Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
29 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Fundamental flaws throughout,
By
This review is from: The Dawkins Delusion (Paperback)
The problems arise immediately, even before opening the book. McGrath is off to a poor start with the title of the book (which betrays his animosity for Dawkins in an otherwise superficially congenial book). He implies that Dawkins (henceforth RD) is delusional about god. A delusion is defined (Amer Heritage Dict) as "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence". So, then, what belief is the author referring to? There isn't one. It is actually lack of belief. But even if you can be delusional about a lack of belief (e.g. George Bush doesn't exist), it still won't apply. What is the "invalidating evidence" for RD's lack of belief? In other words, to call his lack of belief in god "delusional", very powerful evidence for god's existence must be presented. Otherwise, it's just petty name-calling. Not surprisingly, there is none of that powerful evidence presented. He obsessively refers to "evidence", "scientific rigor", "rationality", and other scientific catch phrases in a pathetic hope that by saying them repeatedly, it will almost appear as if those concepts were actually applied. He knows that his readers (mostly believers) want to consider themselves rational and clear thinkers who rely on evidence (who doesn't?). It's easy for a believer to miss the fact that no evidence for the existence of god is actually presented. But he, as a former scientist and current Oxford theologian, is most likely fully aware of that glaring omission. This makes him disingenuous, at best.
One need not go any further than the subtitle to find yet another foundational flaw of the book: the use of the term "Fundamentalist". It is a term that doesn't apply to a lack of a belief. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god. So what, then, separates a "fundie" atheist from a regular atheist? They both go as far as you can in their lack of belief (absolutely none). Simply put, there are no "fundamental" beliefs to be a "fundamentalist" about. "Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less, so there is nothing "fundamental" for atheists to "get back to" in order to achieve a more pure or original atheism." (from about.com). This would seem a minor problem if it were confined to the cover of the book. Unfortunately, the baseless theme of "atheist fundamentalism" is one of the underlying theses of the whole book. Yet, I continued on. The next foundational flaw involves no less than the whole purpose of the book. He states that he doesn't want to refute every point in TGD, just certain points. How convenient and utterly dishonest! He claims that a devastatingly comprehensive point by point refutation is within his capabilities but would be too boring. Also, one would think that, given the brevity of his book, he would use only his most powerful and convincing arguments. Well, if these are his best points, then his ability to completely dismantle RDs book is suspect, to say the least (The debate they had has verified this). But let's take a closer look at a few of the details. 1)"Religion has made a comeback" (p 8): Even if everyone believed in god, it would not make it true. 2) "I was...totally persuaded of the truth...of atheism" (p 9): He repeatedly invokes his supposedly atheist roots as though it gives him more credibility. (It's irrelevant. Should spend the few pages on logic and evidence) 3) He calls RD an "aggressive antireligious propagandist with an apparent disregard for evidence" (p 12): Yet he provides none of this counter-evidence (while at the same time insulting him, as he does throughout the book). 4) Recounts a story in which "a very angry young man" (an atheist whose "faith" was shaken) accosted him after a lecture because AM "had demonstrated , by rigorous use of scientific, historical, and philosophical arguments" that RD's case against god falls apart. Again, just keep *saying* it's evidence-based. Maybe nobody will notice that it's not there. (prove me wrong). Plus, it's irrelevant (and, at least to me, sounds like BS). 5) He willfully misrepresents the Santa Claus analogy (p 20), calling it "flawed" because people never start believing in Santa as adults. Analogies are meant to compare similar aspects of 2 different things that are otherwise dissimilar. The intent is to gain a deeper understanding of the thing that is in question by comparing it to something that is more understood. Examples are the heart as a pump or the eye as a camera. All analogies break down at some level (yes, all). The whole point of the analogy is that neither belief (god or Santa) is based on evidence. That's it. 6) An entire chapter (that's a quarter of the book) is devoted to debunking a claim that RD never made (Ch2, Has science disproved god). RD clearly states that he cannot definitively disprove god (both in his book and in interviews and debates). 7) In Ch 3(Origins of Religion), he attacks the concept of the meme. Again, irrelevant. This is the either/or fallacy. If memes didn't do it, it must have been divine revelation. He once again fails to give any evidence at all for his own position. Thus, Ch 3 is also off the mark. 8) Religion/the bible isn't all bad. It says nice things too. True, but he misses the point (again). The point is (sigh) there's enough bad in it to make it seem unlikely that the bible is the source of our morals. This, incidentally, renders another entire chapter superfluous (Ch 4, Is Religion Evil). There isn't room enough to catalogue all the basic flaws but I think the ones I have outlined show that the book does not achieve its stated purpose. Bottom line is this: This is a rebuttal book without a rebuttal. It's like non-adhesive tape or a car that won't run. Its fundamental intended purpose is not fulfilled. In other words, it failed. 2 stars (vs 1) because I was impressed that he can write an entire rebuttal essay without addressing any of the key points of the argument in which he intends to rebut. Plus he is a good writer and superficially civil. PS, I welcome comments, especially from those who vote that this review is not helpful.
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Delivers what it sets out to,
By
This review is from: The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine (Kindle Edition)
I confess to being puzzled by certain other reviewers feedback of this book who either a) accuse the McGraths of raging against Dawkins' The God Delusion, or b) express disappointment the authors fail to destroy it with a thoroughness they seemed to have been expecting from such a slim volume.
First, in reading The Dawkins Delusion, I find the McGraths tone hardly raging. If anything they come across more disappointed that such an illustrious mind, trained as any good scientist should - to be rigorous in assessing and testing theory against evidence and argument, is so willing to cast aside such discipline to fall flat on his face in his eagerness to make his own case against the existence of God and the evils that belief in God can produce. Next, that The Dawkins Delusion is not a thorough dismantling of all Dawkins' arguments point-by-point should be no disappointment either. The McGraths themselves state that such a methodical deconstruction - not that it can't be done - would instead be "unspeakably tedious, and simply lead to a hopelessly dull book" (p xi). Instead of aiming the wrecking ball then at Dawkins' argumental edifice as a whole, their purpose is to attack its foundations; "I shall simply challenge him at representative points, and let readers draw their own conclusions about the overall reliability of his evidence and judgement" (p xii). This makes for a good approach, as in doing so they expose what a wobbly structure Dawkins' edifice is. In the four chapters of the book, the McGraths focus on four central arguments Dawkins makes, in each demonstrating he has excluded or ignored counter-arguments to his case, vilifies both opponents and possible allies alike, uses out-dated or discredited theories and evidence, misrepresents faiths with horrible archetypes and selective use of scripture, and posits his own theories which have no scientific backing or evidential foundation as though they were fact ("the virus of the mind" and memes). By the end of The Dawkins Delusion, Dawkins' case against God and religious belief is shown to be found wanting as much by the approach its author has(n't) taken, as by the evidence he has(n't) presented. Yes, it is not a thorough take-down, but the McGraths provide enough examples to demonstrate the endemic sloppiness of Dawkins' book, and a list they give at the end offers opportunities for further reading about the subjects covered. Alister McGrath has sparred in writing with Dawkins views too in the past (Dawkins' GOD: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life), so it is not as if the author does not tackle his opponent with more thoroughness elsewhere. You will have gathered by now I am a believer in God. But don't get me wrong. I also value the truth. I want to hear a good case from the atheist camp why I am wrong to believe. The McGraths book makes it clear that Dawkins' case - as presented - is simply not it. This is clearly a tragedy for Dawkins, as, having read The God Delusion, I have to agree.
3.0 out of 5 stars
A well critique,
By Brandon G "SCARECROW" (STONE MOUNTAIN GA) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Dawkins Delusion (Paperback)
If McGrath was writing this only as a response to The God Delusion, then he did well. If it was to serve as a case against atheism as the last sentence of the book would lead you to believe, (Might atheism be a delusion about God?), then this was a very weak argument. Throughout the book he pokes holes in Dawkins argument by stating that Dawkins used flawed psuedoscience and scriptures taken out of context to back his argument(something McGrath is also guilty of in this book), but McGrath never makes any worthwhile counter claim on why people should actually take religion seriously. I purchased this book to explore a convincing oppositional argument to Dawkin's; this book was certainly not that, though it does show where Dawkins erred.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
|
|
