Very poor scholarship - Rated 
McGrath takes the prize for expecting his readers to simply take his word for things. He repeatedly asserts that atheism is declining worldwide. Is he right? No way to tell. Not once does he quote a statistic or survey to that effect. Similarly, he decries current atheist philosophy as 'bankrupt' - without bothering to quote, let alone critique, such philosophy. Aside from a few easily-dismissed pot-shots at Richard Dawkins, he doesn't engage with late-20th or 21st-century atheist thinking at all. He'd much rather talk about the Soviet Union. No surprise that he can't seem to produce a single present-day atheist who doesn't deplore such brutal suppression of religion.
He does also mention Philip Pullman's 'Dark Materials' trilogy - but I hardly think a brief critique of a work of fiction can count towards an engagement with current atheist thought.
Adding insult to the injury of this omission, he spends ten pages telling us in great detail - and sometimes with a gloating sarcasm that is very out of place in a work of scholarship - what a terrible person Madalyn Murray O'Hair was. He does this in order to knock down the straw man he has set up - that religion is the root of all that's wrong in the world, and without it everybody would be nice to everybody else.
He's fond of his straw men. Furthermore - despite his protestations to the contrary - it appears that his ideas about why people reject theism are firmly rooted in his own period of atheism, which by his own admission was essentially an adolescent rebellion. Thus, the monolithic 'atheism' he decries is a cardboard cut-out next to the diversity within the real atheist community; and so most of his criticisms, again, knock down straw men.
Theists seeking reassurance that atheism is a spent force will find plenty here. Those who would rather know the facts - or atheists in search of a challenging critique of their views - should look elsewhere.
Religion, atheism and the battle for imagination's soul - Rated 
This is a bravely-titled `history of an idea', which makes the claim - contra Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris et al - that atheism as an intellectually credible worldview has had its day. The 20th century (McGrath argues) has to an extent seen, as the 21st will see even more clearly, a resurgence of religion as repository of, and springboard for, the moral and spiritual imagination. And religion, the author claims, offers the best hope of doing justice to human aspirations in this sphere. But McGrath's work is far from being a mere polemical counterblast to Dawkins and writers like him. He has serious and pointed criticisms to make of some of the traditional forms of religion - in particular Reformation Protestantism's own spectacular failure of imagination (`God ceased to be a living reality in the popular Protestant imagination' (211)). Though one feels that at times McGrath's celebration of postmodernity is a bit over-optimistic, there's no doubt his analysis of the growth of movements like Pentecostalism offers a serious challenge to the received wisdom that holds the smooth and uninterrupted rise of the atheist worldview to be completely assured. One minor critique: I could have done without the analysis of leading American atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair's decline and fall, which felt like an unnecessary intrusion on a private grief or freak show. Otherwise highly absorbing.
Unconvincing - Rated
Just as much religion is wishful thinking projected large, so the 'fall of disbelief' is wishful thinking on the part of this convert to superstition. The fantasy is here propped up with poor research, flaky arguments and a liberal sprinkling of falsehoods. Very poor work.
Typical McGrath - Rated
This is a typical McGrath book - well written, informative and clearly argued. He demonstrates clearly the weaknesses and strengths of the atheist position. However I think that its strength (its simplicity) is also its weakness. The thesis that atheism is now fading and 'religion', particularly Christianity in its pentecostal forms, is resurgent is attractive but not convincing. Statements are made which I would like to see more evidence for. In particular chapter eight on 'Protestantism and atheism' is to my mind weak. IS it really the case that Calvin for example 'desacralised nature'? That the Reformers took away the idea that it is possible to experience God in the patterns of day to day being, whilst Catholocism did the opposite? Did Protestant writers really think in terms of God as a divine mechanic? Did religious images really help the uneducated to learn about their faith rather than keep them in superstitious fear and bondage? Did Protestantism encourage the notion that ' God was absent from human culture and experience'? Perhaps this is all true of a particular kind of liberal Protestantism but to say the least, it is questionable if it is true of Protestantism per se.
Having said that - this is an excellent book. Well worth reading. It provides food for thought, lots of information and is easy to read. HIghly recommended.
Atheism - Rated 
McGrath attacks atheism as if atheism was the polar opposite of religion. It's not. Atheism in its pure form is an ignoring of religion. This is a subtle but vital consideration. As has been stated before by others, "not collecting stamps" is not an active hobby that opposes "stamp collecting" : one does not have to deliberately go out and avoid collecting stamps. In the same way, atheism does not require an active state of avoiding gods, it just isn't interested in them.
Jonathon Miller has stated before that he doesn't like the word atheist as it implies that a lack of belief in gods is an unusual state of mind and thus requires a special word. He argues that there's no special description of people who don't believe in santa or the tooth fairy so why should there be one for those who don't believe in any gods. It's a good point and one that, once understood, destroys most of McGrath's points in this book.
Atheism only becomes an opposite to religion when a religion attempts to force belief or behaviour on others. Only then does atheism become in any way an anti-religious concept, in all other situations it is a concept that is uniquely disinterested in religion.
With the above in mind, it's easy to see why any argument that implies an atheist does anything because they are an atheist is a non-starter. Nobody follows a certain behaviour because they aren't a stamp collector. With this in mind, McGrath's idea that atheism was a reason for the Nazi and Stalinists's actions is revealed as childish name-calling. It's not even accurate, there's a reason Nazi belt-buckles said "Gott Mit Uns" or "God Is With Us".
An atheist may act in any number of ways, but none of the behaviours is due to atheism. Crucially, nobody has ever flown a jet into a building because of atheism.
|
