Feeble minded unoriginal drivel - Rated 
The old saying `never judge a book by its covers' applies here. Any merit stops with the Edward Pentin's brilliant front cover caricature of an atheist love-fest ( in the form of `The Last Supper' by Leonardo da Vinci) involving the writers who Beattie feebly tries to demonise.
If you are an atheist looking for an insightful critique of the new atheist literature from the other point of view you will not find it here. As a committed catholic it is amazing that the woman has almost nothing to say to directly counter the informed arguments of those featured on the front cover. It is neither historically rich, philosophically deep nor stimulatingly original.
In a section entitled `celestial teapots and other nonsense' one might for example imagine that she is going to be brave enough to tackle the now famous argument of Bertrand Russell. Perhaps one might reasonably look forward to a well reasoned theological critique. With typical empty-headedness all she does is refer to recent comments on that argument by Dawkins and says absolutely nothing of any substance. If this book were at all typical of today's theological establishment, theology would be in a truly sad state.
The educational basis on which she is qualified to pronounce does not seem to stretch as far as modern science for she refers to Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as `men of science' in the same sentence as Charles Darwin. Scientists on reading this must be laughing into their lab coats. Indeed this statement is typical the level of academic excellence that this `Reader in Religious Studies' at Roehampton University seems capable of in this ill-considered little book.
Apparently writing books is now to be considered dangerous, if you are not of Beattie's persuasion even although no violence or illegally is advocated by her opponents. The so called `war' on religion that she portrays appears to have nothing in the form of witch drownings, burnings at the stake or plain old killing that used to be the practice of her fellow religionists.
This book is almost completely vacuous from start to finish and appears to be a totally cynical money making exercise by Darton, Longman and Todd. At least they gave us the front cover.
Amazon has many other books written from a non-atheist perspective. Spend your money on a book by someone who at least knows a scientist when she sees one.
Trying to push the debate a little further. - Rated 
Tina Beattie has not only written a good all round overview of the current 'debate' between religion and science, but also a good introduction to the history and cultural context of this debate. Her main thrust appears to be that although religion can be held resposnsible for its past crimes, the removal of relgion as the motivating force in society has not prevented these crimes from occuring. Secular and atheistic worldviews have not prevented these crimes from occuring.
Whether the author has been persuasive enough in her arguments is debateable and I, for one, am not entirely convinced. This is because, although this book is superior to anything written by Dawkins, McGrath, Robertson, Hitchens, etc. concerning the relationship between science and religion and the ensuing culture battles, the author still resorts to a certain amount of mudslinging and unsupported argument. For example, she appears to blame atheism and secular societies to everything from witch burning to violent computer games without really backing up these claims.
This said, however, for those people interested in these ongoing debates and wanting to move beyond the 'pop' arguments of the main protagonists so far, then this book is highly recommened.
Illuminating - Rated 
This book is a valuable new contribution to the current debate on society, science and religion. Although written by an academic, this book is very readable and will be accessible to anyone interested in the issues. Beattie is not concerned to show who has the `right' answers, but rather to illuminate the nature of the debate. Starting with the historical roots of the feud, especially the nineteenth century, when the modern idea of science emerged, she shows that the entrenched positions of today are nothing new. As a feminist she draws out the very aggressively mannish way in which the debate is being conducted. She also shows how much religious and atheist fundamentalists have in common in their failure to really listen, or to consider any evidence that conflicts with `how things must be'. She points out that "the new atheism ... has the same myth-making function as religious stories in seeking to offer an over-arching vision of the meaning and purpose of life". Beattie shows that a more thoughtful and considered debate is possible, and that away from the headlines just such a conversation is proceeding. It is hard however to be hopeful that the most high profile protagonists with their avowed intention to completely eradicate religion, and the modern media with its addiction to sound bites and controversy, will be part of that any time soon. And yet, just a few weeks ago (early 2008) I watched Martin Amis on national television defending the Archbishop of Canterbury. So perhaps miracles can still happen.
Wishful thinking... - Rated
Oh dear. This isn't badly written, it's just a fundamentally flawed argument. Tina has built her house upon philosophical sand, I'm afraid. Fine, so she's a lecturer in Christian Studies and therefore should have many valuable insights into the current situation of fundamentalism versus moderatism within the religious world. Instead, she blames "trendy" atheists for leaping on the bandwagon and seizing 9/11 as a means to covertly abolish democracy. I mean, what? This idea is ludicrous in too many ways to list. Firstly, Richard Dawkins - Tina's main figure of fun - cannot be said to have suddenly come out of the closet about his atheism because of 9/11: he's been writing and speaking about the dangers of religious fundamentalism for the last 30 years. Polly Toynbee, Christopher Hitchens, Joan Bakewell, David Attenborough, Jonathan Miller and the like have similarly been professing their atheism for years before Osama's planes hit the twin towers. What the world faces now is not a breakdown of democracy caused by too many people reading The God Delusion but, as Sir David King suggested to Tina Beattie recently, a shutting down of the Enlightenment caused by the rise of religious fundamentalism.
Yes, Tina's correct in highlighting that we've lost a great deal of our personal freedom since 9/11 (armed police on the streets, spot checks, detainment without trial, phone tapping, humiliating baggage searches at airports, etc.). But to suggest that the reason for this is because Polly Toynbee writes an article in The Guardian or Christopher Hitchens makes a TV programme is frankly infantile. The proto-totalitarianism rife in the world today has everything to do with governments (religious governments, like Bush's America, leading the way) and nothing to do a handful of intellectuals saying "Isn't it a bit silly to believe in something we can't see, touch or hear?"
I'm sure this book will be popular with moderate Christians clutching at straws in an increasingly godless world, not to mention Darwin/Dawkins-hating Creationists. But for everyone else, it's just dull. It adds nothing to the debate beyond a desperate attempt to find an easy scapegoat for the ills of this world.
Reasoning with atheists - Rated
There are important points in this book around the issue of fundamentalist belief and behaviour, and reasonableness. Tina occasionaly tends toward polemic, with a number sweeping generalisations, but these do not detract from the arguments for living with and enjoying the mystery of life, and finding the essential balances which permit a range of belief within the population.
The English church would do well to listen to Tina. If they allow their fundamentalists to take over, as is threatened, they will lose the support of the many people in this country who enjoy not being challenged, will drive out those who find the church a valued haven, and it will cease to be an essential part of the community. The English church has, in its maturity, admitted all grades of belief and non belief, presented the mystery, supported creative arts and offered respite not available in the otherwise commercial world beyond.
I felt an alternative explanation for the no-thinglyness of god almost emerged from the end chapters, that there doesn't have to be a god for us to enjoy the remaining mysterys of life and to live in balance and respect with our neighbours. But this is part of the sublety of the book.
A very useful, clear presentation of an important discussion, independant of the props of media and celebrity that have supported others.
|
