Customer Reviews

The Dawkins Delusion

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

This is probably the most robust and also succinct critique of Richard Dawkins' particular brand of antitheism. If you have read The God Delusion and only want to read one book to add some balance to the debate, then it is certainly it.
And don't mistake brevity for a lack of substance, this book (it is almost short enough to call a booklet) packs a punch!

The author's main objection is that in addressing theology, philosophy, biblical history, neurology and sociology, Dawkins is simply out of his depth: "This [The God Delusion] isn't the brilliant popularization of difficult scientific ideas that we saw in The Selfish Gene; it's just a confused and misleading account of somebody else's area of specialization."

Michael Ruse, a world renowned philosopher of science sums up the impression `The God Delusion' made within academia: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why."

Early in the book, atheists are referred to as God haters. Sigh, if the authors meant this literally, then they have a lot to learn about atheism. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. You cannot hate someone you don't believe in. I am not sure if that line was just a throw away line of red meat to appeal to those who dislike atheists to begin with. After all many Christian conservatives are actually of the opinion that atheists really do believe in a deity but they are just denying it so they can engage in immoral or amoral actions. Which of course is total rubbish but common among the rightwing who views nonbelievers as cowards on a battlefield, ie, "no atheists in foxholes."

The authors disagree with Dawkins (and mine) that faith is belief in something without evidence. But, the authors give no evidence in counter to this position. I hear some Christian apologists (such as the authors of this book) who take a more intellectual view of religion, but as Dawkins and a number of atheists have pointed out, the more intellectual view of religion is in the distinct minority. So, when Dawkins, Hitchens etc are citicizing religion they are actually criticizing the real religious views of the majority of Christians. The Christian right is (unfortunately) a powerful institution and their beliefs and how they impact society are definately up for criticism. Views of a few Christian PhDs in theology who have no political power are just not relevent in the "cultural wars" of greater society as those who follow Pat Robertson. Lastly, this book is marked at $17 for a short 90 page book? It should be half that cost at that. It's more of a long essay.

The authors agree that the "god of the gaps" argument (which says something in nature can only be explained by a deity) is wrong because it has proven time and time again to be wrong. See, god of the gaps was once used to explain volcanos, earthquakes etc. Indeed, the Christian right still often blame well explained and well known natural events on a deity's wrath. They do this in lieu of say, reading a science book. But, the authors of this book ask why should explanations work? Basically why can we have the ability to explain action x through say the scientific method. To me it is real simple. We observe a natural event and all the data we can observe about it. We can test it through various experiments. That a tornado is two different air temperature pockets (simplistic rendering of course) meeting and how we can observe this by observation somehow is proof or evidence or shows the necessity of a deity I have no idea. Not only do I disagree with this, I can't even understand the logic behind the belief.

The authors mention the argument against a deity by Dawkins (and others) that a deity would very probably be more complex then what he created. Such as the universe of life. This argument is not really challenged but dodged, a common occurence throughout the book. I will give the book two stars because next to some on the Christian right, this is a much better or written book.

With its deliberate echo of Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion" in its title Alister McGrath's pamphlet tries to demolish the case for atheism set out in its target. So powerful does its author believe its argument to be that he boasts how, after a lecture in which he rebutted Dawkins's arguments, a "very angry young man" accused him of having "destroyed his faith" in atheism. One must suppose that he marshalled better evidence in his lecture than he does in the book, because the story as presented is incredible. No one, unless their faith was already on the point of collapsing, could lose it on the basis of this book. The best that one can say of it is that it is short.

In reality, far from providing the claimed point-by-point rebuttal of the arguments in "The God Delusion", McGrath only rarely addresses these arguments directly at all, preferring an ad hominem attack on its author and his supposed motivation. He claims, for example, that "underlying the agenda of 'The God Delusion' is a pervasive belief that science has disproved God," but this is fantasy, because not only is such a belief not pervasive in "The God Delusion," it is not there at all. Certainly, it contains arguments to the effect that science has not come up with any evidence to support a belief in the existence of God, but that is not at all the same as claiming to have disproved God. Dawkins is nowhere so simple-minded as to fall into the trap of supposing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and McGrath's inability to understand the difference undermines any claim he might have to understand the nature of modern science.

McGrath criticizes his opponents for having failed to study theology, as if only theologians are allowed opinions about religion. Would he extend this to other fields, with only politicians allowed opinions about politics, only biologists allowed opinions about biology, etc.? Should the readership of his own book be restricted to theologians? If not, why not? McGrath thinks he has scored a significant point when he says that "when Dawkins tells us that St Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews you realize how bad things are", with an end-note that smugly adds that "it has been accepted for several centuries that the author of this letter is not Paul." But what of it? What does it matter if it was written by St Paul, or by his acolyte Timothy, or by another father of the early Church? Maybe Dawkins chose in this instance to assume that the compilers of the King James Bible were telling the truth in calling it "the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." In any case, who is the "you" that McGrath is addressing in this comment, who "realizes how bad things are"? If he seriously imagines that most of his readers, let alone Dawkins's, are so expert in biblical scholarship that they know who is believed to have written each book then he is even more out of touch with reality than the rest of his book suggests. More generally, does he seriously imagine that most (or even many) Christians base their beliefs on the conclusions of theologians?

This example illustrates the emptiness of the whole case of Christian apologists such as McGrath, because he wants to pick and choose which parts of the Church's teaching to believe, so that any example of horrors, whether from the Old Testament (easy!) or the New (not as difficult as one might think) can just be dismissed as something that is no longer part of the teaching of McGrath's particular sort of Christianity. The fact that vast numbers of fundamentalist Christians believe every word of the Bible to be literally true, and that the overwhelming majority of them know much less about academic theology than Dawkins does, is nowhere addressed in this books. Just as Christian biologists who want to retain a role for God in evolution find themselves drawn into postulating a "God of the gaps" to explain smaller and smaller gaps in knowledge, so McGrath imagines a world in which Christians believe only in those bits of Christian doctrine that are not obviously distasteful.

The God Delusion by veteran theophobe Richard Dawkins has caused no small stir since being released late last year. It was a wild slugfest by the Oxford atheist and biologist, taking on most types of religion and belief in God.

In this book a fellow Oxford professor weighs into the fray. McGrath has degrees in both theology and molecular biophysics. Thus he is more than qualified to discuss Dawkins.

Because theology and philosophy made up the bulk of his 400-page polemic, McGrath finds it to be an intellectually lightweight affair. Instead of a well-reasoned, sustained and coherent argument for his case, the book is just a collection of cheap pot shots, rehashed and tired atheist arguments, and overheated polemics.

There exists much more competent atheist argumentation. The late atheist Stephen Jay Gould at least tried to stick to the evidence in his discussions, but Dawkins "simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking".

Because The God Delusion is such a disjointed, rambling affair, lacking a clear line of argument, or proper use of evidence, it is hard to properly review it. As McGrath notes, to simply reply point by point to his many errors, misrepresentations and distortions would make for a long and dry read.

Thus McGrath singles out a few key areas, and devotes this brief (75 page) book to them. For example, Dawkins' mistaken understanding of faith is discussed in the opening chapter. Contrary to Dawkins' caricature, biblical faith is informed faith, faith based on reason and an honest examination of the evidence.

Consider the false dilemma Dawkins seeks to create: you either believe in facts, reason, and science, or you are superstitious, faith-based, and deluded. Of course very few scientists believe in such a simplistic and unnecessary dichotomy. They are aware of the limits of science, and recognise that other areas (philosophy, theology, and so on) can have a vital role to play in the big questions of life. Even an atheist like Gould would dismiss the claim that science must lead to atheism.

Indeed, Gould developed the idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria) in which he suggests that both religion and science have primary roles to play, although they remain as separate spheres. Dawkins says there is only one magesterium: science. McGrath suggests that both Dawkins and Gould are wrong on this point: he instead posits POMA (partially-overlapping magesteria), in which both intersect and feed off each other.

He uses as but one example, Francis Collins, a man of deep Christian faith, but also a highly qualified scientist (head of the Human Genome Project). Science and religion can and do co-exist, contrary to Dawkins' claims.

McGrath also critiques Dawkins on his understanding of the origins of religion. Dawkins of course just recycles the old naturalistic projection theories as developed by Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud. Dawkins, following Dennett, also speaks of religion as an "accidental by-product" or a "misfiring of something useful".

But as McGrath rightly notes, in a Darwinian (or Dawkinsian) universe, there is no such thing as accident, because there is no such thing as purpose. "How can Dawkins speak of religion as something `accidental', when his understanding of the evolutionary process precludes any theoretical framework that allows him to suggest that some outcomes are `intentional' and others `accidental'? ... For Darwinism, everything is accidental."

McGrath also critiques Dawkins' notions of belief in God as a "virus of the mind," and the "meme". These points are more full explored in his earlier, and perhaps more important book, Dawkins' God (2005). Here he reiterates his case.

Dawkins claims that belief in God is a kind of virus that infects the mind. But while biological viruses can be observed and identified, this virus is just a construct of Dawkins' philosophical naturalism. And if religious ideas are viruses of the mind, perhaps all ideas are viruses. Maybe the idea of atheism is also a virus of the mind.

Dawkins' theory of memes is also problematic. According to Dawkins, just as biological evolution involves genetic replicators, so culture has memic replicators. Thus a God-meme has evolved and is passed along in culture, "leaping from brain to brain" as Dawkins puts it. Yet as McGrath rightly asks, "has anyone actually seen these things, whether leaping from brain to brain, or just hanging out?"

We have no strong scientific evidence for memes; it is really only a mental construct designed to make a case for militant atheism. Thus Dawkins in large part makes his case against religion "dependent on a hypothetical, unobserved entity". But it is Dawkins who describes God in just such terms. Says McGrath, "since the evidence for memes is so tenuous, do we have to propose a meme for believing in memes in the first place?"

McGrath finishes his book with a chapter on religious violence. As someone who has grown up in Northern Ireland, he knows all about this issue. He agrees with Dawkins that religious violence is repugnant. But Dawkins is just plain foolish, and wrong, to suggest that if we get rid of religion, we get rid of violence and everything becomes sweetness and light.

McGrath is not simply being critical here in this book. He has praise for some of Dawkins' earlier work, even though not in complete agreement with it. But it is clear that Dawkins, the more or less dispassionate scientist of several decades ago, has become an embittered, angry, and nasty piece of work, flailing out at anything smacking of religion, resorting to the same doctrinaire, intolerant and bigoted fundamentalism and rhetoric that he accuses religious folk of being guilty of.

Why this change from a serious scientist to a secular holy warrior? We can only speculate, but as McGrath suggests, perhaps Dawkins, like other militant atheists, is feeling threatened. Threatened that he might in fact be wrong. Maybe even deluded.

I read the God Delusion and wanted to see some comment from the other side. All I got reading "The Dawkins Delusion" was a lot of empty arguments and misrepresentations of what Dawkins is saying.

I read the entire book to see if I could find any value and I would not recommend this book as a serious attack on Dawkin's arguments.

NOTE: I HAVE CHANGED THE RATING OF THIS BOOK FROM 5 STARS TO 3 STARS, AND HAVE EDITED MY REVIEW FROM 3 YEARS AGO.

I am a theist, but an aficionado of Richard Dawkins. (Does that even make sense?) Perhaps it is because I would rather call myself spiritual than religious, and don't classify myself under a certain sectarian affiliation, that I can understand Dawkins' hostility toward religious bigotry and blind dogmatic assertions.

One of the only areas where I would disagree with Dawkins is the metaphysical claims on the existence of God, or, if you will, a Cosmic Mind. I feel that the arguments for the existence of God are more convincing than the atheist's alternative. However, this is a different matter altogether and will therefore not be further discussed here.

I have read innumerable books on both sides of the God hypothesis and have seen far too many debates on the subject. I have yet to review "The God Delusion" on Amazon, for which I would give 4 stars (generous for a theist, wouldn't you say?), but will do so in the near future along with the other related books written by authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Keith Ward, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Dinesh D'Sousa, John Lennox, Paul Davis etc.

However, let us first turn to "The Dawkins Delusion". Though not an entirely sufficient answer to Dawkins' "The God Delusion", Alister McGrath has a already written a book entitled "Dawkins' God" set out to critically evaluate Dawkins' older material, which, in my opinion, is a slightly better refutation. The reader will notice that the book under review here is surprisingly short; this is because McGrath has already responded to many of Dawkins' arguments in his previous book and avoids being too repetative. I therefore recommend that the interested reader should read both books by McGrath to get a better idea of his case against atheism.

Dawkins has perhaps become the world's best-known atheist, noted for his hostile and controversial views on religion. Head-to-head, this wonderfully argued book takes some of Dawkins' central assumptions and brilliantly exposes their invalidity.

However, even though Alister McGrath is a highly articulate and eloquent writer, capable of explaining difficult ideas to his audiences, I found that, at times, his arguments don't carry much weight: like a bubble, perhaps--colourful on the outside, but lacking substance.

Although the book may not convert atheists, they will surely be mortified at Dawkins' attempt to deal with philosophy and theology. McGrath, and many others who are specialists in these fields, found that Dawkins' treatment of these subjects are best regarded as an embarrassment to anyone concerned with scholarly accuracy. Thus, many of Dawkins' inaccuracies in this regard are revealed and ridiculed point by point. But this is where McGrath falls short--he ridicules Dawkins and reduces his credibility, but does not, in turn, provide a good case for theism and the existence of God.

Nevertheless, this is a good introduction for anyone who is doing extensive research on the God hypothesis, whether it is for a recreational or academic purpose.

However, for anyone who is looking for a single book which has an excellent response to Dawkins' arguments, whilst providing a good case for theism, I would recommend: "Why There Almost Certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins" or "God, Chance and Necessity" both by Keith Ward. Although a Christian, I found that Keith Ward is very humble in his approach, and is certainly not a dogmatic believer claiming his religion is the "only way", as so many religionists have a knack for proclaiming. Keith Ward's arguments apply more universally, not merely from a Christian perspective; thus, my philosophical position resonates well with his.

Another slightly more direct and confrontational book is, "Has Science Buried God" by John Lennox.

Having read Dawkins' book (the God Delusion) I read reviews that this book is THE answer to Dawkins' arguments. What made me buy the book was the fact that the author was a non-religious scientist who, at some point of his life, became religious (Christian). I was interested to find out why. I mean an explanation of this, as well as an argument supporting the fact that religion is the way to go.

Let us momentarily accept the fact that McGrath tears Dawkins' arguments in pieces. Even so, having disproved Dawkins' thesis, McGrath has not proved or justified anything at all. Does he not understand that showing that the proof of a certain proposition A is wrong does not imply that he has found a proof for [not A]?

True, Dawkins is passionate in his writing. McGrath bases his book on this. But where, in "The Dawkins Delusion", is it shown that religion is an answer to humankind's problems? Also, why has McGrath become a Christian and not, say, a Zoroastrian? This is a function of his environment. The fact that Zoroastrianism is not predominant in England, made him become a Christian. By doing so, he chose to believe certain things and discard others. On what basis?

If McGrath said, somewhere in his book, that
...
"listen, I don't know why I became religious, I did so because it felt the right thing to do, many of the people around me where religious, I felt more comfortable this way, it gave me consolation at certain moments, and I chose Christianity not on any rational basis, but because it is all around me, it has been around me since my childhood, it is second nature to me; and, having accepted Christianity, I must support it by saying that my beliefs are correct, but other religions are wrong--however I respect them because, like in my case, I understand that thousands of Zoroastrians find consolation in their faith"
...
then I would find his book more honest. The book would then be seen in the light of someone who could not help it but become religious because he couldn't function otherwise and, having become religious , and a professor of Theology, he must write against atheist's theses. It's part of his faith and part of his job at Oxford too. (It becomes an entry in his CV.)

The fact that book can be seen as "disproving" Dawkins' claims depends on the faith of the reader: If the reader is looking for a
proof that Dawkins' proof is not valid, he or she will find it in McGrath's book. If the reader positions himself or herself against McGrath's arguments he or she will conclude that McGrath has not disproved Dawkins's proof.

But no reader will find a proof/justification/argumentation/evidence of what McGrath tacitly suggests: that religion is the right
choice; i.e. that it is correct.

Religion is a man-made concept (McGrath has not disproved this) and, as such, some people may embrace it but others not. Whether they embrace the belief on cosmic teapots (p. 28) which McGrath suggests as ridiculous (it is) or that a Catholic will enter purgatory upon death is a matter of which society the individual belongs to and has nothing to do with the concept itself.

If it does, then McGrath should write another book to justify this.