tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post3247209857409250489..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Loftus vs Marshall I: An Alphabet of Errors (on Science and Faith)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-82969057768300117632013-03-15T15:59:09.090-07:002013-03-15T15:59:09.090-07:00@John
Ok, I just hope it doesn't contain any...@John <br /><br />Ok, I just hope it doesn't contain any type of special pleading. Though I won't go any further into this until I read John's newest book. I notice it's 42% off right now at Amazon, so I'll see.<br /><br />It might be awhile though till I check out the OTF, as I've got Thomas Nagel "Last Word' and Richard Swinburne's new book on substance dualism to read.<br /><br />@David, <br /><br />On a side note, I received 'Jesus and the Eyewitness' from Richard Bauckman last week, it was suggested to me by Glenn Peoples. <br /><br />Anyways, carry on Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25102217578735249022013-03-15T00:01:24.873-07:002013-03-15T00:01:24.873-07:00I answered Cornell in my book. Just look in the in...I answered Cornell in my book. Just look in the index under "morality."John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40605522755211793732013-03-14T20:00:00.549-07:002013-03-14T20:00:00.549-07:00Good point. (Though you left out Confucianism.) ...Good point. (Though you left out Confucianism.) If John doesn't answer here, you might want to pose that question over at DC. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80661128079218754722013-03-14T19:48:39.001-07:002013-03-14T19:48:39.001-07:00So am I getting this right, suppose all ethicists ...So am I getting this right, suppose all ethicists used the OTF, and had to denate on which of these moral positions were correct:<br /><br />Just some of the moral options:<br /><br />Normative ethics<br />Postmodern ethics<br />Consequentialist ethics<br />Deontological ethics<br />Relational ethics<br />Rational ethics<br />Pluralist ethics<br />Virtue ethics<br />Moral nihilism<br />Hedonism<br />Epicureanism<br />Social Contractualism<br />Stoicism<br />Utilitarianism - hedonic or act or rule or ideal or another version?<br />Ethical egoism<br /><br />Would that ultimately mean everyone would be forced to be amoralists?<br /><br /><br /><br />Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23114556580343288802013-03-14T16:45:41.850-07:002013-03-14T16:45:41.850-07:00My response:
John: I figured this would put your...My response: <br /><br />John: I figured this would put your nose a bit out of joint, so all is well. It's your baby, and of course you're defensive, as I am with my books. A few points, however: <br /><br />(1) Of course my review was the most popular (until you sicced your pack on it): it is the most substantive and interesting so far, by a long ways. A little subjectivity is not inappropriate on Amazon -- if it were, you'd be doomed. <br /><br />(2) Thinking about it, I realized there was an element of truth in your criticism, so I added some more objective criticism of the book, and took out some about our disagreements. I may further improve the review; yesterday writing that, and my critique at christthetao.blogspot.com, sort of wore me out, and I was in a hurry to post and get done. <br /><br />(3) I didn't say you got Chesterton from me. I said I suspected you had. Having been corrected on that point, I've removed it. (I should probably add a note that the review has been edited.) <br /><br />(4) "As a believer Marshall is a science denier as I argued in the book, plain and simple. He just won't admit this. I don't expect him to. He can't."<br /><br />What is that even supposed to mean? You keep repeating it like a charm against the devil, under a full moon in the graveyard at midnight. Randal read it, and pretty much just shook his head. As do I. <br /><br />5) "If my book is shallow or intellectual lazy as he claims, he needs to account for the blurbs written about it."<br /><br />No problem. People are more lenient with books they agree with. <br /><br />Thinking about that, too, though, it occurred to me that "lazy" might not after all be the right word. It's more like you have a wall up, protecting you from really grappling with contrary arguments. You place the wall differently from skeptics like PZ or Dawkins, who think cutting themselves off socially from informed Christians will do the job. Instead, you refuse to allow that any Christian argument carries any merit. You seem to recognize, unconsciously, that if you open the door to even a minor concession, the arguments will come rushing in like Huns over the Great Wall of China, and overwhelm your defenses. So maybe it's intellectual timidity, rather than laziness. <br /><br />(6) Sure I made the argument Tom refers to, and you only very tepidly attempt to refute it, and fail. But that was only one of four arguments for why Christianity passes the OTF with flying colors, far ahead of Secular Humanism. You ignore the other three. <br /><br />(7) I don't mind if you ignore the nits. <br /><br />(8) I actually thought of entitling my review, "The Blind and Deaf leading the Dumb." So I'm glad we're on the same page, even the same verse. : -) <br /><br />(9) "The rank-and-file Christian trusts Marshall rather than me. After all, I'm just a lowly baby-eating atheist."<br /><br />And the rank-and-file atheist probably trusts you more than me. Don't feel too bad. <br /><br />But on these subjects, they should trust me, because I'm right. <br /><br />(10) "Faith" is just a boogeyman, an imaginary monster whom you tell stories about to scare the other kids around the campfire. We believe because the evidence makes Christianity credible, has always made Christianity credible, including in the four ways it has passed the OTF, as I show in True Reason. I was kinda afraid you might make me work to reestablish that. Thanks for making things easy: there's too much on my plate right now, already. And thanks for introducing these great apologetic arguments.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-47619125514333702432013-03-14T16:44:44.124-07:002013-03-14T16:44:44.124-07:006) Marshall also says my book is "an intellec...6) Marshall also says my book is "an intellectually lazy work." Hmmmm, where have I heard that before? Ahhh, yes, he wrote an earlier Amazon "review" about my anthology The End of Christianity, saying it was an "intellectual lazy book" too. Well, well. Since I only wrote one chapter in it then I'm in great company, with the likes of well-credentialed scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, historians and atheologians. When Christian apologists say such things about us no one should take them seriously. They are like the blind leading the blind. I mean this. No one should take any Christian apologist seriously who claims these two works of mine are shallow or intellectually lazy. This is empty rhetorical bullshit. It's the same kind of bullshit we would expect when an ex-Mormon or ex-Scientologist storms their gates with the truth. Yet, because of "reviews" like Marshall's most believers will not read them. You see, that's the REAL goal, and it works. The rank-and-file Christian trusts Marshall rather than me. After all, I'm just a lowly baby-eating atheist. <br /><br />In my book I had asked, "Apart from science, what else should we trust?" Marshall responds in this "review" that we should trust our eyes. Yes, indeed. Science is based on them, and on our other senses, like touching, hearing, tasting, and smelling. Scientists have developed instruments like the microscope and telescope and so many others I can't list, in order to heighten and amplify our senses. So science is based on our senses. Science is based on objective evidence along with sound reasoning about that evidence. What else can we trust? That is my question. On very rare occasions our senses might deceive us and we might reason incorrectly, but faith offers us nothing by comparison. Faith has no method. With faith practically anything can be believed or denied, even against the objective evidence, as so many religions exemplify in our world today. All someone has to do is examine the faith of a Mormon or a Scientologist to see this clearly. That Marshall sees this with regard to these other faiths is clear. That he does not see this with regard to his own faith means he's, well, blind. <br /><br />There are two things he said that were positive and appreciated. In the comments after his "review," Marshall had this to say to me: <br />...there's a lot more to say, and I do plan to say it. That's not a threat, because I don't see you so much as an opponent here, as someone who has raised some interesting issues (as you often do) that deserve discussion. <br />One other thing he said in the "review" itself was this: "I think he [John] held his own in his recent debate book with the very sharp Randal Rauser." He's referring to God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.He had a pre-publication copy of it for a blurb. Heads up. The book is now printed and shipping to the stores as we speak.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-39820388415672908892013-03-14T16:44:37.959-07:002013-03-14T16:44:37.959-07:00Loftus answered my review, derived from this, on h...Loftus answered my review, derived from this, on his blog: <br /><br />*Sigh* On David Marshall's Review of My Book: The Blind Leading the Blind <br /><br />By John W. Loftus at 3/14/2013 <br /><br />Over at Amazon.com Dr. David Marshall, a Christian apologist, author, lecturer, debater and editor, reviewed my new book, The Outsider Test for Faith.I find it strange that it's the most helpful "review" so far (as of this writing). *Sheesh* This isn't a real review. It's a hatchet job. It wouldn't even marginally pass as a book review in any magazine. It's a knee jerk reaction to the things I wrote of his arguments in my book instead. In his "review" he's more interested in offering a response to them than reviewing the book as a whole. So here's what I have to say about it:<br /> <br />Since Marshall mischaracterizes me I have six things to say for starters: 1) As a believer Marshall is a science denier as I argued in the book, plain and simple. He just won't admit this. I don't expect him to. He can't. 2) He claims I learned of GK Chesterton's argument for a kind of outsider test from his book. No! I haven't even read it. 3) If my book is shallow or intellectual lazy as he claims, he needs to account for the blurbs written about it. 4) Tom Gilson, the Christian editor of the book where his chapter on the OTF is in, agreed with me, saying: "The core of David's argument is that Christianity has passed the OTF millions of time." So if I can be faulted for criticizing an argument he didn't make then at least Tom saw the same thing I did. *cough* 5) Even if he's correct about a couple of the nits he picks at, nitpicking about them does not undermine the over-all thrust of the case I present. That's what most believers do, even the intellectuals. They nitpick at a book rather than focus on the main thrust of it. If they can find a couple of nits to pick at they believe their faith has escaped refutation, which is typical when it comes to the cognitive illness of faith. My book was not written for him. It was written for people who want to be honest about their faith.<br /> <br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.com