Judy, I hoped you would weigh in on this topic. Thanks for the great quotes and links to the reviews. I will enjoy giving them some more thought to see where I fall on their comments and piece together my response. I have more to gain intellectually from the critiques than the books themselves! That is where the edges of my understanding lie.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > > > This topic interests me. It is a dilemma for non believers. > > The challenge of staying in rapport while being true to your > > own position, which is by definition, a negation of someone > > else's POV. Right now there are a few books out that aren't > > pulling any punches and some come off as pretty caustic to > > believers. I keep reading criticisms of these books that > > focus on their disrespectful tone and a claim that the > > authors are unfairly lumping together fundamentalists > > believers with people the reviewers consider more thoughtful, > > (themselves). Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as > > rudely dismissive of fundamentalist believers as the atheists. > > I don't see anyone spelling out what exactly their God belief > > includes in any detail. Just a lot of dodge ball, "That isn't > > my version, not that either, nope you aren't talking about > > mine". Andrew Sullivan was the master of this game in his > > debate with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into certain > > uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > > Then my God is puppies). > > Your parenthetical above, just for the record, > is exactly the sort of thing the reviewers are > complaining about, and with good reason. > > As Terry Eagleton says in his review of > Dawkins's book: > > "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only > knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, > and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to > read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying > rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to > a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand > Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to > understand what they castigate, since they don't > believe there is anything there to be understood, or at > least anything worth understanding. > > "This is why they invariably come up with vulgar > caricatures of religious faith that would make a > first-year theology student wince. The more they detest > religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it > tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on > phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they > would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously > as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any > shoddy old travesty will pass muster." > > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html > > Eagleton also gives a rather specific definition > of God, although I doubt it would be specific > enough to satisfy Curtis. > > Here's a comment from another review of Hitchens's > book: > > "As for straw-man argument, a single example suffices > to reveal Hitchens's petulant mediocrity in philosophy. > The notion of a creator, he observes, raises 'the > unanswerable question of who...created the creator'-- > an objection that theologians 'have consistently failed > to overcome.' > > "Really? Any decent freshman survey could have informed > Hitchens that, as Aquinas and many others have patiently > explained, God is not an entity and thus is not ensnared > in any serial account of causality. Not a thing himself, > God is rather the condition of there being anything at > all. > > "Thus, 'creation' is not a gargantuan act of handicraft > but rather the condition of there being something rather > than nothing. Creation didn't happen long ago; it's > right now, and forever. (This is why 'creationism' is > bad science--because it's bad theology.)" > > http://tinyurl.com/2ezkws > (from "Commonweal" magazine) > > Atheists tend to be exceedingly unsophisticated > metaphysically, so when a believer doesn't define > God in similarly unsophisticated terms, in the > kind of concrete detail that is the only approach > the atheists know how to deal with, the atheists > think the believer must be playing "dodgeball." >
