Ce site utilise des cookies pour fournir nos services, optimiser les performances, pour les analyses, et (si vous n'êtes pas connecté) pour les publicités. En utilisant Librarything, vous reconnaissez avoir lu et compris nos conditions générales d'utilisation et de services. Votre utilisation du site et de ses services vaut acceptation de ces conditions et termes.
Résultats trouvés sur Google Books
Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Frank Schaeffer has a problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and the rest of the New Atheists--the self-anointed "Brights." He also has a problem with the Rick Warrens and Tim LaHayes of the world. The problem is that he doesn't see much of a difference between the two camps. As Schaeffer puts it, they "often share the same fallacy: truth claims that reek of false certainties. I believe that there is an alternative that actually matches the way life is lived rather than how we usually talk about belief." Sparing no one and nothing, including himself and his fiery evangelical past, and invoking subtleties too easily ignored by the pontificators, Schaeffer adds much-needed nuance to the conversation. "My writing has smoked out so many individuals who seem to be thinking about the same questions. I hope that this book will provide a meeting place for us, the scattered refugees of what I'll call The Church of Hopeful Uncertainty."… (plus d'informations)
Presenting what he asserts to be a challenge to both atheists and fundamentalists, the author intertwines his personal philosophy of life with a smorgasbord of stories, putting forth what, in his opinion, might be realistic about a person’s faith in God.
The evangelical/fundamentalist/political-ranting infused throughout the narrative comes off as more of a diatribe than objective commentary and the undertone of anger permeating the text tends to dilute insights that may deserve greater contemplation.
Nevertheless, in the end, it’s difficult to argue with the author’s conclusion that the way people live . . . à la the Golden Rule . . . is what speaks to the best of humanity. ( )
You ever get the feeling that Fundamentalist Christians and the New Atheists are two sides of the same coin, both steeped in literalism and blind to any other point of view? That's the basic premise of this book where the author takes on both ends of the spectrum. Sometimes I feel like cheering on Schaeffer as he tears into his victims, but my more charitable side finds the book excessively snarky when Schaeffer critiques the Fundamentalists and the New Atheists. I think the premise is excellent but the book needs a more objective perspective to work. The better parts of the book are when Schaeffer talks about his own life (he grew up the son of a famed evangelist, left for a secular life, and returned to a more progressive religiosity in the Orthodox church) and the need to for transcendence and humility in human life. ( )
Frank Schaeffer has a problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and the rest of the New Atheists--the self-anointed "Brights." He also has a problem with the Rick Warrens and Tim LaHayes of the world. The problem is that he doesn't see much of a difference between the two camps. As Schaeffer puts it, they "often share the same fallacy: truth claims that reek of false certainties. I believe that there is an alternative that actually matches the way life is lived rather than how we usually talk about belief." Sparing no one and nothing, including himself and his fiery evangelical past, and invoking subtleties too easily ignored by the pontificators, Schaeffer adds much-needed nuance to the conversation. "My writing has smoked out so many individuals who seem to be thinking about the same questions. I hope that this book will provide a meeting place for us, the scattered refugees of what I'll call The Church of Hopeful Uncertainty."
▾Descriptions provenant de bibliothèques
Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque
▾Description selon les utilisateurs de LibraryThing
)
)
)
Google Books — Chargement...
2
The evangelical/fundamentalist/political-ranting infused throughout the narrative comes off as more of a diatribe than objective commentary and the undertone of anger permeating the text tends to dilute insights that may deserve greater contemplation.
Nevertheless, in the end, it’s difficult to argue with the author’s conclusion that the way people live . . . à la the Golden Rule . . . is what speaks to the best of humanity. (