From atheist Taylor Carr. Here.
At the risk of further infuriating some of my critics, I'll end with something I've been wondering for a while - which I genuinely do not intend to be mean-spirited. John Loftus is obviously very proud of his three master's degrees in philosophy of religion. He has brought them up in several posts, in discussions on Facebook, and elsewhere, often to imply that he is qualified to discuss philosophy of religion, while those of us poor young students who haven't earned our degrees yet are not. Normally, I don't bother with petty quibbles over credentials unless there is actually a legitimate appeal to authority to be made. The problem here is that John Loftus quite clearly thinks the field from which he earned his degrees is an illegitimate field. To be frank, he got his three master's, from two Christian universities, in a discipline that his friend Jerry Coyne has referred to as "garbage". So, in all sincerity, I'm left wondering why John Loftus doesn't seem to accept that his degrees are in nonsense. I don't believe that they are, but if philosophy of religion is truly dead, and we should all stop "god-bothering", as James Lindsay calls it, why continue to run a blog like Debunking Christianity, or write books like Christianity is Not Great? You might argue that you're doing your part to bring others into that realization, but why not lead by example?
11 comments:
I just got though shutting down the thread at sec Outpost over this very issue and thsi very book. Bradly Bowen's review of the book. In the first they called me a Troll and idgnored my argument, my argument was even though i think God arguments work and have not been beaten a lot of Phil R is not about arguments for god but discussing the nature of religion itself, as long as there are religions it will be reliant.
When I first met Loftus we were sort of friends. He actually said metacrck is the real deal" meaning i was a real scholar and intellectual, he was so impressed with my views he actually said on DC that I was the best Christian apologist on the net. I knew from being around communists in Central America movement this was recruitment.It did not turn my head (even though I knew it was true, cough cough). I emailed Craig and found that he really had been Craig's student, So I told Christians on message boards to leave him alone about it. He was not lying. But I also asked him to call my school to prove I was PhDl candidate, he did so. But when the time came to reciprocate and tell atheists on CARM I was what I claimed to be and to stop saying I never went to graduate school he wouldn't do it.
That was the thin end of the wedge., Last fall when he was insulting Keith parsons I decided he's nothing more than an intellectual thug. Now he's slandering Jef Lowder in his new book. The slandering of Lowder is based upon two issues, that Lowder opposes using insults and ridicule as a tool for brow beating Christians, the same basis upon which he dismissed Parsons as:"an old man." Jeff Lowder is a thousand times more honorable than Loftus.
Loftu's arguments are thinly veiled ideological bromides and his reasons has become he's deteriorated into a thug, That mocking and ridicule thing is really anti-intellectual He;s an emery of learning and thinking. He's an ideologue.
here
Jerry Coyne does not impress me. when I first saw his blog before I looked up who he was I thought he was a high school kid. His understanding of religion is pathetic, as is his understanding of most things outside his field. He is a true example of what I call scientism, someone who thinks science is the only valid from of knowledge and that it is the enforcement mechanism or atheism. He and Loftus are true ideologues.
"The slandering of Lowder is based upon two issues, that Lowder opposes using insults and ridicule as a tool for brow beating Christians"
From your experience, do you think the primary reason people like Loftus get angry at people like Lowder is because the Lowder brand of atheists makes the Loftus brand look like petulant children? I've never really considered the root of animosity toward the so-called accommodationists, but angry embarrassment seems the most likely culprit. You're more familiar with both men so I may be wrong.
I think Loftus is too arrogant to know that he looks childish, i think it has to do with Lowder wont flatter his ego. It might be that he knows intuitively that Lowder is a better philosopher.
Several issues:
i) Loftus suffers from a huge inferiority complex. He's a textbook case.
Now, you'd think somebody who suffers from an inferiority complex would avoid being so public about it. After all, if you make it obvious to the whole world that you suffer from an inferiority complex, doesn't that make you an object of pity and scorn, which feeds the inferiority complex? Logically, someone with an inferiority complex would try to conceal it. If you show people where your buttons are, they will push your buttons. But Loftus just can't help himself.
ii) He also suffers from what I call aging-atheist syndrome. For some people, atheism is initially liberating. Mainly, it allows them to practice guilt-free promiscuity.
But it's less fun to be an aging atheist. After a certain point, it's all downhill. You have nothing to look forward to. Your best years are behind you. You don't believe in the afterlife. Sexual performance diminishes. You become passé, as young turks overtake you. It's not uncommon for atheists to become increasingly bitter as they hit middle age.
iii) There's also fierce, back-stabbing competition among atheists to become king of the dunghill. They promote themselves by tearing down the competition. Richard Carrier is another good example.
This is especially common among atheists who don't have an academic position.
In the atheist pecking order, even if you happen to be momentarily on top, you're at chronic risk of being toppled. Who's hot and who's not. Remember when Richard Dawkins was riding the crest? But he was dethroned, and Jerry Coyne ascended the throne.
By the way, for all those atheists who are forever trumpeting the supposed coming disappearance of Christianity in the near future, the Associated Press has just reported that according to Norway's Official Statistics Agency, membership in the Catholic Church in Norway has risen by 42 percent since 2012.
Wow! Way to disappear!!
"They promote themselves by tearing down the competition."
This is all they have. Atheism isn't supported by reasons. If it were it wouldn't be merely a lack of belief, and nothing more than that.
my blog piece against the ex apologists's Epicurean cosmological argument for the necessity of matter as alternative to God.
Metacrock's blog
. Prokop said...
By the way, for all those atheists who are forever trumpeting the supposed coming disappearance of Christianity in the near future, the Associated Press has just reported that according to Norway's Official Statistics Agency, membership in the Catholic Church in Norway has risen by 42 percent since 2012.
Metacrock: The great sociologist Andre Greely (also a priest) did a study about 2007 showing that Northern European atheism is soft support and can even include believe in a supreme being. That was Norway,Denmark Sweden. Hardcore atheism isn these countries was only around 10%.
Because, as Oscar Wilde pointed out, anything worth doing is worth doing to excess. :)
Post a Comment