Applying my tactic of deconstructing systems in order to sift for the truth, I cannot reject Christianity outright, I think. It is not all bad, and has not produced uniform evil.

It would be easy to divide Christianity into the miraculous and moral, to try to separate the non-earthly elements from the earthly elements. (I think of Thomas Jefferson’s version of the gospels.) No, I think you must deconstruct the morality of Christianity. There is some good in it and some bad in it. I don’t think atheists can properly communicate with (and perhaps convert?) Christians until we stop harping only on the spiritual aspects of religion. We must engage with them and show how not only their myths are wrong, but that their moral system is inadequate.

I bring this up because a prime trait of the so-called New Atheists is deploying the tactic of ridicule. It’s a good tactic, and appropriate at times, but it will not win the debate. That being said, none of what I have said is particularly new. I’ve heard excellent defenses of the morality of secularism versus the prize-in-heaven religious morality. However, we must be even more specific. What specifically can we preserve from Christianity?

So those are my initial thoughts, and I think it would be a good exercise to go through the parables, and see what’s worth saving.