L 2.1

Loftus refers to William Lane Craig when he says “Craig says that ‘if God doesn’t exist, everything is permissible’. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this world..In other words, why don’t non-Christians act consistently? No one says to herself, ‘this is the reasonable or logical thing to do but I refuse to do it,’ unless she is mentally challenged. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians are mentally challenged…that the overwhelming majority of us don’t live consistent lives with what we believe? The evidence is overwhelmingly against his claim.” (pp. 37-38.)

Wherever there is non-theism, there is great mayhem. The USSR under Stalin and communist China are good examples of this. The human rights violations in those two examples would require multiple supercomputers to calculate. So, we actually do see those people acting consistently according to Craig’s logic. However, that is not what Craig argued. Craig accurately pointed out that under atheism, everything is permissible. This means that the human rights violations committed by people like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are justified logical outworkings of secular, non-theistic rationale. Even though some people unnecessarily do, there is no reason why people should restrict themselves to ethical action in a non-theist paradigm. The despot is equally justified in despotic actions as the philanthropist is in philanthropic giving because there is no absolute, transcendent moral anchor from which value judgments can be made.

L 1.10

In one sense, Loftus makes a reasonable plea that “I know that some Christians who refuse to deal with the arguments later on in this book will use the personal information I’ve just shared to attack my character”. (p.31)

This is a very interesting preemptive move to block attempts at tying his motivations to his intellectual reasons for rejecting Christianity. Yet, he goes to great lengths to chide Christians for accepting Christian explanations or rejecting non-Christian reasoning because of a preexisting supernatural bias. In essence, he’s hypocritically saying that it’s ok for him to have an anti-supernatural bias and his arguments remain reasonable whereas the Christian has a delusion and their reasoning is not acceptable substantiation for that worldview. This is a blatant double standard.

L 1.9

Loftus continues asking broad questions in the first chapter. “Why did it take god so long to create the stuff of the universe, which is less valuable and presumably less complex to create, than it did to create the most valuable and highly complex creatures to inhabit the earth?” (p.27)

First, why does it matter? As creator, God is justified either way and we are affected none.

Second, it is a technicality that what Loftus is saying is somewhat mistaken in that the "stuff" he refers to (stars, planets, etc) is constantly in a process of change. God created what we observe but, it hasn't always looked the way it appears now. Essentially, everything is a result of the primordial stuff that God created the universe with. Even the most fundamental, literal reading of the Bible agrees in that man was created from the dust of the Earth. It isn't so much that God created the stuff as it now appears. The question really becomes why God allowed the universe to unfold and progress the way that it has.

What Loftus is saying is that since non-human objects existed for so long prior to our appearance, people don't seem to be all that special even though the Bible says we are God's special creation. We merely appear to be part of the machine. This begs the question of why creation has to unfold differently for us to be special. Why is any other way more indicative of people being special than what we currently know? Loftus doesn't say. This seems to be an attempt to show that creationism is untenable. Since humans are so much more complex than the inanimate matter of the universe, humans should be much “older” relative to the age of the universe. What Loftus can’t say is how long humans will be around. It is possible that humans will eventually occupy a place in the universe for the vast majority of it’s lifespan thus eventually agreeing with his observation. Since this isn’t the case as of right now, Loftus is probably making the case that the reason why the ratio is what we observe is because people are the product of blind, natural forces as opposed to being divinely created. If this is the case, Loftus has omitted that there are some Christians who are theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists who don’t have a problem with scientific observations of the universe, especially in regards to human origins.

L 1.8

In a hint of criticisms that will appear throughout the book, Loftus points out that “In Genesis chapter 1 we see that the Earth existed before the sun, moon and stars, which…doesn’t square with astronomy”. (p. 26)

This objection assumes that the creation account starts at the Big Bang and is from an omniscient perspective. Actually, the account seems to be written from an earthly perspective. The account picks up at the formation of the Earth and is recorded as if a terrestrial observer were present. In that regard, it does not contradict science at all. Loftus returns to the creation account again in later chapters.

The objection underscores that it is important to keep an open mind when reading the Bible. Many people remain unwilling to entertain different perspectives. When this is the case, objections like this one will result.

L 1.7

On p. 33, Loftus quotes an internet comment made about the Bible. “We opened the Bible and, instead of finding wisdom, we found violence and the justification of immoral acts. We found anti-intellectualism and backward thinking. We found oppression. We realized the fountain wasn’t a being; it was a religion”.

These statements cherry-pick certain alleged difficulties in the Bible and fail to acknowledge many other places in the Bible where there actually is wisdom, peace and morality. The importance of this response is establishing context. If there seems to be a conflict between the two (peaceful passages and apparently non-peaceful passages), then it's most likely that there is a good explanation for the passages that Loftus is referring to. There are events recorded in the Bible where people acted in a less than moral manner. Being able to prove that the Bible condones such activity is a different matter altogether than just citing the passages, especially when the rest of the Bible clearly doesn't condone violence, immorality or oppression (Proverbs 6:16-19). Most any commentary will be able to provide an obvious explanation for the kinds of passages in the objection.

There have been countless intelligent Christians who don’t find that the Bible is backward in general in it’s teachings. The problem with Loftus' statement is that he doesn't enumerate what he is comparing the Bible to in order to make the judgment that the Bible is backwards. Using smuggled in authority, he's not subjecting his own beliefs to the same test with these comments. He does state some of his beliefs throughout the book and they will be addressed in this forum.

Last, the person who finds anti-intellectualism in the Bible is apparently unfamiliar with the dictates found in 2 Peter 1:5 “make every effort to supplement your faith with goodness, goodness with knowledge.” This is an explicit instruction for followers of Christ to be educated and knowledgeable as opposed to anti-intellectual or backwards.

L 1.6

On p. 31, Loftus claims that “Christians are in denial and live with guilt because they cannot be honest about themselves outside of the private counseling room.” He reiterates on p. 32 by saying “I just don't think anyone can live a passionate guilt-free Christian life.” He states that, as a Christian, he lived in constant guilt. The implication is that the nature of Christianity leads to a lifestyle that is very undesirable in that people are made to feel guilty when they can’t live up to the seemingly capricious and historically random dictates of Christianity.

Throughout the first chapter, Loftus recounts several disputes and faults which led to the aforementioned guilt. Yet, Loftus doesn’t balance these episodes with any mention of joy. Joy is one of the most common words in the Bible. Disciples of Christ are not meant to feel constant guilt like he says he did. If joy is to be a ubiquitous and continual emotion for the Christian, then Loftus had something in his walk with God that wasn’t optimal. Aside from Genesis 1:31 where God calls creation good, the Bible is replete with passages about how we are to enjoy this life, even with the trials we face because the pain we experience is temporary. Followers of Christ have an ultimate hope and this is the be the overriding factor of life.

L 1.5

In a very typical objection to Christianity, Loftus states on p. 30, “I often ask myself why Christians don’t seem to act any better than others when they alone claim to have the power, wisdom, and guidance of God right there within them. Apparently, the Holy Spirit didn’t properly do his job here”. This is essentially a restatement of a Voltaire quote “If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed”.

What this objection overlooks is the fact that disciples of Christ are admitted sinners. In fact, it’s a requisite for becoming a disciple of Christ that sin be acknowledged. While it is cliché, there is a bumper sticker that very accurately sums up this dynamic; “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”.

The flaws of Christians do nothing to diminish the truth of Christianity. The truth of Christianity is no more injured by the flaws of it’s adherents than atheism was exemplified in the actions of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Atheists are quick to distance themselves and their beliefs from her deeds but, can’t realize the double standard they commit when they indict Christianity of being false when Christians fall short of Jesus’ ministry. Christians act contrary to their beliefs frequently but, because Christianity is not a works-based religion, this is actually standard operating procedure.

It has been said that the previous response is flawed because Christianity in essence claims to have the winning chess strategy yet, Christians continually lose chess matches. This is a reference to Christians acting in an immoral manner. Therefore, the strategy, Christianity, isn’t desirable. The objection overlooks the fact that for 2,000 years, the good acts done by Christians far outweigh the bad. Millions of Christians worldwide frequently perform acts of love and service for absolutely no recognition. In addition, the virtue of Christianity isn't based on the actions of Christians as stated earlier because Christianity isn’t a works-based religion. Disciples of Christ perpetuate Christ’s ministry because their born-again nature motivates them to do so, not because actions are the inertial force. They act contrary to Jesus’ teachings because they are admittedly imperfect. Neither case diminishes the truth of Christianity.