An obvious casuality, if the 'new atheists' are right, is the meaningfulness of the life-work of theologians such as Haught, and it is only to be expected that they would try to defend this meaning tenaciously with such resources as are at their disposal. Alas, despite an Amazon review claim that Haught does this "without the vitriol that has characterized Hitchens et al," precisely the opposite is the case. There is scarelyscarcely a page in God and the New Atheism that neglects to take swipes (backhanded and fronthanded, both) at the supposed reading deficiencies, frivolity of purpose and general lack of "depth" of Haught's "hard-core" opponents. "Unworthy of comment" is a typically dismissive phrase; nevertheless, no opportunity to comment dismissively is forgone. Apart from the glimpse it provides into the psychology of an apparently threatened theologian, there is little to be gained from reading this particular work. Certainly, the promised logical analysis is disappointly absent. To borrow a stylistic turn of phrase similar to those in the author's own arsenal, there's no evidence that Haught has ever opened a book of logic in his life or would know Modus Ponens from Modus Tollens. As a critic he is clearly out of his epistemological depth here and badly overmatched by the writers whose arguments he hopes to undermine. No doubt there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, but this defiant statement of faith does not provide them. (It does not help that the defiance is so belittling and obnoxious.) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/192.30.202.15|192.30.202.15]] ([[User talk:192.30.202.15|talk]]) 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
