I like Derb, but he has been an example of the half-informed on this matter for some time. By attempting to understand aspects of belief and nonbelief, he ends by understanding neither.
Derbyshire faults Spencer for putting so much time into refuting ideas popularly held by the educated classes in the West, wondering if it is all quite fair, and at all quite necessary. He then goes on to repeat many popularly-held ideas as way of explanation why people find Christian belief unnecessary. Derb, you provided excellent evidence that the ideas attacked are precisely the obstacles for you and others. Odd, that.
Mr. Derbyshire then puts forth the fantasy that an Islamic scholar could write an equivalent rebuttal. I guess no one has to bother to actually write it and supply the evidence, then, if the educated classes are going to assume it does or could exist anyway. Spencer should then not bother to do all this research and make a case with meticulous, even tedious detail, if even people of rigorous mathematical training are going to simply dismiss it as meaningless.
Sorry you found it tedious, Derb, and perhaps Spencer should be a more engaging writer. But you made his case for him, rather than the opposite.
