My impression, furthermore, is that there are Christians who have succeeded where many current atheists have failed. For example, Christian apologist Mike Licona (who made headlines when he was forced to resign from his position at Southern Evangelical Seminary for his ever-so-slight deviations from the inerrantist party line) credits his mentor in apologetics, Gary Habermas, with saving his faith.
I don’t get this part. Why have they succeeded and how have other atheists failed? There’s a few other typos and grammatical slips that other commenters have pointed out too.
Great essay though. It also seems to be true for ideologies in general, not just religion. I’d bet most political essays that purport to be towards the open-minded skeptic are actually used to provide more intellectual ammunition for the already-converted. However, I also suspect that there is more genuine “apologetic” material for political ideologies.
If this was confusing, I mean succeeded at holding on to their faith through apologetics. If you understood that and are wondering why they’re different… I don’t know.
If you can point me towards other typos & grammatical slips that would be helpful. I generally try to proofread my work but I’m a terrible proofreader.
A proofreading trick I use sometimes: Touch each individual word as you read it (with a physical pointer like a pen or with the mouse pointer). For even greater accuracy, read aloud while you’re doing this.
A proofreading trick I have not used much: Make a printout and read it upside down.
Edit:
Proofreading with a bigger font makes it easier to catch stuff like “assume” versus “assure”. A serif font makes the difference between “I” and “l” visible. In a fixed-width font (e.g. Courier New) all the characters are the same width, so spelling and punctuation errors are easier to see (compare “rn”/”m” versus “rn”/”m″).
I don’t get this part. Why have they succeeded and how have other atheists failed? There’s a few other typos and grammatical slips that other commenters have pointed out too.
Great essay though. It also seems to be true for ideologies in general, not just religion. I’d bet most political essays that purport to be towards the open-minded skeptic are actually used to provide more intellectual ammunition for the already-converted. However, I also suspect that there is more genuine “apologetic” material for political ideologies.
If this was confusing, I mean succeeded at holding on to their faith through apologetics. If you understood that and are wondering why they’re different… I don’t know.
If you can point me towards other typos & grammatical slips that would be helpful. I generally try to proofread my work but I’m a terrible proofreader.
A proofreading trick I use sometimes: Touch each individual word as you read it (with a physical pointer like a pen or with the mouse pointer). For even greater accuracy, read aloud while you’re doing this.
A proofreading trick I have not used much: Make a printout and read it upside down.
Edit:
Proofreading with a bigger font makes it easier to catch stuff like “assume” versus “assure”. A serif font makes the difference between “I” and “l” visible. In a fixed-width font (e.g. Courier New) all the characters are the same width, so spelling and punctuation errors are easier to see (compare “rn”/”m” versus “
rn
”/”m
″).