Product Description

World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." The volume has received wide coverage, fueled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion.

Alister McGrath, along with his wife Joanna, are ideal to evaluate Dawkins's ideas. Once an atheist himself, he gained a doctorate in molecular biophysics before going on to become a leading Christian theologian. He wonders how two people, who have reflected at length on substantially the same world, could possibly have come to such different conclusions about God. McGrath subjects Dawkins's critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny. His exhilarating, meticulously argued response deals with questions such as

Is faith intellectual nonsense? Are science and religion locked in a battle to the death? Can the roots of Christianity be explained away scientifically? Is Christianity simply a force for evil?

This book will be warmly received by those looking for a reliable assessment of The God Delusion and the many questions it raises--including, above all, the relevance of faith and the quest for meaning.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #35023 in Books
• Published on: 2007-06-08
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 118 pages

From Publishers Weekly
When authors write books that criticize other books, they have usually already lost; the original book has set the agenda to which the critics respond, and the outcome is foretold. Not in this case. The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism, made famous in The God Delusion, and run him from the battlefield. The book works partly because they are so much more gracious to Dawkins than Dawkins is to believers: Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker remains the finest critique of William Paley's naturalistic arguments for deism available, for example. The authors can even point to instances in which their interactions with him, both literary and personal, have changed his manner of arguing: he can no longer say that Tertullian praised Christian belief because of its absurdity or that religion necessarily makes one violent. The McGraths are frustrated, then, that Dawkins continues to write on the a priori, nonscientific assumption that religious believers are either deluded or meretricious, never pausing to consider the evidence not in his favor or the complex beliefs and practices of actual Christians. They conclude disquietingly: perhaps Dawkins is aware that demagogic ranting that displays confidence in the face of counterevidence is the way to sway unlearned masses. (July)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
"Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." -- --Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project

"Alister McGrath invariably combines enormous scholarship with an accessible and engaging style." -- --Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

"McGrath has distinguished himself . . . as an historical theologian, [and] a generous, . . . witty writer who brings to life topics that would turn to dust in others' hands." -- --Publishers Weekly

"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." -- --Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University

"With rigorous logic and exquisite fairness, the McGraths have exposed Dawkins's very superficial understanding of the history of religion and theology. Because he is so 'out of his depth' in these areas, Dawkins uses his fundamentalistic scientism and atheism to constantly misjudge the possibilities for dialogue between religion and science. Thank God for scholars like the McGraths who are committed to finding truth in both." -- --Dr. Timothy Johnson, physician, journalist and author of Finding God in the Questions

About the Author
Alister McGrath (D.Phil., Oxford University) is president of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and senior research fellow, Harris Manchester College, Oxford. His numerous and wide-ranging historical and theological studies include Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2 vols., 1986), The Twilight of Atheism, Theology for Amateurs, "I Believe," Exploring the Apostles Creed, The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism (1990), The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (1987) and Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity (1995) and Scientific Theology (3 volumes, 2002-2003).

Joanna Collicutt McGrath studied experimental psychology at Oxford, then went on to specialize for some years in clinical neuropsychology, and subsequently studied Christian theology, particularly biblical studies. Currently she is lecturer in the psychology of religion at Heythrop College, University of London. She is also coauthor with Jeremy Duff of Meeting Jesus: Human Responses to a Yearning God.

Customer Reviews

Poor attempt
At the beginning I felt this book had promise. It was nice to know that the author of the book had previously been an atheist, so I felt that he could at least bring some understanding to the table. I was also heartened by his generally positive treatment of Dawkins, especially in speaking of his previous book. For these reasons, I became interested immediately in the rebuttal McGrath would bring to the table. I was sorely disappointed.

As an over-arching theme of the entire book, McGrath claims that Dawkins fails to bring any sort of scientific rigor to the table. There is some (emphasis some) truth to that statement. But, as is generally the case with criticism, McGrath finds himself guilty of the same sin throughout. If the writing style of Dawkins is so polemic then it would be wise to take the high road and avoid it, rather than hiking up the pant legs and hopping right down into the muck.

The most frustrating thing about this book was how consistently McGrath claimed Dawkins holds certain views, then proves those views false. Unfortunately, a quick glance at the actual text shows over and again that Dawkins never claimed those arguments in the first place.

The place where this is most prevalent is in the middle 20 pages where McGrath attacks Dawkins views on where a belief in God came from. He says that Dawkins falls back on all sorts of arguments such as memes that are completely insubstantial. The funny thing is that if you read Dawkins's book, you see that he makes no claim to the authenticity of the ideas. In fact, he is quite careful to couch all of the claims as hypothesis, nothing more. Whereas McGrath claims that Dawkins is saying that these are true. It's even odd that so much space of this 100 page book was spent discussing this issue as it is completely ancillary to Dawkins's argument in the first place.

Next, McGrath seems to imply that Dawkins hates all religious people. He does not. In fact, he talks many times about how much he likes these people. It's not the people he hates, it's the belief systems. I felt that this was very clear throughout. I will admit that his tone can be quite sarcastic and condescending at times. He does not take that to the next level of hate, which is what McGrath seems to imply.

McGrath continually amazed me at the odd selection of talking points. He seemed to just be frustrated and not know where to go so he just went wherever the wind would take him. This is most evident in his refutation of Dawkins's discussion of infinite regress. He actually claims that scientists searching for the grand unification theory debunks the infinite regress argument. How ridiculous of an argument is that? I just couldn't believe that such an idea could possibly strike someone as even remotely cogent.

Another of his tactics is to counter claims made by Dawkins by saying, "I don't believe that." That's wonderful that he is a progressive person with regards to religion, but such is generally not the case. Dawkins never claims that beliefs he's countering are held by everyone. Just because some Christians realize the Earth is older than 6,000 years doesn't mean that it's not an important talking point, because the fact remains that many people do believe it.

And I have one more thing while I'm bashing the book. Why was he only able to come up with 96 large print pages against Dawkins's 400 page behemoth? I left the book feeling that McGrath hadn't really tried to respond to Dawkins. He feels like he just gave up half way through. The majority of "The God Delusion" remains completely unmentioned, unrefuted.

But now for the reason I gave the book two stars instead of just one. His last chapter made me think. Dawkins blames much of the world's problems on religion, especially violence. McGrath makes a good argument that it is really dogmaticism, not religion (though he stops short of saying it thusly). There have been dogmatic atheists that have caused untold horror just as there are dogmatic theists that have also caused untold horror. This last chapter really made me have to think a bit about where the problem of violence stems. If the book had simply been this chapter rather than the previous nonsense, I probably would have rated it four stars.

Ultimately, McGrath explains very well his purpose in writing this book. His purpose is not scholarly, his purpose is to supply people answers for when their friends come around. I think that's a shame. Is that what our public dialogue is? Are we simply looking for pre-written answers to throw at those with whom we disagree? Or are we honestly seeking for truth and answers?

McGrath misrepresents Dawkins
All you really need to know about this book is that the first sentence claims that according to Dawkins, "God is a delusion--a 'psychotic delinquent' invented by bad, deluded people." Following the footnote, I found this sentence from Dawkins' book: "Compared with the Old Testament's psychotic delinquent, the deist God of the eighteenth century Enlightenment is an altogether grander being..." In other words, Dawkins is saying that God need not be conceived of as a psychotic delinquent, almost the exact opposite of the view McGrath attributes to him. I couldn't help but wonder: would it have killed McGrath to wait until the second sentence before misrepresenting Dawkins' views? Incidentally, McGrath never addressed the Old Testament passages that provoked Dawkins' characterization, such as the divine orders to massacre children.

Such tactics are par for the course in McGrath's book. To recount all the details would be boring. At the book's halfway point, I was tempted to give this book five stars under the "so bad it's good" rationale, but by the end McGrath has worn out his welcome--and the book is only 100 pages.

"Might atheism be a delusion about God?" McGrath doesn't answer...
This slim book, The Dawkins Delusion, is confusing in many ways. It is written by husband and wife team Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, but throughout it is written in the form of a personal narrative: "In my own case, I started out as an atheist who went on to become a Christian - precisely the reverse of Dawkin's intellectual journey" (p. 9). There is a brief notation that most of it was written by Alister McGrath, at one time a molecular biophysicist, but you can't tell when one person's narrative begins and the other one ends. This is irritating, not deadly. McGrath (I'll refer to McGrath as either author) reports that someone has to stand up for truth, and put the lies of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion to rest. Unfortunately, McGrath's 97 pages of text pale in comparison to the broader discussion in Dawkins' book (374 pages of text). I realize this is not a "word count" battle, but rather a battle of logic... Dawkins comes to certain conclusions and makes particular logical arguments, and McGrath selects a few of these and develops a "summary retort." Frankly, the best way to get a table to collapse is to knock out all its legs. A few kicks at one corner doesn't do it. McGrath's challenge was to deliver a knock-down punch. He, and she, didn't reach this threshold.

What does this book state?

"Religion has made a comeback" (p. 8).

"Not only is God not 'dead,' ...he never seems to have been more alive" (p. 8-9).

"...I hope I am right in suggesting that such nonthinking dogmatists [such as Dawkins] are not typical of atheism" (p. 10).

"Curiously, there is surprising little scientific analysis in The God Delusion" (p. 11).

"The book is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument" (p. 13).

"Dawkins clearly has little interest in engaging religious believers..." (p. 13).

After this introduction, McGrath attempts to destroy Dawkins' arguments. I think he is saying:

- Many more scientists believe in God than Dawkins claims. Therefore, there is a God.
- We are here, however improbable, so the improbable is not impossible. Therefore, there is a God.
- Dawkins fails to prove the nonexistence of God. Therefore, there is a God.
- Believing in God is good for society. Therefore, there is a God.

McGrath ends with these questions:

"Might The God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinative and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer? (p. 97).

"Might atheism be a delusion about God?" (p. 97).

I grant that McGrath read Dawkins' book. I suspect that most readers of The Dawkins Delusion will not, and that these same readers will not have read The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, God is Not Great, or a number of other current and critical books. Therefore, the challenge is on McGrath to represent Dawkin's arguments completely and fairly. This was not done.

I wanted to return to Chapter 1: "In my own case, I started out as an atheist who went on to become a Christian - precisely the reverse of Dawkin's intellectual journey" (p. 9). If McGrath professed to believing in Zeus, or was a follower of Jainism, or confessed to wishing for an opportunity for martyrdom, would you look at this book in the same way? Dawkins, and Harris, and others argue that there is no more reason to believe those in the Olympus camp as those in the WWJD camp.

Bottom line... if you are waiting for a critical dissection of The God Delusion, no matter what your beliefs, this is not it.