Which Type of Anthologies Are Best?

This Tweet is by The Non Alchemist:
Enjoying this so far. Covers a lot of ground, with essays for and against different positions. I prefer reading stuff like this where multiple perspectives are engaged and there is interaction.
This stands in contrast to all of my anthologies.

The Non Alchemist's point is an interesting one. Could that be why he hasn't yet recommended any of my anthologies? I don't know. But I think it's an interesting question nonetheless. Preference is subjective. Readers can have a preference for one type of book over another. I don't have a problem with that. Don't forget that a preference for something different is not a substantive criticism of my work.

I myself have a preference for truth in my anthologies, well-articulated, researched, and referenced truth. I don't think my opinion is subjective, but rather based on credible evidence, along with the abysmal lack of credible evidence from the Christian opposition. I have defended my opinion in 12 critically acclaimed anthologies.

But people do disagree, so let's set that all aside.  
One can read both kinds of anthologies and compare them, side by side. If they are good ones, they will interact with the arguments of each other. It's not an either/or choice. So there's no problem. In any case, if you want a different view there are plenty of books who offer it. But maybe readers might not want to do much research, or haven't formed solid opinions yet. I get that.

Keep in mind there has been a huge disparity between the number of books being published each year. Christian philosophical/ apologetic books are flying off Christian presses at an unbelievable rate compared to the nonbelieving opposition. Why should atheist philosophers-intellectuals-counter-apologists give Christians even more space in the meager number of books that we put out by comparison?

The fact is, my anthologies directly interact with the best of the best Christian thinkers at the highest levels. So Christian apologists/ philosophers are not being sleighted a bit by not writing chapters in them, nor are our readers, who want to know what Christians say in response. We deal fairly and honestly with their best arguments using the principle of charity. One could actually read my anthologies to learn what the Christian opposition says.

By contrast, the Christian books in defense of Christianity very rarely deal directly with our arguments fairly and honestly. Many, if not most of the time they misrepresent us with strawmans, special pleadings and begging the questions.

What concerns me is that people like The Non Alchemist might be failing to recommend my works due to personal preference, when they could recommend them for what they are, based on an atheist perspective, the blurbs, and the quality of authors in them, despite personal preference.

Finally, almost every one of my anthologies has blurbs written by Christian philosophers and apologists. Does anyone think they would do so if my anthologies misrepresented Christian apologists or philosophers with strawmans, special pleadings and begging the questions?


John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 12 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against Miracles, God and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon. Thank you so much!