Gunning for God

[naomi24]

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)

[RATTER15]

Very true Naomi!

[RATTER15]

I so wish I had the time and the ability to read so comprehensively :(

[naomi24]

Ratter, I've not read it all in a very short time - it's been over the course of many years. Keep going! ;o)

[boxtops]

There are stacks of books on the shelf in my bedroom, just waiting for their turn to be read...

[RATTER15]

Ive actually read about 5 books in my 54 years. My Dyslexia makes reading books a nightmare, I have to read each paragraph over and over before it makes any sense, you give up the will to live after a few pages.

[boxtops]

Ratter, have you thought about audio books? So many are available as downloads now, someone's reading them to you so you don't have to try to absorb the page yourself?

[naomi24]

How about YouTube?

[keyplus90]

There is no book that would satisfy you unless it says what you want to hear. Because you know what you will or will not accept as "rational" and more importantly you are stuck there. So you better stick to God Delusion and others of same kind. Because your criteria of accepting or rejecting a book (or what it says) depends upon who is the author and this posts of yours tells that too.

[beso]

^^ That is rubbish keyplus.

How much of "the other side" have you read? You are theone who cannot possibly consider any point of view other than your cherished doctrine.

[jomifl]

Keyplus, not everybody thinks like you, some are genuinely interested in alternative views of the universe in which we live and are open minded enough to modify their views. Most atheists were once believers but had the intellectual ability to think for themselves and abandoned belief as a dead end. You haven't managed to surmount that mental obstacle so have little comprehension of how others think.

[RATTER15]

Naomi and boxtops, I actually use youtube a lot for information, ive never actually looked into audio books, certainly an avenue worth looking into.
Thank you.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Karen Armstrong? Oh dear! The woman has no critical faculty whatsoever. I'm persevering with her biography of Mohammed, but her gullibility and determination to sanitize every part of his life is a constant irritant.
Clanad's recommendation is a good one, Naomi. (I see you've got bored with Mills and Boon already.). Ross is an old earth creationist, a real scientist (physics) and, as far as I can infer from seeing him on Youtube, an honest man.

[naomi24]

VE, no, she isn’t the best critic is she – but you were forewarned. I’ve finished her deliberations on the life of Mohammed – and I think I said when I was half way through it that I found the sycophantic rosiness of much of it quite sickening – but with Karen Armstrong that happens - and I can’t say anything changed with further reading.

Clanad’s recommendation is now on my kindle – as is Ludwig’s. Thanks chaps.

Keyplus, I’m not looking for a book to satisfy me. I learn something new with each one I read. I recommend you try it.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Naomi. it may not require a high degree of imagination and intelligence to see that books can be enjoyed because they're interesting, or instructive, or challenging, or amusing or anything else, and that agreeing with all (or anything) the author says is often irrelevant. However, it does take some degree of each faculty. A mind trapped in the 7th century isn't capable of rising to the modest challenge you're setting it.

[birdie1971]

Keyplus - “... There is no book that would satisfy you unless it says what you want to hear. Because you know what you will or will not accept as "rational" and more importantly you are stuck there...”


Ha ha!

This coming a man who believes in that the Koran is the ultimate book of knowledge and that every scientific discovery ever made was first revealed in it. Of all the religious people that I've debated with in all these years, you are the most blinkered and narrow-minded person I have ever had the displeasure to converse with.

I've said this before about you Keyplus. You transfer your own prejudices and intolerance onto those you disapprove of. You assume that everyone thinks the same way you do – you are intransigent, inflexible and dogmatic – and you assume that everyone else shares your traits.

Newsflash Keyplus – some people are capable and willing to learn and to alter their views based on empirical and logical evidence.

[naomi24]

//This coming a man who believes in that the Koran is the ultimate book of knowledge and that every scientific discovery ever made was first revealed in it.//

And, moreover, a man who believes his book contains every scientific discovery YET to be detected. If only Keyplus could find them and reveal THOSE to the world he’d make a fortune!

[keyplus90]

Seems to me that unknowingly I have put my hand where it hurts. Not only one person but many seem to have been disturbed. People who will deny known authorities (scientists in this case) if they say anything they do not agree with are talking about what and what not is right.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, //Seems to me that unknowingly I have put my hand where it hurts.//

It also seems to you that a few western scientists genuinely believe the science of the Koran to be accurate - and you're wrong there too. Note: they still have their heads. ;o)

[ladybirder]

Naomi I don't know if you ever watch The Big Questions on BBC1 on Sunday mornings at 10am. Today it was entitled "Is Religion Good for Children" so I watched it and very quickly had steam coming out of my ears.

Sorry, I'm getting carried away. The point of this post was to mention a book written by a member of the audience Dr Stephen Law called "The War for Children's Minds. Sounds interesting.

http://stephenlaw.blo...ildrens-minds_30.html

[jomifl]

Keyplus, following on from Naomi's last post, a little challenge for you. As you claim that every scientific discovery ever made is mentioned in the koran it follows fairly reasonably that unless we are at a crucial point in time, then more scientific discoveries will be made that are already mentioned in the Koran. Your challenge is to tell us what they are, can you do that? Just one will do if your knowledge of the Koran isn't up to more.