you which he called the rabble. No matter how many times he tried to explain to people like you, you always take the wrong message. This makes us want to give up on you, but then we come back again, and we find you still won't listen. You have to count yourself as one who does not know Nietzsche.<br /><br />When Nietzsche said weakness, he didn't mean about physical weakness. His concept of Ubermensch wasn't a physically superior man. That's the Nazi misinterpretation. The Ubermensch is a morally superior being by not being a coward, which is a purely mental state. Nietzsche's concept of slave is slavery to fear, as all slaves are for they only have to collectively rise up against their masters.<br /><br />Women were property to men, which is a euphemism for slavery, and this is a solidly OT concept with dozens of verses to back it up, starting with Genesis 2:20 when God creates a "helper" for Adam, a term consistently used for an inferior.<br /><br />The NT splits a bit as to whether women are equal or inferior, but the verses which supposedly take women as equal are interpreted very generously, and many translations deliberately use language as low as possible. As with all contradictions in the Bible, different groups of Christians pick and choose which they want to be true, the more conservative a church the lower the women. What's really ironic is when women are interpreted positively, it can be interpreted that Christians are using the seductiveness of women to recruit. Disgusting hypocrisy.<br /><br />You, like Chesteron, make the mistake of taking male narcissism as being somehow a weakness of atheists and somehow not Christians. How do you think all this denigration of women got in the Bible in the first place? It was written by male narcissists who happened to be Jews and Christians.<br /><br />(3) Normal humans value people for who they are. Look back at point (1) to see how the Bible values women. In fact why you separate this from point (1) begs the question of whether you understand what slavery even means.<br /><br />(4) >one cannot subjugate those who are already under heal, and one does not require violence to enslave those who are already slaves.<br /><br />So, no, you really have no idea what slavery or oppression are really like and you don't even care. Masters, living in fear, constantly worry about creeping freedom. Slavery can't exist in a society unless the whole society -- everyone -- agrees to it, and this is never entirely the case, but we get into the problem of cowardice. No one wants to be caught freeing a slave. Society does everything it can to maintain subjugation. This is what racism today is all about.<br /><br />>Sure, she sins first, and then after that, Adam also eats of the apple and falls.<br /><br />This is just classic Christian failure. You accuse someone of not reading what you yourself did not. Genesis literally says that God lies, even God admits it, and the serpent tells Eve the truth. When Eve eats the fruit, God's deception is exposed. Adam and Eve don't die, they are expelled from the garden to prevent them from eating the fruit of life. Even God posts guards so no one can reach it. Christians really screwed up by not reading the whole thing and basing their faith on it. Again, it's so funny we always find much stupider things in what you say than the point you tried and failed to make.<br /><br />Moses' mother (her name was Jochebed) married her own nephew. But it was ok because Moses hadn't written the law yet!Tige Gibsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810833870958835500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-46665398595112659272014-12-09T11:15:53.809-08:002014-12-09T11:15:53.809-08:00>She ignores the historical evidence that ferve...>She ignores the historical evidence that fervent Christians were in fact responsible for ending foot binding in China, stopping the burning of widows in India, rescuing prostitutes, ending slavery, and founding schools and hospitals that have educated and saved the lives of tens of millions of women. <br /><br />It is arrogant presumption that non-Christians wouldn't equally have stopped the abuse and murder of women or opened schools and hospitals. Atheists could not do this, it had to be Christians. And why? Where in the Bible does it say to do these things? Maybe they did it because they were human and were able to overcome the teachings in the Bible that denegrate women.<br /><br />(1) Pathological sexual hatred is ingrained in Christianity. It's not really nebulous at all and it isn't from the OT.<br /><br />>Matthew 19:12 ...there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.<br /><br />The Book of Matthew teaches specifically that self-castration is a route to heaven, which implies lots of things most obviously that God must perceive something significantly undesirable in sexuality. It warrants that any past sexual act somehow preserves a magical marker on you despite the great promise of forgiveness and ritual cleansing. Here Christianity undermines its very foundation for the sake of an anti-sexual tenet. Christians can't discount this, especially when Church fathers took it so seriously.<br /><br />The main reason why this tradition didn't catch on was because Jesus didn't actually return "soon" like he promised and so it became necessary to have children and indoctrinate them otherwise the Christian population would self-eradicate. For atheists, the fact that Jesus made the claim that he would return soon and didn't is one of the heaviest blows to Christianity. It's not worth arguing about anyting else when you made such a big mistake as that.<br /><br />>1 Corinthians 7:1 ... It is good for a man not to touch a woman.<br /><br />So Matthew 19:12 is reinforced. It isn't some random verse. There is a consistent strong message. And it's a message to men *about* women. It's never addressed to men and women together about sexuality. There is no female eunuch.<br /><br />>1 Corinthians 7:9 ... But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.<br /><br />And again, marriage is a means to make sexuality for men excusable, otherwise the men get the ultimate punishment. There is no middle ground. Again, we atheists are bothered more by the bigger fundamental errors of the Bible like this. There is hardly a point in arguing that the Bible denigrates women, that's obvious and undeniable, but the Bible is a freak show of basic moral fallacies like this: bifurcation. You do this and you die. Period. There is no nuance. And yet you want us to see nuance which isn't there in how women are described in the Bible.<br /><br />>Revelation 14:3-4 ... No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for fthey are virgins. It is these gwho follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb,<br /><br />You can't underestimate the significance of Jesus' immediate return to Christians throughout history. Christians want to be firstfruits and this is the way. The firstfruits can't be women. There's something not right with women, not good enough. That's what this verse says.<br /><br />These verses here are the ones which do and have done the most harm to women, the ones you say don't exist.<br /><br />That was just your point (1).Tige Gibsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810833870958835500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-78719778061070419262014-12-08T17:47:33.747-08:002014-12-08T17:47:33.747-08:00First of all, I haven't made the blanket claim...First of all, I haven't made the blanket claim that "women are highly esteemed in the Bible." We are only responsible for backing up the claims we make, and I didn't make that one. But Gaylor did make the claim that every single significant woman in the Bible is presented as "diabolical." If she doesn't want her claims debunked, she shouldn't make such stupid ones. <br /><br />Secondly, as an historian, my primary interest is the effect different religions have had on the status of women. My claim is about history. I back it up with historical evidence. That's appropriate. <br /><br />And third, even when it comes to biblical exegesis -- the focus of Gaylor's essay, not mine -- my approach is much more systematic and fair than hers. I begin by analyzing every significant reference to women in the gospels, the most important primary data for Christianity. I then do the same with Acts. Paul comes next; I've done a bit of that. If I have time, I may move on to the Old Testament. But given the nature of my claim, as I explain in that post, a full survey of the gospels is more than adequate to support my actual point.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-43110870808384973902014-12-08T17:08:41.172-08:002014-12-08T17:08:41.172-08:00David, I am not ignoring what you did say but you ...David, I am not ignoring what you did say but you are committing the same error that you accuse Annie of, that is you are presenting only half of the story and acting as if it was the whole story. If you are going to talk about how women are highly esteemed in the bible then you have to deal with the verses that do not treat them so well or the commands/doctrines that the church has used to hold them back.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-49885146672918198272014-12-08T07:36:13.542-08:002014-12-08T07:36:13.542-08:00Patrick: "I didn't see where you discusse...Patrick: "I didn't see where you discussed the poor girl who was beaten and killed by a mob and later sliced up into 12 pieces."<br /><br />Did you miss this paragraph:<br /><br />"The concubine who is raped in Genesis 19 is cited as an "unsavory depiction of rape," never mind that the author, and the people of Israel, are horrified by the story, too. (That is its point -- as I pointed out in The Truth Behind the New Atheism, when Dawkins also criticized the Bible for containing this terrible account.) Apparently, reporting a crime makes you a criminal too. Gaylor also neglects, of course, to point out that after the one woman is raped and murdered, national disgust at the incident sets off a civil war in which thousands of men also die. And that the author's editorial point is that society was in a state of chaos, and things had come to an ugly pass. But Gaylor, being a deeply dishonest person, implies that the Bible includes such a horrific story because it is callous towards women, simply failing to tell us the point of the story. "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-87588269190735940102014-12-07T23:11:26.174-08:002014-12-07T23:11:26.174-08:00It doesn't sound like a very promising bit of ...It doesn't sound like a very promising bit of writing. Since you didn't mention it, I am going to assume the writer didn't interact with any of the writings about Christianity and feminism? Or the egalitarians such as Christians for Biblical Equality who contribute a lot in this area? Or maybe Rebecca Groothuis' writings? Or possibly Bauckham's "Gospel Women?" Maybe some of the uniquely Jewish writings on feminist criticism and the Bible? If the author of the chapter made such claims without doing the appropriate research, what's the point of writing?ErrolRulezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01893588615206533081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-20454749901784393172014-12-07T19:25:07.290-08:002014-12-07T19:25:07.290-08:00Patrick: Since you're just ignoring everything...Patrick: Since you're just ignoring everything I DID say, why are you talking about what I didn't say? Nowhere above do I claim the OT, in particular, completely lacks negative passages about women. It is Annie who claims it completely lacks positive portrayals. That makes her a liar. Do you get how the burden of proof works? <br /><br />I explain what changed in Scandinavia in my debate with Phil Zuckerman: he did not deny my explanation. I've posted a transcript of that debate on this site. If you want to talk about Scandinavia, and can focus a little better than you have so far here, read that. <br /><br />I also talk about a few of those verses in The Truth Behind the New Atheism. But I have no need to prove there are no bad verses in the OT at all. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-64539089857033256942014-12-07T19:09:34.669-08:002014-12-07T19:09:34.669-08:00Sorry but I didn't see where you discussed how...Sorry but I didn't see where you discussed how Lot offered up his daughters to be gang-raped by the local mob.<br />I didn't see where you discussed the poor girl who was beaten and killed by a mob and later sliced up into 12 pieces.<br />I didn't see where you discussed how Japtha sacrificed his daughter as a sacrifice to God<br />I didn't see where you discuss how the Israelites were told it was okay to kill women, but not men, who were not virgins on their wedding night.<br />I didn't see where you discussed how the Israelites went into other cultures and killed women just because they slept with men while keeping those who didn't for themselves.<br />I didn't see where you discussed how the New Testament tells women, not men, to keep silent.<br />I didn't see where you discussed how the New Testament, Paul specifically, says that women should not be allowed to teach or have authority over him.<br /><br />You also cite statistics showing that Christian women are treated better than those of other religion but similar statistics also show that women in secular societies, such as Sweden, are treated better than those in Christian cultures. The most religious state in the US is Mississippi which is also the state with the highest poverty and teen pregnancy rate. The teen pregnancy rate in less religious states is lower than those in more religious states.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-91333856169210052852014-12-07T18:04:57.804-08:002014-12-07T18:04:57.804-08:00Patrick: I just demonstrated that Annie lied repea...Patrick: I just demonstrated that Annie lied repeatedly about what the Bible says. Is this somehow not clear to you? <br /><br />There are two questions here: (a) What does the Bible say about women? (b) What impact has Christianity had on women? <br /><br />The proper primary source material for the first question is the Bible. I address this, especially the gospels and Acts, and also Paul, in my series, in great detail. Secondary sources are irrelevant. I don't need to so much as glance them, to reasonably answer the first question. <br /><br />The second question is historical. I have given detailed, systematic evidence: neither John nor Annie have dealt with that evidence -- nor the hundreds of other skeptics who seem to have read at least part of that material. (Even Ann Rice, if she counts as a skeptic, on this subject she is.) <br /><br />Get real.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-47900457791420970922014-12-07T15:53:03.116-08:002014-12-07T15:53:03.116-08:00Did you read any of the references that either Joh...Did you read any of the references that either John or Annie Gaylor made in their arguments? I noticed that John mentioned 3 books that you seemed to have ignored yet you seem to feel slighted that they ignored your references. I noticed that you did not answer their criticisms in the way you expect them to answer yours.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-1940880198793602472014-12-07T12:45:35.362-08:002014-12-07T12:45:35.362-08:00John: It should bother you that one of your author...John: It should bother you that one of your authors is (a) ignoring contrary evidence (well most your authors do that), (b) grossly misrepresenting the verses she cites, (c) pretty darn close to lying about some passages. <br /><br />Do you, for example, contend that every single significant woman in the Bible is depicted as "diabolical?" (Including the ones I name above?) How could you help put such an overt and shameless falsehood in print? <br /><br />Do you contend that the Ideal Wife in Proverbs is really a horrible figure -- this lady who runs a businesses, buys product, purchase real estate, is respected around town, gives to the poor, and is full of wisdom that she teaches those around her? Seriously?<br /><br />And when are you (or your colleagues) going to deal with the facts I present, showing that the Gospel has materially benefited BILLIONS of women around the world? Come on, you offer negative facts aplenty in this book -- why not admit the positive ones, for once? Are you afraid they will destroy your argument?David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-7418157222827139712014-12-07T11:06:43.645-08:002014-12-07T11:06:43.645-08:00Another example of cherry-picking verses from the ...Another example of cherry-picking verses from the bible while ignoring others.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-85446827285537644202014-12-07T08:56:09.484-08:002014-12-07T08:56:09.484-08:00I noticed your critique is not exegetical. Why not...I noticed your critique is not exegetical. Why not? That should bother you.John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-4793103942887120792014-12-07T08:36:18.167-08:002014-12-07T08:36:18.167-08:00Yeah, John, I caught that. And as I told you on y...Yeah, John, I caught that. And as I told you on your own site, no philosophy that ignores the evidence can be called serious. Philosophy -- "love of wisdom" -- is as philosophy does, as Forrest Gump (himself not a bad one, at times) put it. <br /><br />Anyway, thank goodness not all the chapters in your book are this bad. I've read about half so far, and this is probably the worst. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-70433623152084610982014-12-07T08:26:42.892-08:002014-12-07T08:26:42.892-08:00David, keep in mind that I am in good company acco...David, keep in mind that I am in good company according to Dawes, who also said: <br /><br />-------------<br /><br />"Why do you think that philosophers generally don’t seem to be bothered that the sub group specializing in philosophizing about religion are disagreeing with them? It’s a strange situation isn’t it, that a sub group of experts are disregarded by the rest of the field."<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />Serious philosophers disregard the whole discipline as unworthy of serious thought. By Dawes own statement that means Lowder is not a serious philosopher. From all I can tell he only has a college degree in an unrelated discipline anyway.<br />John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.com