John Loftus, or the writing by John Loftus on religion, is problematically annoying (the actual human named John Loftus might be pleasant). Here is a recent example of badness.
[Background: Loftus has a tortured exchange with Victor Reppert on whether religious belief is the result of preference (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here.]
Loftus’ starting point/conclusion is characteristically overgeneralized, trivial if taken literally, or false if taken more rhetorically. For example, here’s one that he has been repeating over and over again on his blog:
People believe and defend what they prefer to be true. This is an obvious and non-controversial fact. That’s who we are as human beings. That’s what we human beings do. That’s what psychological studies have repeatedly shown us over and over.
Chapter 10: The Self-Authenticating Witness of the Holy Spirit
In this chapter Loftus exclusively takes issue with a statement made by William Lane Craig, which has been much-discussed in the blogosphere, that were he to go back in time and see Jesus not rise from the dead, he would assume he had been tricked. Craig’s reason for thinking this is twofold:
(1) Had Jesus not risen from the dead, Craig wouldn’t have the Holy Spirit within him; Craig does have the Spirit; therefore, Jesus must have risen from the dead.
(2) The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is in some way (apart from the previous syllogism) epistemically stronger than all other kinds of evidence.
Craig adds the caveat that if he knew Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, he would not be a Christian.
Chapter 9: Do Miracles Take Place?
This chapter seeks to develop a couple of arguments, mostly inspired by David Hume and J.L. Mackie. Loftus begins by giving four prima facie motivations for finding certain Biblical miracle claims implausible: the miracle narratives sometimes represent (1) an “outmoded cosmological viewpoint,” (2) sometimes violate “natural science,” (3) sometimes violate “biological sciences,” and (4) sometimes “just seem strange.” These four reasons collapse into one reason, that miracles seem out of place given our general understanding of the universe, supported by natural science.
Chapter 8: The Poor Evidence of Historical Evidence
This chapter includes interesting discussion of historical knowledge and problems of historical religious knowledge, using Gotthold Lessing as a departure point. Lessing objected that the uncertain nature of historical knowledge was ill-fitted to the certainty required by Christian belief; yet, Christianity it a uniquely historical religion. Lessing asks of beliefs about Alexander the Great, “But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great permanent worth, the loss of which would be irreparable?”
Chapter 7.2: Archaeology, Exodus, and the Canaanite Conquest
The premise of this chapter is that if the Exodus narrative is historical, then “there should be some archaeological evidence for the Exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Israelites’ camping at Sinai, their wilderness wanderings, and their Canaanite conquest.” This brief chapter relies primarily on two scholars, William Dever and Israel Finkelstein. Loftus raises the following objections:
(1) It is hard to date the Exodus
(2) It is hard to identify the Red Sea
(3) The number of Israelites leaving Egypt is problematic on many grounds
(4) Archaeology dis-confirms the conquest narrative
Yochanan Schloftus
John Loftus asks a question
Loftus has a post where he asks, “What would Christians say if their faith passed the Outsider Test?” I review early iterations of the “Outsider Test for Faith” in detail in these posts. Loftus has some links on it here. Readers should note that Loftus has made a clearer statement in his recent edited volume, The Christian Delusion, which I have not yet reviewed, but will probably get to three infinities from now.
Continue reading →