Bill Cork defends himself at length against my observations, but then oddly concludes (with the strangest of logic):
At that time, I chose not to enter into a debate. I still choose not to do so. Because I still do not accept that form of apologetic. I had been posting many articles expressing my doubts before I took the step, and I posted more after the fact–those blog posts I compiled here. These articles aren’t exhaustive, but they document some of the questions I considered. Call them what you will–but I think it a stretch to call them “postmodernist mush.”I don't. I gave my reasons why at the time. Cork doesn't want to interact with them. That's his choice. But, be that as it may, it is my job as an apologist to show how objections in general, and his particular objections to Catholicism fail, or that (in some cases) they apply to Protestants, too, so that it is a wash.
My articles are never intended only for the one person I am debating or critiquing (frankly I usually wouldn't bother and put in all the effort I do just for one person), but for all my readers. So whether Cork wants to "debate" my critique of his odyssey or not is a matter of little or no concern to me. If he doesn't, fine; if he does, better (because I think it is good for folks to interact with criticism).
My aim is to show that the reasoning for his move was and is insufficient, inadequate, and fallacious (which it assuredly is). If he wants to run down the Catholic Church publicly, then we who love the Catholic Church and accept her teachings have every right to defend the Church. Cork made all this public in the first place. If he's so concerned about not debating anyone then why did he blog about it at all? He could have simply made his move and shut up about it (i.e., publicly). But he didn't do that. He wanted and wants to get his point of view across. He just doesn't want to defend it when someone else disagrees with his reasoning. And that gets back to the postmodernist mentality that I critiqued in the first place . . .