Amicus Dei

A friend of God for the life of the world.

To the author of Irreligion: An offer

with 3 comments

After an off-hand reference I made to Irreligion, by John Allen Paulos, in my post God Bashing, I received a comment on that post by Dr. Paulos himself, which I am posting here: 

I think you might gain a more nuanced perspective on my book,
Irreligion, were you to read the first chapter (only 3 pages), which is
available on my site (URL above) or through the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/chapters/1st-chapter-irreligion.html?ref=books&pagewanted=all

Thanks. John Allen Paulos

I really like that Dr. Paulos tackles criticism head-on.   And, I did read the first chapter, which I found very interesting.  We certainly do not agree on the issue of faith, but that’s okay.  Although I only mentioned the book and its NY Times review in passing, I do want to be fair.  I have offered to read the book in its entirety, then post a fair-minded review.  Don’t know if the publisher will provide me a review copy or not, but we’ll see.  But, I do like this guy’s style — both in tackling criticism, and his actual writing style, so I am hoping the publisher will cooperate.  I’ll keep you posted.  — Amicus Dei

Written by Chuck Warnock

February 2, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Posted in Culture, Missional Life

Tagged with , , , ,

«
»

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hi Chuck Warnock,
    Thanks for your kind response. I certainly can’t ask for more than that. I’ll have Farrar Straus send you a copy.
    Best, John Allen Paulos

    math233

    February 3, 2008 at 7:22 am

  2. I read the first few pages and actually am interested in reading the book, and your review. I thought that Paulos was fair and stayed away from ad hominen attacks, which I frequently come across in people I think of as “Atheist Missionaries.” I think that most of these folks have been burned by Christianity at some point, and thus espouse Atheism/Agnosticism out of vengeance. The words that compose their arguments are entangled in spite and I hate. The fact that Dr. Paulos gives believes the benefit of the doubt (they can be smart, they can do good) and that he makes it clear that he never held to any religion and that he says the point of the book is just to explain why he has chosen not to believe. I think he may have some side agenda (he mentions polital/religious entanglement), but I will only be able to tell from the book, which hopefully I get around to reading.

    nate

    February 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm

  3. That’s kind of funny though. Welcome to the new world. Guy posts an off-hand comment and the author finds it. ;-)

    real live preacher

    February 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.