Is John Loftus still relevant?

The first book I read that aggressively argued against Christianity and theism, and made a subsequent case for atheism, was John Loftus' Why I Became an Atheist. To this day I still believe that it's a great book, and should be read by any believer (and non-believer) who actually wants to confront the opposition and survey the case for atheism. It is this book, along with Loftus' patented Outsider Test for Faith contained therein, that elevated Loftus to the forefront of the New Atheist movement. And while Loftus was never considered one of the "Four Horsemen of the apocalypse," he was nevertheless one of the most famous up and coming skeptics just a few years ago. At the height of his relevance he was printing  atheist anthologies left and right, debating the likes of Dinesh D'Souza, and enjoying a major following on his blog Debunking Christianity.

But these days are long gone, and for some reason Loftus seems, at least to me, to have faded away from being relevant. While he's still writing and editing many books and anthologies, they don't seem to be garnering much interest or mention--at least not as much as his first books. And while he's still debating, his debates, likewise, have failed to gather much interest from those involved in religion debates. Even more, his blog has taken a nose dive, and seems to have lost whatever prominence it used to have.

What are the reasons for Loftus' fall from grace? Well it seems that there might be a couple reasons. First, Loftus' seems to have overdone the whole anthology/book thing. That is to say, he's printing too many books. You see, it was actually quite interesting when Loftus first came out with The Christian Delusion and The End of Christianity--anthologies arguing against Christianity from a myriad of perspectives. Yet his continued push in this vein, with subsequent anthologies and books, appears to have been too much of a "good" thing. In other words, this constant inflow of books seems to have actually reduced the value that each book has. Heck, Loftus already has another anthology set for release later this year, and is already writing another book about the end of philosophy of religion. And I think I speak for a lot of skeptics and believers when I say: who cares?

Secondly, Loftus is not much of a speaker, and this has no doubt affected his publicity as a "freethinker". I remember watching him in his D'Souza debate, and wondering how someone who was so articulate in print could be so incoherent in person. This train-wreck reached its culmination when Loftus debated David Wood last year, for the second time (see here). This was probably the worst I've ever seen him perform. He was inarticulate, bumbling, his arguments were poor (even coming from him), and his presentation was simply terrible overall. Performances like these seem to be a huge contributing factor in explaining Loftus' descent into irrelevance. (I mean, just think of the publicity Loftus would have received if, on the contrary, he displayed a performance like that of physicist Sean Carroll. )

Thirdly, Loftus' blog, his primary medium, has become a wasteland relegated to dense, unsubstantiated, arrogant, and unreasonable dialogue saturated with ridicule--both from him and many of his commenters. This is why you rarely see theists or Christians comment there, because the blog is not conducive to fruitful dialogue. Moreover, Loftus' current posts tend to be low on substance, and continually regurgitate the same notions over and over.

Moreover, as of late Loftus has been fond of unjustly and consistently attacking fellow atheists like Jeff Lowder and Keith Parsons, on various topics, ad nauseum--going so far as calling Parsons ignorant and arrogant (see here) , and calling Lowder stupid, and a hypocrite. The problem is not that Loftus disagrees with them, for he is surely entitled to his own opinion. Rather, the problem is with how Loftus goes about engaging in dialogue with his interlocutors. He's arrogant, uncharitable, obstinate, and downright petulant--in fact he even banned his own friend and frequent poster Harry McCall over a minor dispute regarding the scholarship of Bart Ehrman. Furthermore, when this type of unreasonable behavior is brought to Loftus' attention, he fails to take heed and only digs himself further in his hole of close-mindedness and conceit. Just survey these recent comments by Loftus in a post of his:

I think Coyne's comments [on some atheist's disdain of the New Atheism] also explain why some small-minded atheists don't like me as well. This is something that has only recently dawned on me, since I have not thought of myself as having much fame or being that important. These misinformed and jealous atheists "perceive" me to have achieved a certain amount of fame they can only dream of having. So they attack. This should encourage me, or something.

How can one expect to have a fruitful dialogue with Loftus when this kind of misplaced vanity is rattling around in his head? You can't. 

Now, couple all this with the fact that Loftus has repeatedly made claims to be hanging it up, as it were, though he always changes his mind and returns. In 2012 he said that, "[i]t’s time to move on[…]I see no reason to waste large chunks of my time on this delusion anymore," and yet a couple of months later he was back blogging and writing full-time. And recently he has commented in a similar vein. It seems that Loftus' continued and constant hiatuses might have contributed to many being indifferent to what he subsequently has to say--at least I know I've felt this way. 

In light of all these factors it seems to me that Loftus has faded away from relevancy in the secular community. Most theists don't see the need to address him any longer, and many secularists don't seem to bother much with what's going on in his little world. Maybe it's time for Loftus to actually follow through with his own instincts, and hang up his hat. 

John Loftus doesn't understand logic

A few weeks ago I was having a discussion with John Loftus over at his blog Debunking Christianity. Our discussion was regarding the explanatory limits of science, and whether or not an empiricist epistemology can adequately ground philosophical naturalism. During this discussion I was bombarded with comments—some fruitful, and others just plain ridiculous—from other regulars at the blog, and during one of these side-discussions I brought up the fact that the laws of logic are necessary truths, and thus cannot be false. Well, John chimed in, claimed the contrary—namely, that at least one law of logic was false--and provided a link to a past post of his that “demonstrates” this. And it is this post I want to focus on presently.

The post in question is really just a piggyback on claims made in Howard Bloom’s book The God Problem—I haven’t read the book, and after reading the small snippet of idiocy that Loftus highlights in it, I don’t plan to. John begins by quoting from said book:

A = A is false. It is sometimes a good approximation. But in the end, it's not 100 percent true Why?...Opposites can be true simultaneously. In fact, they usually are.

It should be obvious that the quote here is dealing with the law of identity, which really just states that something is identical with itself, and thus A is equal to A (itself). But according to Howard Bloom this law is only an approximation, and it’s not immutably true. Apparently A is not always A, which really means that something is not always identical to itself. Why would Bloom claim this? Because apparently opposites can be true simultaneously. But, in what form does Bloom mean that opposites can be true simultaneously? Well John doesn’t expound what Bloom means here, but he doesn’t need to. For if Bloom means that existential opposites can be true then he is sorely mistaken.

For it simply cannot possibly be the case that something can be both A and non-A simultaneously. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time; a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect; my wallet cannot both be in my pocket and not be simultaneously etc. Not only this, but if it were possible that something could be both A and non-A then we run into epistemological problems. For one can only deny the immutability of the laws of logic if his words have an intended meaning, and not the opposite of that meaning. But this cannot be guaranteed if the laws of logic are not immutable, and thus no proposition could ever have an intended meaning, including the proposition that denies the necessity of the laws of logic. Therefore, the laws of logic (including the law of identity) are immutable, since to claim the opposite results in a reduction ad absurdum.

But is this really what Bloom meant by claiming that opposites can be true simultaneously, and thus A is not always A? I can’t say, but luckily John continues his post by attempting to explicate points that ground Bloom’s denial of the law of identity:

There are no two identical frogs, or twins, or clones, or protons, or atoms. There are no two identical letters. No two identical letter a's.

So, it is here where John demonstrates his embarrassingly bad comprehension of philosophy—even though he has a Masters in philosophy. The law of identity (A is A) does not mean that elements in a set are identical to each other. That is, the law of identity does not state that, for instance, one dog is identical to another dog simply because they’re both dogs. It doesn’t state that the six letter a’s I am using in this sentence are all identical. Rather, it states that any existent is identical with itself. And surely this is necessarily true. So again, it seems that John’s point was predicated on a complete misunderstanding of the fundamental law of logic. He didn't even understand the very proposition he was arguing against. 

Now, why have I made such a big fuss like this? Does pointing out that John has misunderstood one single law really warrant an entire blog post? Well, yes, for the following reasons. First, John prides himself on being a pioneer of reason and logic. But as it turns out, by denying and not understanding a foundational pillar of logic John is highlighting that he is, actually, illogical. Second, John is very cocky, and likes to pronounce the views of those who disagree with him as delusional. Yet John himself has earned degrees in the very field that he misunderstood so badly! (Although, to John’s credit, maybe he fell asleep in logic class.) So, how can I trust John’s judgement regarding anything when he harbors such a poor understanding in the very subject that he has graduated in? The answer is that I cannot, and neither should anyone else.