WCH

I've noticed of late that, far too much of the time, both theists and atheists tend to indulge in ad hominem attacks against the well known members of the other side. Simply searching for some of the more well-known apologists on infidels.org (such as Ravi Zacharias or Lee Strobel) produces many articles of secularists ripping into their material and making them look like idiots.

Here's what I'm wondering: who is there on "the other side" of a given argument that you, as an individual, respect as a legitimate scholar with some good things to say, even though you fundamentally disagree with his or her conclusions? This question applies to all cases, not just atheists respecting Christians.

Evoken

I like Friedrich Nietzsche, George Orwell and some Anton Lavey.

THX1138

Meister Eckhart
Martin Buber
Simone Weil
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Paul Tillich
Thomas Merton
Abraham Joshua Heschel

J

Mediancat

Raymond Smullyan -- a great logician, but while i disagree with his philosophy (a variant of Zen Buddhism, as near as I can tell) I have never encountered one who does a better job of making obscure philosophical concepts clear.

Rob aka Mediancat

Garnet

Rabbi David Wolper is the only one that comes to mind right now.

Stephen_BostonMA

I am an agnostic. However, I have great respect for Rev. Peter Gomes, a Baptist minister, Harvard professor, and author.

Toto

If a rebuttal to Lee Stobel analyses his arguments and show that they are false, this does not constitute an "ad hominem." An ad hominem would be someone who argued that Strobel was an idiot, therefore his arguments are wrong.

In fact, Strobel is not an idiot. He is promoting an intellectually unsound apologetic argument. I could speculate that this is because of his own personal experiences, which led him to the position that you have to believe in Christianity to have true psychological wellness, so any rationalization will do. But the arguments against his positions are based on those positions themselves, not any personal characteristic of Strobel.

You will notice that the authors mentioned as worth of respect are not apologists.

Yahzi

Francis Sheaffer. But he's dead now, and at the end of his life apparently he went over to the Dark side - dominionism and Pat Robertson and all that.

I read his "Trilogy" and found it to be quite sincere and moving. Unfortunately, the neuroscientists came along and wrecked it's main premise (that personality could not come from non-personal matter), but still, it was a good try.

Today the only respectable theists are atheists like Shelby Spong.

Ojuice5001

I'm kind of a two-for-one; Christians and atheists are both "the other side" for me, and to an equal degree. Christians I respect include Peter Kreeft, G.K. Chesterton, and Kierkegaard (sp?). Freethinkers I respect include Nietzsche and Einstein. Also, I am decidedly not a Cartesian, any more than a Christian or atheist, but Descartes is not only great, but transcendently great. (Note: I do not count him among the Christians.)

I actually read the other sides more than my own (paganism). There's more of it around, and pagan authors aren't always interested in the same religious emphases as I am. Besides, it's desirable see what the other side's thoughts are and whether I have any use for them.

Mageth

I have to disagree. For one, there's Karen Armstrong, who self-identifies as a "freestyle" (or was it "freelance?") monotheist.

Another theistic author I respect (though he is dead): Thomas Merton.