EricRC is Ph.D. student majoring in philosophy, and I take it a Roman Catholic (hence RC). He's one of the most intelligent and respectful commenters to hang out in these halls, that is, unless he perceives utter ignorance or is personally attacked, which sounds just like me. As a Christian intellectual he recommends my work on this blog:
...thank you, John, for putting such interesting issues out there in an intelligent way, for not being afraid to make bold claims and to defend them when they're criticized, and for treating those who disagree respectfully with you with respect. This sort of thing is not too common on the internet, in case you haven't noticed! ;) That's why, I think, your blog is so popular, both among theists and non-theists alike. Link.In another place when dealing with Jerry Coyne's criticisms of Plantinga's epistemology EricRC said:
What is more manly: taking on someone who talks tough, but who evinces in every other way that he hasn't a clue, or taking on someone who's studied with the best in his field, and who's regularly recommended by the best? Hint: Coyne is in the former category, while John is in the latter. I've been having these conversations with John for a few years now, you see. I'd say that takes a lot more balls than engaging Coyne on a topic he evidently knows nothing about. Link.On the opposite side is Mtullyc, a gnu atheist:
I don't believe that many (and in fact probably very few) in the scientific/historical skeptical community understand the importance of what you do. I was a prime example of this. When I first came across DC, I thought, "Yeah, the fact that he is an ex-apologist is novel, but why does he keeping philosophizing about things that he himself has already empirically falsified. C'mon John, move on and get with the really fascinating stuff going on."This is the exactly place where I want to be.
Then I started reading more than just your posts: I started reading the comments. It was then I realized why you were philosophizing. There was no way myself, nor any hard-core empiricist, could convince a believer that their world-view lacked coherence based on external evidence until someone first showed them that it was internally incoherent. And, showing convincing internal incoherence, is something only a formerly committed insider can do.
So, why aren't atheists like Hemant and PZ recommending your work. Well, it wouldn't appeal to their core audience...However, when you go beyond just reading their posts and get to the comments sections of their blogs (see especially the "Ask Richard" posts on FA), you see us history/science types fall all over ourselves in trying to figure out how to talk to "true believers."
That is why your work should be important to gnus like PZ and RD...I also think part of the problem is your prominence as an author just happen to coincide the "[not so] great exclusionist/accommodationist debate." If you run into problems with that, just give me a call. My hardcore gnu credentials are fully established and current, and I'll firmly testify that you're no accommodationist. Link.