Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups

by Rupert Shortt

‘A great read. Rupert Shortt demolishes Richard Dawkins’s arguments with consummate elegance.’
Julia Neuberger

‘A bracing demonstration that a Christian can myth-bust an atheist quite as effectively as vice versa.’
Tom Holland

In his latest book Outgrowing God, Richard Dawkins tries to show that all religious belief is intellectually nonsensical and thus highly damaging in practice. But does he even understand what he rejects? In this incisive rebuttal, Rupert Shortt exposes the main flaws in Dawkins’s arguments – his weakness for crude caricatures, selective way with evidence, ignorance of philosophy and history as well as theology, and even his questionable interpretations of science. At the same time Outgrowing Dawkins demonstrates the coherence of a mature, self-critical faith and its contribution to human progress.

Genres: Religion, Christianity

120 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 21, 2019

Reviews

[Andrew Galley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bias upfront! I have read Dawkins' books about Atheism and liked them both. They are flawed books, but a I broadly agree with them as an Atheist. On the question of why I read books that challenge my atheism, I want to understand another position than my own. Also, I want to have a belief in something. My current world-view is that nothing happens when we die other than our brains stop functioning. I want to believe in something better than that, but I'm not content to be ignorant.

Also, my review of this book is based entirely on this author's specific claims: it's not a condemnation of his Christianity. Unlike this author, I am capable of separating a series of claims from the faith of their author.

So this book. In short, it's a disgrace and a complete embarrassment. The very things it accuses Dawkins of (intellectual ignorance, strawman attack, surface-level views of deep topics portrayed as expert knowledge) it falls guilty of. Worse than that... it clearly exists only to make money off of a more successful book by acting as a retort. The fact that this book is less than 100 pages of content should speak to the money-grabbing nature of the author. It's not as directly antagonistic as something like "Christopher Hitchens is not great", but it's only because the author doesn't have the conviction to actually tackle anything directly.

For example, it pushes the claim that Dawkins believes that religion inherently causes violence between people without actually citing anything he has said. He does this whilst acknowledging that Muslims and Jihadist Extremists do not inherently believe the same thing. Please note that in saying this he also in the same paragraph talks about how Muslims acknowledge some of the Christian truths. Dawkins has never said that all war and violence is caused by religion and Shortt's claim that he does is just an example of Shortt's refusal to actually engage with Dawkins' claims, opting for a strawman instead.

It also sets out to disprove Dawkins' belief that religious people stand in defiance of science. The problem? Dawkins hasn't said this. As someone who has actually read Dawkins I can tell you that his actual position is not that religious people can't be scientific: he only has a problem when someone religious rejects scientific facts on the grounds that it inconveniently conflicts with a religious narrative. He clearly wants people to investigate for themselves and not limit themselves to a fallacy of ignorance. Check out his debate with the convicted sex offender George Pell (remind me what religion he had) and Dawkins clearly acknowledges the theistic history of Charles Darwin. It's not that Shortt is uncharitable in understanding Dawkins' position... it's that he is happy to misrepresent it completely.

It's funny cause Shortt tries to "gotcha" Dawkins repeatedly. He cites an opinion of Dawkins form 2002 and says "is he even consistent with himself". Aside from misrepresenting Dawkins' in saying that he has backtracked his notion of the 'Selfish' gene, it's interesting that Shortt feels its a bad thing to change you mind years later. Shortt, please understand that unlike people like you who by your own admission live by the code of a doctrine you're forced to accept is eternally true, rationally minded people will change their mind when the evidence changes. If your gotcha was actually factual, it would be complimentary to Dawkins.

But whilst we're on the subject of changing minds, care to explain your God's morality? You say that God teaches more than just the Ten Commandments in rebutting Dawkins' apparent claim that you don't need the Ten Commandments to be moral (unfair representation of Dawkins to be clear), explain the problematic parts of the Bible. The clearly endorsed and sanctioned misogyny and undeniable instructions he gives for slavery present by your God are just as valid as the moral things you want to look at. These are things that Dawkins specifically quotes in Outgrowing God. Isn't it interesting that you don't choose to rebut this and instead look to strawman his arguments?

Very early in the book the author cites part of a conversation between Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris where they are acknowledging the difficulty of trying to tell a theist that they are wrong: you are potentially insulting one of the most defining features of their life. Instead of acknowledging this difficulty in approaching people to take a world view where a gentle hand would be necessary, the author just moves on to another point. What he might not realise is that the section he quotes demonstrates a level of compassion among the Four Horseman of Atheism.

Rupert Shortt's other books might be worth a read, but I frankly won't be giving them the time of day. Much like Lee Strobel's garbage that I read earlier this year, any author capable of writing and selling something that is so intellectually dishonest and insulting to people they don't understand will not be getting any money from my curiosity. Congratulations Rupert Shortt, you've lost the money and attention of someone who might have otherwise read your stuff based entirely on your dishonesty.

[Adam Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short (100 page) rebuttal to the brash, atheistic fundamentalism of Dawkins. The author does a better job of extolling a sensible theism than he does of coming up with any arguments which would really wrong foot Dawkins or the dwindling army of New Atheist true believers. I've read Shortt's other book God Is No Thing: Coherent Christianity which I greatly preferred. This book is best used as a signpost toward other thinkers and writers on religion and science and other elements of theology. 6/10

[John Garlington · Rating 5 out of 5]

A positive counterblast

A positive counterblast to Dawkins' empirical approach to knocking down religion through disproving symbolism and faith through a misunderstood notion of www hat belief really is. As a cradle Catholic with, what I think is an evolving faith, I am fed up of professional atheists telling me what to believe. This book does what they should do - base thought on Scripture. Comforting? Yes. Challenging? Certainly. Worth recommending? Definitely.

[Mina Herz]

I remember reading this, thinking it was good, but then I left the book at my parent’s house who put in a basement that flooded. So, I can’t remember. Seems a strangely low rating - although, ratings on this site are about as valuable as a Reichsmark in Weimar Germany.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit of a disappointment--not much more than a few, not-thoroughly-copy-edited, essays. Some good moments but not enough to justify a book.