David Marshall, a Christian apologist whom I have crossed swords with on numerous occasions, has given much space on his blog arguing against such atheists as Richard Carrier, Hector Avalos, John W. Loftus, and even much lesser known bloggers such as a Professor of Science and Technology named Brian Blais (Marshall provided no tags for his posts about Blais). This last person is important since this person does not appear to have a single credential in the fields of history or religion, topics he seems to cover at some length on his blog. Why is this relevant? Because throughout the years Marshall has repeatedly said that because I have no relevant degrees I am not a worthy opponent, therefore, my critiques are worthless and needn’t be paid attention to. However, Marshall has engaged with Professor Blais on a number of occasions on his blog, someone who also has no relevant education in the topics he and Marshall have debated back and forth. Why the discrepancy?
To my knowledge I am the only person who has dedicated so much time to deconstructing each and every one of Marshall’s arguments, and despite this, he has only dedicated a single post responding to me. This response left much to be desired, however, as it only covered a measly page and a half of my critique of his book! Despite my critique getting numerous kudos over the years, including from John Loftus, who kindly dedicated an entire post on his blog to my critique a few years ago, Marshall continues to ignore my extensive critiques.
Another excuse often brought up by Marshall is his accusation that I’m “immature,” “a fool,” or some other epithet (hypocritically, he says these things, while at the same time calling me immature!). It is true that David Marshall and I do have quite a long and messy history, but I think if you compare my demeanor with his over this long period I think I’ve treated him rather fairly, given the circumstances.
With these silly excuses taken out of play, what other excuses are left? I can think of none.
So, David Marshall, why do you refuse to engage with my responses to your work? I sincerely would love an answer. A serious answer. No more excuses. Well… ?
For the curious reader here are my responses to Marshall’s main body of work:
Faith and Reason (2006?): Dazed and Confused: David Marshall’s Irrational Take on Faith and Reason