Quisling for atheism

I'll comment on this post:

https://randalrauser.com/2018/01/dear-christian-apologist-dont-cherry-pick-quotes-make-case/

I have my share of frustrations with popular Christian apologetics. I also have my frustrations with popular non-Christian apologetics. Nonetheless, Christianity is my tribe, and thus I see a special responsibility to speak out against bad examples of Christian apologetics.

In this article, I’m going to focus on one practice that really frustrates me. I speak here of the practice of cherry-picking quotes that support your chosen thesis. And the particular example I have in mind is when Christian apologists try to argue that atheism entails nihilism, and they support that claim with a sampling of quotes from prominent atheists who seem to have affirmed that view. You know, like Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre. And don’t forget that great Bertrand Russell quote in his essay “A Free Man’s Worship” about bearing up under “unyielding despair.”

i) It's revealing how often Rauser kisses up to atheists and take their side. Shows you where his true sympathies lie. 

ii) There are atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who want people to cherry-pick quotes from their material. They go out of their way to craft catchy quotable zingers. They want people to quote those one-liners. Heck, on his original, official website, Dawkins posted readymade quotes from his writings. 

iii) There's particular value in hostile testimony. When the opposing side makes damaging admissions, it's entirely proper to point out that even their side makes concessions which frankly expose weaknesses or dire consequences of their position.

iv) Apropos (iii), this also documents the fact that it isn't a Christian caricature of the opposing position. Rather, we're getting that straight from the horse's mouth. There are atheists who accuse Christians of burning a straw man in this regard. Many atheists are blithely unaware of what candid atheists like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Rosenberg, and Benatar say about the moral and existential implications of atheism. 

This method is presumably used over and over again because it wins points with audiences, especially Christian audiences. 

Because, from Rauser's jaundiced perspective, that's the only interpretation. There couldn't be an honorable motivation. It must just be to "wins points with audiences, especially Christian audiences."

But it is fundamentally disingenuous. If this fact is not patently obvious, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Picture an atheist arguing that Christianity is fundamentally misogynistic. And to make the point, she begins by quoting Augustine:

“What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother; it is still Eve the temptress that we must be aware of in any woman… I fail to see what use women can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”

Next, she quotes Martin Luther,

“Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women should stay at home; the way they were created indicates this, for they have broad hips and a wide fundament to sit upon, keep house and bear and raise children.”

And so it goes.

The Christian apologist would rightly reply that Augustine and Luther’s misogynistic views should not be taken as an essential part of Christianity. Fair enough. But then by the same token, Nietzche’s and Camus’ nihilistic views should not be taken as an essential part of atheism.

Unless moral and existential nihilism is an essential part of atheism. Quoting secular nihilists is only disingenuous from Rauser's viewpoint. Like so many atheists, he still hasn't figured out the logical cost of consistent atheism. He fails to appreciate what's at stake. 

If you want to present a fair case against your opponent, one should begin by steelmanning their position…Similarly, the Christian apologist should begin by steelmanning atheism. That would mean he should begin by recognizing that atheism includes many individuals who defend objective goodness, meaning, and purpose. Only then would it be proper for him to attempt an argument that atheism entails nihilism despite this witness.

The fact that many atheists attempt to "defend objective goodness, meaning, and purpose" doesn't make their case is successful. Rather, it demonstrates a failure of nerve. They balk. They can't bear to stare into the abyss. 

Having initially dealt themselves a losing hand, they struggle to play that hand as best they can. They pretty-up their worst-case scenario. While that's psychologically understandable, it doesn't mean we should gag or dismiss atheists who are brutally honest.