Ordway fans react to my book review

I think it's fair to say the reaction was hostile! Here are the highlights…

Comment from...	Comment	Observation
A Creationist	Your review is a rambling mess void of logical connections. Prove your points. Nothing you've said so far supports your position.	Ironically, nothing this person has said supports his position!
A Christian Apologist	JimC's tautologies and non-responses regarding on topic discussions are visible for all to witness!	Tautologies? Non-responses?
A Christian Apologist	You’re making the claim that Ordway was wrong so the burden of proof still rests with you. Bring up specific points here if you feel they support your position and we can discuss such.	I don’t remember saying she was "wrong." And my review contained specific points.  Which this person apparently doesn’t want to discuss!
A Christian Apologist	Please finally attempt to quote opposing perspectives honestly and respond on topic to such minus your "reinterpretations" and misdirections regarding such--thanks!	Er… what?!
A Creationist	JimC provided unconvincing arguments and utilized fallacious reasoning combined with condescending snobbery. As reviews go, it was poorly written and largely what you'd expect from an atheist with an axe to grind. The motto seem to be: Discredit the Christians no matter the means. A true Dawkins disciple.	Plenty of ad hominem, but again, nothing specific about the book review that I can respond to.
A Christian Apologist	You say that “Ordway was not exposed to all the atheist arguments.” This displays your personal prejudice and lack of honest scholarship.  This what she says…  "In college, I absorbed the idea that Christianity was historical curiosity, or a blemish on modern civilization, or perhaps both. My college science classes presented Christians as illiterate anti-intellectuals who, because they didn’t embrace Darwinism, threatened the advancement of knowledge. My history classes omitted or downplayed references to historical figures’ faith. At thirty-one years old, I was an atheist college professor–and I delighted in thinking of myself that way. I got a kick out of being an unbeliever; it was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians.”	This gets confusing because “all the atheist arguments” is not a phrase that I used. It's a phrase the Christian Apologist used.    And the extract provided from the book fails to mention any exposure to atheist arguments.  It does however portray her as a rather gullible person who was easily influenced by some kind of antitheist college science teacher who used science calls to attack Christians.  And that makes me prejudiced? With a lack of honest scholarship?! I'm beginning to think this person hasn't read the book. It also seems the word “professor” has a different meaning in the USA to the UK. To me, a professor is the most senior rank in a faculty. At age 31, Ordway was certainly not a professor in that sense. She was a teacher.
A Christian Apologist	You say that  “her book makes it clear that she became religious because she needed religion. Not because of evidence. As with many people, it was emotionally driven.”  Once again, thanks for displaying your personal prejudice and lack of honest scholarship.  This is what she says… "Ordway was a trained academic without a history in religion. But she was no disinterested intellectual: 'There was something about the idea of faith that made it stick with me. I didn’t have faith, I didn’t want faith, but I felt compelled to have a good reason why not. I constructed an elaborate analogy for myself, one that I felt gave satisfying explanation of why ‘faith’ was impossible. . . I could not believe, no matter how much I might want to . . .I thought ‘faith’ was a meaningless word, that so-called believers were either hypocrites or self-deluded fools, and that it was a waste of time to consider any7 claim that Christians made about the truth. . . . I didn’t want to deal with that. Easier by far to read only books by atheists that told me what I wanted to hear: that I was smarter and more intellectually honest and morally superior than the poor, deluded Christians. I had built myself a fortress of atheism, secure against any attack by irrational faith.'"	So I’m being accused of prejudice and dishonest scholarship? As it happens, the Christian Apologist has copied his comments from a review of the book he found online. Honest scholarship! So as I suspected, he hasn’t even read the book. More honest scholarship LOL!  If that's not enough, the extract from the book (which has been copied from someone else's review) is not related in any way to the part of the book where she describes how she became religious.   Number 1 rule of book reviewing - read the book. LOL
A Creationist	You constantly twist facts to your agenda. You're entitled to your opinion Jim but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.	Well, so far it’s the Ordway fan club providing the opinions, and me providing the facts!
A Creationist	You have no idea if she had a challenge on the Kalam or not. She couldn't possibly outline every single step from atheism to Christianity. You are creating these statements out of thin air. Show from the book where she said she accepted the argument with out any challenge and show also where she said that she didn't explore the counter arguments.	According to her book she put no effort into researching alternatives to what she was told, including the Kalam argument. Everything she was told she just accepted if it felt right intuitively. That's how she describes it in her book in her own words. The idea is  not from thin air, but from her thin book. And that's not just my opinion - other reviewers have noticed too. It's just like the anti-Christian opinions she had at the start of the book. She just took those on board with no challenge and was then surprised to meet nice Christians! She seems quite gullible.
A Creationist	Considering your bias it's no wonder you're dealing with this topic in your usual dishonest manner.	Hmmm…  I seem to have hit a raw nerve…
A Born Again Christian	She should have been like you: hate us all always, 24/7. Do any atheists really give thought to their anti-Christian opinion? Ahem, I haven't noticed any on-2nd-thought atheists.	I don’t even understand this!
A Creationist	So now quoting a cherry picking of a reviewer is proof for your false claims? It's laughable	Hang on! I said that other reviewers shared my opinion, and I was asked to prove it. So I provided an extract form another review and I get attacked for quoting another reviewer!  LOL
A Creationist	Why not quote the other positive reviewers?	Because I was asked to quote a review that agreed with my opinion. Geez!
A Christian Apologist	You claim that she does not say she  had an atheist upbringing.  Well how about this… “I had never in my life said a prayer, never been to a church service. Christmas meant presents and Easter meant chocolate bunnies–nothing more.”	That’s not evidence of an atheist upbringing.  Could be Deist, or Agnostic, or Panthestic, etc.
A Christian Apologist	As a university professor, what is the basis of your claim that she is unfamiliar with counter arguments? An honest university education demands that one become familiar with counter arguments on just about any subject!	Seriously? Just about any subject? LOL  And not that it's relevant, but was she really a university professor?
A Creationist	You wrote a review and focused not on the context of the book but on the author. What do you say to that?	I say try reviewing an autobiography without focusing on the author!!
A Creationist	I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised when atheist JimC shared that he had read Ordway’s book: Not God’s Type. I knew he’d have issues with some of the content but that’s fine. As long as the issues are addressed honestly and fairly, we have a discussion.  But immediately upon visiting his blog page  http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/not-gods-type.html I knew this wasn’t going to be an unbiased review by Jim. Worse, it would likely be spattered with dishonest and misleading commentary.  It starts with the heading to Jim’s blog: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." Here Jim uses as his headline a quote from Martin Luther (you remember him, Martin Luther whom Jim labeled as an anti-Semite). First, the quote is out of context and quoted in such a way as to support Jim’s distorted view of Christianity and reason.  <additional 700 word on Martin Luther has been snipped>	I do wonder if I'm the only person in this discussion who did read it! He knew my review would be biased, dishonest and misleading without reading it.  Figures! Wow. Hundreds of words in reaction to my book review which fails to refer to my book review in any way.  Figures. Again!

Holly Ordway CV

What is a Creationist?

1 Background
I made the following statement recently on a religion discussion board…

Fundamentalists and Creationists make the most noise but they don't represent the views of ordinary believers.

…which elicited this response…

"You can't make the most noise if no one is listening. And before we go too far, it depends on what you mean by "noise." Plus, you need a new term other than Creationists. I have no idea what you mean. Are you lumping all believers in God as Creationists? Why not just say believers in God and get it over with?"

Some comments on this response:

• Obviously one can make the most noise if no one is listening - in fact one is bound to make the most noise if no one is listening. If people were listening one would not need to make much noise at all.

• There is no need for a new term other than "Creationist." It's a perfectly valid and established term, although there are different types of Creationist.

• The person making the comment says he has no idea what I mean by "Creationist" - this is particularly odd as he described himself as an Old Earth Creationist and most of his "Christian friends are young earth" and all of his "Bible study friends are young earth."  And also in his own words… "I'm a creationist that believes in the big bang. I used to believe in a young earth but no longer am convinced of that position. However I am open to being proven wrong by young earth creationists." So he seems to have very clear ideas about what is meant by "Creationist" and is happy to use the word.

• He asks if I'm "lumping all believers in God as Creationists" when I've clearly stated the exact opposite - Creationists do not represent the views of ordinary believers, in my opinion.

• He suggests I should "just say believers in God and get it over with" when again, clearly, I'm saying not all believers in God are Creationists.

• The same person has advocated the work of the "Discovery Institutute" and has stated that Intelligent Design is a fact, that irreducible complexity is a "thorn in the side of evolutionary theory", that evolution is the result of "blind forces, operating at random" and natural selection depends on "Chance." These are well known straw men arguments about natural selection which are put forward by Creationists who dispute evolution. 

2 Definitions

Let's first address the points made that relate to definitions, and understand what is meant by the term "Creationist". 

2.1 Oxford English Dictionary

Creationism
1) The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

EXAMPLE SENTENCES
The majority of Americans believe in creationism rather than evolution.

They spend much time attacking biblical creationism and creationists.

The original proposal was to stop teaching evolution theory until creationism could be taught alongside.

1.1) Another term for creation science.

2.1.1 Creation Science

The OED explains that Creationism is another term for Creation Science, so let's look at the dictionary definition for that…

The reinterpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the origin of matter, life, and humankind.

2.3 Creationist Definition of Creationism

Here is an overview from http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creationism

In the simplest form, creationism is the belief that some form of intelligence created the universe and all life, as opposed to the universe and life arising without an intelligent cause. Although the age of the earth is often cited as an aspect of creationism, there are numerous schools of thought. In fact, the age of the earth is usually either derived from uniformitarian beliefs (i.e., the present is the key to understanding the past) or the biblical record.

While some creationists (in the strictest sense of the word) claim to believe in an intelligent creator, they refuse to postulate on the identity of this creator. However, most creationists believe that the Creator left both evidence of His work and a record of His activity, which are recorded in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah. This record, which purports to be an eyewitness account and is attested to by the evidence, is the basis for most creationist thought.

There is some disagreement among creationists (particularly between old-earth and young-earth creationists) about the age of the earth. However, a straightforward reading of the text does not support the ancient age many scientists claim (4.5 billion years) and is only necessary for those wanting to insert popular belief into what the Genesis narrative teaches.

2.4 Wikipedia - Creation science

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theoriesand scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. 

According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham".

2.5 Creation Science - The Biologists' View 

From the book: Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond 
http://www.amazon.com/Scientists-Confront-Creationism-Intelligent-Design/dp/0393330737/

"Most creationists are simply people who choose to believe that God created the world-either as described in Scripture or through evolution. Creation Scientists, by contrast, strive to use legitimate scientific means both to disprove evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture."

3 Intelligent Design Creationism


3.1 The Discovery Institute

The main spokesman for Intelligent Design is Michael Behe whose creationist philsophy is based on the problem of "complex organs" that Darwin referred to in The Origin of the Species.  He is sponsored by the so-called "Discovery Institute", which advocates the pseudoscience "intelligent design" and has a mission to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories.

Behe builds on this by focusing on the biochemistry of life in an attempt to show that it is impossible for some organisms to have resuled from a step-by-step natural process. Here's a typical extract from Behe's work…

…as biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cillia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn.  

There are a number of flaws in Behe's approach but let's give credit where it's due - we should applaud Behe for coming up with a hypothesis that is falsifiable (the irriducible complexity of the flagellum for example). Unfortunately for Behe, his hypothesis has been tested and it has been shown that the flagellum is not irriducibly complex.

But that's not the main problem with Behe's approach. Science is full of unresolved questions - but that's what science is - without such questions there would be no such thing as science. So yes, we have a lot to learn about the molecular structure of living organisms and how they evolved. So if evolutionary biologists haven't come up with a precise sequence of evolution for all the organisms culminating in a certain bacteria, that's a signal for further research. Behe is using the God of the Gaps argument.

What is Behe trying to say? Is he assuming a failure of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution? If so, is he proposing a different natural process to natural selection? No.

In fact, he is saying that there can be no such sequence, therefore the Creator introduced certain biological organisms fully formed, as per Genesis, but on a smaller scale, because any pre-cursor organisms could not possibly have existed. And so Intelligent Design is simply a "born again" Creationism.

3.2 The  National Academy of science 

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.  In addition to its scientific failings, standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists' claims. There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible. Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one's opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested."

An excellent article from the most highly respected scientific body in the USA:
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

4 Summary
There seems to be no need for a new term other than "Creationist." And it's wrong to lump "all believers in God as Creationists" when clearly they are not. 

Poisoning the Well

Something I've noticed about religious apologists is not just their use of fallacious arguments, but also how often they claim an opinion they don't like is a fallacious argument just because they don't like it. 

I've also noticed that they often present an argument which destroys their own argument. "Hoist by their own petard" to paraphrase the bard.

For example. a Creationist is of the opinion that this blog is an example of "Poisoning the Well."  He demonstrates this by... you guessed it... poisoning the well!



Posted by A Creationist on 20 Apr 2014 at 5:11AM

From Wikipedia: 
“Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.”

JimC: “Here you will find some of the bizarre conversations I've had over the years with creationists, religious apologists and Evangelical Christians, as well as explanations of the fallacious arguments they can't seem to help using.”

The previous is a quote from JimC on his blog. It’s telling in many ways. Jim loves to poison the well in discussions so that he sets discussion up to favor his view. Notice that the conversations are “bizarre.” It’s doubtful that Jim is talking about his side of discussions. 

He identifies three groups: Creationists, Religious Apologists, and Evangelical Christians. Are these groups different? How so? He does not say. 

He claims to “explain” to these poor creationists, religious apologists and evangelical Christians how their arguments are “fallacious.” But Jim is sympathetic to this “fact.” Those Christians just can’t seem to help themselves.


But it seems Jim loves to generalize, obfuscate, misrepresent, and use all manner of fallacious tactics – all the while calling his own arguments, rational.

Not God's Type

 Observations on the book by Holly Ordway 

"A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith" 

Background
This book was introduced to me by a Creationist who said he was …"combating the idea that evidence for God doesn't exist. It does and it's plentiful. The many atheists / non-believers who have come to faith in God based on evidence testify to this fact."

The implication is that Ordway's book will describe what this plentiful evidence for God is. However, when one reads the book it appears Ordway's spiritual journey was based on emotion and intution. Nothing wrong with that of course. But evidence for God? No.

The Creationist also seems to be arguing that the existence of "many atheists" who have converted to Christianity is somehow relevant to the argument that there is evidence for God. Obviously, the same argument could be made about Christians who've become atheists demonstrating there is evidence that there is no God. Either way, it's not a valid argument. Anyway… on to the book:

About the Book
Ordway's description of herself as a "rational academic" is a bit of a stretch, as we will see later (and to be fair it was probably a label assigned by a publisher rather than herself). Her story is rather old fashioned - portraying life without God as, empty, lonely, dark, despairing, meaningless and without a moral compass. Whereas life with Jesus meant peace, contentment, freedom, and light.  In the old days, those were the only two options.  

Ordway describes herself being in the former and converting to the latter, following a conversion process based on befriending. This is an effective strategy for evangelists - identifying the needs of the non-believer and then witness to them. This is explained here. 

I get the impression Ordway is not an Evangelical although she doesn't spell this out, she names her chosen church which is high Anglican and orthodox. 

A common theme throughout the book is how Ordway succumbs to peer pressure for her beliefs, both before and during her conversion. She seems credulous and gullible. More on this later.

It's also apparent that she accepts the standard Christian Apologetic arguments that are presented to her without bothering with any research into the counter-arguments. If she can't refute an argument herself, or if it appeals to her intuitively, then she accepts it. Rational Academic? Really?  

The arguments presented to her are all standard arguments, none of them airtight, and all refuted by scholars and philosophers over hundreds of years. Her lack of knowledge of any counter-arguments is remarkable for someone portrayed here as a one time hard-nosed atheist.  She is presented with one side of the argument, and accepts it. 

The truth is that her spiritual journey is emotional. She was in a bad place, depressed, with no meaning in her life and unfulfilled needs. Then she is befriended, shown kindness, given explanations to meet her existential needs,  and given hope and meaning. The important thing is that she now feels she is a better, happier person because of her new found faith and career as a professional Apologist. 

As an aside, let no one who is reading this think that I am knocking religion. Ordway's story is a very good case study of how religion can meet people's needs and bring happiness and contentment (and has done for centuries). 

Who is this book aimed at? Well, it's not going to convince anyone who is familiar with the philosophical counter-arguments to the stuff that persuaded Ordway. But it will provide a sense of validation to existing Christians, especially Evangelicals who love any account of an atheist becoming religious. 

Here are observations on each chapter. Note that I haven’t included the “Interludes” which Ordway provides between some chapters. I will include those in an update to this article. 

Introduction Soon after arriving in San Diego in 2005, Holly Ordway meets Josh Runyan: ex-marine, ex-fighter pilot, commercial airline pilot and also her fencing coach. As it turns out, he has studied Christian Apologetics since high school and has always been a fan of CS Lewis. Within a few months of meeting Josh, Ordway has become a committed Christian and within a few years has become a professional Christian Apologist, with Josh gaining a post-graduate degree in Apologetics too. Ordway's book picks up the story in 2005…

Chapter 1 - Beginnings
In this introduction, Ordway describes herself as "a nice person, even a good person". In the next chapter we discover she is not very nice at all.   Finding God later made her realise that she was actually a sinner. I'm surprised she needed to find God to work that out, but anyway… 

Chapter 2 - Faithless
Ordway explains that in first grade, she didn't know that God was spelled with a capital "G" but the other kids did. She says… "I knew about Greek and Norse Gods so the capital G puzzled me." Really? Age 6? Anyway, it would be interesting to know why all the other 6 year olds knew about God with a big G and she didn't. She tells us nothing about her parents, sadly. 

She then says her "College science classes presented Christians as illiterate anti-intellectuals who threatened the advancement of knowledge by not embracing Darwinism." Good grief - what kind of science class was this? And what kind of teacher? The important point is that Ordway is told something by someone in authority, and it becomes her opinion. She portrays herself as easily led, and this theme occurs throughout the book.

If her science teacher wasn't bad enough, she says her English classes taught her that Chaucer was an atheist! She seems to have been surrounded by teachers who were idiots, and she seems to have believed everything she was told.  

She explains that by the age of thirty-one she was an atheist college professor and she says "it was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians." 

I'm afraid I have to differ with her assessment of herself at this time as a "nice person, even a good person." That doesn't sound nice to me!

Chapter 3 - Alone in the Fortress of Atheism
She begins by explaining that in her opinion, she was the product of "blind chance over millions of years."  I really hope her science teacher was sacked for teaching this, especially combined with the statements in the previous chapter. Ordway seems to be providing the "blind chance" straw man of evolution that is put forward by Creationists who use it to try to discredit natural selection. I do wonder if some of Ordway's "memories" have been created in retrospect, following her exposure to Apologist books. Anyway, if she really was taught that then we have yet another example of Ordway blindly believing what she was told. 

Then we discover that she has some serious anger management issues. She explains that she felt her life had no meaning. She says fencing was a "saving grace" but at one point she actually broke her foil on an opponent's helmet out of pure anger. 

Everyone has an emotional need for having some meaning to life, and she explains that she met this need by fencing, being a teacher, saving and investing money (she doesn't mention her prolific DVD and TV online reviews which started in 2001, or her moneysaver website and her feature on CNN). 

I think it's a shame that she does not mention her husband at this point (Noel Llopis - computer game design expert, and also a fencer.) Why has he been airbrushed out of the story? Did he not give her life some meaning? He doesn't even get a mention on the acknowledgements page. She does say that without God, "any two souls who try to cling to each other for all their meaning will drown just the same." Is that a reference to her marriage? Was Noel an atheist or religious? Was he supportive? Ordway describes herself as a "single woman" in 2010, when her book was published. I wonder why they divorced during her conversion process? Poor Noel has been made insignificant in this story, which is odd. 

And again she provides more information which counters any previous claim to being a "nice person" - she says she was prone to vindictive and intense anger, 9/11 left her emotionless, and so on. 

Chapter 4 - Groundbreaking
Ordway is now in California (with her husband Noel although she again fails to mention him) and she's teaching English literature. Worryingly, considering she's teaching literature, she implies Keats was a Christian poet. She also describes the work of Gerard Manley Hopkins (a poet who converted to become a Jesuit and promptly set fire to all his poems). She specifically refers to his poem Carrion Comfort - in which Hopkins describes a period of despair in his life which he identifies as persecution by God. 

This chapter is an interesting case study on how literature and poetry can be inspirational, regardless of what the authors might actually be saying. And of course, that applies to the Bible.

Chapter 5 - Wordless Witness
In this chapter, Ordway meets Josh Runyan, a fencing champion and coach, ex-marine, ex-fighter pilot and commercial airline pilot. And she meets his wife Heidi, also a fencing coach. But what Ordway didn't realise at this point was that Josh and Heidi were Christians. (She also seems unaware that the entire fencing team is Christian as we shall see later).  

Ordway seems surprised that nice people could also be Christian. Interestingly she describes Josh's caring, honest, compassionate and respectful attitude as "preaching the Gospel by living it". Hey - that sounds just like me! I like that phrase.

Chapter 6 - Perfect Justice or Perfect Mercy
After a disastrous fencing competition, Ordway finds herself having dinner with Josh and Heidi and it is during this meal that Ordway discovers her fencing mentors are Christians (or so we are led to believe). Ordway happens to mention CS Lewis and guess what - Josh is not just any old Christian - he is a committed Religious Apologist and he's also a huge fan of CS Lewis, ever since he read him at high school. 

Over dinner (presumably) he presents Ordway with three of the classic Apologist arguments - the First Cause Argument; the Argument from Morality and the Perfect Justice/Mercy argument. Amazingly, Ordway has never heard these arguments before and significantly, she's never heard the philosophical counter-arguments. The arguments resonate with her intuition, and she's hooked. Josh is now her gateway to The Truth. And once again, Ordway's credulity stands out like a sore thumb.

(Note is the number 1 rule of successful evangelising - befriending.  Remember that advice if you're an Evangelist - being rude to non-believers doesn't work!  For some handy tips on how to be an evangelist click here)

Chapter 7 - Dante and Virgil
Josh's next move is to present Ordway with two classic Apologist text books: "Does God Exist" (by professional apologists such as Moreland, Kreeft and Craig) and "Making Sense of the New Testament" by Craig Blomberg who argues that the Gospels are historically accurate. 

Again, it doesn't seem to occur to Ordway that she could seek out other explanations to the stuff in these books, and instead turns to her Apologist befriender (Josh) to answer her questions. And guess what - his views coincide exactly with the arguments made in the books (that he provided). 

Once again -  it really does seem extraordinary that Ordway just accepts these arguments with no critical push-back or research of her own. But actually that's not extraordinary once we realise her emotional needs at this time… she needs meaning in her life, she needs to be cared for and happy and made to feel safe (and so do we all), she needs coaching, but most of all she needs answers - and Josh is providing the whole package. If she was to challenge him, and his impressive looking text books, she'd be challenging a major opportunity to be happy. 

Chapter 8 - A Rational Faith
Here we see Ordway swallowing arguments from Peter Kreeft - again without exploring the counter-arguments. She completely falls for the circular "God is as real as 2+3=5" argument and intuitively accepts the "Argument from Consciousness"; "Cosmological Argument" and "First Cause Argument". 

She describes herself here as a "philosophy student" but nothing could be further from the truth - the only philosophy she is studying is that of Christian Apologists, drip-fed via Josh. She seems blissfully unaware of the long list of philosophers who have countered these arguments over hundreds of years. But of course - she doesn't want to be aware of anything that could risk her new found emotional happiness. And who can blame her?

Chapter 9 - Searching for the Source
Ordway is now convinced that everything Josh has provided represents The Truth. She is convinced there is a Creator who is the source of morality, and she can see no flaws in the argument, even though the flaws are well known to anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy. 

It is astonishing (if we assume she is behaving rationally) that she has been unaware of the counter-arguments all her life and at this point doesn't bother to research them. But of course she's not behaving rationally. Her emotions and intuition are in charge. She describes this intuitive acceptance of the arguments as "logic and reason". But it's no such thing - it's intuition based on incomplete information. It's faith.

Chapter 10 - Not a Tame Lion
This chapter contains the highlight of the book for me - Ordway decides to use the scientific method to determine the existence of God. 

She will form a hypothesis which makes predictions and she will test those predictions. If the hypothesis passes the test it will become her established theory, otherwise the hypothesis will be disproved and there is no God. 

(To be fair to Josh, he does warn her that her experiment is not scientific because the data is based on emotions, but that doesn't stop her! Interesting that he seems to understand the scientific method better than she does.) 

So… what would be the predictions of the hypothesis that Christianity is true? Josh and Ordway agree that the hypothesis should predict an awareness of God (via the Holy Spirit), or as they put it, an "I get it" moment. But if the result of the test was a feeling of increased confusion, then the hypothesis has failed the test and Christianity is not true. (Am I the only one to see the flaw in this?) 

Anyway… we will return to the experiment later. 

Chapter 11 - What if it's Real?
Ordway starts to appreciate life, especially sunlight, the sea and coffee, and feeling "in the moment." 

Reading this, I feel simultaneously happy and sad for her. Sad because she's lived the first 30 years of her life apparently oblivious to the beauty of the world around her and the joy of simple pleasures. But I'm also happy because she's happy now. She had needs, and the concept of God has fulfilled them.  And the cherry on the cake is how Josh uses the words of CS Lewis to confirm that this new found happiness is indeed evidence for God.

Chapter 12 - Results
Ordway suddenly realises that the experiment she devised in Chapter 10 has started subconsciously. She has an emotional experience on the Coast Highway which she attributes to the Holy Spirit. She believes her hypothesis has been confirmed because the predictions that it made have been validated. The scientific method - much derided by Religious Apologists due to its "limited purview" - has demonstrated that God is real and Christianity is True! Take that Dawkins! Eat humble pie Hawking!

Chapter 13 - Between Two Worlds
It's Easter. Ordway write an email to Josh explaining that her heart has outpaced her head. (True!)

Chapter 14 - Easter Season
Ordway confirms that she definitely believes in God and that He must be infinitely more good than she is. He made a perfect world, and human beings messed it up. Faith is no longer alien to her, she concludes. 

Chapter 15 - One Miracle
Josh provides another famous Apologist text book - "In Defense of Miracles". Again she reads this with no apparent challenge or research. She also fails to notice that the book has no contributions from historians or any application of historical method or scientific evidence. 

She's convinced the authors of the book are "top notch scholars" but she fails to notice that the book has no detail of any so-called miracles since the resurrection. (It's a terrible book).

She then goes on to assert that it's impossible to account for the origin of the universe, the human mind or morality.  So - she's totally unaware that such things are not impossible. 

She says she'd ignored these questions in the past. Perhaps if she hadn't ignored those questions she would have been a happier person and less vulnerable to evangelists! Anyway, despite having told us that Christianity is definitely True, she now expresses doubts about the truth of the resurrection. Come on Josh where are you…?!

Chapter 16 - Who is this Jesus?
Josh provides another two books from his Apologetics library: "The Risen Jesus and Future Hope" and NT Wright's massive tome "The Resurrection of the Son of God." 

Yet again, Ordway accepts these as being true without any research. She convinces herself that the resurrection was a real, objective historical event, and therefore the narratives in the Gospels are "evidence". So once she had assumed the historicity of the resurrection everything "fell into place" for her. 

If she had read the works of other scholars or Jewish theologians, she would have found very different interpretations of the resurrection. This chapter, more than any other, demolishes her portrayal of herself as a hard-nosed, rational searcher for truth. She has followed a very narrow path without any of the intellectual rigour she claims.

Chapter 17 - Moving Toward Commitment
Ordway confronts the implications of the Resurrection, and expresses fear, but Josh has an airline analogy about stepping on a plane if you are afraid of flying.  Or something like that.

Chapter 18 - Buying the Ticket
Ordway expands on the airline analogy. She is thinking about the irrevocable step of getting on to the plane. The real decision point she says, was buying the ticket. Despite her utter conviction that Jesus was the Son of God, something was holding her back. 

That night she has a dream that she is in Jerusalem with Josh looking at Jesus' tomb, and she wakes up even more convinced that Jesus rose form the dead. She considers the empty tomb in her dream to be evidence of Jesus's divinity. 

Chapter 19 - Getting on Board
The airline analogy continues. While attending a fencing competition with Josh in Las Vegas, she makes it clear to him that she is committing herself to Christianity (I thought she'd made that pretty clear already but never mind). 

Josh is excited and asks if he can "tell everyone". We now get to one of the weirdest scenes in the book. Josh tells the fencing team and its supporters of Ordway's conversion, and the group hug her and say "Welcome to the Family!" 

What the heck is happening here? Did Ordway know she had signed up with a Christian fencing team? The coaches, teammates and friends all one big Christian fellowship? Nothing wrong with that of course - but why didn't she know? 

Later the team go out for a meal together and Josh says that "since we are all Christians here, we are going to pray." And he says a blessing over the food. This is getting weirder. Has Ordway never been out for a meal with these people before? Has Josh deliberately refrained from praying before a meal previously just because Ordway had not confessed her faith? 

Chapter 20 - The First Day
Worryingly, Ordway's anger management issues resurface during a fencing match, when she screams obscenities after under-performing.  She explains how Josh provides her with practical guidance on how to manage emotions and be a good sport. I have to wonder why he hasn't done that before. That's one of the basic functions of a coach, in my experience anyway. 

Chapter 21 - Home
Josh explains that the next step for Ordway is to go to church and be baptised. She decides to read the Bible, but gets confused by "all the shipwrecks, and speeches and travels hither and yon" and also Paul's letters. 

This is quite extraordinary given that she describes herself as a Professor of Literature!  It's her job to read, understand, critique and dissect literature and poetry!  And it's also quite amazing that during her so-called rational process of conversion, she hasn't read the Bible. 

Anyway, she finds a church (Anglican Communion, interestingly) and the Christian fencing team turn up for her baptism. Josh prepares her for the baptism with some praying, next to the rosebushes. And Ordway is then baptised in the High Anglican manner, followed by communion.

Chapter 22 - Onward
Ordway visits Durham Cathedral in England (a place very dear to my heart as it happens). She's writing her book during this time, her faith has deepened, her needs are fulfilled and she is praying a lot.  It's a cute postscript; she is at peace and medieval England appears to be a sort of spiritual home where she can directly connect with over 1,000 years of history.  And she's divorced. 

Shortly after that, she is working as a professional Apologist in Texas. And seemingly very happy, which is a good thing.

Religious Apologist Theme Park Rides

There must be a religious apologist theme park somewhere. If so, it should include a go-kart ride called "The Apologist Switchback."  You'll find it near the Dodgems.

Here is a summary of a discussion with a religious apologist with several, high-speed, hairpin turns that send logical arguments skidding off course and crashing into the barriers.

#	Date	Event
1	18 Mar	The Apologist starts a thread entitled “HMFR Revisited” which provides links to a blog written Graham Veale and David Glass, where they provide their opinions on morality.
2	18 Mar	I see nothing new in the Veale and Glass Blog (VAGB) and so I provide links to previously made counter-arguments, plus a link to explain their atheism Category Mistake.
3	21 Mar	The Apologist starts a new thread: “Deconstructing RGFSMCL links” which begins with the same links to the VAGB from line 1.   He states that each of my counter-arguments is a combination of at least three logically fallacious arguments, and demonstrates this by connecting my counter-arguments to his own, ignoring the VAGB content.
4	21 Mar	I provide links to previously made counter-arguments, this time with specific paragraph references to make it easier to match the counter-arguments to the arguments in the VAGB.
5	24 Mar	The Apologist again states that my counter-arguments are logically fallacious by connecting my counter-arguments to his own, ignoring the VAGB text to which I am responding.
6	24 Mar	I provide links to previously made counter-arguments, this time with some additional paragraph references.
7	27 Mar	The Apologist provides an analogy for atheism.
8	27 Mar	I explain the analogy is a disanology. I ask if there's anything in the VAGB which requires a response as there was no reference to it on line 7.
9	29 Mar	The Apologist states the VAGB is now "off topic" and that he only referred to it "in passing" to demonstrate my counter-arguments are “false constructs”.   He mentions that I haven't responded to his “deconstruction.”
10	29 Mar	I explain that the VAGB obviously wasn't mentioned "in passing" as it formed the introduction to two separate threads, including this one.
11	29 Mar	The Apologist accuses me of dishonesty and of refusing to apologise for being dishonest.
12	29 Mar	I assume He hasn't read what I said on line 10, so I explain again.
13	29 Mar	The Apologist expresses faux disappointment that I haven't apologised for the counter-arguments that I provided on line 4 which he now describes as “irrelevant and dishonest verbiage”.  The Apologist asks me to provide an objective basis of morality from my perspective
14	29 Mar	I explain that from my perspective, there is no fixed, objective basis for morality.
15	29 Mar	The Apologist responds by telling me that I am incapable of giving "honest" and "on topic" responses.
16	29 Mar	I repeat that from my perspective, there is no fixed, objective basis for morality and I ask why that is off-topic, given that it was an answer to his question.
17	29 Mar	The Apologist tells me to present my point “elsewhere” and that I am “disingenuous."
18	29 Mar	I provide a recap of lines 10-17
19	31 Mar	The Apologist states that the "Veale and Glass blog" isn't the subject, rather the subject is what he calls my "dishonest responses."
20	31 Mar	It occurs to me that the confusion has arisen because the Apologist hasn't connected my counter-arguments to specific arguments in the VAGB.  So I provide a list of: A) Specific paragraph from the VAGB B) My specific counter-argument to that paragraph C) Apologist's opinion of my specific argument, which he provided without the VAGB context D) My response to his opinion E) A summary of the flaws in the Apologist's “deconstruction” (columns A-D)
21	6 Apr	The Apologist starts a new thread "Deconstructing RGFSMCL links (taken to the top)" which dismisses my explanation of his deconstruction on line 20 (which he asked for on line 13).   The Apologist suggests I should "take my explanation" to the original "HMFR Revisited" thread (even though this is impossible as it fell off the board 5 days previously).
22	6 Apr	I explain that as the topic is the Apologist's so-called “deconstruction”, my response to his deconstruction seem to be in the right place.  I also wonder which definition of “tautology” he is using.
23	6 Apr	The Apologist accuses me of using “unreliable references”. He then refers to the VAGB content on line 20 as “JimC's version of the source material”.   The Apologist announces that he “won't even bother” with point E on line 20.  The Apologist provides a definition of “tautology” taken from a wikipedia page that is clearly marked as being in error and unreliable.
24	6 Apr	I explain that I have not created a new version of the source material – I am quoting the source material verbatim.   I also provide a link to the wikipedia page that has the reliable and approved definition of tautology, and I give illustrative examples of tautologies.
25	7 Apr	The Apologist introduces a paragraph from the VAGB regarding genetics claiming I haven't responded to it.  He states that I am “re-writing everything” and again suggests that I am providing “versions of the source material”.  The Apologist states that I am using “tricks”, and my arguments are “garbage”.
26	7 Apr	I explain how nothing has been re-written, that I quote the source material verbatim and don't create "versions" of it. I refer to a previously provided counter-argument to the genetics argument in the VAGB.
27	10 Apr	The Apologist states that my response on line 20 demonstrates that I have "re-written everything." He suggests that when I refer to the VAGB as source material I should provide a link to it.  The Apologist states that my counter-argument to the Genetics argument (which he raised on line 25) is "confusing the issue."  The Apologist states that he “can't get back” to point E (on line 20)  because (again) I have “re-written everything”.   He states that he is happy to use an incorrect definition of tautology and my counter-arguments are “falsehoods” and “verbal garbage”
28	10 Apr	I explain that the content on line 20, including point E, is still there and nothing has been re-written. I ask why I need to provide links to the VAGB when it was The Apologist that originally provided them.