Do Christian Apologists Spend Too Much Time Focusing on their Weaker Opponents?
Refuting the “New Atheists” is all the rage among Christian apologists these days. Among professional philosophers of religion, however, it’s well-known that the new atheists are not the best representatives for atheism. So why do Christian apologists continue to harp on the new atheists and ignore what atheist professional philosophers of religion have to say? For example, you’d think, after the 1,000th refutation of Richard Dawkins, that they would move onto something else. You’d be wrong. For example, compare the bibliography found here to the typical targets of Christian apologists. Most of the arguments in that bibliography are ignored.
I’m not suggesting that apologists should never criticize popular authors. Rather, my point is this. Christian apologists, especially those who are professional philosophers, should surely devote at least some of their time to the best arguments for atheism. They should not spend all or most of their time on its weaker (but admittedly more in your face) representatives. For example, Daniel Howard-Snyder has always impressed me as an excellent Christian philosopher who seems to go out of his way to interact with the best arguments against whatever position he writes about. Why can’t more Christian philosophers be like him?