Product Description

"Wielding evolutionary arguments and carefully chosen metaphors like sharp swords, Richard Dawkins has emerged over three decades as this generation's most aggressive promoter of atheism. In his view, science, and science alone, provides the only rock worth standing on. In this remarkable book, Alister McGrath challenges Dawkins on the very ground he holds most sacred - rational argument - and McGrath disarms the master. It becomes readily apparent that Dawkins has aimed his attack at a naive version of faith that most serious believers would not recognize. After reading this carefully constructed and eloquently written book, Dawkins' choice of atheism emerges as the most irrational of the available choices about God's existence." Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project

This is the first book-length response to Richard Dawkins, author of some of the most popular scientific works, such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins has become perhaps the world's best-known atheist, noted for his hostile and controversial views on religion.

This wonderfully argued book explains and examines Dawkins' scientific ideas and their religious implications. Head-to-head, it takes on some of Dawkins' central assumptions, like the conflict between science and religion, the "selfish gene" theory of evolution, the role of science in explaining the world, and brilliantly exposes their unsustainability. Moreover, this controversial debate is carried on in a style which can be enjoyed by anyone without a scientific or religious background.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #33196 in Books
• Published on: 2004-10-18
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 208 pages

Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology, Cambridge University
"[A] tour-de-force… Here is a book which helps to rejoin the magnificence of science to the magnificence of God's Creation."

Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University
"Informed, feisty, and terrific fun. I cannot wait to see Dawkins's review of Alister McGrath's critique."

David N. Livingstone, Professor of Geography and Intellectual History, Queen’s University, Belfast
"A timely and accessible contribution to the debate over Richard Dawkins's cosmology … A devastating critique."

Customer Reviews

Thin and Poorly Argued
The book starts with a 48-page overly polite introduction to Dawkins- the literary equivalent of the much deprecated "with all due respect..." of Radio 4 political interviews. In an attempt to convey intellectual rigour there is also an additional 40 pages of reference, bibliography and index. That leaves 110 pages out of 202 for poor argument.

The flaws in the arguments are too numerous to mention but typical is McGrath's berating of Dawkins for saying in answers after a debate: "The fact that religion may console you doesn't of course make it true. It's a moot point whether one wishes to be consoled by a falsehood." but then defending Tertullian for writing "He was buried, and rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible". The defence of Tertullian is that the context of the writing makes it immediately obvious that he is not discussing the evidential basis of Christianity.

Particularly disappointing is the dismissal of memes. Susan Blackmore's outstanding work, "The Meme Machine" is referenced just once against "Dawkins' work [on memes] has generated considerable popular discussion", although McGrath does deign to mention the work in fleeting terms another twice.

The cover of the book declares, "Alister McGrath ... disarms the master". Not so by any measure.

A necessary, if disappointing effort.
After following the reviews of Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', and expressing my own disappointment at that particular book, I thought I'd give my opinion of another work, set as a counter-point to the anti-vangelist and pseudo-philosopher that Richard Dawkins has become.

In this work, there is no doubt that McGrath picks up on some of the key problems with Richard Dawkins recent ventures out of his field of expertise, and highlights one or two of the philosophical issues with Dawkins' approach. After the sensation that The God Delusion caused, there is no doubt that it is necessary for the counterpoint to be made, and McGrath does so, fairly eloquently.

However, it seems to me that, having read both works, Dawkins' God just doesn't cover nearly enough of the bases. Firstly, and somewhat unnecessarily, there are times when McGrath comes across as simply arguing ad hominem against Dawkins. Whilst there can be no doubt that Dawkins' own style can be adversarial, even designed to provoke, there can be no better response than one that sticks to the facts, and sticks to logic. Whilst McGrath doesn't even come close to matching Dawkins' fervour and aggressiveness, his tone feels slightly disappointing, just the same.

Second, McGrath doesn't offer a great deal in response to many of the arguments that Dawkins puts forward, whether philosophical or scientific - even when Dawkins has stretched the laws of logic to breaking point and beyond, and a simple rebuttal would have taken just a few pages to propose. McGrath is clear enough in his purpose, and his reasons for not doing so, but the effect of this is to give the impression that this is a response that is not always full and comprehensive. Instead, McGrath seems to re-iterate the same, or similar points over and over again, and whilst often salient, I was left feeling like I wanted more.

However, none of this can detract from the fact that this is still a relatively good effort, if unexceptional. McGrath does raise some important problems with Dawkins' methodology, and issues challenges that seem, as yet, to be unanswered. No doubt this will provide just enough security to those wishing to dismiss Dawkins out of hand, yet not quite enough of a defence against those wishing to force an agenda of Dawkensian secularism.

A solid, but not altogether satisfying read.

poor
very, very disappointing. As someone who is having difficulties between God or no God, well I found his arguments weak at best. I really wanted McGrath to "blow Dawkins' theory out of the water" but alas for me Dawkins has come out well on top. No where in the book did he fight his corner only to say God exists, so there! Having read both books, and being someone that has been sitting on the fence since 9/11, Dawkins', for me, comes out a clear winner!