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: #1553 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

Great summary of some problems with Dawkin's book
This is a great book if you want a snappy, concise response to Dawkin's book. If you want a detailed blow by blow account, you may want to look elsewhere, this book is only 65 pages.

McGrath seeks to pick on the main issues and flaws. While praising some of Dawkin's earlier work, he explains why he thinks this book is not of the same calibre, lacks the same academic rigour and to quote the words of Prospect Magazine "incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self contradictory book".

McGrath sets out to assess the reliabilty of Dawkin's critique, this is his total aim. In this he is successful, as he succinctly explains why.

Making a point without insulting the intelligence of his readers
It's hard to believe that Dawkins is an "academic" yet alone has a position at an Oxbridge university when confronted with the infantile ill thought out arguments he propounds in "The God Delusion". So although it's debatable that on merit alone it deserves a riposte at all however "The Dawkins Delusion" was probably necessary just by virtue of the publicity the former gained.
This book unlike Dawkins' actually treats its readers as in possession of more than a handful of brain cells and argues in a logical, sensible way. And the fact that unlike the earlier book it was obviously written raidly in response to a book which had the luxury of time is another reason why it's a far more worthy work on just about every level there is.

A missed opportunity
I looked forward to reading this book and adding weight to my own beliefs that the "science fascists" such as Dawkins and Jones, were given an easy ride.

Here was an opportunity to challenge science with science but the book didn't dare step on Dawkins' own sacred territory. After all, why does the theory of evolution hold so much sway when it contradicts other branches of science (e.g. it runs counter to the third Law of Thermodynamics) and there isn't a shred of proof linking single celled lifeforms with more complex beings.

Check out Harun Yahya for this sort of battle where he takes on the scientists with their own weapons - a sort of "pistols at dawn" approach. Although an Islamic scholar, Yahya's argument is entirely relevant to Christians who seem too polite to counter bad science with a polemic argument.

Google Yahya and discover why the odds on the creation of life are considerably more unlikely than winning the National Lottery every week for a thousand million years. His well written arguments take on the scientists where scientists feel most vulnerable - i.e. in science itself!

This book has a few well worked moments, however, and it offers another approach albeit indirectly. However, the missed opportunity is a bit like standing up at a karaoke bar and, in the fine tradition of "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue", singing the words of one song to the tune of another.