A review by charbel14
The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister E. McGrath
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".