Ian Boyne of "The Jamaica Gleaner" Claims That Atheists/Agnostics are Winning the Debate
He's read my book along with several others and writes:
I must confess that I find many Christian attempts to rebut criticisms of Christianity pathetically weak and disappointing. I generally find that the atheists and agnostics argue much more soundly and are more intellectually rigorous. I find that the atheists, and especially the agnostics, ponder things more deeply and more profoundly than believers and that they are usually more sophisticated and nuanced in their analyses.
I think I have read the best of the atheists and agnostics and the best of the theists, and I generally find the former far more intellectually engaging....in my view, the Christian philosophers, theologians and apologists are outclassed by the unbelievers in terms of intellectual rigour argumentation.
Link
8 comments:
I hope you tell this guy he's spelled your name wrong, Mr. Lotus.
While you're at it, you might mention that his assessment of Richard Carrier's position could use a little more research. Or that Hahn and Wiker's book has received much criticism over on Amazon.
What, exactly, did he mean by "the atheists definitely have more resources on their side"?
Maybe the "veteran journalist" got his information on Mr. Lotus from the Textron Evaluation and Apologetics Ministry.
Or Alwin Plantinga.
I'm guessing his spell checker catches everything else, but of course misspelled proper names will always slip through. :)
ismellarat, what exactly is your point? You disagree with someone's analysis but rather than show why, you attack something else? Perhaps English isn't his native tongue? What does that have to do with anything? You bore me.
I thought openlyatheist's comment about "Mr. Lotus" was funny, and then saw that other names had been misspelled, which made it funnier. People do joke around here sometimes, especially on "birfdays," about girls flipping people off, etc. :)
I see "information on Mr. Lotus" was poorly worded - I was only kidding about the misspelling of the name.
Nothing deeper than that.
I actually agreed with the article. I had added that it's great to see someone be so evenhanded, but took that out because I think everyone knows what I think already. I'll try to be less boring.
...well, I suppose I can be a bore too! ;-)
Hey, John, you should have finished reading Boyne's work; after the part you self-servingly quote he goes on to say:
"I think I have read the best of the atheists and agnostics and the best of the theists, and I generally find the former far more intellectually engaging.
So when I recommend some Christian thinkers, take me seriously. For while, in my view, the Christian philosophers, theologians and apologists are outclassed by the unbelievers in terms of intellectual rigour argumentation, there are some very serious believers who are very sharp and who meaningfully engage the sceptics.
On the internet, for example, if you go to Christian Think-Tank, you will find highly reasoned, seriously-researched essays dealing with many critical questions about the Bible. Bothered by texts seemingly to justify slavery and genocide? Bothered by texts from the Old Testament which seem to have antiquated and repugnant social law and customs? Shocked by the ethical practices of the Old Testament particularly? Go to that site. There you will find the best scholarship on these matters. These fellows really engage in high-quality apologetics and unlike many apologists they take sceptics' questions seriously and really engage them.
Another excellent site which keeps abreast of every sceptical piece of writing, every atheistic and agnostic scholar or popular writer and which seeks to debunk them is Textron Evaluation and Apologetics Ministry. Bart Ehrman, who is the leading and most-quoted biblical scholar who attacks the authenticity of Scripture, is challenged seriously by these apologists who take him to task over what they term his sloppy scholarship."
Yes, he mispelt Tektonics just as he mispelt Loftus, but he classes both Glenn Miller and J. P. Holding as on-line Christian apologists who rise above and outclass the secular arguments.
Curtmudgeon, since I linked to what he wrote people can read it themselves. He was just trying to be fair with the other side is my understanding. So to be fair he mentioned the other works, that's all. I'm surprised you cannot see this.
Post a Comment