James McGrath is doing an ongoing project to review Earl Doherty’s book (website here) about an alternate vision of Christian origins, one that negates the existence of Jesus. One unlinked blog that had criticized James McGrath belongs to Neil Godfrey (links here and here). Another possible source were the comments on the blog of John Loftus (here). A bit of context.
When others had already commented on an apparent disregard, in their minds, to make a best-attempt to represent the opponent’s argument accurately before preceding to rebuttal (accusing Dr. McGrath of demolishing “strawman” arguments), I was a bit eager to see that the latest post addressed this criticism from the outset. But instead of dealing with the actual objection that was raised to James McGrath, he made a strawman of the objection, raising the very same problem again in his reply. Instead of the troubling accusation made against him being given response, that of wrongfully representing Doherty’s work, that argument itself is facilely represented as an objection about a failure to point out the good parts of the book, as if it were a mere matter of charity to give the argument a fair shake. The review does indeed attempt to dismantle the arguments and doesn’t take the approach of presenting solid evidence against the proposed hypothesis, the logical course which would be suggested by the analogical reply about homeopathic medicine and young-earth creationism. Just disprove it instead of addressing the arguments themselves? OK, go ahead. But he doesn’t. He has his cake and eats it too, using an appeal on the basis that he doesn’t really need to engage the material because it’s fully bunk and that can be proven, but hey, he’s going to go ahead comment on several individual points of the argument anyway… just in a fashion that’s allowed to be lax about ideas like representing the opponent’s arguments properly because, hey, he’s just reviewing nonsense today. Hence this reply.
Dr. McGrath,
You are reviewing Earl Doherty’s book. I will admit that I haven’t read the most recent edition, and I last read the original edition some eight years ago or so. So I am not completely fresh on all the arguments. Nor do I particularly care which way you believe in Jesus, or not – what I care most about here, is seeing someone who participates actively in academics writing at a level that shows nothing but disdain for the intelligence of his audience when presenting his views to the people outside universities.
You explain your program in one paragraph, in response to those who claim that he has misrepresented Earl Doherty’s arguments: “When someone offers a homeopathic remedy as a solution to an illness, I don’t see the need for a defender of mainstream medicine to point out that it is water and staying hydrated is a good thing, and can represent a positive effect of ingesting it. When someone defending mainstream science focuses on the flaws in a book promoting young-earth creationism or Intelligent Design, I won’t particularly mind if the one criticizing the work fails to highlight the occasional good point the author made.”
You seem to have completely forgotten that you might be writing to an intelligent audience, one which will cross-examine your own statements just as much as they will examine the statements of the one you wish to impugn. Not only do you unapologetically admit that you are less interested in a balanced portrayal of the work that you purport to “review,” but you insult your own readers by misrepresenting the very feedback you receive from your audience. They tell you that you are not representing the substance of the argument but instead using a strawman. You say that it’s okay to leave out praise of positive points when you are making a review with a negative emphasis. I’m stultified enough to stop reading after that paragraph.
What I don’t get is this – how do people who are trained both in exegesis (reading what people write) and apologetics (supporting what you say with reason) so flagrantly disregard them with regard to the text that they are reading right in front of them, in their native language, their native culture, and their very own field of research… and then proceed to tell us all that they are credible experts on the writings that have been handed down in copies, that are in a foreign tongue, from a foreign culture, at a remove of two thousand years? Where is the self-criticism? Where is the introspection? Where is the plain old honesty?
I made a comment along similar lines (but from a separate starting point) on JesusMysteries dsicussion group recently. The emotional investments that “taking a stand” on an issue in public press upon of us, can make us do some very weird things, when viewed from the perspective of an academia whose goal is the dissemination of knowledge. Such as pretend to be a lot more sure than we reasonably can be (perhaps in fact -are-), pretend that the opposition’s argument is a lot weaker than it is (perhaps weaker than even -we see it to be-), and in general cave to a lot of social expectations. Standards get let by the wayside.
Now this sermonizing cannot finish here. In the Christian language, I am but a sinner, in the common language I’m just another schlub on the internet. But come on! Practice what you preach, be authentic, and do so -especially- when you have the opportunity to make an impact outside of your regular environment, on people you perceive as the “public.” They’re a lot more savvy than you give them credit for, each person wise in their own way, but every single one of them can eventually sniff out that which stinks… when first they get a whiff of it.
Perhaps that what is all the showmanship is about, pretending that the dissent doesn’t amount to an iota, so nobody might be inclined to read anything -but- opposition to the opposition, when they get an urge to read on the topic. You have managed to mention creationism in practically… Every. Single. Post. Its the hook you hope to sell to your reader – just as you disregard this kind of crank out of hand, so I disregard the other. Nice narrative, I think I read that story at least fifty times before, but maybe you could do us a favor and bring some objectivity to your purported effort to make a review? Think about the fact that not all of your audience may already agree with you, and thus not all of your audience disregards the question out of hand? [Editorial comment from myself: With another sitting, this one paragraph is far too conspiratorial. There are any number of reasons for this kind of display, one of which could simply be the idea that it is somehow persuasive writing. I choose to keep it for the sake of what an "open letter" is supposed to be, that which is republished for wider comment and reflection but is, in fact, a letter.]
Perhaps reviewing some example reviews in scholarly journals will refresh your memory on how you know they actually get written when they are published to peer review. Perhaps you could try to write for your audience and not just the segment nodding their heads. Perhaps you could try to use your wealth of knowledge, experience, and degree not as a club, when dealing with the riff-raff, but as a springboard for writing in a way that is both completely scholarly and also readable by the people you have specifically chosen to address.
Yes, this is confrontational. Its very genre is confrontational. It’s intentional. While the general tenor of academic debate is cordial and dignified, the very point I am making here is that this does not resemble academic debate. More importantly, it does not adhere to the ideals of such debate that we should want to commit ourselves in teaching and writing generally.
sincerely,
Peter Kirby
