FREE READ Ù Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups

SUMMARY Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups

FREE READ Ù Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups Ï [KINDLE] ✽ Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups ❁ Rupert Shortt – Danpashley.co.uk A great read Rupert Shortt demolishes Richard Dawkinss arguments with consummate eleganceJulia NeubergerA bracing demonstration that a Christian can myth bust an atheist uite asLective way with evidence ignorance of philosophy and history as well as theology and even his uestionable interpretations of science At the same time Outgrowing Dawkins demonstrates the coherence of a mature self critical faith and Dawkins God for MOBI #9734 its contribution to human progre. Rupert Shortt is remarkable He has the knowledge of a well trained theologian a profound understanding of science and the writing skills of an experienced journalist His writing is extraordinary In a very few pages he knows how to summarize the arguments demolish his opponent and make some gently humorous comments about Dawkins He is a kind writer neither savage nor intemperate and that makes his relentless pursuit of his adversary all the compelling This is a very significant book a book that is able to be read in a few hours I read it on a train journey which yet contains profound insight There is nothing to be said by Dawkins after this I would retreat into a dark cave if I were him after this riposte Sadly he probably will not even read it That is the temper of our times I hope this book sells very widely

Rupert Shortt á 8 FREE READ

How that all religious belief is intellectually nonsensical and thus highly damaging in practice But does he even Outgrowing Dawkins ePUB #224 understand what he rejects In this incisive rebuttal Rupert Shortt exposes the main flaws in Dawkinss arguments his weakness for crude caricatures se. Thank God for Rupert Shortt His clarity penetrates depths His concision cuts through cant His fairness exposes arrogance and narrow mindedness So says Felipe Fernandez Armesto A clearly written and fair minded demolition of Dawkins s shallow thinking on religious belief crows Keith Fox Have I been reading the same book as these distinguished gentlemen At least there are two points on which we can agree First this book is mercifully Shortt thank God And second Dawkins is no theologian He is however a super educated evolutionary biologist rather than the childish atheist that critics like David Bentley Hart a former Templeton Fellow surprise surprise make him out to be Let s give Dawkins some credit he may not be a professional theologian but he is highly intelligent Why do his second rate critics think they have the drop on him because he laces his writing with intentionally provocative statements Have they never heard of rhetorical effect There is little in Shortt s book that we have not heard many times before Precisely the same arguments were levelled at Dawkins best selling The God Delusion as are now being aimed at his Outgrowing God First comes the hackneyed Ho ho does Dawkins really think that Christians believe that God is a kind of Superman dwelling above the clouds approach the implication being that of course religious believers are on the whole far too sophisticated for that But in my experience Dawkins s God is precisely the kind in which the majority of unlettered Christians as well as adherents of other faiths do believe They pray for miracles They imagine that God answers their prayers without ever troubling to explain how it all works They have visions and other religious experiences all of which convince them that God is there They believe that faith is a virtue and that reason is an affront to faith Naturally Shortt is careful to distance himself from the fundamentalist elements in the camp After all he is the religious editor of the Times Literary Supplement and Research Associate at Cambridge University It would not do to rub shoulders with the evangelical hoi polloi The logic seems to be as follows i I am a clever man ii clever men do not become fundamentalists iii Dawkins is as fundamentalist as any religious believer conclusion the only sensible option is to believe that God exists in a sophisticated kind of wayThis leads us directly to the second major problem with Shortt s approach just what sort of person is this God of theology supposed to be and what is he supposed to do exactly In what sense is he responsible for the universe Ah well affirms Shortt sagely we must not make the blunder of assuming that God is part of the universe and lives within his own creation No no God is the ground of all being p 8 What does this show only that Shortt can uote something that Paul Tillich was fond of saying over seventy years ago and that hundreds of others have uoted before him and which the Bishop of Woolwich popularised in his Honest to God back in 1963 Here the bluster and dogmatic cant of which Dawkins s critics in general speak is much in evidence After all Shortt s God is supposedly not a Being but Being itself Tillich again of which one cannot speak but only experience He apparently sustains the universe in being from moment to moment yet another theological commonplace and without him there would be nothing But there is not a word to explain how all this might possibly be the case We are simply expected to take it on trust Shortt has spoken now we must believe The obvious problem with all this as Bertrand Russell noticed some 75 years ago is that the uestion of how this God managed it all is entirely evaded If we aver that God caused the universe and that he is the instigator of all causes and effects it is surely legitimate to ask who or what caused God Ah no retorts the believer without a word of justification God is uniue he caused all things without himself being caused The idea that the universe came into being without divine assistance however is not these days uite as far fetched as it once was and the fact that science cannot presently supply all the answers does not imply that it will not ultimately do so Shortt s God for grown ups a facetious dig at Dawkins s childishness no doubt seems no intelligible than the old man in the skyAnother problem with Shortt s critiue is that it focuses entirely on Dawkins s soft underbelly In other words it attacks his abrasive rhetoric and assumes that his swingeing unsubstantiated statements are indicative of his utter ignorance of matters religious and theological For reasons best known to themselves of which we would do well to be suspicious his critics in general evade the issues of substance which Dawkins in his usual colourful manner holds up to view often to the embarrassment of the believer Sure Dawkins shies at a few Aunt Sallies and picks some easy targets like the so called American Taliban rabid Christian fundamentalists of the kind that voted Donald Trump into power But is he wrong when he claims that religious belief is capable of doing great damage irrespective of the good it can do Of course not Is the pitiless indifference we find all around us really indicative of an omnipotent God of love Of course it isn t We should remember that the so called inconsistent triad God omnipotence omnibenevolence natural evil was created by the believer s insistence that God is love 1 John 4 8 Must we believe in order to be moral There are plenty of good atheists and agnostics What makes them behave altruistically If Dawkins s critics applied themselves to the real issues instead of berating his rhetoric or his childishness or his ignorance about religious affairs as if they themselves were superior in such matters they would be doing us all a service

READ & DOWNLOAD ✓ eBook, ePUB or Kindle PDF á Rupert Shortt

Outgrowing Dawkins God for Grown UpsGod for PDF #8608 A great read Rupert Shortt demolishes Richard Dawkinss arguments with consummate eleganceJulia NeubergerA bracing demonstration that a Christian can myth bust an atheist uite as effectively as vice versaTom HollandIn his latest book Outgrowing God Richard Dawkins tries to s. I waited with genuine interest for the release of this book after being presented it as a recommendation on presumably following having read the Dawkins book that it is meant to be countering It s a very short book I read it in a few hours The presented arguments are pretty feeble Not so much outgrowing Dawkins as a presentation of the God of the gaps I didn t find any compelling arguments for religion and came away uite disappointed in its contents I was hoping to be swept away in the counter argument