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, fuelled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion. Alister McGrath is ideally placed to evaluate Dawkins? 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? 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: #1611 in Books
• Published on: 2007-02-16
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 96 pages

Review
. . . a fine, dense, yet very clear account, from [McGrath's] particular Christian perspective, of the full case against Dawkins. --New Scientist (Bryan Appleyard)

Publishing News
"God" answers back...SPCK to rush out Dawkins rebuke...a clever piece of
opportunistic publishing...

Publishers Weekly
'The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's
fundamentalist atheism . . . and run him from the battlefield.'

Customer Reviews

If you are a wavering atheist, read this and be convinced.
Dawkins is the literary equivalent of someone at a crowded party saying loudly "Isn't that person really fat!" Anyone that looks can see that it is true however, it may have been easier and more socially acceptable to have ignored the fact or found a more subtle way to say it. At least Dawkins is honest. The McGraths have managed to write a book that does little more than confirm that the humanist perspective is the only rational one and that belief in the supernatural is little more than folly. There are some fantastic one-liners in this book: "Is there purpose within nature?" "Why is something complex improbable?". I hope that people read this book with an open mind because it destroys the idea that all Oxford Dons are remarkable and intelligent individuals driven by a desire for truth. Almost unbelievably in their conclusion they state "For the gullible and the credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support". Exactly.

A concise rebuttal - food for thought
I enjoyed reading McGrath's book because it is an almost surgically precise critique of the main thrusts in Dawkins' "God Delusion". It is short and easy to read but perhaps a bit pricey for what is an extended essay. Although I found Dawkins' book stimulating, I found this book useful to restoring a sense of balance in the arguments. McGrath concedes that Dawkins makes some valid points (e.g. on violence in the name of religions) but is equally robust (though less aggressive) about making his case.

Ouch
Quite an embarrassing book. Sure he makes some good points but that doesn't hide the fact that it's written like a crusade... very agressive at times. This book is prolly not for the most of you. I struggled to finish it simply because it didn't really bring anything new to the table. Its basically a rehash of what most people already know.

I have to say that ofcourse i don't believe in any gods or religions so I am prolly a bit biased regarding this book but i really tried to be open minded about this. I wanted to see what the most educated minds on the other side of the fence had to say. Unfortunately it rarely transcends the intellectual reasoning capacities of your average southern american hick.

So in the end I am afraid to say it's still a mystery to me how one would defend religions/gods. You can't defend anything without arguments based in reality... So I am afraid gods will remain figments of our imagination until science sets them free.