Thin and Poorly Argued - Rated 
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. - Rated 
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 - Rated
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!
Very good - Rated 
This is a very rigorous and fair historical account of the relationship between science and religion in western culture over the last 2000 years. It is written in the context of Richard Dawkins publications highlighting how this fits in the broader context as mentioned, and examines the specific example of Darwinism used by Richard Dawkins and how this also fits into the broader context. The book is extremely well researched and seems to be fair. In Summary it concludes something that as a Scientist and a Christian I have known (and many others before me) that Science can neither prove nor disprove God. An excellent book.
Nicely argued - Rated
All my attempts to review "The God Delusion" having been refused by Amazon for no apparent reason, perhaps I'll have better luck with this one. This book is not a specific counter to "The God Delusion" - I believe there is another book on that - but it does an excellent job of totally demolishing the philosophical underpinnings of Professor Dawkins's case. The very language and tone of "The God Delusion" makes it clear that Dawkins is bitterly, fanatically anti-religion. This, to me, totally undermines his case - I wondered (in the review that was never permitted) whether Dawkins was the product of a dirty old priest and a sweet young thing in a particularly enthusiastic and intimate confession, for which he was seeking revenge. Dawkins uses not the language of the dispassionate scientist but the demagogue.
Professor McGrath (once himself a convinced atheist) methodically takes Professor Dawkins apart. No matter whether or not you believe in God, there is no doubt that McGrath has the better of the argument, and while he doesn't prove that God exists (McGrath does not seek to do this and indeed says that it cannot be done), he effectively counters Dawkins at every turn while laying down a rational, philosophical foundation in which belief in a Supreme Being beyond the reach of scientific experiment is not unreasonable. In addition, the tone of the book persuades - Dawkins yells, sneers, jeers and mocks, McGrath speaks in a constant, reasonable tone. He walks softly, but he carries a bigger stick than Dawkins. As someone trained in science and setting aside all considerations of belief or unbelief, I find McGrath's quiet reasonableness a vast improvement on Dawkins's hectoring tone.
If you've read "The God Delusion", you owe it to yourself to read this eloquent counter. I said in my review of "The God Delusion" that Dawkins would make few new converts with his book. I suspect this is also true of this book, so entrenched are the opposing positions, but I think McGrath's chances are deservedly much better. Highly recommended.
|
