The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine

It is pretty easy to tear apart Dawkins "The God Delusion" because it leaves such easy targets. It makes one unsupported statement after another. These authors do a capable job, though they could be much harsher and give more detail. Personally, I think David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion" is a better rebuttal of Dawkins' book.

Normally it is necessary to read the book of Dawkins to understand better what McGrath has written here. But I think it is becoming absolutely clear what the points are. I found it interesting with what kind of simple and plausible arguments the author reduced the theories of Dawkins to absurdity. Fortunately there are many atheists, who do not take such an easy way out like Dawkins, who vilifies theists simply as mentally retarded but face up to the phenomenon of belief in God in a serious matter. After all according to a survey 40 % nature scientists in the USA believe in a God who resembles the God of Christian belief, and 20 % are agnostics. Of the rest only a few will be followers of Dawkins, who is a polemic fundamentalist of his own dogmas, dogmas which are not scientific at all. Many atheists who want to be factual cannot identify with that. Dawkins claims to be a natural scientist. He is definitely not a religion scientist or theologian. He behaves too often like a biology student who wants to teach Martin Luther theology when he speaks about God. Humanity has waited for a man like Dawkins, right? It is in the meantime an acknowledged fact that science can only make statements for its own field. Natural Science tries to explain nature by theories and substantiate them with facts. More science cannot perform. Religion is in another field. That Dawkins expresses tiresome his aversions must have personal motives. But it has nothing to do with science. Waste hatred proclamations and insult are seldom what can come out of a reasonable mind! The reader of Dawkins should not be blind about that. And his theories are not new. Neither are his arguments. Perhaps Dawkins brings natural science into bad repute. He ridicules and scorns atheists, reproaching them to be hypocrites, when they behave respectful with theists. Mc Grath tries to save what can be saved as for talking respectfully with one another. His book is a skilled riposte because it initiates thinking and clarifies that Dawkins cannot be right. He shows that the meanwhile into bad repute brought evolution theory and its promise to be the only true way to look at things are nothing but a try to explain how nature came into being and how it developed. A theory it is. But a theory and nothing more. And he shows why. It is a pity that the representatives of this theory too often do not understand the difference between variation and evolution. Of course the beings are created with the capability to change, so that they can change and react on a changing environment. But this was already known to grandmothers, for this no Darwin was needed. Any kind of really existing "evolution" must be something rooted in the genetic material, in the genetic software. So far you can call it evolution. This has nothing to do with the evolution of Darwin, in which totally new specimens evolve. Much noise about nothing,if it were not the temple of atheists which they defend as their last stand. Because of

Delusion: "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." By that definition, neither Dawkins nor the theism he despises are delusional, and perhaps both books render a disservice to the converstaion about God by the use of such hyperbolic titles. The McGraths merely resort to the same polemical style they are so critical of Dawkins for using. Other than this sometimes uncharitable tone, I found The Dawkins Delusion? to be well reasoned and worthy of reading by theists and atheists alike. Alister McGrath, a fellow Oxford professor with Richard Dawkins, is joined by his wife, Johanna Collicut McGrath, in the writing of this, their answer to Dawkins' The God Delusion. Alister McGrath, once an atheist himself, earned his doctorate in molecular biophysics. After become convinced of God, and converting to Christianity, McGrath went on to study theology. As a trained scientist, respected theologian, and Oxford fellow, McGrath is well-postioned to respond to Dawkins' bold claims. It is the McGraths' stated purpose not to refute every one of Dawkins' contentions (hence the 97 page rebuttal of a 400+ page book). While they assert that all of Dawkins' arguments are flawed "misrepresentations and overstatements" (page 13), they chose not to answer Dawkins on every point, but rather to respond selectively to a few of his points, namely these four: 1) Faith is not irrational nonsense, as Dawkins contends in many derisive statements. In this first chapter, the McGraths respond to Dawkins' central arguments against the rationality of faith, his own rebuttals of the standard theistic arguments, and finally, his improbability argument. Here, the McGraths points out, correctly, that 1) complexity is not an argument for improbability and 2) improbability is not a valid argument for non-existence. The McGraths deftly turn Dawkins argument back upon himself (see page 28). 2) Science and faith are not incompatible, as Dawkins seems to think. Much of Dawkins' book is devoted to discussions of evolution, with the underlying assumption that evolution makes God unnecessary and thus, passe. Stephen Jay Gould (America's best known evolutionist who is also an atheist) disagrees, noting the great number of evolutionary biologist who believe in God. He puts it well in this excerpt from The Rock of Ages cited by the McGraths (page 34): "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism." The McGraths proceed to expand upon Gould's well-known "NOMA" (nonoverlapping magesteria, Gould's view that science and religion explore two very distinct disciplines without any overlap) with their own view of POMA (partially overlapping magesteria, suggesting that the two disciplines can inform and compliment each other)

I write this review in response to several of the 1-3 star-rated reviews which complain, funnily enough, that McGrath's criticism lacks any sort of real response, i.e. another theory to replace the one he is criticising. First, you are looking at the argument completely wrong and fail to see that he is simply analysing Dawkin's argument, which does NOT require a replacement theory, i.e. Dawkin's got such and such wrong about God and religion, HENCE, there is a God. When you critique, it is not a rule to replace a discredited theory with a more pliable one. I am practicing Christian with a Bachelor Degree in Astronomy, and as such, I feel a certain affinity with how McGrath makes his argument. He really goes about it in the most scientific way. He takes every argument that Dawkin's makes to support HIS theory (there is no God, religion is evil) and tests them against what is known. In this, he finds Dawkin's argument's lacking depth, with several obvious "claims" to be shown as nothing more then simple opinion based on some observation. The problem that McGrath has (as do I) is that the book is sold as a "scientist's" criticism of God/religion (based on evidence using rational and logical thinking) when in fact in is based on partial evidence and general statements. Dawkin's arguments are dissected by McGrath and shown for their massive flaws. This is what a scientist does. He tests the claims that other's make. He does NOT have to posit ANOTHER theory when showing the first claim to be false. I highly recommend this book to all persons who have read Dawkin's popular book, The God Delusion. When read with an open mind, one can see that you can come to the same conclusion as McGrath, that Dawkin's arguments are essentially lacking any substantial evidence. Also, you realise that you can agree with McGrath without feeling forced to conclude with the Lord's Prayer.

A Battle of Wits with Everything at Stake Alister and Joanna McGrath write what is actually the third installment in a trilogy of books responding to Dawkins. Their other two salvos are "Dawkins' God" and "The Twilight of Atheism." These previous works are deeper engagements with Dawkins than is "The Dawkins Delusion?" Readers should thus keep in mind that installment three is geared more as the "user-friendly" lay-level book. This doesn't make it less valuable, simply less intellectually engaging of the finer points of Dawkins. The McGraths' point is basic. "Let's fight fair if we must fight." They play out this point in their kindler, gentler approach to Dawkins than he ever plays out in his harsh, bullying, demeaning, condescending approach to Christians (and to God--though God is well able to handle Himself). They also highlight their basic point by pointing out, as another reviewer artfully states, that "if a sophisticated thinker like Dawkins engages in a battle of wits with blue collar workers then he's going to win even if he's wrong." The McGraths come along side the blue collar workers, respecting their ability to engage truth and debate falsehood. Their work, especially the combined three-volume series, is a persuasive retort to Dawkins' bullying tactics. They display grace in the face of graceless attacks and they present a reasoned case for the reasonableness of the Christian faith. Will their work convince anyone whose mindset is, "I'll be damned if I'll become a Christian!" Unlikely. Will their work bring confidence to anyone whose mindset is, "I am a believer and want to understand the reasons for my faith system." Certainly. The more important target audience is the honest seeker--the unbeliever who is unafraid of candid discussion about God. Unfortunately, this tribe seem ever shrinking as people stake their claim and fight for their cause when everything is at stake. Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D, is the author of Soul Physicians, Spiritual Friends, and Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction .