Just today I managed to read Michael Novak’s review of the Dawkins/Harris/Dennett triumvirate, but only because I was reading back posts by Tom Gilson, who linked to it. I admit that the best part was where Novak writes about openmindedness:
It seems that Christianity is better able to account for, and to sympathize with, the contemporary atheist than the latter is able to sympathize with the Christian. If nothing else, the three books under review show how hard it is for the contemporary atheist (of the scientific school) to show much sympathy for a Christian way of seeing reality. Since just over two billion persons on our planet today are Christians–about one in every three persons on earth–the inability of the contemporary atheist to summon up fellow feeling for so many companions on the brief voyage of a single human life seems to be a severe human handicap.
Yes, the anti-humanism of some modern secular humanists is painful to observe.
I myself indulge in the guilty pleasure of reading many things by people I disagree with politically, theologically, and philosophically, simply because I find it enjoyable to empathize with their evident humanity.
This joyful humanity, swelling with realistic feeling and a broad acceptance of the meaning of human life, is missing from the prickly, anxious mutterings of those atheists who ooze a viscous contempt for certain expressions of humanity that they find too disordered and noxious to qualify for inclusion in their ideal conception of nature.
The nature that they fixate on with adolescent infatuation is not a true nature, but an image that they have constructed from the perfection of romantic rationalism, reflected against the hard, shiny surface of their own static beliefs.