1 thought on “God Is No Thing by Rupert Shortt review – an excellent response to New Atheism – Guardian”
On Saturday March 12 the Faith article in The Times was by Rupert Shortt, in which he alluded to the book reviewed here by Rowan Williams. I thought then that I should get a copy and after reading this review I definitely should get one: in order to discover what he really means by what Lord Williams terms ‘mildly liberal attitude to the Bible that he takes for granted – though he is completely and importantly right to insist that modern fundamentalism is exactly that, a modern outgrowth that ignores the bulk of what Christians have actually said and thought about the Bible for two millennia’. It is, for me, frustratingly and sadly ironic, though it is par for the course, that Lord Williams, after castigating the imprecision and sloppy thinking of atheists, should use the highly charged term ‘modern fundamentalism’ without defining what he means and without giving examples from ‘what Christians have actually said and thought about the Bible for two millennia’. It will be interesting to see whether Rupert Shortt improves on this. For the only alternative to a wholly trustworthy Bible is a Bible that is not wholly trustworthy. And even a ‘mild liberal’ has, in all honesty, to give examples of where he judges that the Bible is not wholly trustworthy.
On Saturday March 12 the Faith article in The Times was by Rupert Shortt, in which he alluded to the book reviewed here by Rowan Williams. I thought then that I should get a copy and after reading this review I definitely should get one: in order to discover what he really means by what Lord Williams terms ‘mildly liberal attitude to the Bible that he takes for granted – though he is completely and importantly right to insist that modern fundamentalism is exactly that, a modern outgrowth that ignores the bulk of what Christians have actually said and thought about the Bible for two millennia’. It is, for me, frustratingly and sadly ironic, though it is par for the course, that Lord Williams, after castigating the imprecision and sloppy thinking of atheists, should use the highly charged term ‘modern fundamentalism’ without defining what he means and without giving examples from ‘what Christians have actually said and thought about the Bible for two millennia’. It will be interesting to see whether Rupert Shortt improves on this. For the only alternative to a wholly trustworthy Bible is a Bible that is not wholly trustworthy. And even a ‘mild liberal’ has, in all honesty, to give examples of where he judges that the Bible is not wholly trustworthy.
Phil Almond