Well this was quite annoying at times, I think he over writes, it could be much more to the point, also he is unnecessarily rude, in particular the names/labels he uses.
As to the arguments, less to fault him here, most of his arguments against "proofs" of God are fine, but familiar from Christian theologians. His arguments about how awful the church can be are also fine but again Wink, Wallis, Mclaren et al have been there before him.
Where I would take issue is with his selective rating of the bible (we all do this!) he talks about the awfulness of the "Old Testament God" but this is not news, he says Jesus is a little better (but can't resist adding "if he existed at all") but that ultimately the Old Testament and New Testament are exclusive, they are about the Jews only. He quotes some verses to back this up, but ignores? all the passages from the prophets that speak of caring for the alien and stranger, he misses Jesus on loving our neighbour and then defining the neighbour as "the other". He misses so much in the gospels that point to this message being for all people. It is annoying as if this is deliberate it undermines his argument and if it is a mistake then he really hasn't done his research.
His arguments about how natural selection could have caused the rise of religion, ie. mems etc. was, for me, not very convincing. Also his explanation for why we are good still leaves morality as some kind of accident of evolution (not that I have a better explanation).
Overall, not as annoying as I thought it would be.
No comments:
Post a Comment