John Loftus confesses intellectual guilt
John Loftus has posted on his blog an entry called The Goal of my Book was to Overwhelm the Believer. This is in response to a particular criticism a number of people have offered, a composite of (a) Loftus not having his own arguments, (b) Loftus presenting shallow quickie arguments of others, (c) Loftus only presenting arguments of others, (d) Loftus artificially favoring the atheist arguments by giving one or two apologist quotes and then a slew of slightly elaborated contrary quotes.
These are pretty horrible tactics, which Loftus admits he learned from Christian apologists, particularly James Strauss. This is also the tactic of people like Josh McDowell. Loftus now admits that the only way you can “change someone’s mind” is by stacking the deck in this way, giving the illusion of an uncontroversial, overwhelming case. A balanced presentation just wouldn’t have the results Loftus (or apologists in general) want.
Loftus confuses this method with presenting a “comprehensive case.” But of course this is the opposite of a comprehensive case, as he admits.
He also says, “Having multiple recommendations also helps to overwhelm the believer.” So that’s why Loftus has collected a bizarre and highly padded list of people complimenting his book (including me, which is one way to know the list isn’t serious). He merely wants to manipulate “the believer” into some sort of overwhelmed feeling, based on (he apparently hopes) the believer being unaware that exactly the same dishonest thing can be done in the opposite direction.
Loftus admits in the post, as he does in his book, that he can’t have a “scholar’s grasp” on “every topic” in Christianity – “God and the universe using the disciplines of science, philosophy, theology, ethics, history, the Bible, and apologetics.” What intellectually honest people do when they don’t know something is either (1) learn more about it before publishing or (2) don’t publish about it. If Loftus doesn’t understand these topics, then he can’t be sure who has the best arguments regarding them. Honest scholars stay within what they know. Unfortunately this would preclude Loftus from publishing at all.
So according to Loftus, Loftus’s book is pure propaganda, nothing to do with quality of argument, intellectual honesty, or finding out the truth – just overwhelming some poor Christian who doesn’t know better.
Here’s what Loftus should do, which is what I’ve recommended before: Stop publishing propaganda, complete a PhD program at a secular institution, and then work really hard on developing a knowledgeable case of his own, then prepare a well-edited book and send it to a publisher.
In anticipation of accusations of elitism, I don’t think everyone has to get a PhD to have good ideas, or be respectable, etc. Loftus should do this, because he insists on pontificating on these topics, expressing grandiose confidence, merely because he can mush together a bunch of excerpts.
After reading Loftus’ post, I was surprised to find that he actually thinks this is a legitimate way to write a book. I had thought he may have been apologizing or something after reading your post. How very foolish of me.
I’m in full agreement that those are horrible tactics to employ. This may be a bit of a stretch, but I think that what mainly disgusts me about much discourse in 21st century America, from cable news to apologetics, is that the goal isn’t to actually try to figure out the truth of something, but rather to overwhelm (or scare, or bully) people into agreeing with whatever the author or speaker thinks. I find it both dishonest and dangerous.
On the other hand, I don’t like the implication of “Honest scholars stay within what they know.” Even in context I think you should clarify a statement like that. It seems absurd to me to demand that scholars “stay within what they know” so I wonder if I’m misinterpreting the statement. I’m not sure what a “scholar’s grasp” means, but I know that in my particular field we would pretty much all be precluded from publishing anything if certain knowledge was necessary. Intellectually honest people can read and talk about things they aren’t certain of or don’t know everything about. Naturally, they should disclose the nature of their knowledge and experience, and distinguish between “this is something that has been tested for centuries e.g. the law of gravity” and “I’m now entering into the realm of speculation based upon my intuition as somebody who has studied X for decades” and “I’ve only conducted one experiment on this with a small sample size, so these findings are provisional and need to be confirmed” etc. etc. And of course if somebody ventures outside their area of expertise it should come with flashing neon signs. (“As a chemist, I believe these findings may have relevance for X in biology, but bear in mind….”)
While I join in condemning people who make dishonest arguments and declaim their views with certainty using appeals to authorities in fields they have never studied in good faith and cannot evaluate, I don’t agree with the suggestion that people have to wait until they “know” something before they can say something about it, just because I don’t understand what that would require. There are so many states of knowledge and they are not static. In fact I think a characteristic of honest discourse is almost always humility and acknowledgment (at least in the realm of science) that there are other possibilities including the introduction of new knowledge and facts and insights which may change the situation. The obligatory citation of my beloved Montaigne:
“Obstinacy and heat of opinion is the surest proof of stupidity. Is there anything so certain, resolute, disdainful, contemplative, grave, and serious as an ass?”
Michel de Montaigne, “On the Art of Discussion”, Essays, Book III
[I know that "obstinacy in belief" (C.S. Lewis) is often considered, perhaps rightly so, a virtue in religion, but I think firmly held principles differ in nature from absolutist, domineering dogma. Here I take comfort from Christ's "violation" of the Sabbath to heal a person in need.]
I apologize if I’m splitting hairs in my comment–and reiterate that I’m not sure what you mean by “know” so I’m not sure if I’m expressing a fair concern.
Kathleen,
I mean my comments to apply specifically to people who are trying to publish, who thereby suggest that their work is worth reading by a popular audience. I think it’s intellectually irresponsible to not be sufficiently knowledgeable about areas one is writing about in this context. If all someone can do is quote other scholars who could for all we know be right or wrong, it would be better to just let them speak for themselves in their own publications.
I basically embrace the view you might be disagreeing with here, except I really just mean publishing, not “saying something” in general.
In fact, “saying something about it” is part of how we learn and develop our ideas, with friends, in an academic program, in peer-reviewed journals, etc. But this shouldn’t be extended to preaching and evangelism. We shouldn’t do that until we “know” something.
Hello, I followed your profile from Loftus’ website over here.
While I must admit to being underwhelmed on occasion by some of the things I’ve read John Loftus’ book, I don’t find this approach you are criticizing here problematic itself.
I don’t expect an atheist book to be balanced in it’s presentation of the arguments. I expect it to reflect what the atheist thinks is true, that there is no balance as the weight of the evidence is in favor of atheism.
I also don’t expect everything to be unique. So what if an atheist wants to compile a collection of what he thinks are the best arguments against Christianity? I’m happy to fault him on the whole atheistic project itself, but I don’t find this method necessarily problematic. But I don’t know that it is true that John Loftus doesn’t have anything unique to offer. I don’t know that anyone articulated his outsider’s test of faith as he has previously. Sure it’s not perfectly unique as I think it assumes the old enlightenment view that we can have a neutral place from which to start our thinking or that skepticism can even be considered neutral for that matter. But very little of the new is perfectly unique as just about everything builds on what comes before.
I think it’s intellectually irresponsible to not be sufficiently knowledgeable about areas one is writing about in this context. If all someone can do is quote other scholars who could for all we know be right or wrong, it would be better to just let them speak for themselves in their own publications.
Seems to me that that is just the nature of modern academics and technology. To look at the parallel example from technology, a chief car designer may employ engineers from a variety of fields that he does not know much about such as a specialist in aerodynamics and a computer expert. He’s going to depend upon these people and trust their judgments without himself becoming an expert in aerodynamics nor computers.
Rob R,
It could be that Loftus’s work is worthless in the sense you describe. In that case, someone actually looking for the truth in religious matters should look elsewhere. If they just want to feel “overwhelmed,” they should not look elsewhere; indeed they should avoid balanced presentations, and stick entirely to apologetical works.
As for adding anything new, many bloggers agree with you that The Outsider Test for faith is innovative. I’ve offered several attempts to understand the Outsider Test in a coherent fashion, followed by criticism. You can explore them here, if interested:
http://egalicontrarian.com/index.php/tag/loftus/
I don’t expect you to go read my long critiques, but note that I don’t think the Outsider Test is even an argument beyond saying something like “Don’t beg the question,” let alone a new argument. It oscillates between being trivial (e.g. if you abandon your entire epistemic context and purposely ignore experiences you’ve had, you’ll have different beliefs), false (e.g. making a crude connection between demographic predictability and rationality), and incoherent (e.g. Loftus fails to be consistent in what he means by any of his relevant terms – skepticism, control beliefs, etc.).
It could be that Loftus’s work is worthless in the sense you describe. In that case, someone actually looking for the truth in religious matters should look elsewhere.
Worthless? I wouldn’t say that. I’d be hard pressed to call what he writes “good,” considering the abominable purpose of the book. But some of what I read I think should be taken seriously and some of it I think certainly evidences a quality of thought that doesn’t deserve the scoffing that other parts do. There is in my estimation though some positive value in what he writes in that some things that some Christians believe of some sub-traditions of evangelicalism are problematic and need to change. But it is hardly a show-stopping debunking of orthodox Christian faith.
I don’t consider the outsider’s test for faith an argument. It’s a perspective from which to start religious enquiry. Is it new? I suppose it’s uniqueness is in appealing to a Christian attitude of doubt towards other religions and the suggestion of consistently applying that same doubt to Christianity (which doesn’t work so well against inclusivism, Pinnock and Sanders style which does not take doubt as the basic approach to other religions). But of course, methodological doubt isn’t new. I suppose it might be new though in it’s limit in terms of topic, that is religion, and this I find a big weakness, that he is missing that when methodological doubt has been applied consistently constantly beyond religion, it has ravaged the whole epistemic process for knowing much at all about the world (thank you David Hume). Ergo, methodological doubt is not really a fruitful path for knowledge.
Rob,
I’m sure there are plenty of good points scattered throughout the book. I’ve pointed out some of these, when I’ve noticed them.
I don’t count the Outsider Test because it isn’t a test, there’s no such thing as being an outsider when experience is involved in evidence (as it always is), and the demographic considerations that motivate the “test” are off-base.
Hey Joshua, thanks for the clarification. I think you’re right that there is a difference when communicating with a popular audience. Specialists can relatively safely “talk shop” among themselves in peer-reviewed journals or with classmates or with non-expert friends (I think the “intelligent layperson” is one of the best types of people to bounce ideas off of), but “preaching” should require a difference standard of knowledge.
I find myself a bit confused by all the embrace/agree/disagree language we’ve come to, but if I’m reading you correctly, you “basically” believe that “people have to ‘know’ something before they can publish something about it.” Can I insert “expository in the popular press” after “publish something”?
Since you used the term “honest scholars” I’ll excuse myself for interpreting “publish” as including peer-reviewed/academic articles, and I think those sorts of communications should enjoy more relaxed standards of certainty of knowledge than those you require for “evangelizing” in the popular press. I think the former provide a valid context for some kinds of uncertainty and speculation, such as proposing untested ideas or intuitions.
However, now that I think of it, I would very much like to see those who claim PhD-level knowledge of an area attempt to publish their material in peer-reviewed journals. Surely they ought to communicate their expertise to their intellectual peers, and probably they should do so prior to presenting it to the untrained. I think the outcome of such efforts would be instructive.
Also, I naturally assume you exempt the authors of blogs from the need to something about a topic prior to publishing their opinions about it on their website.
(I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist. Anyway, I’ve already been condemned to a fiery chasm, so I risk no further doom.)
Oops, forgot an important word. Please add “know” after “need to”: “I naturally assume you exempt the authors of blogs from the need to KNOW something about a topic prior to publishing their opinions about it on their website.”
Serves me right!
Yes, naturally these views wouldn’t apply to blogs…
Actually I’m not sure how I feel about blogs. If I tried to post a comprehensive Christian apologetic, claiming all the while that only the unreasonable could not be changed by it, that might be especially obnoxious due to my lack of status.
Given the astronomic degree of obnoxiousness such a project would almost certainly attain, I am not sure whether your lack of status could make a discernable difference. I could even envision enhanced eminence exacerbating the already execrable essence of such an endeavour were it effected by an ‘expert’.
But I do not think I can trust my intutions: my powers of imagination stagger. I will defer to experts in obnoxiousness such as yourself.
Kathleen, I’m only now noticing the amazing alliteration in the sentence, “I could even envision enhanced eminence exacerbating the already execrable essence of such an endeavour were it effected by an ‘expert’.”
Thank you. *bows* Perhaps my silly linguistic indulgence wasn’t as outrageously and glaringly preposterous as I thought.