A Comparison With the So-Called New Atheists and Some Christian Apologists
The Christian Century recently reviewed William Lobdell's book where Valerie Weaver-Zercher made an interesting comparison:
As I argue in my book [which is presently being reprinted], it's about seeing things differently along with WHY we should see things differently.
It might make someone feel good to think the other side is ignorant. It might make someone appear to be intelligent and also help him gain many followers. But to claim that anyone who disagrees is a "dope" is the height of ignorance in my opinion. I would never follow someone who made such a claim. I would never follow someone so cocksure of himself when ignorance is the rule and knowledge is the exception.
Now yes, I happen to agree with the so-called New Atheists and I appreciate all they have done to open up a debate on the issues. But my goal is to reach believers, not to chide them or to rally the skeptical troops (both worthy goals in and of themselves). Again. My aim is to reach believers, like Barker, Lobdell and others are attempting to do.
"Either you don't believe in God or you're a dope." This is how Newsweek's Lisa Miller sums up the thinking of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.There are people on both sides of this debate who claim that anyone who disagrees is a "dope." My contention is that anyone who claims this is himself ignorant! Check out this post of mine and this one too. Yes, there are ignorant people on both sides of the fence. But just because someone disagrees does not mean that person is ignorant at all.
Lobdell's deconversion narrative, Losing My Religion, refrains from both bombast and suggestions of dopiness. By his very choice of genre—memoir rather than apologia—Lobdell enters a different territory of the new atheism, one already inhabited by several other counter conversion narrators, including John Loftus...and Dan Barker. Link.
As I argue in my book [which is presently being reprinted], it's about seeing things differently along with WHY we should see things differently.
It might make someone feel good to think the other side is ignorant. It might make someone appear to be intelligent and also help him gain many followers. But to claim that anyone who disagrees is a "dope" is the height of ignorance in my opinion. I would never follow someone who made such a claim. I would never follow someone so cocksure of himself when ignorance is the rule and knowledge is the exception.
Now yes, I happen to agree with the so-called New Atheists and I appreciate all they have done to open up a debate on the issues. But my goal is to reach believers, not to chide them or to rally the skeptical troops (both worthy goals in and of themselves). Again. My aim is to reach believers, like Barker, Lobdell and others are attempting to do.