Douglas Wilson has written a response to Sam Harris’ atheist manifesto Letter to A Christian Nation. Wilson’s book, Letter from a Christian Citizen, has some impressive accolades.
“Douglas Wilson has written a book that can give Christians a place to stand in regard to Sam Harris’ book Letter to a Christian Nation. The primary usefulness of Wilson’s book is that it gives readers a point-by-point response to the arguments advanced by Harris in an engaging and compelling way.”
Dr. Leland Ryken, Professor of English at Wheaton College
Isn't Wheaton some sort of religious school? You'll excuse me for ignoring such an endorsement.
Also, Seeker, your comment over at my site specifically makes my point: that despite the existence of people like you, there is reason to respect religion.
I'll be interested in reading it (although I don't expect much different from what I've heard elsewhere).
Isn't Wheaton some sort of religious school? You'll excuse me for ignoring such an endorsement.
No problem. That endorsement wasn't for you, but for Christians who know the academic and faith status of both Wheaton and Ryken himself.
I don't expect much different from what I've heard elsewhere
Let's hope it's not the same old drivel. While I think there are good responses to Harris (who is well spoken), it will take more than sloganeering to counter his ideas.
Could it be that the authors of books like these are attempting to ride Sam Harris' back and cash in? I hope Sam responds like Richard Dawkins did.
"Was there ever a dog that praised his fleas?"
– Yeats
Dawkins certainly is a dog ;) See Matthew 7:6
One question: Is this the same Doug Wilson who co-wrote a booklet with Steve Wilkins a few years back arguing that slavery is morally justifiable and – if administered according to Biblical standards – a potentially good and happy thing?
Shag,
I did some research, and it is definitely the same guy. I found Wilson’s blog, Blog and MaBlog, whose nice search feature let me find lots of related stuff.
However, while you are right that there was a fracas about his original 1996 publication of Slavery as it was, the characterization that he was arguing that slavery is morally justifiable seems to be the typical misunderstanding of his work. Here’s a snippit from one of his posts where he responds to such an accusation:
The original booklet had some plaigarized material in it (an omission credited to his co-author). This was later fixed, and the booklet was included as a chapter in a later book he wrote called Black & Tan: A Collection of Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America.
I don’t know much about the content of his tract, but excerpts seem damning – then again, in context, they may not be as damning. Also damning is this accusation of the co-author:
Anyway, good catch on that one. Though the original publication is 10 years old, this does cast some doubt on the author’s credibility. Sigh.
Actually, when Wilson found out about his co-author’s ‘citation errors’, he didn’t just fix it. He pulled the booklet entirely, then dropped all the material from Wilkins, apologized for his co-author’s failure and reincorporated his own words (only) into his solo volume, Black and Tan. It’s actually a strong little book. And after pouring through it, the only charge his secular adversaries have been able to come up with is that he flopped and he’s not a racist anymore — as opposed to never having been one.
As for Potok and the SPLC, their analysis is a joke. Both Wilkins and Wilson pastor multi-racial congregations (not to mention having railed against racism in many venues). Wilkins may have been sloppy (worse: lazy, or worst: dishonest) but Wilson’s only mistake was trusting his co-author. And I think he was big about it after the fact. He addresses the whole thing in B&T.
As for this new little volume addressed to Harris, I expect it to be effective enough that secularists will only be able to resort to ad hom responses. “Is it true that you were a racist back in ’96?” Sigh is right.