quackalacka's review against another edition
3.0
McGrath makes a calm, level-headed, and fair argument regarding the failings of Dawkins’s book. His language is clear. His criticisms mirror those that I, myself, had while reading. And while McGrath’s reply to Dawkins is valid, it doesn’t resolve anything. It doesn’t debunk those claims that are actually valid (e.g., that people pick and choose what to believe from within their religious texts), and it doesn’t address the religious arguments Dawkins was addressing in the first place (in order to explain, contextualize, and strengthen them). McGrath critiques Dawkins, but without providing a strong defense on religion’s behalf. We are left in an agnostic stalemate.
obscurereads's review against another edition
5.0
After having read the God Delusion a few years ago I thought I'd read this book which counter-argues many of Dawkins' foundational assertions.
It gets rather technical, but McGrath's sober takedown of Dawkins' creedal statements are effective. It was a very clever sleight of hand that Dawkins had applied to his "analysis" on religion and it was deconstructed masterfully in this book.
Whilst this is a thin volume, the additional reading material offered in the footnotes expounds greatly upon McGrath's arguments.
To be honest looking in retrospect, I'm surprised I was taken in by the New Atheism movement of the early 00's. Glad I grew out of it.
Very convincing book, would recommend.
It gets rather technical, but McGrath's sober takedown of Dawkins' creedal statements are effective. It was a very clever sleight of hand that Dawkins had applied to his "analysis" on religion and it was deconstructed masterfully in this book.
Whilst this is a thin volume, the additional reading material offered in the footnotes expounds greatly upon McGrath's arguments.
To be honest looking in retrospect, I'm surprised I was taken in by the New Atheism movement of the early 00's. Glad I grew out of it.
Very convincing book, would recommend.
charbel14's review against another edition
1.0
The Dawkins Delusion? promises counter-arguments to those presented by [a:Richard Dawkins|1194|Richard Dawkins|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1377030297p2/1194.jpg] in [b:The God Delusion|14743|The God Delusion|Richard Dawkins|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347220693s/14743.jpg|3044365], but unfortunately fails. Instead of a comeback volume designed to dispute Dawkins' massively popular book, we get just-over-a-100 pages of rants that strangely read like a negative review of the God Delusion.
I picked up this book for two reasons: 1) I liked the idea that someone wanted to add something to the debate, and 2) the authors seemed credible to do that, with Alister McGrath having a strong background in science and theology. However, I was thoroughly disappointed.
One of the things that ticked me off was the constant depiction of atheists in the book as nothing more than "Dawkins followers", as if all atheists belong to the church of Richard Dawkins. The fact that atheism is fundamentally unorganized in any way seemed to have escaped the authors, as did the idea that atheists openly criticize Dawkins and specifically view him positivly only for his outspokenness on the subject and his wonderful scientific contributions.
Beyond that the rest of the book is merely a collection of pseudo-arguments that constitute nothing more than a waste of time. For example, on the subject of faith Dawkins is very clear that accepting things without questioning them is ludicrous, but McGrath (which McGrath is not clear) goes on to say that that is not the definition of the 'Chrisitan faith', as opposed to the Muslim faith, or the Hindu faith or the Buddhist faith. Hence we see that McGrath is biased in his (or her) "arguments" defending not religion in general, but specifically the Christian religion. In fact, most of his arguments are Christio-centric and seem to forget all other religions. Well then what is the definition of the Chrisitan faith according to McGrath? None apparently is given.
Another "argument" presented goes like this (I'm paraphrasing): if God does not exist, then how come so many people turn to religion late in life?
This argument seems to indicate that there is, not just a correlation, but a direct causation between the existence of God and late in life conversions. McGrath seems to forget one of the fundamental themes of psychology, the question of whether human beings are consistent in their believes, their tastes, their personalities, all their lives, or are they prone to change. Never mind that personal experience is largely the main force behind these conversions, and that personal experience is subjective and is very much up for interpretation; and hence can't be used in an objective debate. But to McGrath all of that is irrelevant.
In conclusion, this book seems to be an attack on Dawkins for having written The God Delsuion in the first place. Obviously McGrath, who was once an atheist, felt offended by Dawkins' book and decided to declare out loud (though in a very well written manner) that he regrets nothing, which on its own is fine, but after having put the term "atheist fundementalism" in the title, as if atheists form some sort of militia led by Dawkins, is highly inadequate for such a measly piece of "objective reasoning".
I picked up this book for two reasons: 1) I liked the idea that someone wanted to add something to the debate, and 2) the authors seemed credible to do that, with Alister McGrath having a strong background in science and theology. However, I was thoroughly disappointed.
One of the things that ticked me off was the constant depiction of atheists in the book as nothing more than "Dawkins followers", as if all atheists belong to the church of Richard Dawkins. The fact that atheism is fundamentally unorganized in any way seemed to have escaped the authors, as did the idea that atheists openly criticize Dawkins and specifically view him positivly only for his outspokenness on the subject and his wonderful scientific contributions.
Beyond that the rest of the book is merely a collection of pseudo-arguments that constitute nothing more than a waste of time. For example, on the subject of faith Dawkins is very clear that accepting things without questioning them is ludicrous, but McGrath (which McGrath is not clear) goes on to say that that is not the definition of the 'Chrisitan faith', as opposed to the Muslim faith, or the Hindu faith or the Buddhist faith. Hence we see that McGrath is biased in his (or her) "arguments" defending not religion in general, but specifically the Christian religion. In fact, most of his arguments are Christio-centric and seem to forget all other religions. Well then what is the definition of the Chrisitan faith according to McGrath? None apparently is given.
Another "argument" presented goes like this (I'm paraphrasing): if God does not exist, then how come so many people turn to religion late in life?
This argument seems to indicate that there is, not just a correlation, but a direct causation between the existence of God and late in life conversions. McGrath seems to forget one of the fundamental themes of psychology, the question of whether human beings are consistent in their believes, their tastes, their personalities, all their lives, or are they prone to change. Never mind that personal experience is largely the main force behind these conversions, and that personal experience is subjective and is very much up for interpretation; and hence can't be used in an objective debate. But to McGrath all of that is irrelevant.
In conclusion, this book seems to be an attack on Dawkins for having written The God Delsuion in the first place. Obviously McGrath, who was once an atheist, felt offended by Dawkins' book and decided to declare out loud (though in a very well written manner) that he regrets nothing, which on its own is fine, but after having put the term "atheist fundementalism" in the title, as if atheists form some sort of militia led by Dawkins, is highly inadequate for such a measly piece of "objective reasoning".
cjcurtis's review against another edition
5.0
I am mildly surprised to see myself giving this book five stars, but I really did find it "amazing." It is a clear, concise, and thorough presentation of the many serious flaws in Dawkins's book, [book: The God Delusion]. It does not take a religious standpoint, but rather defends the legitimacy of having one, and outlines numerous ways in which Dawkins fails to consider such a standpoint honestly or rigorously. Perhaps the most amazing thing about this book is the sheer patience and equanimity with which it confronts Dawkins's virulent rhetoric.
I'm not terribly fond of indiscriminate book recommendations (e.g., "This book should be read by EVERYONE!"), but I seriously think any reader of Dawkins's book owes it to him or herself to read this one as well. If that seems daunting, after completing the nearly 400 pages of The God Delusion, take heart: its 97 pages can easily be digested in one sitting. It'll feel like a walk in the park, and you'll wonder why it took Dawkins so long to say what he had to say, anyway.
I'm not terribly fond of indiscriminate book recommendations (e.g., "This book should be read by EVERYONE!"), but I seriously think any reader of Dawkins's book owes it to him or herself to read this one as well. If that seems daunting, after completing the nearly 400 pages of The God Delusion, take heart: its 97 pages can easily be digested in one sitting. It'll feel like a walk in the park, and you'll wonder why it took Dawkins so long to say what he had to say, anyway.
teemue's review against another edition
5.0
I couldn't let this book out of my hands and read it at one sitting. I didn't even bother to leave a review for The God Delusion (besides three stars which could be dropped to two after reading this response) because there are plenty of criticism already available by both sides (using Dawkins' dichotomy). Reading it was occasionally like reading Trump's tweets - demeaning, belittling and not respecting other views - not something to expect from a scientist with a remarkable career. Happily I noticed that McGrath didn't response in the same tone. The book is relatively short and it deals with the main arguments. As a layman (who has read a while on the subject) I had questioned many of the same arguments McGrath had. To mention one and relatively significant - Dawkins' great mix-up of (undefined terms of) belief and religion and his arduous attempt to avoid fitting his own views in either. This is not a book of theology nor is it a defense of a certain belief system - it's a statement to correct or at least to smoothen Dawkins' erroneous black&white claims.
More...