John Loftus reveals his Questions for Christians

Last updated on: September 7, 2012 at 8:02 pm by Leah Libresco

John Loftus reveals his Questions for Christians 2012-09-07T20:02:30-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Some time ago, prominent atheist (and ex-Christian minister) John Loftus and I had a bit of a disagreement about the best way to debate Christians. Loftus said then that critics should wait to draw conclusions until he had the full list of questions posted. They’re up.

I’ve posted the list below with some comments interpolated in bold. If you want me to expand on one, say so in the comments, but I can only comment to a point, since I don’t know what kind of evidence either side is planning to muster. And I’d love to hear from Christian readers if you’ve struggled with any of Loftus’s questions or if his interlocutor is asking the questions that you’d put to an atheist. Here we go…

Who is this god and what did he command?

The biblical concept of god evolved from polytheism to monotheism.

The biblical god required human sacrifices for his pleasure.

The biblical god commanded genocide.

I still think Old Testament attacks are of limited utility. Plenty of Christians have plausible enough defenses (some books are historically unverified, God was laying law down specifically for Jews at that time that was not meant as universal law, etc). Many Christians have higher levels of confidence in the New Testament, and are unlikely to be phased by OT problems. For total literalists, this line of attack makes more sense, but it’s not always worth arguing with them. If they are completely ignorant of the content of the Bible, perhaps, but, if not, the argument can feel like a fight with Bre’er Rabbit. Every time you try to throw a reductio ad absurdum, they’re delighted you finally understand their position.

God does not care:

God does not care much about slaves.

God does not care much about women.

God does not care much about animals.

Anyone who believes about human exceptionalism can’t be expected to get too upset about that last one. I’ve heard Christian defenses of #1 (Paul isn’t expected to completely transcend his time, etc). I’m not always satisfied, but I also can’t claim that it’s my main objection to Christianity. Number 2 appeals more to me, both for the obvious reason, and because it’s a question that modern Christians need to address on a day-to-day basis, rather than a problem of finding historic justifications for past actions.

God is ignorant:

God is ignorant about science.

God is ignorant about the future

I don’t know what kind of argument Loftus is going to make in these sections. I assume #2 is about the way Jesus’s apostles had the impression that the Second Coming would occur in their lifetimes, which does seem problematic. He may have a different target in mind, though.

I’m less confident about #1, because, usually when I’ve seen these kinds of attacks, they’re about Genesis descriptions not corresponding well to the Big Bang, and Christians tend to cry “Metaphor!” or “Limited Understanding of the Mortal Transcriber of God’s Word!” (Admittedly, the second is more of a mouthful. But, again, I’m not really sure what the target is, so I could be totally off base.

God is incompetent:

God is an incompetent creator.

God is an incompetent redeemer.

I don’t know where these are going at all and my guesses are too wide ranging to speculate (problem of evil, maybe?). I’ll just place a bet now that ‘ineffable plan’ comes up somewhere in the answer.

So far Randal’s first three topics (i.e., canards) are:

If there is no God then life has no meaning

If there is no God then everything is permitted.

Science is no substitute for religion

That last is obviously stupid. The contention atheists make is that some religious people try to use faith as a substitute for science, not that science has anything to say about religion (besides that some of its empirical claims are empirically false.

As for the first two, they are more interesting. The trouble is, that this argument never seems to get resolved, since both sides have different standards of what is required for a valid grounding of morality. (Or whether it’s necessary to fully understand the metaphysics to be able to understand moral law and act accordingly).

Atheism

Debate Tactics

loftus

Previous Post

December 22, 2010

The Perils of Decentralized Philosophy

Next Post

December 24, 2010 "The Marleyes Were Dead, To Begin With"*

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who played cymbals in Temple worship?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Solomon David Moses Asaph