A while back, David Waltz accused James White and John Bugay of double standards. For example, he faults White for objecting to Muslims apologists who cite liberal Bible scholars, even though White doesn’t have a problem with liberal scholars who attack Islam.
But, ironically, Waltz is guilty of a double standard. Waltz is quite sympathetic to Islam. And I believe he’s currently flirting with Bahaism, which is an offshoot of Islam.
Yet I don’t see Waltz doing the same thing in reverse. I don’t see him denouncing Muslim apologists who cite liberal scholars to attack the Bible even though the same Muslims apologists would never apply the same yardstick to the Koran or the Hadith.
So all Waltz has done is to expose his favoritism. He wants to hedge his bets. Keep his options open. Play both sides of the fence. His rhetoric about fair play is just a cloak for his syncretism and pluralism.
I don't see the problem to begin with. What's wrong with pointing to an argument that you agree with when it comes from a person that you sometimes or even often disagree with? If Dawkins gets something right in criticizing Islam, I'll point it out and say that for a change he's finally giving a fair criticism of something. If, on the other hand, he misrepresents the Islamic tradition or takes a statement in the Qur'an out of context, I'll say the same thing as when he does that with the Bible. There's nothing inconsistent about pointing to an argument by someone you sometimes disagree with when it's a genuinely good argument that you do agree with.
ReplyDelete