Pages

Monday, January 04, 2016

Response to Matthew Ferguson: The Morbid Fantasies of Christian Apologists

In the past two days, I noticed evaluations of a certain "Christian apologist" by two deeply dedicated foes of Christianity.  Both men used the same name to describe this person, who appears to be a writer of some sort  But I can't believe they're really talking about the same person.

The first, atheist blogger and author John Loftus, wrote the following about this gentleman, whom we will call "DM," in his book How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist:

"I must admit I like DM.  He's highly educated, knowledgeable about a wide range of issues, pretty damn smart, very passionate, and kinda funny, like me . . . He reviews books on Amazon and comments there, like me.  He's polite until he meets up with what he considers sheer ignorance or is personally maligned . . . " (164)

The second skeptic, classics doctoral candidate and anti-Christian blogger Matthew Ferguson, wrote of a "DM" who appears, by sharp contrast, to be bereft of any single intellectual or moral virtue.  He repeatedly "harassed" Ferguson by posting critical challenges to his theories on his blog.  He insulted Ferguson, posting "tons of personal attacks," and proved "rude, obsessive (three posts!), and vehement," not to mention boorish in his sub-feminist use of the term "man up."  He is "dishonest about covering his tracks," spreads "false information" about Ferguson, and indeed "lies" on a regular basis.  DM is, furthermore, completely out of his league when it comes to evaluating the genre or historicity of ancient books, a mere "layman" as well as (citing an e-mail from Richard Carrier) a "dishonest ass."  Indeed, this DM is "the bottom of the barrel of what modern Christendom has to offer."  His method is to "rudely insult those who do not convert to his religion," then whine when shots are fired in return.


Worst of all, the evil DM, the one who has subjected Ferguson to such harassment, even nurtures "morbid fantasies" about Mr. Fergusons death!


DM: "I'm not going to respond on his site, though, since he keeps threatening to censor me. I will, however, give him a chapter to hang himself in my new book -- more than his childish brand of 'scholarship' deserves.'"



MF: "(DM) is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent imagery to describe what he would do to non-Christians.  For example, a friend of mine a couple years ago recorded some videos of a Christian street preacher, named Clarence 'Bro' Cope, in which Clarence stated that he would 'slit' my friend's 'throat' and personally drag and throw him into Hell . . .


"Contrary to (DM)'s morbid fantasy, however, I doubt that I will commit suicide after he writes yet another polemic against me in his new book." 


Is it possible that these two men, both "DM" -- and their full first and last names also coincide -- are really the same person?  That hardly seems possible.  Surely there is some confusion here.  After all, Loftus and Ferguson are both atheists.  So outspoken an atheist as John Loftus could hardly say such nice things about a borderline psychopath whose "modus operandi" is to "rudely insult those who do not convert to his religion."  Nor would a former frequent guest poster on Loftus' often hard-edged Debunking Christianity site, a "Christ myther," have e-mailed THAT DM to say:


"You and I have had our disagreements, but I respect you because you’re honest, sincere and show respect for other people in your comments."


Neither does it seem likely that books written by such a scoundrel would be praised by some of the most eminent scholars in "Christendom," both for insight, and even for reasonableness of tone. 
Obviously these gentlemen must be two entirely different "DMs."  One: honest, sincere, respectful, informed, and sometimes funny, even if wrong.  The other: a spiritual vacuum, destitute of any one emotional, spiritual, or intellectual virtue.  If the two men met and shook hands, they would probably explode, and take a few parsecs of space with them.  (Pardon the violent imagery.  For the record, I do not really wish any nearby stars or planets to blow up.) 


Yet the odd thing is, Loftus posted on a Facebook page belonging to Ferguson and critical of "DM," implying that in fact, they were speaking about one and the same Christian author. 

How are we to solve this mystery? 


A few theories come to mind.  Let's see if we can figure out which is correct.

(1) There is just one DM, but he suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder.  (Or, alternatively, is possessed by a sadistic warrior spirit, perhaps from an Aztec tribe.) 

(2) DM is, in fact, a sinner, some days worse than others, but the greater variable here is (as Loftus suggested might be the case) the personality or self-representation of Mr. Ferguson.

(3) It may also be that Mr. Ferguson is misunderstanding what he reads.  This would also cohere with one possible interpretation of DM's criticism that Ferguson can be "blind as a bat" when it comes to the exegetical arts. 

Since Multiple Personality Disorder seems to have fallen out of favor, and the second hypothesis is not really at odds with the third, let us try to solve this mystery by seeing if we can find any evidence for Hypothesis 3 in Ferguson's comments, above.  Since it is his most serious allegation, let us begin with Ferguson's claim that DM fantasizes about the former committing suicide.  If Ferguson has gotten that wrong, one can understand his ire.  But given such an enormous mistake, one would henceforth be wise to take Ferguson's exegetical interpretations -- all of them -- with a large grain of salt.  A Great Salt Lake of salt. 


Does DM wish ill to Matthew Ferguson? 

I'll give the textual evidence, then how Ferguson interprets it, then why that interpretation seems unlikely.  Aside from clearing up the mystery of the two DMs, examining these comments should also help us understand how Ferguson reads and interprets texts in general:


DM: "I'm not going to respond on (Ferguson's) site, though, since he keeps threatening to censor me.  I will, however, give him a chapter to hang himself in my new book -- more than his childish brand of 'scholarship' deserves."


Ferguson's interpretation:  "Since he has made it clear that he plans to write more polemics against me, including a book chapter that he hopes will cause me to 'hang myself . . . '"
"(DM) is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent imagery to describe what he would do to non-Christians.  For example, a friend of mine a couple years ago recorded some videos of a Christian street preacher, named Clarence 'Bro' Cope, in which Clarence stated that he would 'slit' my friend's 'throat' and personally drag and throw him into Hell . . .


"Contrary to (DM)'s morbid fantasy, however, I doubt that I will commit suicide after he writes yet another polemic against me in his new book." 



So it is clear that Ferguson believes the words in red above mean that DM not only hopes Ferguson will commit suicide after reading the chapter DM is writing, not only does he "fantasize" about Ferguson's death, but even that killing Ferguson is something Marshall "would do" (under what conditions, Ferguson does not specify.)

There seem, however, to be several serious problems with this interpretation:

(1)  The phrase "hang yourself" seems to enjoy a broader semantic range than literal death by strangulation.  For instance, Cambridge Dictionary gives the following definition:

"You say that someone can go hang (himself or herself) if you do not ​care what that ​person says or does about something: If she's ​expecting the ​report by ​tomorrow, she can go hang herself."

Even more relevantly, Idioms.com features the following phrase (which I have often heard, whether or not Ferguson or DM have):

give somebody enough rope (to hang themselves)




"To allow someone to do what they want to, knowing that they will probably fail or get into trouble: "I let him speak on, knowing that he would offend the director, and gave him just enough rope."

 

On this interpretation, "Give him a chapter to hang himself" would mean roughly the same as to allow someone to be "hoist by their own petards."  In other words, Ferguson's attack upon Christianity would be "hurt, ruined, or destroyed by the very device or plot one had intended for another."  (Note that "petard" was a small bomb, so "hanging" is actually a bit less violent than the alternative metaphor.)

(2) The context of DM's remark would also seem to favor the interpretation of "refuting" over that of  murder. 


(3) And, indeed, "refute" is a goal more commonly expressed by one scholar about another than "murder."  By Richard Carrier's methods of probabilistic reading, it would therefore seem the default, odds-on interpretation. 

 

(4) When Ferguson mentioned that he was suffering from health issues, and asked for help from his readers financially, DM offered to send in some funds.  If his goal were to do in Mr. Ferguson, helping to cover his medical expenses would seem rather counterproductive.

 

(5)  Actually, the chapter by DM that Ferguson refers to does not include any "polemics" against Mr. Ferguson.  (Nor did DM say that it would.)   What the chapter does is analyze an ancient work that Ferguson compares to the gospels -- The Contest of Hesiod and Homer -- and demonstrate that there are dozens of differences that fall in favor of the gospels when it comes to historicity.  At least twice (in an early draft) Ferguson is mildly criticized for what DM perceives as errors, such as neglecting vitally important dis-analogies between the two sets of literature.  But these criticisms never involve mere polemics: rather DM treats this entirely as an intellectual dispute, in service of finding important truths.  Typical of the tone are the following paragraphs:

"Matthew Ferguson contributes to what has been a a long and, on the surface, fruitless search.  But wisdom is affirmed by all her children: in history, as in science, failed experiments sometimes teach us as much as successful ones. 


"Christians and all who search for truth may be grateful for such challenges, which highlight not a God of Gaps, but a God of history.  With each challenge so far, the credibility of the gospels grows by leaps and bounds, and the gap between Jesus and his “competitors” yawns still deeper and wider.  'Come let us see.'"

 

This hardly seems like the tone of a homicidal maniac. 
 
(6) In general, even on the Internet, DM's remarks about Ferguson have been more frequently civil, than have Ferguson's remarks about DM. 

(7) In addition, the notion that Ferguson has misinterpreted DM's remarks would seem easier to reconcile with the opposing image of DM promoted by other hard-core atheists in the movement -- that Marshall, while no saint, and given to both sarcasm and poetic hyperbole, and certainly mistaken, is not quite the fanged, three-headed monster from Hades that Ferguson makes him out to be. 
 
All in all, then, it seems highly unlikely that DM meant to express any wish that Ferguson harm himself, or be harmed by anyone else.  (Indeed, in a private communication, DM tells me that he wishes "all the best for Ferguson -- long life, good health, friends, love, good food, adventures, and yes, greater maturity in dealing with criticism, and far deeper insight into the central texts of early Christianity.") 
 
But falsely accusing someone of a wish to commit murder is a pretty dramatic error to make! 


"So you DO NOT wish me to kill myself or come in for any kind of harm?  You only hope to see my arguments prove self-refuting?   Oh, why that's very different!  Never mind!"




And yet Ferguson not only plunged off that cliff -- whoops, there I go again -- he took this exegetical false path eagerly, exaggerating DM's "fault" -- DM hopes Ferguson will kill himself, no, he fantasizes about Ferguson's death, no, he wishes to make it happen -- despite the offer of money to improve his health! 
 
A person who could make such a God-awful error in reading, dragging a writer down to the pits of hell (oops!  more overly dramatic metaphor!)  on such flimsy evidence -- "blind as a bat" to evidence that trumpets from within and without the text for a more prosaic and charitable reading -- is, one would think, at a minimum, liable to make other serious errors in reading. 
And that, let me gently suggest, is the key one should bring to reading much that Matthew Ferguson writes. 

 
A Few More (Fresh) Examples

(a) "You have not really read the gospels in a serious way, however many times you have leafed through the texts" is also subject to multiple interpretations.  It could mean, as Ferguson repeatedly interpreted it, "You have not taken academic classes, read every word, read more than once, considered multiple theories," etc.  But it could also mean, "You are unskilled in interpreting these texts, regardless of how many classes you have taken in them.  You have yet to discover the proper interpretive clues."
 
The latter is obviously the correct interpretation.  DM bends over backwards to make that clear.  He argues that Ferguson's interpretation, not his academic choices, is flawed: "You describe the gospels as 'novels.'  This is complete and utter nonsense."  He says the truth is "standing in front of you like an elephant in broad daylight."  He calls Ferguson, not "uneducated" or "stupid" or "ignorant of the primary languages" but rather "blind as a bat."
 
All this implies that the problem lies in interpretation, not in academic history.  "Leaf through the texts" is thus deliberate hyperbole, which a reader of the New Testament ought to learn to recognize, given how often the main protagonist in the gospels uses it. 
What further compounds and confirms Ferguson's reading error here is that he not only misinterprets, but subsequently MISQUOTES DM, twice:

"I stated that (DM) misrepresented me for (1) claiming that I had not 'studied the Gospels in any serious way,' and (2) had only 'leafed through the texts' of the Gospels."
"If Marshall were to claim that Bart Erhman or Marcus Borg had only 'leafed through the text' of the Gospels, or had not 'studied them in any serious way,' he would be misrepresenting their academic and professional work."
 
What difference does it make that Ferguson substitutes the word "study" for the word "read" here?  "Read" often carries the semantic meaning of "understood," whereas "study" does not.  "Do you read me?"  Or, as Jesus put it, "They have eyes, but see not."  Here, again, Ferguson errs through failing to pick up on subtle but important distinctions between the meaning of English phrases.  He studies, but fails to read; looks, but fails to see. 

And yes, I say exactly the same about Bart Ehrman and Marcus Borg.  (And demonstrated it, in the latter case, in Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus.)  Indeed, so even does Carrier, from time to time.  (When he's not calling Ehrman, like me, a "liar.") 
 
Also, of course, it is unfortunate when a scholar misquotes someone he disagrees with.  Ferguson has complained about my mistakes: it is about time he took his own more seriously. 
 
(b) No, DM did not promise or imply "polemics" in the coming book, as noted.  He promised serious intellectual challenges.  And that is what he will be offering. 

(c) Clearly, Ferguson's scoffing at the notion that pagan Greeks would have "based their interest in science on their religion" is seriously undermined, at least, by Carrier's claim that many did, in fact, do just that.  Carrier and Ferguson may spin all they like: what else should we expect? 

(d) "Challenge" is not "harass."  Aside from posting intellectual challenges on-line, DM never committed any act normally understood as "harassment" -- telephone calls, knocking on doors, contacting relatives.  Ferguson is abusing the language by using such loaded terms, and also repeating his propensity to uncharitable interpretations.  DM explains:  
 
"I intend to continue challenging Ferguson's ideas, along with those of other scholars who make public arguments that I think are mistaken.  And if I tell Ferguson to 'man up' and 'face the music,' a wise exegete should neither think I am implying that women are weak (I happen to like accomplished women, and I have helped some become that way), nor that I am suggesting anything about the acoustics in his dorm.  (Still less making threats, however vague or notional, to his health in any way.)  That is what public debate and scholarship are all about: and I happen to enjoy free-spirited debate."  
  
(e) DM is not a "layman" when it comes to scholarship on religions.  He is Ferguson's senior, in almost every relevant sense, and his works have been strongly endorsed by scholars at Baylor, Duke, Marquette, Oxford, Penn State, Washington, Yale, etc.  It might be nice if Ferguson were to acknowledge these facts once or twice, instead of denying them.

 
(f) DM claims that one can detect genre without knowing the original language, if the work has been professionally translated.  (A fact one can generally take on the authority of other scholars.)  Ferguson derides this claim, but in his rebuttal of DM's arguments, he does not seem to point to a single relevant mistake DM makes that depends purely on language. 
That would be the proper way for Ferguson to support his point -- by showing how DM's disinterest in Latin has crippled his reading of this or that text, if indeed it has. 

(g) Richard Carrier has called almost everyone on the planet "dishonest" at least once or twice.  His opinion can therefore be discounted.  He did fine on stage debating DM (rhetorically), but has consistently lost written debates (as has Hector Avalos, which also explains his ire, which began after DM showed in detail on Amazon, then here how Avalos had misrepresented the New Testament.  Avalos' first long attack on DM was posted soon after -- without mentioning the prior debate.  Is that hard to understand?  Clearly, even Avalos knew at some level that he had embarrassed himself.) 

DM's criticism of works by Carrier and Avalos are easy to find on the sites for their books on Amazon.  After nearly 600 responses to his criticism of On the Historicity of Jesus, not one of his points has been effectively challenged. 

This also fits the pattern above.  Ferguson wishes (it seems) to think maximally ill of DM, so he solicits input from scholars who are maximally smarting after losing encounters with DM.  Ferguson fails to take into account the opinions of more mainstream, and more eminent, scholars who think highly of DM's work.  That is a form of cherry-picking, or confirmation bias.  Why should the opinion of Richard Carrier, who has probably never read one of DM's books, has no position in academia, is famous for wildly criticizing other scholars, and is still smarting from multiple painful encounters on-line (see this review), be worth more than that of great scholars like Nicholas Wolterstorff, Allan Chapman, or Rodney Stark? 





So is DM a villain or a saint?  No doubt a little of both.  Or maybe, from his own egocentric perspective, a lot of both, as Walker Percy recognized:



"I am rascal, hero, craven, brave, treacherous, loyal, at once the secret hero and asshole of the Cosmos.”



And what about Matthew Ferguson?

Whatever else he may be -- scholar, sage, gentleman, lover, pianist, painter, connoisseur, pet owner -- like Richard Carrier, and Bart Ehrman, and the whole Jesus Seminar, I think he is a rather poor reader.   

With that in mind, read what he says about DM -- or about the gospels -- and I think you will better understand what you find when you do so.   


PS: I have been asked to address Matthew's assertion that he has blocked me on his website, or has the right to censor my comments, or to say "If you earn a B- in translating this silly Latin e-mail into English, I'll let you post" (I could almost do it, though I haven't studied an hour's worth of Latin, most of the vocabulary is quite simple).  OK, let me answer that question.   


First, I do not care about posting on Matthew's blog.  I'll be talking with serious publishers this year about serious works that add important insights and sets of knowledge to the sum of human thought.  (As, I believe, have some of my other books and articles.)  If a Matthew Ferguson, or a Jerry Coyne, wishes to take the easy route to escape my barbs, let them.  I didn't want to take the time to write a self-defense, either.  But claims of death threats should, I suppose, be answered. 


Second, I little know or care what Matthew Ferguson's rules for etiquette on his blog are.  I do believe that after my two initial mistakes, amply apologized for, I have been more courteous to Matthew, than he to me, and also focused more on the issues.  (Aside from this bit of self-defense, not my idea.)   And I think that should be enough.  But every blogger makes his or her own rules, however self-serving, and I'm cool with that.  A man's blog is his castle. 


Third, again, what really interests me are the analogies skeptics offer to the gospels, and how they fail upon serious historical analysis.  Note, for example, how Bart Erhman's recent attempt to compare the gospels to the life of Polish rabbi Baal Shem Tov, or to Apollonius of Tyana, fared upon the mere beginnings of such analysis.   I maintain that all such skeptics seem "blind as bats" when reading the New Testament, failing to notice dozens of qualities that render them uniquely credible as historical documents. 


I am sorry Matthew Ferguson dislikes me, and that he has convinced himself (incredibly) that I wish him ill.  (Apparently Peter Boghossian somehow got the same impression.  Apparently my enthusiastic, tongue-slightly-in-cheek style of challenging skeptics doesn't suit everyone.)  But I remain delighted by the intellectual challenges Ferguson (more than Boghossian) brings to the historical texts of Christianity, and fascinated by their repeated (but familiar) failure.  Having said my piece in this self-defense, I do not, now, intend to be distracted from those truly important issues.  If, along the way, I have the chance to make peace with Matthew or some other skeptic who thinks ill of me, I will gladly take it.  But I don't think that's in my court, now, nor will I be dissuaded from continuing to seek truth where it may be found -- through dialectic, most happily of all. -- DM


PPS: A poster named Andrea below complains not that this post is too long, but that it is too short!  I have only addressed 2%, well not even that, of Ferguson's article, he claims.   And why didn't I provide a link to Ferguson's article?  Am I afraid it makes me look bad?   And (doing a 180) why did I answer Ferguson at all?  Am I one of those people who just can't let it go? 


Some of these complaints are bizarre and mutually-contradictory, but foolishly, perhaps, I'll bite. 


First, if you want to read Ferguson's article, here it is.  Enjoy. 


Second, Andrea counts wrong.  Printing it out, Ferguson's rant comes to 16 pages, and I addressed every argument on page 6, for instance, plus much of the rest.  So he's at least an order of magnitude off. 


Third, when several people publicly call YOU a "liar," I suggest that you try to set the record straight, if it needs setting straight. 


Fourth, if someone accuses you of harboring murderous thoughts, I  suggest that you answer THAT accusation, if nothing else.


Such a risibly false accusation, of such a magnitude, is more than enough to refute in one day.  Even if that were all I did above -- and it is not -- it should cause any fair-minded person to read the rest of Ferguson's work, including his critiques of myself, if at all, with deep suspicion. 


Fifth, as noted below, if I were really obsessive, I could have detailed many more errors and false accusations in Ferguson's hit piece.  I mention several more in respond to Andrea: I could add more, if I wanted to spend more time on this.  


But what I have written is more than enough.   Indeed, if you accuse someone of murderous intent or desire, and that accusation proves completely bogus, that alone should discredit you in polite society and as a source for exegetical interpretation for a good long time. 


Finally, while Ferguson's critique is a bit sordid and even occasionally edges on the paranoid, and I don't much enjoy this part of the public discourse, I do believe it is instructive.   THESE are the kind of scholars upon whom many skeptics rely for their interpretation of early Christianity.  People who unapologetically commit grotesque blunders when reading plain English, and then can't manage to properly apologize for those blunders (see comment 5).  People who prove themselves to be poor exegetes in their native languages.  That ought to give their fans pause. 


But I do intend to return to substance, and to the texts themselves, which yes, are in my view far more interesting. 

34 comments:

Cornell Anthony said...

Hopefully all of this confusion will be squared away.

I think both (Matthew and David) of you should give each other one more chance and take it from there.

I know it's cliche but hopefully this gets settled from here.






David B Marshall said...

I think, Cornell, that I am here giving Matthew a chance. I recognize that "I started it," and not for the first time - the offer of financial help was sincere, and not intended to "buy Matthew off," as he charged, as were my apologies over my two big mistakes. And nothing in this thread is, so far as I know, untrue, unfair, or vitriolic. Please correct me if you see something grossly out of order.

Cornell Anthony said...

He said that he blocked you, because you didn't respect his rules on his blog. I would just address that.

Everything else here seems reasonable!

Andreas said...

David,
I´ve just completed reading Ferguson´s article that you are adressing here. I´d like you to take a guess how much (in percent) of his words you do address.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you have a guess?
.
.
.
.
.
Alright, I´ll give you the answer now: it is 1.96%. Yes, that is a one in front of the point, not a ten. You *literally* addressed less than 2% of what he had to say about you.
And I must say that given what the remaining 98% had to say about you (with more than enough direct quotations and hyperlinks to support what he said), I´m neither surprised that you don´t address it, nor am I surprised that you are apparently too afraid to link to his piece (if you did, then my browser is acting weird and I´ll retract that last remark).
I guess you are one of those people who can´t just "let it go" (so am I, I´m not being judgmental here), but honestly, it would be much better for your reputation and maybe even for your psychological wellbeing if you´d get over your feud with Ferguson.

David B Marshall said...

Andreas: Matthew Ferguson has repeatedly accused me of expressing a wish that he kill himself. I have shown that that accusation is completely bogus. After refuting a false accusation of that magnitude, based on such a fantastic and completely unnecessary misreading, there is no need for me to add a single word. Ferguson's capabilities as a reader and an interpreter of the English language -- never mind Latin or Greek -- are called into sufficient question, after refuting such grotesque slander, that no sensible person should take his exegesis seriously henceforth.

You, obviously, are not a person of much sense.

Plus, your counting is bogus. I printed out 16 pages. Just looking at page 6 of my printout, I answered every accusation on that page. That's 6%, right there. And I answered accusations on other pages, as well.

I do, in fact, also add several other examples of grotesque misreading in that one post alone. But they are unnecessary.

I could add others. For instance, my "arrogantly claiming you had read all extant novels in ancient Greek" is false. I never made such a claim. That is a patently false accusation. I HAVE read most the New Testament in Greek. But I do not claim to be terribly advanced in the language, arrogantly or not, nor to have read other literature in Greek, yet.

Ferguson calls it a "lie" that I say that Ferguson doesn't recognize his own "cheap shots as such." And yet to demonstrate that "lie," he does NOT admit to taking "cheap shots" at all, but says, "Admittedly, my tone was not friendly, and I did not 'turn the other cheek' in responding to Marshall. But, unlike Marshall, everything that I stated in my response was true . . . "

So Matthew accuses me of a "lie" for saying he does not admit to taking cheap shots . . . then "justifies" his accusation by saying that his shots were never cheap!

The weirdness, and twisting of language, just never ends with this guy. I could go on, and on, and on. But again, I regard refuting his most egregious and despicable false accusation -- that I wished him harm, even fantasized about it, even wanted to commit it -- as more than enough for any sensible person. I have better things to do, and frankly too much of my time the past few days has been wasted by these vitriolic fanatics.

Andreas said...

David,
first I´ll briefly do to your comment what you did to Ferguson´s post:
"that I wished him harm, even fantasized about it, even wanted to commit it"
- Even if I grant you that he certainly meant his suicide-remarks literally instead of writing tongue in cheek, he´d still only be talking about you wishing him to harm himself and fantasizing about him harming himself, he doesn´t mention anything even remotely resembling you *committing* this harm to him.
So, based on Marshall-logic, that is fully sufficient to unambiguously demonstrate that you are incapable of reading the English language with any comprehension. And that you know nothing about history or New Testament studies or [insert random discipline here]. And that no sensible person should take anything you write anywhere seriously.


Reading and participating in online discussions is one of my favorite pastimes (yeah, that´s sad, I know), and I have seen you discuss with quite a few different people. I´ve seen you holding your ground quite well in debate, and I´ve seen you holding your ground not so well. And to say that Ferguson has been to you what Waterloo was to Napoleon would be an understatement. You can keep digging for all I care, but everytime you do, you risk that people who would otherwise be sympathetic to your point of view end up actually reading Ferguson´s posts about you.
Do yourself a favor and ask someone you trust (personally and intellectually) to read the back and forth between you and Ferguson and to then give you an honest opinion about how well you look so far.

David B Marshall said...

Yes, he does, Andreas. Ferguson writes:

"Marshall is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent imagery to describe what he WOULD DO to non-Christians."

Ferguson then describes, not an apologist, but a "street preacher," who allegedly threatened to slit his friend's throat.

The implication is clear that I used "violent imagery" to describe what I "would do" to Ferguson under some circumstances -- fantastic slander, indeed. And no, I don't detect a trace of humor, here.

I think my response above is more than sufficient to undermine any trust in Matthew's critique. But next time I post here on his writings, it will be on his attempts to find parallels to the gospels in other ancient literature. As I will show (again) he fails badly. And that general failure is the "Waterloo" of skepticism generally, or one of them. (Napoleon had more than one bad day.)

Cornell Anthony said...

Andreas

1.96% seems to be an arbitrary number that you just made up on the spot so can you please demonstrate how you came to this conclusion?

I mean what would it have taken for David to address 1.97% instead of 1.96%?

Cornell Anthony said...

"Do yourself a favor and ask someone you trust (personally and intellectually) to read the back and forth between you and Ferguson and to then give you an honest opinion about how well you look so far."

Well I don't know how much David trusts me but I looked at the exchanges and I pointing out where David should go more into depth.

Overall David is fine and I think the ball is now in Matthew's court. Hopefully he comes to post on this blog.

Andreas said...

David,

*sigh*

1. "Marshall is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent IMAGERY to describe what he WOULD DO to non-Christians."
2. And what is it that "he" "would do"? Answer: "He" would "give him a CHAPTER to hang himself in my new book"
3. And how does Ferguson understand that? Answer: "Contrary to Marshall’s morbid fantasy, however, I doubt that I will commit suicide after he writes yet another polemic against me in his new book."

Now we have to first do some mental gymnastics by assuming that the word "imagery" (which means "visually descriptive or figurative language") in #1 doesn´t refer to figurative, but rather descriptive language, and that Ferguson is thus *literally* saying that you intend to write a chapter that causes him to hang HIMSELF in #3 (and he doubts that you succeed).

So, even on the utmost generous (to you) reading, he is talking about SUICIDE and ONLY about suicide, not about you KILLING HIM.



Furthermore, regarding the meaning of "hang himself":
While "give someone enough rope to hang himself" is indeed an idiom that someone familiar with the English is likely to know, the phrase "hang yourself" with the meaning you provide, is NOT. I just checked two random dictionaries and one doesn´t define "hang yourself" at all and the other gives an even broader definition than the one you provide:
"go hang yourself
Used as a rude imperative to indicate one's disapproval, apathy, or disdain regarding someone's words, thoughts, or actions." ( http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/go+hang+yourself )

And note that you yourself provide two completely different possible meanings for this sentence in what you write in your post. With your definition from the Cambridge dictionary this:
"I will, however, give him a chapter to hang himself in my new book"
would have meant:
"I will, however, give him a chapter in my book and I don´t give a damn what he says or does about it".
while, if you used "hang itself" as a synonym for "give someone enough rope to hang himself" (btw, I have never seen "to hang himself" used as shorthand for that, and found no source that supports it), it would have meant:
"I will, however, give him a chapter in my book and I WANT HIM to address it because I know that he will fail".

So you are quite literally claiming that someone is incapable of reading English with comprehension and is by implication incompetent about Latin and Greek as well, because he misread an uncommon and ambiguous idiom as violent imagery.
And you use that as an excuse to ignore virtually the entire substance of his post.
And you insult people who disagree with you on that - because I´m "obviously, not a person of much sense" since I don´t think that the handful of words Ferguson wasted on the "hang himself" crap (167 words to be precise, while you waste 1071 words complaining about it) logically entails that he can´t be taken seriously on anything.

Btw, it seems that I was correct about you not linking to his actual post until now, that you forgot to link to it is maybe your subconscious telling you something here.

This feud did not turn out well for you so far, to put it much more mildly than it reasonably can be, and you seem to be hell-bent on digging deeper and deeper.

David B Marshall said...

Andrea: Speaking of mental gymnastics! I'd give that one a 10.

Ferguson makes it clear exactly what he means, by citing the "apologist" (actually not an apologist) who allegedly threatened to physically, concretely murder his friend. He is comparing me to that person. He even repeats the word "would." Follow the verbs:

"(DM) is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent imagery to describe WHAT HE WOULD DO to non-Christians. For example, a friend of mine a couple years ago recorded some videos of a Christian street preacher, named Clarence 'Bro' Cope, in which Clarence stated that HE WOULD 'SLIT' my friend's 'throat' and personally DRAG and THROW him into Hell . . . "

This is a perfectly clear parallel structure. The two of us "would" followed by a verb "do." Then the street preacher "would" followed by three verbs: "slit," "drag," and "throw." This is exactly the structure I teach my students to look for reading SAT essays, and its meaning is crystal clear. Both of us are clearly accused of having designs to murder the ungodly, under conditions not specified. If you don't see that, then you lag behind my 16 and 17 year old Chinese students in understanding this aspect of the English language.

And yes, for the several excellent reasons I give above, it is absolutely foolish and unwarranted to read my common (to me, if not to you) metaphor so radically, despite all the evidence I describe, as desiring Ferguson to literally harm himself. And absolutely, such a strong but totally unwarranted accusation undermines absolutely everything else that Ferguson says.

If I accused you of cheering for the 9/11 terrorists, for instance, would you think, having dispatched that slander, that anything else I said in the same essay merited analysis? Far from it. Such slander automatically disqualifies an essay, if not its author, from any right to be heard, at least for a long while.

That you do not see this, suggests you are missing something very important about the nature of civil discourse.

In addition, you again show a desire to dismiss or undervalue the extent to which I have, with no need, in fact gone on to debunk much else that Ferguson wrote. I have shown that this was no isolated error, but is part of a widespread pattern of misinterpretation.

Please check your motives. Why is it that one minute, you accuse me of saying too little, and the next, of bothering to respond at all?

If you choose, despite the facts I have detailed above, to continue to credit Ferguson's attack piece, or indeed his scholarship in general, I can only interpret that as yet another instance of the power of cognitive bias at work.

Cornell Anthony said...

"So, even on the utmost generous (to you) reading, he is talking about SUICIDE and ONLY about suicide, not about you KILLING HIM."

Ever heard of assisted suicide?

David B Marshall said...

Cornell: Andrea is wrong, anyway. See my explanation in previous post.

Andreas said...

David,

If a hypothetical movie critic, lets call him "John", would write the following:
"Full Metal Jacket used Vietnam war imagery to illustrate the madness of war. But it was not the first movie to do so. Apocalypse now for example also uses Vietnam war imagery to illustrate the madness of war. It includes a famous scene of a Helicopter attack on a Vietcong position, while playing Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries. The commanding officer enthusiastically states that his motivation for the attack is the search for a good surfing place, which symbolizes the madness of this war."
And I´d say about that:
"John clearly and 100% unambiguously states that Full Metal Jacket includes a scene where Wagner´s Ride of the Valkyries is played. Which demonstrates that John has probably never even seen that movie or he is completely incompetent because there is NO such scene in it!!!
He most certainly did make that claim, he uses a perfectly clear parallel structure - "Full Metal Jacket USED VIETNAM WAR IMAGERY" and "Apocalypse now for example also USES VIETNAM WAR IMAGERY". The meaning is crystal clear!!!"

Would that be the only reasonable interpretation of what John claimed? Or would that rather be an utterly ridiculous interpretation that is so clearly wrong that no one with any grasp of the English language what-so-fricken-ever could possibly come up with it?

Regarding:
"And yes, for the several excellent reasons I give above, it is absolutely foolish and unwarranted to read my common (to me, if not to you) metaphor so radically..."
- Only he didn´t do that. That already assumes that Ferguson meant "imagery" in a descriptive instead of figurative sense and hence meant SUICIDE *literally* instead of writing tongue in cheek, which is ridiculously implausible, but not nearly as downright ludicrous as your other "interpretation" about the street preacher thingy.

Regarding "In addition, you again show a desire to dismiss or undervalue the extent to which I have, with no need, in fact gone on to debunk much else that Ferguson wrote."
- If this is what you think you have done here, your problems are much bigger than I thought.

Andreas said...

Oh, I forgot something:
"Why is it that one minute, you accuse me of saying too little, and the next, of bothering to respond at all?"
- Amazing. Imagine that John writes long essays about minor apparent biblical contradiction that any armchair apologist could explain in one minute, and John ends his long essays with the conclusion that this "contradiction" clearly and unambiguously demonstrates that the no part of the Bible should be taken seriously in any way. Then Tom tells John that he is evidently completely unable to deal with the substance of what the Bible has to say because he doesn´t he try to address the overwhelming majority of what it says and he´s not even right about the teeny-tiny bit he did address, and that he is only embarrassing himself further by writing further long essays about this minor apparent contradiction while ignoring virtually the entire substance of the Bible. And then John replies:
"Why is it that one minute, you accuse me of saying too little about the Bible, and the next, of bothering to write about the Bible at all?"

Do you see the problem with John´s reply? If not, think about it for a while, it´s not *that* difficult to grasp.

Cornell Anthony said...

I agree

Cornell Anthony said...

The problem with your analogy regarding Full metal jacket is that David can only see the words on the blog and cannot see the facial expressions or hear the tone of the person speaking about him. In the movie we can see the imagery and see the scene as it plays out rather than read a text.

Your analogy would have been better if you used a book.

Cornell Anthony said...

Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

One small problem might lead to a chain of bigger problems.

Even IF David was arguing against something small he has every right to take refute it no matter how long it takes, because that small problem could act as a foundation to bigger problems.

You can't expect everyone to agree with your debate style.

David B Marshall said...

Andreas: Your confused analogy does nothing to clarify the meaning of Ferguson's words -- which were perfectly clear to begin with, as I just explained.

I received the highest possible score on the GRE for "analytical reading," publish articles for magazines with high literary standards, and am generally recognized as a skilled English teacher and writer. I've tried to give you a short lesson in English. I do not wish to waste time teaching what you don't want to understand, though.

Frankly, I prefer talking about serious issues with adults with whom there is less of a language barrier: the conversation is more interesting that way. If you can't take your understanding to a higher level, this might not be the right forum for you.

David B Marshall said...

But let me try one more time. You concede, apparently, that Ferguson falsely accuses me of trying to induce suicide. That is clear:

"Since he has made it clear that he plans to write more polemics against me, including a book chapter that he hopes will cause me to 'hang myself . . . '"

"Contrary to (DM)'s morbid fantasy, however, I doubt that I will commit suicide after he writes yet another polemic against me in his new book."

That is bad enough, already. The idea that I would wish for the death of an intellectual opponent is already a grotesque slander, justified by absolutely nothing I have said, and contradicted by what I have actually told Matthew in the past -- again, see above.

For that, alone, Ferguson's exegetical capabilities should be severely questioned. This is a serious matter, to bring such false charges.

I think it is equally obvious, from the following, that Ferguson was also accusing me of wishing to expedite his departure more proactively:

"(DM) is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent imagery to describe what he would do to non-Christians."

If I am "not the first" to do X, that means I do X. If I am "not the first to land on the moon," that implies that I land on the moon. If I am "not the first to hit a home run in that game," that implies I hit a home run in that game. It means I am the second, or third, or fiftieth, to do so. Is that not clear?

So what is it that we allegedly do?

"Use violent imagery to describe what he would do to non-Christians."

Both of us, then, "would do" something to non-Christians -- something described by "violent imagery." The imagery is the description of the act, not the act itself. The act, Ferguson makes clear, is what "would" be done, under some circumstances:

"For example, a friend of mine a couple years ago recorded some videos of a Christian street preacher, named Clarence 'Bro' Cope, in which Clarence stated that he would 'slit' my friend's 'throat' and personally drag and throw him into Hell . . . "

Clearly, under some unspecified conditions, Ferguson is alleging that both I and "Clarence" "would" commit violent acts, and that we are "describing" those violent acts with violent imagery.

The clarity, perversity, and falsity of Ferguson's charges against me here are perfectly evident. Denying that is simply to deny full fluency in the English language.


Andreas said...

David,
"I received the highest possible score on the GRE for "analytical reading," publish articles for magazines with high literary standards, and am generally recognized as a skilled English teacher and writer."
- Of course you are. Probably recognized as a "skilled English teacher and writer" by the same person according to whom you always "win" debates, some David Marshall.

"Clearly, under some unspecified conditions, Ferguson is alleging that both I and "Clarence" "would" commit violent acts, and that we are "describing" those violent acts with violent imagery."
- Yup, because someone else´s speech must be literal and not figurative if you decide that this has to be so, no matter how braindead the resulting interpretation turns out to be, the only thing that matters is that the resulting interpretation would cast a bad light on your enemy (it´s cute btw that you elsewhere in your post complain about an alleged lack of charity in interpreting your own words, hypocrisy for the win!).
And if A uses violent imagery to describe how he would do B, and C uses violent imagery to describe how he would do D, then this "clearly" must be interpreted to mean that A would "under certain conditions" do D because "skilled" English teacher and writer sez so.

Arizona Atheist said...

I must second what Andreas had to say: “And I must say that given what the remaining 98% had to say about you (with more than enough direct quotations and hyperlinks to support what he said), I'm neither surprised that you don't address it...” I don't think anymore needs to be said on the matter. I just find it incredible that after all this time you still have not learned your lesson. You continue to insult people, distort the facts, and refuse to treat people with the civility that you yourself demand of others. Even more than that, you continue to bite off more than you can chew when challenging those who, quite frankly, exhibit more superior skill and knowledge than you do. Doesn't the Bible say something about humility? Why, yes I think it does... There is this wonderful passage: “Indeed, all of you should wrap yourselves in the garment of humility towards each other, because God set his face against the arrogant but favors the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5, NEB)

David B Marshall said...

I already pointed out that the 2% figure is bogus. Andreas was not telling the truth. In fact, I have answered probably a third of Matthew's allegations, perhaps half.

Insults? Matthew falsely accused me of expressing a wish for his death. That's on a "Ken from Arizona" level of falsehood. In fact, as I recall you actually did engage in that sort of vitriol when arguing with John Fraser.

But I don't think you've been following. Here are the facts:

(1) Matthew claimed that the gospels are similar to an ancient work called the Contest of Hesiod and Homer. In fact, he implied that Contest enjoys advantages over the gospels, for historicity. Have you read that work?

(2) In response, I pointed to DOZENS of advantages that the gospels enjoy over the Contest, for historicity. Matthew overlooked almost all of them, aside from multiplicity, in his initial argument. That's a pretty serious screw-up.

(3) Two of those advantages -- that Contest does not even claim to be historical, and that it was written centuries after the supposed facts -- by themselves render Matthew's comparison ludicrous. Yet he failed to mention either of those facts in relation to these work's comparative historical value -- which a skilled and objective historian OUGHT to mention.

(4) Let me suggest, given (2) and (3), that neither you nor Matthew has demonstrated much aptitude for serious historical analysis of ancient documents.

My rebuttal of Matthew's case for Contest is frankly an almost too-easy victory: have you even read it?

David B Marshall said...

Andreas: Would you please limit yourself to saying what you know to be the truth? When did I ever claim to "always" win debates?

But now, in addition to making crap up, you're adding insults AND poor excuses for Matthew's false allegations:

"Yup, because someone else´s speech must be literal and not figurative if you decide that this has to be so, no matter how braindead the resulting interpretation turns out to be, the only thing that matters is that the resulting interpretation would cast a bad light on your enemy . . . "

Huh? So now that I've proven that that is what Matthew said -- contrary to your prior claim -- you now wish to excuse his lies by saying only a "brain-dead" person would take them literally?

It has become clear, Andreas, that you are now prepared to say almost anything to support your biases, and to excuse vile slander from someone you support. This is the wrong place for you.

Andreas said...

David,

"When did I ever claim to "always" win debates?"
- You claim that you´ve won after every debate you had. Richard Carrier did fine (only rethorically of course) and "consistently lost" in written debates against David Marshall in David Marshall´s opinion. David Marshall also believes that David Marshall totally won against Hector Avalos in every written debate. David Marshall also believes that Zuckerman might have bested David Marshall in debate, but only rethorically of course.
This is absolutely pathetic, you are one of the sorriest losers I´ve ever seen.

"Huh? So now that I've proven that that is what Matthew said -- contrary to your prior claim -- you now wish to excuse his lies by saying only a "brain-dead" person would take them literally?"
- No, I rather proved that only a braindead person would take them literally and that said braindead person has to SIMULTANEOUSLY believe that this is true:
"If A uses violent imagery to describe how he would do B, and C uses violent imagery to describe how he would do D, then this "clearly" must be interpreted to mean that A would "under some conditions" do D." (hint: it isn´t true, and it speaks volumes about you that you think it is)
If those two things are given - a complete inability to distinguish literal from figurative speech (the onset of said inability might conveniently coincide with a moment where you´d really like to smear one of your enemies) AND a complete inability to think logically - then your "interpretation" is possible.

David B Marshall said...

Typical. You can't find any quote from me in which I claim to have won all debates, as you charged. All you can do is point to claims about specific debates, which are more nuanced than you represent them as. Now you admit I do NOT claim to have "won" debates with either Carrier or Zuckerman even, but only that if I lost, it was on rhetoric or style, not substance.

Sorry, Andreas, but that makes you a liar. You apparently KNEW that I hadn't made the claim you charged me with, certainly not in the terms you represented -- yet you still charged me with that claim.

Yes, I find Avalos and Carrier, even Law, easy to handle in writing. Zuckerman would be more formidable, because he is more careful in making claims. I don't claim to have won our oral debate in any sense -- though I do claim that my thesis in that debate is clearly correct, and I think the case for the Gospel would be greatly clarified and enhanced in such a debate.

Your "read" of Ferguson is equally dishonest and ludicrous. He clearly, without a trace or hint of figurative language, ascribes to me the desire that he kill himself. If you don't see that, you can't read (either). The claim that I "would" like to do something violent and evil, is also clearly literal, if vague.

I am now reading Ferguson's lengthy previous "rebuttal" of my arguments here, and finding them another maze of confusion and straw men, ascribing to me claims that I again simply do not make. His problem with reading is severe, indeed. I may have to correct some of those errors before addressing substance.

But your lie about my claiming to have won all my debates, along with the vaguer falsehood about 2%, is enough. I am not going to allow you to post any more on this thread. If you come back in the future (and I am hoping you will improve your attitude), please come back prepared to dialogue more honestly.

Arizona Atheist said...

”I already pointed out that the 2% figure is bogus. Andreas was not telling the truth. In fact, I have answered probably a third of Matthew's allegations, perhaps half.

Insults? Matthew falsely accused me of expressing a wish for his death. That's on a "Ken from Arizona" level of falsehood. In fact, as I recall you actually did engage in that sort of vitriol when arguing with John Fraser.”


Like last time we briefly corresponded (except this time I'm actually addressing you this time around) you respond with a red herring. You haven't addressed Matthew's post in any substantive way. Evasions, excuses, and other tricks of your trade. Perhaps if I have some free time I will go through line by line and point out all the reasons you have not directly addressed his post. Which, by the way, can be found HERE since you placed the link in the middle of this large post, making very difficult to find. Was that on purpose, in an attempt to keep it somewhat hidden? Makes one wonder....

David B Marshall said...

Ken: As I explained above, when one person slanders another as crudely and as seriously as Matthew does here, pointing out that error is entirely sufficient. Nothing else need EVER be said in response to such a person, at least until he has profoundly apologized.

I have been accused of desiring Mr. Ferguson's death -- based on nothing. That he would make such an accusation shows either just how poorly he reads English, or just how low he is willing to go in what ought to be a contest of facts and ideas, at most of wits.

I do, in fact, go further than that. I mention several other errors he makes.

In fact, almost everything he has written in response to me is entirely bogus. Like Hector Avalos, who appears to be his mentor, again and again he picks a few words and then goes off on a long "scholarly" riff to rebut them. But unfortunately, again and again he grossly misinterprets the (carefully chosen) words that he is trying to rebut. So whereas Avalos' riffs tend to be about almost nothing, Ferguson's riffs tend to be about nothing at all.

I'll give (more) examples in my next post, for those who don't pick up on them as they read Ferguson's posts -- as you obviously don't.

This fits a clear pattern. Ferguson claims to read "between the lines" of obscure ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew writers. (As C. S. Lewis put it.) But his evident inability is to read, in any sense worth speaking of, the lines themselves -- even in English.

And I'll get back to The Contest of Hesiod and Homer in due course, on which he only makes a token attempt to refute my arguments.

Which is all more than Ferguson merits, but the substance is interesting. And I hope some day that he'll turn the attitude around -- as I hope you will.

Cornell Anthony said...

"Perhaps if I have some free time I will go through line by line and point out all the reasons you have not directly addressed his post. "

Well that would be much better than all of these bare assertions which claims David not dealing with Matthews article.

I asked Andreas how he came up with that 2% figure and I was ignored, so that should speak volumes.

The 2% claim looks like an arbitrary make it up on the spot number.

David B Marshall said...

Cornell: Be careful what you ask for. Ken posted such long, meandering "rebuttals" to my book, The Truth Behind the New Atheism, that I felt like I was lost in a fog in a forest on another planet, trying to plow my way through it. Even here, I'm not sure what "all the reasons you have not directly addressed his post" means. The simplest interpretation would be that Ken proposes to read my mind, which would be a painful bit of witchdoctory to read. In any case, as I just said (a) refuting a false accusation of that magnitude OUGHT to be enough, unless the other person is Donald Trump; (b) I'll get to Ferguson's more "substantive" arguments (actually mostly just a series of straw men) later, anyhow.

Cornell Anthony said...

It is hard to take someone seriously with the name "Arizona atheist" which is just as silly as if I called myself "New York Theist" but if Arizona atheist wants to make the same claims that Andreas failed to support then I look forward to any type of rebuttal that has some actual substance behind it which goes beyond this arbitrary 2%.

Arizona Atheist said...

Marshall,

“Be careful what you ask for. Ken posted such long, meandering "rebuttals" to my book, The Truth Behind the New Atheism, that I felt like I was lost in a fog in a forest on another planet, trying to plow my way through it.”

I do not understand why you continuously refer to my response to your book The Truth Behind the New Atheism to be a “meandering” mess. Now, I would agree with you that several years ago, when I first began rewriting parts of the review in my attempts at improving it, my numerous edits began to make the writing feel disjointed. But that was many years ago and I have since rewritten the entire response to correct that issue as far back as 2011. Why you continue to say these things is beyond me. However, I could offer some guesses. Perhaps this is yet another one of your attempts at attacking my character by making these remarks? It sound to me very much like you're essentially saying: 'Don't listen to that wino. His mad ramblings make no sense.' Well, sorry to disappoint but the facts are quite different. The final version of my response is no longer disjointed and it responds to your book point by point. It has received numerous kudos, including from one of your friends, Dr. H, who I credit for providing the extremely helpful feedback that helped me to improve it. Judging by your
lack of effective response to it and the numerous kudos I've received for it, I believe I did a pretty damn good job. The ball is in your court. You're free to respond to it if you like (I've been waiting for years at this point so I'm not holding my breath), but if history is any indicator, you'd rather spout insults and misrepresent me and my work than deal with me like an adult and like the scholar you continually misrepresent yourself as.

Cornell,

“It is hard to take someone seriously with the name "Arizona atheist" which is just as silly as if I called myself "New York Theist"”

I don't find it surprising that Marshall's abrasive attitude would attract like-minded individuals who prefer insults to evidence...

David B Marshall said...

Ken: I don't remember how many pages I read, before I came to an actual point (which was, as I recall, wrong).

And I'm not attacking your character - though to be honest, you haven't shown a whole lot of that, at times. You know full well how snide and immature many of your attacks on me have been. But above, I am only attacking your critical sense.

I just don't think you're up to the job. Maybe if I read something from you that is a bit more fair and on-target, I'd give it another shot. But calling my necessary refutation of the grotesque libel Ferguson engages in above, a "red herring," "evasion" or a "trick of the trade" doesn't help.

Dr. H is a friend, and he's smart and well-read, but he is also a hard-core atheist and political extremist who tends to see what he wants to see.

I tried to post a response to a much larger portion of Ferguson's criticism yesterday, but encountered difficulties with BlogSpot, so will have to try again later.

Cornell Anthony said...

'I don't find it surprising that Marshall's abrasive attitude would attract like-minded individuals who prefer insults to evidence..."

Funny how David also attracts thin skinned conglomerates of matter who supposedly went through billions of years of evolutionary survival fitness...

If you think that's an insult then surely you have been hanging around too many Democratics.