He makes religion as squishy as a squid.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”...read in the light of reason…”
Whose reasons should count?  Pat Robertson can give you reasons why his reading is most appropriate.  Here’s a solution: if reason were applied right from the beginning, the authority of such-and-such a scriptural verse would never qualify as a reason in and of itself, and we could avoid this foolishness.

”[read]...under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
Let’s assume that there is a Holy Spirit.  Does Douthat doubt that Robertson believes himself to be inspired by the holy spirit when he reads the bible?  How will we settle it?  Again, apply reason from the very beginning and recognize your scriptures for what they are: poetic myths.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is clever, the author does identify a salient feature of the post 9/11 criticism of faith, but draws the conclusion on the wrong side so to speak. In order for us to attack faith we need someone to actually occupy the opposite ground. For example that a book(which one?) was authored by the “creator”. Millions of Douthat’s neighbors do believe that the bible is literally true, which is why Robertson has a show. What we would like to point out is that there are logical consequences of this respect which liberals want to accord these beliefs. When we do they say “ah but that’s not what us liberals believe, it’s all a metaphor”. Well not to the real Christians, the ones who believe in the inerrancy of the book, just as Christians for thousands of years have done while they tortured people to death for in any way contradicting “scripture”. My question is where will this sickly ingratiation be when believers assume control and do what they always do, and the doctrine you live by is that faith claims are beyond repute? All in all another worthy admission to the Hall.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Read “Russell on God and Religion” ; then enjoy life.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ross Douthat is a Christian because he claims to be one.  Pat Robertson also is a Christian because he claims to be one.  The Episcopal Bishop John Spong is a Christian because he claims to be one - as well as a nontheist.  They are all irrefutably correct. 

This is possible because contemporary Christianity is an incoherent jumble, having no demonstrable method of authentication.  Christianity is a sham umbrella covering a multitude of unresolvable conflicting supernatural claims.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Well said. I would want to add that since christianity has been understood through its history to be a belief in the truth of the origin and law of all things as decreed by the bible, it seems fair to say that the more closely one believes in the inerrancy of the bible the more one can claim to be a true christian. So when douthat claims ‘new atheists’ share something crucial with religious people who really believe, he’s right. We take the claims seriously, just as the real believers do!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Recently I confronted a Christian about the fallacies of the bible and was told that ‘Christians do not believe in the bible, we believe in a living, breathing God’. Whereto I asked which god he meant, and he ofcourse meant the one described in the bible. Talk about contradiction!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I would have asked how this person knows that, “Christians do not believe in the bibile.” Where did he/she get this belief from?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@ Arya,  All that is required is for one Christian to say “I’m a Christian and I do not believe in the Bible.”  As soon as it is spoken it is true.  There is no demonstrable method to determine the correct Christian belief system.  “Christianity” is a meaningless term that superficially covers a multitude of irreconcilable and competing supernatural beliefs.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.