The bait and switch

PZ has a simple request. If we uppity atheists are guilty of arguing against the worst arguments on the other side, will someone please lay out clearly the alleged "best" arguments?

[T]he "best" of the religious views are mentioned as a mythic monolith on a far-off mountaintop, rather than actually stated, making them rather difficult to take on. I think it's because whenever anyone tries to state them, there's usually a lot of hemming and hawing and admissions that they don't actually believe in these arguments, they're just trying to be fair and state that there are good arguments out there. It's basically a bait-and-switch: They say, "I may believe X, but here's Y; you can't refute Y!" Then we pound on Y for a while, and they say, "Why are you wasting my time with arguments against Y? I believe in X!" So you pummel X for a bit, and they announce, "I may believe X, but here's Z; you can't refute Z!" And so it goes, endlessly.

I am fond of describing the essential tenet of Christianity as "Two thousand years ago a man died, stayed dead for three days, rose from the dead, then flew into the air above the clouds, but also he is with you right now as your invisible companion."

This may sound ridiculous, but it is, in fact, exactly what literally millions of Christians actually believe. My bluntly stated summary is not an exaggeration or a distortion -- and Christian leaders have confirmed this fact directly to me. For example, Russell Moore, dean of the not-insignificant Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once said in my presence, "I believe that a corpse rose from the grave and walked around." And liberal Christian Rev. Joseph Phelps, also present, agreed that he too believed in the same actual bodily resurrection. There was no controversy on this matter whatsoever among any of the Christians at the event.

My preferred description of Christianity is not chosen as some kind of devious rhetorical trick. I prefer this summary of belief because it gets to the point and huge numbers of Christians actually believe it.

But some defenders of religion are certain that this kind of summary is unfair, a prejudiced outsider's perspective that misses the "nuance" of Christian faith as it is actually experienced. And almost without fail, these defenders have no statement to offer as a replacement. One possible implication being not that I should alter my criticism of religion -- but instead that I should just shut up.

Don't represent Christian belief this way!

How should I represent it?

Er...

For now, instead of using "Er...," I think I'll just keep using a summary of Christian faith that is actually endorsed by millions of Christians. When these other Christians who don't believe that a corpse rose from the dead can get their act together and tell me what they do believe, I will happily acknowledge their position, too.