Honored to be included on the long, long list of things you won't bother to read.

This is a weird, weird comment, so confused I don't know how responding could help, since what I wrote is crystal clear. How could I respond to someone who reads my piece & comes away with the belief that I think Eagleton or Robinson is an atheist????? I mean, we're talking basic reading comprehension here! Just, wow. And Wood, for all his sympathy, is unversed in theology, & doesn't realize that anti-onto-theology is in fact an established religious intellectual tradition, from Maimonides to Marion. As for snobs, you realize I'm quoting Les Murray? Yeah, they're snobs, obviously, & they don't confine their ignorance to fundamentalism (read the Hart essay I linked to or don't bother replying to this post, since if you haven't read it, there's no conversation for us to have). How in God's name, if you'll pardon the expression, you can have missed the relevance of Robinson or Eagleton to my argument (clue: they both have argued successfully that the New Atheists' arguments are intellectual garbage) is absolutely beyond me. Just mind-blowingly strange.

This is ... well, it's genius. Or ... MADNESS. No, wait, got carried away: definitely genius.

Puns worth noting: "redress," "assiduously."

Re #1: Cf. Ellmann, Man & the Masks, 241-42.

Gotta say, cut through JTJ's self-satisfied patter, he's got a point, & so does JSC. I'm convinced, pardner. Sorry.

LULZ

So that's what I've been doing wrong. Never much cared for cole slaw.

This is lovely. Looking forward to yr posts, JD.

One of these days you are going to read all the poems, Anthony, all the poems there are. On that day you will agree with everything I have ever said or am likely ever to say.

Ah, Craig just wrote to inform me r. of the n. stands for Revenge of the Nerds. Of course. Of course.

And let me say it was a joy to blog here this week. Many thanks to David & Stacey.

Yes. The only translation really. Well except for Tyndale's. But it kind of is Tyndale's.

Thank you, Kimberley!

I like that way of putting it, David. Thanks. I'm glad you liked the piece. What translation of Genesis are you using? Btw, I might be a little late with my post tomorrow, I've got a long day of teaching. But I'll put something up.

... except to note that, yes, of course there are now hierarchies of atheism, some more intellectually respectable than others. Or rather, there always have been. That's what the post is about, in fact. Read the Hart article I link to, & Marilynne Robinson too. Not trying to claim "authority." They provide context that you would find useful.

Last time I saw Ange, we agreed not to discuss Seidel further. It's sort of like a marriage. Thanks, Spencer. Say hi to good Peter Henry for me.

Where did I say there isn't "a large Christian population that wants to legislate belief"? Where did I say "a benign Christian religious segment is predominant in this country"? You keep responding to imaginary interlocutors. Non sequiturs are fun, but responding to them is boring. Look, I live in Mississippi. You don't have to tell me about the Christian right. But my post. Was not. About. Them. Can't make it any clearer. You don't know anyone on the Christian left. OK. I'm sorry about that. They exist. Never said they made up a majority. Done with this now.

Amen, Amy. I replied ad hominem to Alex via email, which is where that stuff belongs. Well, actually, I should have ignored it. I'm only human.

The fans are mutual, Sina. See you soon.

As I said to the excitable alex c above: Why would you post this comment when I clearly say I'm talking about scientism & about the New Atheism, in particular, and not about science & atheism per se??

Alex, you haven't read the post. I wrote "It is always necessary to distinguish science from scientism" for a reason. Then there's the whole part where I said "this perplexity is, obviously, not confined to the religiously-minded." So, I made yr points for you in the post. The post isn't about atheism, it's about a particular brand of atheism. Read what I wrote again. I agree with most of what you say about science. Why would you post this comment when I clearly say I'm talking about scientism & about the New Atheism, in particular, and not about science & atheism per se??