What do you think?
Rate this book
Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End
Just as intelligent design is not a legitimate branch of biology in public educational institutions, nor should the philosophy of religion be a legitimate branch of philosophy. So argues leading atheist thinker and writer John Loftus in this forceful takedown of the very discipline in which he was trained. In his call for ending the philosophy of religion, he argues that as it is presently being practiced, the main reason the discipline exists is to serve the faith claims of Christianity. Most of philosophy of religion has become little more than an effort to defend and rationalize preexisting Christian beliefs. If subjects such as biology, chemistry, physics, and geology are all taught without reference to faith-based supernatural forces as explanations, it should not be acceptable in this discipline either. While the book offers a fascinating study of the fallacies and flaws on which one whole field of study rests, it speaks to something much larger in the ongoing culture wars. By highlighting the stark differences between faith-based reasoning and evidence-based reasoning, Loftus presents vital arguments and lessons about the importance of critical thinking in all aspects of life and living. His conclusions and recommendations thus resonate far beyond the ivory towers and ivy-covered walls of academic institutions.
272 pages, Paperback
Published November 15, 2016
12 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
December 25, 2016
Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End by John Loftus
“Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End” is yet another excellent book from one of the best atheist authors of our time. In his latest rendition, John Loftus makes the persuasive plea that philosophy of religion must end as a discipline in all secular universities. This convincing 272-page book includes the following nine chapters: 1. My Intellectual Journey, 2. Anselm and Philosophy of Religion, 3. Case Studies in Theistic Philosophy of Religion, 4. Case Studies in Atheistic Philosophy of Religion, 5. Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, 6. How to Effectively Deal with Faith-Based Claims, 7. Answering Objections and Other Practical Concerns, 8. It’s Enough to Be Right!, and 9. On Justifying Ridicule, Mockery, and Satire.
Positives:
1. Loftus never fails to produce a well-written, well-researched book.
2. Makes the persuasive case that the Philosophy of Religion (PoR) must end because there is no truth to religion.
3. Loftus writes with persuasive lucidity. As is always is the case in all his books, it’s very quotable.
4. As a true philosopher, Loftus asks the right provocative questions. He also takes glee in providing incisive answers.
5. As a bibliophile, I love that influential books are mentioned throughout the narrative.
6. The thinkers that have influenced Loftus. The influence of David Eller, “…all religions are cultural. Our inherited religion is just a different cultural expression of the same kinds of hopes and fears over the problems we face with life and death, morals, and society itself.” The influence of Peter Boghossian, “Faith is an utterly unreliable way to gain objective knowledge about matters of fact, like the nature, workings, and origins of the universe. It should be rejected if we want to gain any objective knowledge at all, including which religion is true, if there is one.”
7. A deep dive into the philosophy of Anselm of Canterbury. “Anselm argued instead that our sins are an insult to God and detract from his honor.” Bonus, “In fact, all theistic philosophy of religion is puzzle-solving based on special pleading.”
8. The five ways faith makes the brain stupid. “Faith is a cognitive bias that causes believers to overestimate any confirming evidence and underestimate any disconfirming evidence.”
9. The five apologetical methods for defending Christianity.
10. Loftus takes pride in going after the most prominent Christian apologists such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. “Listen up, God spoke privately to Moses and privately to Paul, and likewise to Joseph Smith, and to Muhammad, and to many Pentecostals, and to David Koresh, and to many of the prophets we read about in the Old Testament. Why does God always speak to people privately?”
11. The roles our brains play in belief. “The believing brain desires to believe so badly it will self-deceive its very own host for the sake of believing.”
12. Provides case studies in atheistic philosophy of religion. “The primary goal of every academic should be to bring students’ beliefs into lawful alignment with reality.” Bonus, “Faith-based reasoning without sufficient evidence is the only indicator we need for rejecting a claim. Without sufficient evidence a high level of sophistication doesn’t change a thing. What it becomes is obfuscationist.”
13. Provides atheist philosophers how to approach religion correctly. “Philosophers of religion are dealing with religion in religious, creedal, and confessional ways, and this must end.” “Faith always stifles inquiry and keeps otherwise intelligent people ignorant of the facts.”
14. Provides ten reasons why the philosophy of religion must end. “1. Because the PoR discipline is being disconfirmed at every juncture by science.”
15. How to effectively deal with faith-based claims. “When teaching critical thinking and epistemology classes, we should place religious beliefs where they rightfully belong, as a subcategory of paranormal beliefs in general.”
16. Did I say this was a quote fest of cogent thinking? “Truth is not up for a vote. The truth must be discovered in the process of studying the issues out. One truth is that faith has no merit.”
17. I always learn something new. Here is some sound advice. “When doing these activities we should focus on faith as an utterly unreliable process, and not on the arguments from faith, nor the dogmatic content of faith.”
18. Offers a sound counterargument to Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology. “…people are within their epistemic rights not to believe in his particular god even without an argument and even without evidence.”
19. An interesting chapter on the justification behind ridicule and mockery. The top 10 satires against religious faith. I enjoyed this chapter and it shows another side of Loftus.
20. Provides useful appendices.
Negatives:
1. The book’s focus is very narrow.
2. It is a bit repetitive.
3. Though he mentions a lot of books throughout the narrative I still prefer a formal bibliography.
4. No visual material to supplement the excellent narrative. Charts, timelines, graphs to complement the written word.
In summary, albeit a narrow focus Loftus makes a convincing argument that philosophy of religion must end in all secular schools. He is one of my favorite authors and is a must read, I recommend it!
Further suggestions: “Why I Became An Atheist”, “How to Defend the Christian Faith” and “The Christian Delusion” by John Loftus, “The End of Biblical Studies” by Hector Avalos, “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger, “Natural Atheism” and “Atheism Advanced” by David Eller, “Soul Fallacy” by Julien Musolino, “Free Will? By Jonathan M.S. Pearce, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The Believing Brain” by Michael Shermer, “Faith vs. Fact” and “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A. Coyne, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Trusting Doubt” by Valerie Tarico, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, “Think” by Guy P. Harrison, and “The Science of Miracles” by Joe Nickell.
“Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End” is yet another excellent book from one of the best atheist authors of our time. In his latest rendition, John Loftus makes the persuasive plea that philosophy of religion must end as a discipline in all secular universities. This convincing 272-page book includes the following nine chapters: 1. My Intellectual Journey, 2. Anselm and Philosophy of Religion, 3. Case Studies in Theistic Philosophy of Religion, 4. Case Studies in Atheistic Philosophy of Religion, 5. Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, 6. How to Effectively Deal with Faith-Based Claims, 7. Answering Objections and Other Practical Concerns, 8. It’s Enough to Be Right!, and 9. On Justifying Ridicule, Mockery, and Satire.
Positives:
1. Loftus never fails to produce a well-written, well-researched book.
2. Makes the persuasive case that the Philosophy of Religion (PoR) must end because there is no truth to religion.
3. Loftus writes with persuasive lucidity. As is always is the case in all his books, it’s very quotable.
4. As a true philosopher, Loftus asks the right provocative questions. He also takes glee in providing incisive answers.
5. As a bibliophile, I love that influential books are mentioned throughout the narrative.
6. The thinkers that have influenced Loftus. The influence of David Eller, “…all religions are cultural. Our inherited religion is just a different cultural expression of the same kinds of hopes and fears over the problems we face with life and death, morals, and society itself.” The influence of Peter Boghossian, “Faith is an utterly unreliable way to gain objective knowledge about matters of fact, like the nature, workings, and origins of the universe. It should be rejected if we want to gain any objective knowledge at all, including which religion is true, if there is one.”
7. A deep dive into the philosophy of Anselm of Canterbury. “Anselm argued instead that our sins are an insult to God and detract from his honor.” Bonus, “In fact, all theistic philosophy of religion is puzzle-solving based on special pleading.”
8. The five ways faith makes the brain stupid. “Faith is a cognitive bias that causes believers to overestimate any confirming evidence and underestimate any disconfirming evidence.”
9. The five apologetical methods for defending Christianity.
10. Loftus takes pride in going after the most prominent Christian apologists such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. “Listen up, God spoke privately to Moses and privately to Paul, and likewise to Joseph Smith, and to Muhammad, and to many Pentecostals, and to David Koresh, and to many of the prophets we read about in the Old Testament. Why does God always speak to people privately?”
11. The roles our brains play in belief. “The believing brain desires to believe so badly it will self-deceive its very own host for the sake of believing.”
12. Provides case studies in atheistic philosophy of religion. “The primary goal of every academic should be to bring students’ beliefs into lawful alignment with reality.” Bonus, “Faith-based reasoning without sufficient evidence is the only indicator we need for rejecting a claim. Without sufficient evidence a high level of sophistication doesn’t change a thing. What it becomes is obfuscationist.”
13. Provides atheist philosophers how to approach religion correctly. “Philosophers of religion are dealing with religion in religious, creedal, and confessional ways, and this must end.” “Faith always stifles inquiry and keeps otherwise intelligent people ignorant of the facts.”
14. Provides ten reasons why the philosophy of religion must end. “1. Because the PoR discipline is being disconfirmed at every juncture by science.”
15. How to effectively deal with faith-based claims. “When teaching critical thinking and epistemology classes, we should place religious beliefs where they rightfully belong, as a subcategory of paranormal beliefs in general.”
16. Did I say this was a quote fest of cogent thinking? “Truth is not up for a vote. The truth must be discovered in the process of studying the issues out. One truth is that faith has no merit.”
17. I always learn something new. Here is some sound advice. “When doing these activities we should focus on faith as an utterly unreliable process, and not on the arguments from faith, nor the dogmatic content of faith.”
18. Offers a sound counterargument to Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology. “…people are within their epistemic rights not to believe in his particular god even without an argument and even without evidence.”
19. An interesting chapter on the justification behind ridicule and mockery. The top 10 satires against religious faith. I enjoyed this chapter and it shows another side of Loftus.
20. Provides useful appendices.
Negatives:
1. The book’s focus is very narrow.
2. It is a bit repetitive.
3. Though he mentions a lot of books throughout the narrative I still prefer a formal bibliography.
4. No visual material to supplement the excellent narrative. Charts, timelines, graphs to complement the written word.
In summary, albeit a narrow focus Loftus makes a convincing argument that philosophy of religion must end in all secular schools. He is one of my favorite authors and is a must read, I recommend it!
Further suggestions: “Why I Became An Atheist”, “How to Defend the Christian Faith” and “The Christian Delusion” by John Loftus, “The End of Biblical Studies” by Hector Avalos, “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger, “Natural Atheism” and “Atheism Advanced” by David Eller, “Soul Fallacy” by Julien Musolino, “Free Will? By Jonathan M.S. Pearce, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The Believing Brain” by Michael Shermer, “Faith vs. Fact” and “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A. Coyne, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Trusting Doubt” by Valerie Tarico, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, “Think” by Guy P. Harrison, and “The Science of Miracles” by Joe Nickell.
September 25, 2025
Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. is written with the evangelical zeal of a convert. In this case the faith subscribed to is not one of the conventional world religions, but rather a particular brand of atheism. This is a work of apologetics, or perhaps more precisely anti-apologetics?
Loftus has his sights set, not strictly on religion, but on the philosophy of religion. The general thrust of the book seems to proceed along the lines of fairies are not real, therefore gods are not real, therefore religion is false and philosophy of religion is stupid.
Loftus claims, rather perplexingly, that there are no sacred scriptures or revealed religions, by which he presumably does not mean that scriptures held to be sacred by certain communities of people do not exist, bur rather that the designation 'sacred' holds no personal meaning for the atheist philosopher. The reference to fairies is curious - one could easily imagine, for example, a philosophy of the imagination, the fantastic, or the surreal - in which legitimate questions can be asked about how or why a certain belief is held and what role it plays in the cohesion of a community or in a person's life.
Loftus has spent time among Christian apologists, and it shows up in his work. Unapologetic suffers from the uncharitableness and general lack of intellectual curiosity that tend to characterize the apologetic genre. His opponents are repeatedly referred to as pseudo-intellectuals, pseudo-philosophers, etc. He is, in fact, excessively fond of the prefix "pseudo." Loftus relies heavily on Karl Marx's famous quote about religion being the "opiate of the masses." Where Marx viewed this in the context of a drug to numb the pain of an expressed and exploited populace, Loftus is interested only in the intellectual aspect of the metaphor. Religion is like a drug, he argues, because it makes us dumb.
Unfortunately, as is so often the case with those who quote that particular passage from Marx, Loftus seems content to simply accept a face value critique of religion. Marx himself was quite critical of thinkers like Bruno Bauer who held criticism of religion to be the pinnacle of critical thought, and emancipation from religion to be the pinnacle of human emancipation without attending to the various ways in which religious or theological concepts are smuggled in to supposedly secular discourse. "Money," says Marx, "is the alienated essence of man's labour and life, and this essence dominates him even as he worships it." But Unapologetic is not a work that deals with the material conditions of belief or unbelief in a society, nor, despite claiming to be a book about religion does it offer insight into how religious rituals or ideas function in a society.
The central target is not religion in general, but a specific version of evangelical Christianity, from which the author has emerged. One of the questions he raises is why philosophy of religion should be interested in the question of the existence of God and not, for example, in the existence of Zeus, Baal, Ashtar, Odin, and so on. This is a question I have seen elsewhere, and the answer seems fairly obvious. Worship of Zeus, Odin and so forth are not part of any major religious tradition. No one actively believes in these figures, but by the same token no one actively disbelieves in them either. The God which Loftus does not believe in is not Zeus, it is the god that was presented to him within the religious tradition of American evangelical Christianity.
A parallel can easily be drawn here to the philosophy of science. A contemporary philosophy of medicine, for example, would not make reference to theory of humours, except insofar as it played a role in the history of medicine. Similarly the argument that because the Christian God has antecedents in a tribal Mesopotamian deity does not mean that contemporary religious practice or consciousness is the same as it was in the pre-historic Levant. It isn't, because cultures - including religious beliefs and practices - mutate and evolve.
The standard Nietzschean quote about the death of God makes its customary appearance early on. "God is dead and we have killed him." Continuing the quote Loftus turns the attention to the 'caves: in which God's shadow will continue, reading these in terms of Plato's cave. It is intriguing that the secularized myths of the Greeks, such as Plato's allegory of the caves should be permissible when religious faith is not. The allegory of the cave is rooted in a suprasensible theory of forms. Why should this mythos be an acceptable one through which to make sense of the world but those of the virgin birth or the resurrection of the body be discounted?
The "God is dead" claim has always struck me as a rather strange way to make the atheistic point. On one level it accords with the Christian story of the crucified Christ. "God is dead and we have killed him," is, in effect, a statement of humanity's hubris. We have outgrown the need for transcendent values and are able to stand on our own two feet without the need for religious rituals. In the Christian narration of this act this occurs as the execution of a particular human being, namely, a political/religious dissident in Roman Palestine. Killing the divine in the human required the sacrifice of a human on the altar of the political. "We have no king, but Caesar."
Loftus has his sights set, not strictly on religion, but on the philosophy of religion. The general thrust of the book seems to proceed along the lines of fairies are not real, therefore gods are not real, therefore religion is false and philosophy of religion is stupid.
[U]pon the reasonable overwhelmingly probable evidence-based supposition that the philosopy of religion is little more than a history of discussing the rationality, existence, attributes, and actions of fairies, and that there never was, is, or will be any sacred scriptures or revealed religions, what should atheist philosophers of religion think about their own discipline? What are they doing in their classes?(Unapologetic)
Loftus claims, rather perplexingly, that there are no sacred scriptures or revealed religions, by which he presumably does not mean that scriptures held to be sacred by certain communities of people do not exist, bur rather that the designation 'sacred' holds no personal meaning for the atheist philosopher. The reference to fairies is curious - one could easily imagine, for example, a philosophy of the imagination, the fantastic, or the surreal - in which legitimate questions can be asked about how or why a certain belief is held and what role it plays in the cohesion of a community or in a person's life.
Loftus has spent time among Christian apologists, and it shows up in his work. Unapologetic suffers from the uncharitableness and general lack of intellectual curiosity that tend to characterize the apologetic genre. His opponents are repeatedly referred to as pseudo-intellectuals, pseudo-philosophers, etc. He is, in fact, excessively fond of the prefix "pseudo." Loftus relies heavily on Karl Marx's famous quote about religion being the "opiate of the masses." Where Marx viewed this in the context of a drug to numb the pain of an expressed and exploited populace, Loftus is interested only in the intellectual aspect of the metaphor. Religion is like a drug, he argues, because it makes us dumb.
Unfortunately, as is so often the case with those who quote that particular passage from Marx, Loftus seems content to simply accept a face value critique of religion. Marx himself was quite critical of thinkers like Bruno Bauer who held criticism of religion to be the pinnacle of critical thought, and emancipation from religion to be the pinnacle of human emancipation without attending to the various ways in which religious or theological concepts are smuggled in to supposedly secular discourse. "Money," says Marx, "is the alienated essence of man's labour and life, and this essence dominates him even as he worships it." But Unapologetic is not a work that deals with the material conditions of belief or unbelief in a society, nor, despite claiming to be a book about religion does it offer insight into how religious rituals or ideas function in a society.
The central target is not religion in general, but a specific version of evangelical Christianity, from which the author has emerged. One of the questions he raises is why philosophy of religion should be interested in the question of the existence of God and not, for example, in the existence of Zeus, Baal, Ashtar, Odin, and so on. This is a question I have seen elsewhere, and the answer seems fairly obvious. Worship of Zeus, Odin and so forth are not part of any major religious tradition. No one actively believes in these figures, but by the same token no one actively disbelieves in them either. The God which Loftus does not believe in is not Zeus, it is the god that was presented to him within the religious tradition of American evangelical Christianity.
A parallel can easily be drawn here to the philosophy of science. A contemporary philosophy of medicine, for example, would not make reference to theory of humours, except insofar as it played a role in the history of medicine. Similarly the argument that because the Christian God has antecedents in a tribal Mesopotamian deity does not mean that contemporary religious practice or consciousness is the same as it was in the pre-historic Levant. It isn't, because cultures - including religious beliefs and practices - mutate and evolve.
The standard Nietzschean quote about the death of God makes its customary appearance early on. "God is dead and we have killed him." Continuing the quote Loftus turns the attention to the 'caves: in which God's shadow will continue, reading these in terms of Plato's cave. It is intriguing that the secularized myths of the Greeks, such as Plato's allegory of the caves should be permissible when religious faith is not. The allegory of the cave is rooted in a suprasensible theory of forms. Why should this mythos be an acceptable one through which to make sense of the world but those of the virgin birth or the resurrection of the body be discounted?
The "God is dead" claim has always struck me as a rather strange way to make the atheistic point. On one level it accords with the Christian story of the crucified Christ. "God is dead and we have killed him," is, in effect, a statement of humanity's hubris. We have outgrown the need for transcendent values and are able to stand on our own two feet without the need for religious rituals. In the Christian narration of this act this occurs as the execution of a particular human being, namely, a political/religious dissident in Roman Palestine. Killing the divine in the human required the sacrifice of a human on the altar of the political. "We have no king, but Caesar."
April 29, 2019
No, I didn't finish this book, half done but I couldn't take the arguments that he is using. To repeat that if you have faith is like being a kid is not a very scientific argument. A scientific argument will be to explain how the Quantum Entanglement occurs and what are those "spooky actions at distance" that we are investigating on Quantum level. OK, if you believe the man in the sky, is for kids but the forces are not well known and 1 of them could be what we call God.
June 24, 2017
A Book By an Self-Proclaimed Expert who Is Not
From confusing a guy with an EdD as an expert on epistemology to calling himself an expert in philosophy of religion with sketchy (to be generous) credentials, this book is massive puffery. It asserts, it does not argue. It repeats itself. It has no understanding of how a modern university works. This is mirror Ken Ham for atheist true believers. Go to the chapter on Anselm and read the works referenced. Count the scholarly works. You will not need long. Look for any competence in reading a complex thinker. Don't try handing a paper based on ideas in any given chapter in a secular undergraduate philosophy class or you will fail. Pitiful more than anything else...
From confusing a guy with an EdD as an expert on epistemology to calling himself an expert in philosophy of religion with sketchy (to be generous) credentials, this book is massive puffery. It asserts, it does not argue. It repeats itself. It has no understanding of how a modern university works. This is mirror Ken Ham for atheist true believers. Go to the chapter on Anselm and read the works referenced. Count the scholarly works. You will not need long. Look for any competence in reading a complex thinker. Don't try handing a paper based on ideas in any given chapter in a secular undergraduate philosophy class or you will fail. Pitiful more than anything else...
August 12, 2018
Loftus does something hard and only achievable by those who honestly want to get to what is real - speak as straightforwardly and candidly as possible about philosophy. A lot of philosophers get caught in a web of obfuscation, either to inflate their ideas with language only a few can understand, or because they are so deep in the mine of expertise they only feel like speaking to other miners in the depths of an academic enclave and not doing the extremely hard work to be able to speak to outsiders.
The book is fresh air for thinking and fun for those of us who spent years in the Academy in Biblical or Theological Studies. I hope those who still think faith is somehow a virtue at least appreciate the clear punch in the nose.
Ignore the hilarious bad reviews that use ad hominem as reason (they attack the authors credentials and not the reality of the work or arguments - like arguing against Steve Jobs character somehow makes the iPhone disappear and Apple not a great tech company. No, they are still there. )
I’ll offer no defence of Loftus, only my opinion that it was a fun and worthy read which is quite well put , especially for those with a background in theology or religious studies or the philosophy of religion who can be honest about their disciplines.
The book is fresh air for thinking and fun for those of us who spent years in the Academy in Biblical or Theological Studies. I hope those who still think faith is somehow a virtue at least appreciate the clear punch in the nose.
Ignore the hilarious bad reviews that use ad hominem as reason (they attack the authors credentials and not the reality of the work or arguments - like arguing against Steve Jobs character somehow makes the iPhone disappear and Apple not a great tech company. No, they are still there. )
I’ll offer no defence of Loftus, only my opinion that it was a fun and worthy read which is quite well put , especially for those with a background in theology or religious studies or the philosophy of religion who can be honest about their disciplines.
July 13, 2017
I read this book just because I like the way John W. Loftus communicates his ideas. His ‘outsider test for faith’ is simple but a clever idea in terms of giving people a systematic approach for discovering the truth of their beliefs.
But in this case, although he probably has a point, it seems like he’s coming from a place of anger and comes off sounding like sour grapes vs a persuasive argument.
He makes the point that there is no more need for a philosophy of religion sort of in the same vein that there is no need for creationism in the classroom once evolution has been successfully argued definitively. He’s probably right but I kept thinking, “who cares?” It’s just not that important to me and seems like something that will end on it’s own over time vs cheerleading for its end.
Bottom line is I think the book was just boring. I didn’t really enjoy it although again, I am a fan of Loftus’ other work.
But in this case, although he probably has a point, it seems like he’s coming from a place of anger and comes off sounding like sour grapes vs a persuasive argument.
He makes the point that there is no more need for a philosophy of religion sort of in the same vein that there is no need for creationism in the classroom once evolution has been successfully argued definitively. He’s probably right but I kept thinking, “who cares?” It’s just not that important to me and seems like something that will end on it’s own over time vs cheerleading for its end.
Bottom line is I think the book was just boring. I didn’t really enjoy it although again, I am a fan of Loftus’ other work.
June 29, 2023
This was my first Loftus book, and it was very disappointing. It was so repetitive. I kept thinking I'd jumped back somehow, but no, it was just the author saying the same thing all over again, and again, and again.
But besides the repetition, the writing itself was very average. There were a couple of nuggets here and there. Anyway, I don't really have the energy to critique it all that much, or write a long review.
But besides the repetition, the writing itself was very average. There were a couple of nuggets here and there. Anyway, I don't really have the energy to critique it all that much, or write a long review.
July 13, 2020
Weak, tendentious, hard to slog through. Sad to say. John has written some interesting books. This isn't one of them
May 8, 2018
This is my second time to read it and it was just as informative as the first time. This books covers a lot even though it's not a long read. The bottom line is faith is an unjustified method of coming to any kind of knowledge of the truth, and therefore should not be considered at all as a method for teaching students in a university setting. I'm not a college student yet, but I can appreciate Loftus' plea to end the philosophy of religion as it is being taught because it is mostly christian apologetics wrapped in a cloak of philosophy. It has caused me to want to read some of the big names in the PoR department, such as Craig, Swinburn and Plantinga, which I plan on doing. All in all I would probably read it again a 3rd time.
December 25, 2016
While I would not broadly recommend this book, for the intended audience it approaches a mandatory read. Specifically this is a narrowly-focused work intended for those with serious backgrounds in the philosophy of religion, or philosophy-focused students of theology. AND, more specifically for students of those sub-fields who may be questioning the basis of their studies. So, not for everyone, but if you find those topics interesting, Loftus' view is an essential read. Unlike his most of his published books, this does not feature a collection of authors, but is Loftus writing of his own viewpoint into this very interesting and hotly debated subject.
December 24, 2016
The worst book I've ever read.
January 10, 2017
Well researched and well argued position that Philosophy of Religion should not be taught in secular institutions.
April 24, 2017
Loftus lays out a compelling case for ending philosophy of religion courses in secular universities. His justification is that most of the content is centered around justifying Christian faith, and even the best aspects would be better captured in other fields (like philosophy proper, anthropology, etc.). He goes to great lengths to show the flaws in basing apologetic arguments on faith and special pleading, and describes why respectable philosophy of religion professors should seek to convince their students to challenge these arguments.
While Loftus did a great job with his explanations, from my perspective he could have made his case in a more concise way. That said, I believe this book had a different intended audience (probably actual philosophy of religion professors that needed a bit more convincing to end their own field). The book, given how much time was spent on the need to defer to Bayesian methods of determining probabilities, would have benefited from a better description of how to go through such an exercise. Maybe at least show his method for determining prior probabilities.
While Loftus did a great job with his explanations, from my perspective he could have made his case in a more concise way. That said, I believe this book had a different intended audience (probably actual philosophy of religion professors that needed a bit more convincing to end their own field). The book, given how much time was spent on the need to defer to Bayesian methods of determining probabilities, would have benefited from a better description of how to go through such an exercise. Maybe at least show his method for determining prior probabilities.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews