The Continuing Pissing Match With John Loftus

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The Continuing Pissing Match With John Loftus

 I have been “temporarily banned” from speaking to John Loftus. Read all about it on his website

 

I really don’t have a lot to say about it besides this. Which is more disrespectful? To offer harsh but constructive criticism, or to selectively edit, quote mine, and ignore constructive but harsh criticism.

I will be reviewing John Loftus’ book, and judging from the reviews I’ve already read, I suspect my review will be good. I make no bones about the fact that I have a strong dislike for Loftus’ cavalier attitude towards epistemological rights. I suspect that I don’t like him as a person based on our limited interactions. Bearing that in mind, I want to point out two things regarding his accusations towards me:

1) Richard Wagner was a douche. Plain and simple. He was an arrogant, self important, grouchy antisemitic crank. Even so, his music, whether it is personally fulfilling to any individual or another, has a valid and necessary place in the history of music. I have written critical reviews of various Wagner pieces as part of classes, and I always did my best to separate the man from the music. To that end, I fully intend to approach Loftus’ book as it stands. I hope — I really, truly do hope that it’s a good book. I suspect that it is.

2) As I have said many times (and have yet to be published on his website in saying), my biggest gripe with Loftus on his website and in his miscellaneous writings is that he seems to think that his ability to write a convincing anti-theistic treatise gives him the epistemological justification to make pronouncements about much more difficult topics.

To put it bluntly, it doesn’t take much actual logic to be an atheist. Most five or six year olds can comprehend the arguments, and some of them can even come up with them on their own. To be certain, it is one thing to grasp the arguments, and it is quite another to be able to explain them in a compelling and emotionally satisfying way. John was a preacher, and from all accounts, I imagine he was good at it. Preachers are good at making compelling emotional appeals, and I agree with John that this is something that’s needed in the atheist literature. He’s absolutely right that some of the more erudite atheist authors go straight over the heads of theists. We need people with charisma and an ability to communicate to the theist masses.

There is a concept I want John to grasp, though. It is one thing to present an argument in a simplified way. I do this all the time in discussing evolution. The math simply isn’t necessary for most people to grasp the concept. Neither is the specifics of how various organic compounds interact with each other on a molecular level. What’s important, however, is that I do not do the concept itself injustice by either oversimplifying it to the point that it is wrong, or by simply stating it wrong in the interest of easy communication.

A great example of this is the term “survival of the fittest.” There are hundreds of thousands of people — maybe more — who think evolutionary survival of the fittest addresses issues like eugenics (speaking of Wagner) and political theory. It most certainly does not. In any sense. However, it has been oversimplified and simply taught wrong for so long that the idea still has great carrying power. It doesn’t take much to see how dangerous the wrong interpretation of this idea is. Properly understanding everything one is saying — particularly when one is admittedly communicating to ignorant masses — is crucially important. We cannot judge what kind of butterfly effect will result from a single idea that is “dumbed down” because “it’s not really important.”

So, once again, on to the crux of my problem with John Loftus. I have read his comments about mythicism and his responses to mythicists, and it is clear to me (and to the mythicists that I’ve spoken to about his comments) that he either doesn’t grasp the mythicist arguments or is incapable of responding to them. This can only mean two things:

1) He is not competent to make a judgment about Jesus’ historicity
2) He is competent but unwilling to address opposing arguments.

In either case, his opinion does not and should not count as authoritative. John thinks this is about me agreeing with the mythicists. It is not. I have given mythicists the same kind of grilling, and I am not fully satisfied with their answers. I am reserving judgment until at least after the Jesus Project publishes their findings, and possibly longer.

John also thinks this is about me being overly erudite. It isn’t. Half the reason religion is as powerful as it is is that lots of people believe unsupported statements. My problem with John is that he seems to be a little drunk with his own successful conveyance of very simple logical arguments to the point that he believes himself qualified to address much more complicated and in depth scholarly topics.

So, in conclusion, I’ll be spending several hours over the next week reading his book — in the bookstore, and then putting it back. I’m not giving him my money. Sorry. I will be writing as objective and comprehensive a review as I can, and I will do my best to be fair because he’s right. We do need someone to make some breakthroughs with Christians, and it seems he’s got the emotionally appealing chops to do so. However, I will continue to object strenuously when he tries to play by theist rules and win an argument by emotional bombast, intimidation, and self-aggrandizement.

 

 

See my previous post about the Loftus discussion here

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:or by simply stating

Quote:

or by simply stating it wrong in the interest of easy communication.

Or failing to communicate the fact that this, in fact, a deliberately simplified presentation of a particular topic and thus, being in possession of such a deliberately simplified understanding of the topic does not allow you to formulate arguments pertaining to that topic because then there is a high probability that any "argument" one could make is dealt with easily by having a more complex understanding of the topic. The best example I can think of here is the disasterously wrong notion that entropy can never decrease.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Exactly, DG.  We do not

 Exactly, DG.  We do not make predictions or pronounce new conclusions from a cursory review of summaries.  If we only understand the summaries, we are only epistemologically justified in repeating the conclusions of the summaries, although we can certainly take some liberties with examples, as in substituting a bird's wing for the eye in a discussion of step by step gradual cumulative evolution, as opposed to fish giving birth to land mammals.

As it turns out, Mr. Loftus may also be seriously deficient in his understanding of the concept of argument, as I have noticed that he is claiming "at least five new arguments" against theism.  I questioned him on this claim, and was met with a harsh rebuke.  I did my best to explain that a new "spin" on an old formula is not a new argument, and that such arguments are certainly exceedingly rare for such a well worn (and painfully inept) subject as apologetics.

I don't think John has even begun to grasp the breadth and depth of his epistemological transgressions.  My suspicion is that he is being rather cavalier with facts in much the same way he did when he was a preacher.  He seems to think that the end justifies the means -- if people become atheists, then it doesn't matter if the numbers are fudged a little.  I've tried to explain to him that that kind of thinking is precisely what allows religion to flourish.

We shall see if there is any hope for him, but I have my doubts.  In any case, I really do hope he's presented the basic arguments against Christianity in an emotionally appealing and logically accurate way.  I suspect he has.

What I am afraid of is that he doesn't realize just how simple those arguments are.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I don't

Hambydammit wrote:

I don't think John has even begun to grasp the breadth and depth of his epistemological transgressions.

That might be your most lucid realization in this fruitless exchange with Loftus. I understand that you want to show him the error of his ways, but he's not exactly a size 9 hat, if you catch my drift.

Don't get me wrong - I'm always shocked anew at people who can't wrap their minds around new ideas. It's one of the reasons I went back to university - I could easily find someone way more intelligent than I am on campus within seconds, and feel that once again, I was not surrounded by morons. But with Loftus, it seems as though his enthusiasm really has gotten the better of him, and he's not really concerned with being correct so much as being loud.

What's weird about this whole mythicist/historical thing is how utterly innocuous it is to me. Is the suggestion that Jesus wasn't a real person such a barn-burner of an idea that we need get all upset about it? And if there were a real Jesus, can we seriously believe that the real Jesus performed miracles and still be considered sane? So what's the difference if there was a real Jesus? If there was, great. He probably got turned into legend pretty quickly by his disciples, what with the walking on water and all, so his "realness" would seem to only extend to things he did that aren't recorded in the Bible, y'know, like go to the bathroom. The rest is pretty dubious.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:What's weird about

 

Quote:
What's weird about this whole mythicist/historical thing is how utterly innocuous it is to me. Is the suggestion that Jesus wasn't a real person such a barn-burner of an idea that we need get all upset about it?

I actually wonder if his own fervor for the idea of a historical Jesus has caused him to think that it must be important for everybody.  I mean, for crying out loud, he's got a fucking poll on his website asking if his readers believe in a historical Jesus, and then he says the whole thing isn't important, and then he says he's not appealing to popularity.  Really?

I think it seems so important to him that he can't grasp the notion that it isn't the issue or the conclusion that I'm upset about, but rather the method

Ah, well.  I've tilted windmills before.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I actually

Hambydammit wrote:
I actually wonder if his own fervor for the idea of a historical Jesus has caused him to think that it must be important for everybody.

Pretty sure that's what's going on. That said, imagine how self-centered you'd have to be for that kind of thought process, and then how amazingly blind you'd have to be to attack someone who just mentions maybe getting some perspective. For any reasonable person, I'd imagine the response would be "yes, you have a point, and I may have missed something important". This guy doesn't seem to care if he knows something or not, it's somehow about his freedom of expression (?) Actually, I'm guessing - I have no idea what motivates the man.

Hambydammit wrote:
I think it seems so important to him that he can't grasp the notion that it isn't the issue or the conclusion that I'm upset about, but rather the method

Yeah, and I don't think he's going to get that any time soon, but good for you for trying. It's difficult to get people back to a place where you can talk to them once they're on the defensive. Especially when they're on a crusade.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I don't often point people

 I don't often point people away from RRS, but I'd like everyone to check out my off-site blog where John Loftus has responded to me.  I will offer no comment at this time, as I prefer the reader to come to an independent opinion.

Read it (and comment if you like) HERE

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
At first it looked to me

At first it looked to me like he simply took your criticizm too personally and that has blinded him to what you are trying to say, however those last few replies have me wondering if he has developed an ego and feels too "above" you to give you a rational debate.  Has he even attempted to respond to your points?  I really hope he'll cool off and reread what you've tried to say.

 

To get a little off topic, my position on historical Jesus is that if there is a credible logical argument for the existance of Jesus, no one has shared it with me, therefore I do not believe.  I've seen many cases for Jesus, however all have either worked from the presupposition of his existance, or have stemmed from out right lies.  I don't believe in the non-existance either, as I wouldn't know how to prove the non-existance of anything.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I will

Hambydammit wrote:
I will offer no comment at this time, as I prefer the reader to come to an independent opinion.

It's not exactly Frasier vs Ali, if you get my meaning. I'm not on the edge of my seat waiting to see who the reasonable party will end up being, is what I'm saying.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence