It is useful to distinguish, as the debate between atheists and theists only rarely does, between atheism and anti-religion-ism. One of the defects of the “New Atheism” is that it tends to conflate the two and encourages us to do the same.
There are a few theists who believe that all religions are historically, sociologically, and politically terrible. There are some atheists who are indifferent to the existence of religions, and even some think there are some good religions. Left leaning atheists often have a soft spot for the Quakers, the social gospel Protestants, the liberation theology movement, and the current Pope. Right wing atheists might have a similar fondness for the Puritans (the Bradford free enterprise strain, not the communalists) and the preachers of the Gospel of Prosperity.
(There is some irony in the fact that a U.S. politician named after an outspoken atheist has managed to cobble together that atheist’s free market (or more accurately pro-rich-people) economics with social policies dictated by “the word of God.”)
I, myself, think the existence of God very unlikely, (See
http://www.LawrenceCrocker.blgspot.com, post 9/11/14) I do, however, believe that the world is a better place because of the Quakers, among others. I also find the occasional Methodist or Anglican or Unitarian service a good way to exercise my hope that there might, despite the evidence, be a powerful God who is concerned about us. (For this more generally see
http://www.LawrenceCrocker.blgspot.com, post 5/5/15.)
To return to the specifics of this thread , to get to the most plausible theory on the question of the existence of the theists’ God, I would think we wouldn’t spend much time with the average atheist or most atheists any more than we would with the average Muslim, Moravian, or Methodist.
Better for the atheist to read Anselm, Aquinas, Plantinga, and Alston.
Reading the scriptures, insofar as it bears on the existence of God, as distinguished from the merits of the specific religion, would be relevant primarily in one of three ways. The narrative of the scripture might just seem so objectively plausible as to convert the atheist or, more frequently reported, it might “speak to her heart.” The third alternative requires some fairly sophisticated historiography as the atheist confronts the argument that, e.g. the resurrection of Jesus must have happened because there is so much purportedly independent sightings of a living Jesus after his crucifixion.
Although there are some reported exceptions, none of these approaches to scripture seems to have a high success rate with sophisticated atheists. (It is also worth noting that a few atheists have read scripture in the original. This was more common when an educated person was expected to know Greek and Latin, and, optionally, Hebrew. There is, however, at least one notable contemporary, Bart Ehrman, whose reading of the Bible in the original, and in the very earliest texts, seems to have had a negative effect on his antecedent theism.)
Whom should the theist read if he wants seriously to come to grips with atheism? Atheism does not have its Aquinas figure, as is probably inevitable for a negative thesis. Best to read the scholarly criticisms of the better theistic arguments, i.e. the responses to Anselm (starting with Guanilo but maybe including something published last week), and the responses to Aquinas, Plantinga, and Alston.
Not as good an approach, but still not bad, is for the theist to come to terms with the arguments of Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, the most philosophically sophisticated of the “New Atheists.” Better yet would be to read, Mackie, or Sinnott-Armstrong.
