ChatterBank1 min ago
Gunning for God
75 Answers
I’m currently reading ‘Gunning for God’, by John C Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. It started quite promisingly, I thought, but quickly descended into the usual assault on the works of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, et al. I’m about a third of the way through it now, and although the author is vigorous in his condemnation of atheism (often irrationally so), he has yet to explain his reasons for defending religion – and frankly, with works of this genre, this complete failure to address the fundamental issues is becoming rather tedious. I’m hoping the next two thirds will offer something a little more interesting, but in the meantime can anyone recommend a book that doesn’t depend upon atheist-bashing and that actually offers a good case for religion? And if anyone suggests the Bible, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon – wotchit! ;o)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Errr. No.
Suggest seriously that you write to Tom Wright, ex Bish of Durham and has become No1 Prof of Theology at St Andrews and ask him - and I bet he responds.
(I was at school with him) - he has been one of the more inspirational CofE leaders even if you disagree with h.is position, he merits consideration and balance... He ought to be in contention for the Archbish as he offers one of the best conservative theological brains in the Church - and retired from Durham because of his theological differences with Rowan W. They could do a swap of jobs perhaps as he could provide a unifying leadership to a disjointed CoE and its minions.
Suggest seriously that you write to Tom Wright, ex Bish of Durham and has become No1 Prof of Theology at St Andrews and ask him - and I bet he responds.
(I was at school with him) - he has been one of the more inspirational CofE leaders even if you disagree with h.is position, he merits consideration and balance... He ought to be in contention for the Archbish as he offers one of the best conservative theological brains in the Church - and retired from Durham because of his theological differences with Rowan W. They could do a swap of jobs perhaps as he could provide a unifying leadership to a disjointed CoE and its minions.
[email protected] will put you in contact, naomi.
-- answer removed --
Why don't you write a book naomi ?
I am a devout atheist and find that what has been done in the name of religion to people (historically and presently) beyond any description that I am able to articulate.
But just because this is what I believe doesn't necessarily make it correct. I still try to accept that most people use whichever religion to help them with their life and even to enrich the lives of others.
I am a devout atheist and find that what has been done in the name of religion to people (historically and presently) beyond any description that I am able to articulate.
But just because this is what I believe doesn't necessarily make it correct. I still try to accept that most people use whichever religion to help them with their life and even to enrich the lives of others.
-- answer removed --
Yes, birdie. Quite agree. Atheists who started as believers have an advantage, of course. Inevitably they are familar with belief in God, may well have been taught the arguments, or some, for acceptance, or have been taught unquestioningly that God exists ,and have decided that they reject that proposition, which may have been taking quite a step.
Theists who remain so have not suffered that process in reverse. Nobody told them in their childhood that there was no God and the arguments for that. They have never been called upon to put an argument against their belief. The rest of us, atheists, are well versed in that, for we had to persuade ourselves that what we were taught and believed was false.
(Night owls, aren't we? Er..are we allowed to mention owls on AB?)
Theists who remain so have not suffered that process in reverse. Nobody told them in their childhood that there was no God and the arguments for that. They have never been called upon to put an argument against their belief. The rest of us, atheists, are well versed in that, for we had to persuade ourselves that what we were taught and believed was false.
(Night owls, aren't we? Er..are we allowed to mention owls on AB?)
Birdie & Fred, my subject is religious history – hence my interest, hence the mound and variety of reading material that surrounds me, and hence my transition from theist to atheist. It appears few theists read anything that may contradict their beliefs, and I would say that only two here – both Christians - are adept at theological argument. Most, it seems, know very little about their religion and simply believe what other people, who know no more than they do, have taught them. They rarely investigate further.
wolf63, //But just because this is what I believe doesn't necessarily make it correct.//
So where do you draw the line? Even the ‘gentlest’ versions of the Abrahamic religions teach the young to fear retribution for their misdemeanours from an unknown, unseen, unproven magical entity. People would be horrified at the idea of teaching a child that the bogeyman will get them if they’re naughty – they would consider it cruel and mentally abusive and damaging - and yet they have no reservations – in fact they deem it their duty – to fill young and impressionable minds with thoughts of the vengeful bogeyman in the sky – and their apologists support them in that. Is that correct? Not in my opinion.
wolf63, //But just because this is what I believe doesn't necessarily make it correct.//
So where do you draw the line? Even the ‘gentlest’ versions of the Abrahamic religions teach the young to fear retribution for their misdemeanours from an unknown, unseen, unproven magical entity. People would be horrified at the idea of teaching a child that the bogeyman will get them if they’re naughty – they would consider it cruel and mentally abusive and damaging - and yet they have no reservations – in fact they deem it their duty – to fill young and impressionable minds with thoughts of the vengeful bogeyman in the sky – and their apologists support them in that. Is that correct? Not in my opinion.
Naomi - to digress from the religious context - when I was little my parents certainly did teach me that if I was naughty there would be retribution. Either it would be a policeman or some other figure of authority which would come after me. Times have changed - today's youngsters wouldn't be so gullible!
The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong.
http://www.guardian.c...e-god-alain-de-botton
http://www.guardian.c...e-god-alain-de-botton
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.