For What It's Worth: My promised review of John Loftus' book
Posted on: February 11, 2009 - 1:53am
Offline
For What It's Worth: My promised review of John Loftus' book
I did my best to be objective. I really hope I succeeded. In all fairness, I could have spent a couple of hours doing some research and quibbled with John over some of his assertions in the sections on the Bible, but for the most part, I think he did a good job. Biblical criticism is not my field, and I found his arguments lucid and compelling. If some are inaccurate, I will leave that to other Biblical scholars to detail.
Anyway, read it if you care.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
You should feel comfortable, Hamby, that you have been objective. Having read the dialogues between yourself and Loftus, I can honestly say that your limited personal experience with him has not affected, in any significant way, your detailing of his writing.
You write a good review. In fact, you've thoroughly convinced me that it's a book I don't want to pick up. Or, that it's a book I don't need to pick up. Which is unsurprising. Thank you, Hamby, for reading the book and telling us about it so that we don't necessarily have to do it ourselves.
Actually, the book makes me wish there were more literature written for the atheist. I understand, of course, that it wasn't the point of the book at all to appeal to the atheist audience, but the title (like other books in the genre) is so tantalising. Everytime I see a similarly titled book in a store, I grab it up only to find that it's nothing new and certainly wasn't meant for the presently atheist. I can get no joy from reading what amounts to the same stuff over again especially when that stuff is supposed to be meant for the interested theist.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I'm digging through it myself. I'm enjoying it, but there's a lot of room for improvement. I also think the argument could be made that John Loftus is the wrong guy to be writing this book, given that he's an admitted stripper fucking adulterer (I know, she was an ex-stripper at the time). I can already hear the screams of protest from Craig's disciples and their less educated brethren: "John Loftus was a wolf in sheep's clothing and he must be judged by his fruit--an abandoned wife and a broken home!"
Shit. I'm getting good at this.
Anyway, you pointed out in your review that his section on philosophical arguments for God was very basic; as my schooling in philosophy is non-existent, I'll take you at your word. I came to atheism without addressing individual philosophical arguments, so it's nice to have a tidy little summary to hand, even if it is incomplete. I took away the idea that the closest you can come to a theist worldview (I got sick of that word after a while), purely by philosophy, is agnosticism. His arguments seemed sound, but once again, I'm no student of philosophy.
He's very entertaining in discussing the superstitious character of the people of the ancient world, I think. Beyond that, I haven't read much further.
What I'm concerned about is the glowing reaction of the reviewers of this book when they compare it so favorably to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, and I'm not just referring to the Christian reviewers. The fact is that books don't turn theists into atheists, and Loftus doesn't have any better chance of doing that than the Four Horsemen. Books can turn quiet atheists into loud atheists, but this book won't pull that off either. Loftus wrote a defensive, one might say apologetic work. Because that's pretty much all he's trained to do.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
His arguments are sound. They're just brief and seemed rather thrown together. You've read my stuff on the philosophy of scientific epistemology, for instance. I spent as much time on detailed examples as I did on presenting the actual argument. This, I believe, is necessary in these kinds of discussions. Remember, the audience is hostile. You can't just trot out the Reader's Digest Condensed Version and expect them to get it. I mean, for crying out loud, Richard Dawkins has written what, a dozen books designed to convince the layperson of the reality of evolution. Dennett spent an entire book on consciousness. Various philosophers have spent books on the ontological argument, etc, etc.
In short, I felt like Loftus' grasp of biblical errancy is far stronger than his grasp of philosophy. I was reminded of when I was in high school and just quoted my way through book reports rather than trying to get a complete grasp of the subject. If you quote the book enough, you're sure to get most of it right. I'm not suggesting that Loftus doesn't understand the arguments. Clearly he does. He just didn't seem comfortable presenting them in a fluid and um... ergonomic way.
That's probably the best chapter in the book.
I don't get it either. You know what I think? I think they haven't read it. Richard Carrier's review was very favorable, but he admitted in his review that he just skimmed it briefly. I think it's professional courtesy.
Having said that, I don't want to take away from its power as a book for evangelicals and fundamentalists. He hits them right where they live, and he hits them hard. After all, he's got years of inside knowledge. I just don't see it as a book for the masses. I prefer Atheist Universe, by David Mills.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism