We continue and conclude, from part 1, considering John Loftus’ debate with Dinesh D’Souza.
Audio of the debate is being made available via Apologetics 315 at this link.
It appears that John Loftus was less than successful and has actually been taken to task by other atheists such as may be found at Skeptic Money, Le Cafe, UCIC Atheists. Loftus attempted some self defense at his blog here, here, here and here. And yet continues to be unconvincing to other atheists, as can be seen here.
Also, note that Marcus from WHHW has posted a video starring Loftus affirming the absurdity of atheism. And there is a follow up from Marcus wherein Loftus claims that atheist is actually only “seemingly absurd” (and, by the way, proves yet against that no one misunderstands Ockham’s Razor like the atheist apologist).
Let us conclude IrishFarmer’s review of a John Loftus book which deals with The Beginning of the Cumulative Case.
Following is the text of IrishFarmer’s review (with very minor stylistic changes and a succinct addendum):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Poor Logic in the Bible?
After a short introduction to his “Cumulative Case”, John attacks the logic of the Bible; which is a pretty good idea, if it works. If Jesus is really God, then we should expect Him to be able to reason properly. The same goes for any inspired writers.
First, however, John makes an interesting statement. Essentially, he believes that historical proofs only give us a probability of truth, and even if the historical evidence backs up Christianity, science (somehow) proves that the doctrinal aspects of Christianity are not true and therefore the historical proof should be dismissed [1, page 37]. This seems rather strange.
If the historical evidence leads us to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead (thus vindicating the faith of the Church), I would think the first thing we should question are the “scientific” presuppositions which are leading us to reject Christian doctrine.
After that, there are some examples of alleged poor reasoning in the New Testament. Namely Mark 12:26-27 where John says Jesus does a poor job of arguing for the resurrection:
But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.
The strange thing is that it’s obvious that Jesus is doing no such thing. In Mark 12:20-23 Jesus is being questioned about a hypothetical woman who married three brothers and had no children, and who she would end up with in the resurrection. The question being asked of Jesus assumes the truth of the future resurrection.
Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife; and dying, he left no offspring. And the second took her, and he died; nor did he leave any offspring. And the third likewise. So the seven had her and left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.
Ken’s addendum:
It seems that elucidation is required in order to not create confusion. IrishFarmer wrote that “The question being asked of Jesus assumes the truth of the future resurrection.” This is true of the question itself. It should be noted that it was asked by people who did not believe in the resurrection but who where employing the concept of resurrection to challenge Jesus. Verse 18 reads,
Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him; and they asked Him, saying…
Their question was meant to imply the illogicality of a physical resurrection to the effect of “Since you claim a physical resurrection [the only sort held by Jews] whose physical wife will she be when she physically resurrects?”
Jesus begins His answer by stating, v. 24-25,
Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Firstly, mistaken because certain relationships which life on Earth necessitate for the stability and fidelity of the family and society are not necessary in the resurrection. Secondly, they are mistaken because the scripture, which was the premise upon which their question was based in the first place, makes reference to the present existence of those who have already passed away. Jesus was basing His answer upon their premise.
The second example John Loftus uses isn’t as bad. I just don’t see what’s so crucial about it. I don’t understand the background of Jewish belief in a future resurrection and so forth, so I’ll lay off this one.
I suppose the argument doesn’t have much force as it stands, but if this is what John considers a “cumulative case” against Christianity, then his argument is weak as it stands as well.
However, it appears from these two logical examples John concludes that the NT was written by people who’s cognitive skills were “infantile” and whom we should reject the word of because of their meager scientific standards [1, page 38].
The problem should be obvious, however, since this reasoning would cause us to reject more than just the Bible. We would have to reject the works of reliable historians, simply on the basis that we’re so much smarter and more advanced than they were. That’s just silly, and often simply isn’t true.
Ken’s addendum:
Let us take a moment to consider John Loftus’ own logic. He writes that “There just aren’t any ultimacies” (except this one?) and then notes that “what ultimately matters…” as well as “life is ultimately meaningless.” Thus, there are no ultimacies except those ultimacies upon which he relies for arriving at his ultimacies.
Not only this but he wrote,
Nature is ultimate. According to the late Carl Sagan, “The cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be.” According to Bertrand Russell the universe is simply “a brute fact.” I am an atheist. There is no God. And there is at least one reason for me not to believe in God, and that is because the universe is absurd when we try to figure it out [266].
Let us parse this monkey fist of fallacies:
Nature is ultimate
Even though he claims that “There just aren’t any ultimacies.” Let us ask John: how do you know?
According to the late Carl Sagan
Thus saith Carl? What does Carl Sagan know that we do not? Well…
“The cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be”
Let us ask John and Carl: how do you know?
According to Bertrand Russell
Thus saith Bertrand? What does Bertrand Russell know that we do not? Well…
the universe is simply “a brute fact”
Let us ask John and Bertrand: how do you know? This is a science stopper; is we simply deem things to be brute facts well, then they are brute fact—period.
I am an atheist.
And to which sect of atheism does he adhere?
There is no God.
Let us ask John: how do you know?
And there is at least one reason for me not to believe in God, and that is because the universe is absurd when we try to figure it out This is certainly the oddest epistemology I have ever encountered. Granting this “logic” and employing it I will conclude that there is no John Loftus and there is at least one reason for me not to believe in John Loftus, and that is because his claims are absurd when we try to figure them out.
If we simply declare that a cause does not exist because the effect appears to be absurd when we try to figure it out this, again, is a science, and philosophy, stopper.
The Chauvinistic Cat is out of the Bag
Having revealed his superiority over the ignorant authors of the Bible, John really harps on this point. That is, he proceeds to dismiss anything that seems strange to him. From the hermeneutical methods of the NT writers, to their reasoning skills [1, page 39]. Which is fine, but I’ll note again that I’ll believe the word of a small child so long as the evidence backs up their case. I’m not going to throw out any corroborating evidence simply because I feel superior to the child.
Ken’s addendum:
Just in case: “hermeneutical” refers to the art and science (as it has been called) of interpreting texts by taking into consideration things such as grammatical context, historical context, cultural context, asking who, what, when, where, why, how, etc., etc., etc. This is done so as to not take a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext. This is basic exegesis which is allowing the text to tell us what it is telling us rather than eisegesis (or, isogesis) which is coming to a text with preconceived notions and reading them into the text.
The New Testament writers often applied an interpretive method which was, of course, culturally and historically in keeping with their times: the midrash method (one of various forms that the Jews traditionally employ). This consisted of drawing parallels, making homilies, moralizing, etc.
Again, he uses what I see as a bit of backwards reasoning: saying that since the NT authors were so darned stupid, we shouldn’t believe their word on the resurrection. Which is fine, you don’t have to take their word for it. The evidence, even the evidence we have almost 2000 years later, still supports the resurrection.
For now, John Loftus does nothing to interact with any evidence. He merely dismisses the NT authors as cognitively deficient. We’ll come back to this in a later chapter, however.
Interestingly, John then makes the claim that essentially Jesus’ life was written to reflect the OT. I haven’t the expertise to argue on this front, but clearly neither does John. Nor does he back up his case. Though, this has been more of an “intro” than anything, so we can give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.
Ken’s addendum:
IrishFarmer wrote, “We’ll come back to this in a later chapter, however” and “for now” but he was not able to continue his review and so all we have is parts 1 and 2 in which case Norm Geisler’s review may be of interest.