Dr. Guthrie, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, carefully examined and logically analyzed John Loftus's complaints about Christianity, and here is his conclusion:
Loftus' case against Christianity is the same old, tired responses offered up by many who have not bothered to do some of the work in uncovering (i) what Christians actually believe and (ii) what the philosophical, scientific, and empirical evidence warrants. If he wasn't plagued by "moutains out of molehills" then he might not make these far-reaching and absurd claims about Christian veracity.
But don't expect this to be announced anytime soon on John's blog. After all, atheist apologists like Loftus cannot let criticisms from the outside world reach the ears of their faithful followers. And John wants to make as much money as possible with his book, so he must maintain the lie that his "case against Christianity" contains good arguments (it has none). Here is the rest of Guthrie's assessment:
It may not be of much surprise, but I'm not terribly moved by his arguments. Most importantly, the case he summarizes at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_loftus/christianity.html is neither new nor particularly challenging. It represents the typical Christian-turned-atheist persona of someone who no longer felt moved by the Spirit of God and opted to embrace every seed of doubt postulated by Christianity's critics. It's a foxhole to be sure. Let's examine his case in brief:
Sociological Reasons
Loftus' key argument is found in his statement that "an individual's religion is almost invariably determined by 'when and where one was born.' And since there are no mutually agreed upon tests for evaluating religious claims, it is little wonder that social, cultural, and political forces overwhelmingly determine what individuals believe." But it doesn't follow that simply because individuals derive their beliefs from their cultural milieu that, therefore, those beliefs are false. This is the genetic fallacy. It no more invalidates the belief any more than it invalidates the conclusion that infanticide is wrong even though certain Eskimo cultures embraced it as a normal practice.
Philosophical Reason 1
Loftus presents three disjunctive claims about the origin of the universe - one of which is necessary to believe:
1. Something has always existed—always.
2. Something popped into existence out of absolutely nothing.
3. Our existence in the universe is absurd to the core.
He opts for accepting either #1 or #2 here because since we enter into epistemology from an agnostic position then "moving from agnosticism to atheism is a much smaller step than moving toward full-blown Christianity" and Christianity "entails a greater number of claims and thus is inherently more difficult to defend." But this is multiply flawed. First, as I've noted in my own work, the cosmological evidence at worst rules out atheism. Loftus himself even says, "I might happily concede deism"! Secondly, even if it were true that the case for Christianity is more complicated it doesn't follow that one ought to adopt atheism because its pathway is simpler. This approach has been largely abandoned by non-theistic physicalists who assert that, though it is more complicated to explain free will and human experience in physicalism than Cartesian dualism, they assure us physicalism is the view to embrace. Finally, I surely dispute that #2 is every bit as "absurd" as #1. Number 2 requires the truthfulness of #1 (as cosmological arguments discuss), but #1 does not need #2. But if #1 is eminently more plausible, then such is best explained by a necessary being who is personal (I've argued elsewhere for this conclusion).
Philosophical Reason 2
Loftus also objects to Christianity on grounds that it is a double-standard in that they believe "the biblical miracles because they accept the Christian faith, but they are skeptical of the miracles of other religions." But he simply doesn't understand the probability calculus. Yes, one must take into account the known accounts of miracles in the past - by everyone! And Christian miracles do come out as largely improbable events when only their relative frequencies are assessed. But this is not surprising to a Christian. Instead, what Loftus would have to include in the background information is the fact that a traditional conception of God is true, that the particular evidence for a Christian miracle claim is better than not, and that any counter-hypothesis is not as likely given the evidence as the Christian conclusion. In terms of the resurrection of Jesus, this is precisely what we find!
Scientific Reason 1
This one is really bad in Loftus' arsenal. He argues that since we employ a "methodological naturalism" in doing science and such science explains away some particular instances of supernaturalism, therefore Christianity is not likely true. Therefore, "how likely is it that a methodology that has worked so well in every other area of investigation would not shed light on the truth or falsehood of" Christian beliefs in general? First, note that this is not a scientific claim to assert methodological naturalism, this is a philosophical claim about science. Secondly, the conclusion again doesn't follow from the premises. Even if it's true that one ought to use this approach and that some events deemed supernatural can now be explained away naturally, it does not follow that Christian beliefs are not likely true. Finally, at best, such naturalistic explanations opposing Christian ones begin from an equally problematic assumption - that there is no God. So even if the evidence for a particular Christian claim suggests its truthfulness over naturalistic alternatives, the methodological naturalist has to jettison it and opt for a naturalistic alternative - no matter how fantastic the evidence for it might be!
Scientific Reason 2
This is just an extension of the latter point by underscoring the idea that science in general has discredited certain Christian claims of antiquity. And complaints that one would prefer a physical treatment to prayer simply caricatures what Christians actually believe. In short, it's a straw man here.
Biblical Reason 1
Loftus argues that the biblical God is "clearly a hateful, racist, and sexist divinity." But even if he were right about those particular passages he cites to make his point, it only serves to show that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, not that Christianity is not true.
Biblical Reason 2
Here he makes the same mistakes as he did in the scientific reasons noted above. He complains that supernatural beliefs were derived from superstition. By and large this is true, but the Bible actually undos and demythologizes those things (i.e., Genesis 1 shows that the sun, moon, and stars are not deities of their own as Israel's neighbors believed but mere created things of God, that one's elevation is irrelevant to answered prayer - cf. John 4:20-24, etc...).
Historical Reason 1
Loftus's basic contention here is that "[a]lmost anything can be rationally denied in history, even if the event happened" and, therefore, [implicitly] Christianity is not likely true. This is yet another non-sequitur. But more importantly Loftus fails to understand that Christianity's truth is not based on the evidence of history. It's based on the realilty of God and His continuing presence. The evidence merely gives probable support for what we already know and experience.
Historical Reason 2
His complaint here can be summarized in his opening sentence, "The history of the Christian Church undermines the veracity of Christianity." He cites the Inquisition, Crusades, Witch Hunts, etc. in making his point. Can you say Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tsung? And contrary to popular belief, most wars are not fought in the name of religion but in the name of control. In effect, they're carrying out the Nietzschian atheist's dictum that morality is the will to power!
Empirical Reason
Surprisingly, Loftus invokes the now-defunct deductive problem of evil. He writes, "If God exists, the reality of intense suffering is a stubborn fact indicating that something is wrong with God's ability, goodness, or knowledge." But, as I've argued elsewhere, if you're going to argue that the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God exists is logically contradictory to the existence evil in the world then you have to show why. Loftus doesn't defend himself here.
Loftus concludes his essay explaining what it would take to convince him. But all he's arguing for is an increase in an awareness of God in history. But as he is so often fond of pointing out, atheism was not a problem in antiquity and yet overwhelmingly few people were part of the family of God. How could Loftus guarantee that had the evidence been more abundant, then the amount of true believers would have increased more than what the actual world contains? And I can't imagine how he could prove this.
Thus, Loftus' case against Christianity is the same old, tired responses offered up by many who have not bothered to do some of the work in uncovering (i) what Christians actually believe and (ii) what the philosophical, scientific, and empirical evidence warrants. If he wasn't plagued by "moutains out of molehills" then he might not make these far-reaching and absurd claims about Christian veracity.