Excerpts from a paper:
On the whole, however, the Bible and Christianity are often dismissed without argument; indeed, they are dismissed without even the faintest knowledge of what the Bible contains or what Christianity preaches. I find that both atheists and those who call themselves spiritual dismiss the very idea of canon, the atheists on the grounds that nothing can be scripture, that is, nothing can come from God, and the spiritual on the grounds that anything claiming to be scripture is scripture. The atheist rejects revelation and the spiritual rejects reason (at least the law of non-contradiction), and both are therefore subject to an a priori position, an entrenchment nearly impossible to breach. In my experience of my generation, these two worldviews are predominant. . .
. . .They are, in a sense, two sides of the same coin, or two opposing extremes feeding off each other: They both deny any authority to scripture, the one by absolute rejection and the other by wholesale acceptance of anything claiming to be a spiritual truth. I have found no successful tactic against either position. Personally, however, I do not find either one very convincing. The first often dismisses the Bible merely because of what it is, assumes from the outset that God and the miraculous are impossibilities. This is a terrible way to reason, for anything which could disprove said position is automatically dismissed; it is circular reasoning. The weakness of this position, however, does not seem to concern my friends who hold it. I have asked, at times, on what grounds this position could be either proved or disproved, and have found no satisfying answer. The other position makes no pretense of reason, however, and with a sort of moon-logic, maintains that all claims to truth are true. Neither side can be reasoned with for neither extreme is reasonable.