Evidence demands a verdict? Great, when are you going to tell me about the evidence?
A Critique of “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Evidence I and II”
[This book has been out for quite some time, and I have been encouraged to read it from Christians with whom I have discussed theology. They refer me to it as if my questions and points are too tough for them to articulate a good response, and so I should read this book. I agree with that type of reference, so I did get the book. I read it recently and this is my critique. This is the first draft.]
What better audience than one that eagerly drinks your words and vehemently raises you to a status of nobility, honesty, and a success, with a strong desire to rationalize such belief, unaware that they are employing flawed tactics simply to support their desired belief? This is the audience that Josh McDowell enjoys with his book “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Evidence I and II”. Considering the popularity of his book within specific religious circles, and realizing it remains popular in these circles despite its serious logical fallacies, straw-man arguments, and obviously self promoting story telling, indicates that those who revere its text are accepting it with open arms, unlike any non-religious topic that might purport the same methods of persuasion. One thing fundamentalist Christians do so often, but are unaware that they are doing it, is to employ logic, reason, Occam’s razor, and a score of other very basic critical thinking exercises to make decisions about all kinds of daily choices, and assess materials they read in the newspaper, or hear from friends. However, when it comes to their own belief system, they step out of this scientific process and attempt to build a process to rationalize and apologize for the flaws of their belief system. Josh McDowell’s book greatly assists them in doing this.
Josh McDowell capitalizes on this phenomenon, knowing his audience will be a score of fundamentalist Christians across the country who number in the millions. Anytime you can harness that many consumers for your product, it’s a good thing for your success. However, what makes Christian Fundamentalists loyalty so easy to harness is that as long as you defend what they want to believe, in spite of the real and valid challenges to their belief they feel in the real world, they will support you. That’s one of the most powerful subsets of a demographic you can have, those who are emotionally involved. The least powerful are those who are critically minded, aware, and unfettered by tantalizing fantasies. Throughout Josh McDowell’s book, it is apparent he could say the sky was green in Jesus’ day, not blue, and then ‘back that up’ by saying just about anything he wants, and then move to the next topic. This left me considerably taken aback after reading many of his ‘answers’ to tough questions. He often replied to certain negative assertions of Christianity, with ‘answers’ that blatantly missed the elements needed to consider it an ‘answer’, failing to offer any logically sound supportive statements, and then moves on as though the question was answered.
One of several glaring examples of this comes from:
5B: Writing a lot about something simple and true: i.e., confirming a greater flaw in thinking by the fundamentalist reader by using a simple concept (of a larger concept) that is obviously true, and thus confirms for the reader that their greater more complex belief is true. For example, he uses the obvious logical process to state that two contradictory statements cannot both be the truth. Then erroneously attaches that then Christianity is either all true, or all false. Since we can show ‘evidences’ of some truths of the word that Christianity either claims as their own, or adopts, then all of Christianity is true. He knows his audience will not understand this enormous flaw in epistemology, so he appeals to this emotional attachment and makes the reader say that either Christianity is true, or it is false. While this works great for critical thinkers to show the flaws of that premise, and likely leads to the demise of the belief in fundamentalist Christianity, Josh knows this statement will cause his readership to feel the emotional pang of a momentary ‘what if Christianity is false?” and immediately grasp to their belief again, a ‘safe space’, clinging to any apologetics one can make for it.
Josh uses this section to argue against accepting other’s views, since Christians know they are correct. Christians are not to accept that they may be wrong, and that they are not being intolerant by ‘accepting’ what they know to be “most likely”. Interestingly, he advises this before going into his ‘evidences’ that the fundamentalist Christian belief is true. Further, he seemingly purports that feeling something is ‘most likely’ means you can call other ideas false.
1B: Josh also likes to paint non-religious persons as arrogant and thoughtless in their challenges of Christian propositions. Constantly, akin to making straw-man arguments, (straw man arguments are easily refuted arguments made up by one who claims it is the argument of his opponent, and then proceeds to tear down that argument making himself appear to be the victor), Josh pretends to quote the typical non-theist as being highly insulting, ridiculously simplistic in their arguments, and having ‘bah humbug’ attitudes about any ideas other than their own. One of his quotes of a supposed doubter with whom he once spoke: “You Christians are pitiful.”
Josh paints himself to be a troubled youth, one who persevered over horrible odds, in an effort to win over his readership so that they have even more reason to support and believe his views. His childhood story that takes us quickly into adolescence is a chore to read. For non-fiction, it is too contrived, and for fiction, it isn’t interesting. He culminates this journey to an encounter with a group of Christians at college, drawing himself to be arrogant, short sighted, ignorant, and selfish with his words, belligerently asserting his flawed logic and thoughtless responses to the Christians. His dialog is so unrealistic, I felt as though I was reading the script to a Disney teenage special. I realize that Josh can not be verbatim with his words from a time that long ago that wasn’t recorded, but to be so sophomoric in the paraphrasing is silly at best, and unethical at worst, taking the liberty to hide behind the excuse of understandable inaccuracy, and writing in specific attitudes and use of words to paint a picture most validating of the Christian ‘approach’, and invalidating the typical non-believers’ approach. The words and attitudes are more like what someone would want to write in a self-validating story, rather than what typically occurs in discussions between theists and non-theists. Since Josh knows that people like me can write this type of critique with no proof that he made up his stories, he writes them with freedom since his aforementioned audience gobbles them up with no question.
Josh amazes me with his willingness to use elusive sources for his stories, such as “A professor at “a” major Midwestern University”, and “a professor of “a” world literature class…” No respected orator outside of fundamentalist churches uses these types of sources for their anecdotal stories as often as Josh. It’s simply bad form, and highly indicative of an embellished story. However, once again, Josh enjoys an audience that does not hold him to this standard, and is used to affording this ‘benefit of the doubt’ to their pastor and visiting preachers in their churches (after all, they’d never lie). He can freely spout anecdotes using unnamed sources and attribute to them audacious statements and arguments. The throngs of bubbling followers who jostle to be the next fan of his book drown out those of us who do read his book and do hold him to that standard.
I am used to listening to fundamentalists ad nauseam, and despite the constant stream of illogical conclusions and flawed epistemology they portray, I can occasionally find areas where I agree with them, or agree with their basic premises. I found it extremely difficult to find agreement with Josh as he seemed to purposefully avoid putting critical thought into his words. It’s almost as if, knowing his audience would not demand it, he did not put the extra effort into it. He seems to casually throw down a few words, occasionally throw out a straw man argument or a silly anecdote that portrays an anonymous liberal thoughtless university professor engaging in ridiculous banter with him. And then he moves on to the next question, as if the last was answered.
It is interesting, but not a surprise, to see Josh do what I had witnessed my entire life growing up in a fundamentalist church: To vilify intellectualism and the typical public university. He paints in his book a picture that almost all public universities are full of arrogant professors “steeped” in their views. It’s sad that two of the most important tools for enlightenment and progress are vilified in this manner by a man who’s book will be read and revered by pre-college aged kids everywhere.
It’s a common practice for a human, who has the slightest degree of emotional involvement in a belief, to consider any detractors arrogant. If a dismissive attitude toward the same argument you’ve heard a thousand times, and that flawed argument shows that the speaker is not understanding the complexities of epistemology is considered arrogant, then fine. But to call that response simply arrogant, and thus wrong, is short sighted and close minded. Being dismissive, even arrogant, by itself is not a reliable indicator of a flawed position, since both sides are guilty of it.
2B. Josh’s ‘evidence’ that the apostles were eyewitnesses are taken exclusively from the gospels, purely from their statements that they made about themselves. So, since they say they were eyewitnesses to the miracles, then they were? This is the type of logic that runs rampant through Josh’s book. He then states that since Paul writes that he told the king that the king himself knows that what he (Paul) says is true, that this indicates strongly that Paul is telling the truth, since it is careless to make this claim to your opponent if it is not true. Josh seems to ignore the very real possibility, as possible as it’s opposite, that this story was made up by Paul, or portrayed events differently than in the manner they did. In fact, Paul had a fervent desire to get his story out. It would seem unlikely that he would not write embellishments into his words to help convince his readers. Therefore, it is flawed to base one’s belief on these statements by Paul, since it is impossible to know if Paul embellished or was telling the truth. Motive has a lot to do with believing extraordinary claims.
I could go on and one about Josh’s book. When I sat down to read it, I couldn’t believe that immediately I was seeing gaping holes in his ‘answers’ that a high schooler could point out. I expected academic, intellectual apologetics, something to sink my teeth into, but this was unbelievable. I shook my head in wonderment with the realization that this was a best seller! This gave me a glimpse of an idea just how many people do not recognize the most basic tools of critical evaluation of what someone claims, or worse, choose not to use them.
[this is the first draft of my critique].
Joe Hern
[This book has been out for quite some time, and I have been encouraged to read it from Christians with whom I have discussed theology. They refer me to it as if my questions and points are too tough for them to articulate a good response, and so I should read this book. I agree with that type of reference, so I did get the book. I read it recently and this is my critique. This is the first draft.]
What better audience than one that eagerly drinks your words and vehemently raises you to a status of nobility, honesty, and a success, with a strong desire to rationalize such belief, unaware that they are employing flawed tactics simply to support their desired belief? This is the audience that Josh McDowell enjoys with his book “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Evidence I and II”. Considering the popularity of his book within specific religious circles, and realizing it remains popular in these circles despite its serious logical fallacies, straw-man arguments, and obviously self promoting story telling, indicates that those who revere its text are accepting it with open arms, unlike any non-religious topic that might purport the same methods of persuasion. One thing fundamentalist Christians do so often, but are unaware that they are doing it, is to employ logic, reason, Occam’s razor, and a score of other very basic critical thinking exercises to make decisions about all kinds of daily choices, and assess materials they read in the newspaper, or hear from friends. However, when it comes to their own belief system, they step out of this scientific process and attempt to build a process to rationalize and apologize for the flaws of their belief system. Josh McDowell’s book greatly assists them in doing this.
Josh McDowell capitalizes on this phenomenon, knowing his audience will be a score of fundamentalist Christians across the country who number in the millions. Anytime you can harness that many consumers for your product, it’s a good thing for your success. However, what makes Christian Fundamentalists loyalty so easy to harness is that as long as you defend what they want to believe, in spite of the real and valid challenges to their belief they feel in the real world, they will support you. That’s one of the most powerful subsets of a demographic you can have, those who are emotionally involved. The least powerful are those who are critically minded, aware, and unfettered by tantalizing fantasies. Throughout Josh McDowell’s book, it is apparent he could say the sky was green in Jesus’ day, not blue, and then ‘back that up’ by saying just about anything he wants, and then move to the next topic. This left me considerably taken aback after reading many of his ‘answers’ to tough questions. He often replied to certain negative assertions of Christianity, with ‘answers’ that blatantly missed the elements needed to consider it an ‘answer’, failing to offer any logically sound supportive statements, and then moves on as though the question was answered.
One of several glaring examples of this comes from:
5B: Writing a lot about something simple and true: i.e., confirming a greater flaw in thinking by the fundamentalist reader by using a simple concept (of a larger concept) that is obviously true, and thus confirms for the reader that their greater more complex belief is true. For example, he uses the obvious logical process to state that two contradictory statements cannot both be the truth. Then erroneously attaches that then Christianity is either all true, or all false. Since we can show ‘evidences’ of some truths of the word that Christianity either claims as their own, or adopts, then all of Christianity is true. He knows his audience will not understand this enormous flaw in epistemology, so he appeals to this emotional attachment and makes the reader say that either Christianity is true, or it is false. While this works great for critical thinkers to show the flaws of that premise, and likely leads to the demise of the belief in fundamentalist Christianity, Josh knows this statement will cause his readership to feel the emotional pang of a momentary ‘what if Christianity is false?” and immediately grasp to their belief again, a ‘safe space’, clinging to any apologetics one can make for it.
Josh uses this section to argue against accepting other’s views, since Christians know they are correct. Christians are not to accept that they may be wrong, and that they are not being intolerant by ‘accepting’ what they know to be “most likely”. Interestingly, he advises this before going into his ‘evidences’ that the fundamentalist Christian belief is true. Further, he seemingly purports that feeling something is ‘most likely’ means you can call other ideas false.
1B: Josh also likes to paint non-religious persons as arrogant and thoughtless in their challenges of Christian propositions. Constantly, akin to making straw-man arguments, (straw man arguments are easily refuted arguments made up by one who claims it is the argument of his opponent, and then proceeds to tear down that argument making himself appear to be the victor), Josh pretends to quote the typical non-theist as being highly insulting, ridiculously simplistic in their arguments, and having ‘bah humbug’ attitudes about any ideas other than their own. One of his quotes of a supposed doubter with whom he once spoke: “You Christians are pitiful.”
Josh paints himself to be a troubled youth, one who persevered over horrible odds, in an effort to win over his readership so that they have even more reason to support and believe his views. His childhood story that takes us quickly into adolescence is a chore to read. For non-fiction, it is too contrived, and for fiction, it isn’t interesting. He culminates this journey to an encounter with a group of Christians at college, drawing himself to be arrogant, short sighted, ignorant, and selfish with his words, belligerently asserting his flawed logic and thoughtless responses to the Christians. His dialog is so unrealistic, I felt as though I was reading the script to a Disney teenage special. I realize that Josh can not be verbatim with his words from a time that long ago that wasn’t recorded, but to be so sophomoric in the paraphrasing is silly at best, and unethical at worst, taking the liberty to hide behind the excuse of understandable inaccuracy, and writing in specific attitudes and use of words to paint a picture most validating of the Christian ‘approach’, and invalidating the typical non-believers’ approach. The words and attitudes are more like what someone would want to write in a self-validating story, rather than what typically occurs in discussions between theists and non-theists. Since Josh knows that people like me can write this type of critique with no proof that he made up his stories, he writes them with freedom since his aforementioned audience gobbles them up with no question.
Josh amazes me with his willingness to use elusive sources for his stories, such as “A professor at “a” major Midwestern University”, and “a professor of “a” world literature class…” No respected orator outside of fundamentalist churches uses these types of sources for their anecdotal stories as often as Josh. It’s simply bad form, and highly indicative of an embellished story. However, once again, Josh enjoys an audience that does not hold him to this standard, and is used to affording this ‘benefit of the doubt’ to their pastor and visiting preachers in their churches (after all, they’d never lie). He can freely spout anecdotes using unnamed sources and attribute to them audacious statements and arguments. The throngs of bubbling followers who jostle to be the next fan of his book drown out those of us who do read his book and do hold him to that standard.
I am used to listening to fundamentalists ad nauseam, and despite the constant stream of illogical conclusions and flawed epistemology they portray, I can occasionally find areas where I agree with them, or agree with their basic premises. I found it extremely difficult to find agreement with Josh as he seemed to purposefully avoid putting critical thought into his words. It’s almost as if, knowing his audience would not demand it, he did not put the extra effort into it. He seems to casually throw down a few words, occasionally throw out a straw man argument or a silly anecdote that portrays an anonymous liberal thoughtless university professor engaging in ridiculous banter with him. And then he moves on to the next question, as if the last was answered.
It is interesting, but not a surprise, to see Josh do what I had witnessed my entire life growing up in a fundamentalist church: To vilify intellectualism and the typical public university. He paints in his book a picture that almost all public universities are full of arrogant professors “steeped” in their views. It’s sad that two of the most important tools for enlightenment and progress are vilified in this manner by a man who’s book will be read and revered by pre-college aged kids everywhere.
It’s a common practice for a human, who has the slightest degree of emotional involvement in a belief, to consider any detractors arrogant. If a dismissive attitude toward the same argument you’ve heard a thousand times, and that flawed argument shows that the speaker is not understanding the complexities of epistemology is considered arrogant, then fine. But to call that response simply arrogant, and thus wrong, is short sighted and close minded. Being dismissive, even arrogant, by itself is not a reliable indicator of a flawed position, since both sides are guilty of it.
2B. Josh’s ‘evidence’ that the apostles were eyewitnesses are taken exclusively from the gospels, purely from their statements that they made about themselves. So, since they say they were eyewitnesses to the miracles, then they were? This is the type of logic that runs rampant through Josh’s book. He then states that since Paul writes that he told the king that the king himself knows that what he (Paul) says is true, that this indicates strongly that Paul is telling the truth, since it is careless to make this claim to your opponent if it is not true. Josh seems to ignore the very real possibility, as possible as it’s opposite, that this story was made up by Paul, or portrayed events differently than in the manner they did. In fact, Paul had a fervent desire to get his story out. It would seem unlikely that he would not write embellishments into his words to help convince his readers. Therefore, it is flawed to base one’s belief on these statements by Paul, since it is impossible to know if Paul embellished or was telling the truth. Motive has a lot to do with believing extraordinary claims.
I could go on and one about Josh’s book. When I sat down to read it, I couldn’t believe that immediately I was seeing gaping holes in his ‘answers’ that a high schooler could point out. I expected academic, intellectual apologetics, something to sink my teeth into, but this was unbelievable. I shook my head in wonderment with the realization that this was a best seller! This gave me a glimpse of an idea just how many people do not recognize the most basic tools of critical evaluation of what someone claims, or worse, choose not to use them.
[this is the first draft of my critique].
Joe Hern