Customer Reviews

Dawkins' GOD: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Many of the other reviews cover the material in the book well, so I thought I would just add one tidbit of info.

It is interesting to me that McGrath and Dawkins are colleagues at Oxford. In a recent lecture in an apologetics course, Prof. McGrath stated that before this work was published, he sent the manuscript over to Prof. Dawkins for approval, to ensure that he had represented Dawkins' views correctly.

While Prof. Dawkins obviously did not agree with the conclusions, he gave approval to the portrayal of his own views in this book. Would that more people on boths sides of this debate would take such care to make sure they are not arguing staw-men!

First thing's first; Alister McGraith is an enlightened, educated, informed Christian apologetic; I might be demonstrating nothing but my own prejudice here, but I rarely encounter such credible theistic advocates; While I often disagree with McGraith, and I think that he sometimes entirely misses the atheist's serve, his legs are planted firmly in the playing field.

McGraith offers the first book length critique of biologist Richard Dawkins' atheistic philosophy. Remarkably, he hardly addresses the main arguments Dawkins raises against theism. Instead, McGraith launches all out attack on Dawkins's weakest arguments, while ignoring the best of them. McGraith similarly ignores atheists like Daniel Dennett, who offer substantial criticism of theism similar to Dawkins's, but more sophisticated. Since Dennett's brilliant "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" can be characterized as one long diatribe against God, ignoring Dawkins's chief academic supporter is surprising (Dennett is mentioned 3 times, on points unrelated to his atheistic views). McGraith also spends much of the book on irrelevant asides, like an examination of Darwin's religious views, a detailed critique of Dawkins' concept of memes, and the history of Science and Religion.

McGraith's strongest attack regards the argument from Design. Darwinian evolution offers a crashing counter argument for the famous theistic argument from design -that God is the only possible explanation for the complexity we see around us (also known as "the Watchmaker argument"). McGraith correctly points out that the failure of the Watchmaker argument does not disprove the existence of God - merely the weakness of one argument. Indeed, for some theistic interpretations, a naturalistic explanation in the Darwinian vain is not complementary, but a necessity.

Furthermore, McGraith points out that the argument from Design is not a traditional Christian argument, but an 18th century development. By the early 19th century, the watchmaker argument was "an outmoded way of thinking" (p. 65). Due to various weaknesses of the design argument, particularly the problems with the idea that God had designed the crueler aspects of the world, prominent Christians such as John Henry Newman opposed it even before Darwin (p.67).

But McGraith's reasonable defence is over extended. First, McGraith makes much of the fact that "Science leads neither to atheism nor Christianity - the scientific method is incapable of delivering a decisive adjudication of the God question" (p. 53). This is true, but highly misleading. Science cannot answer the God question, but there is nothing sacrosanct about science. For a variety of historical and methodological reasons, science is defined in such a way as to not answer the ultimate questions; But that's neither here nor there; The same kind of reasoning indicates that God played no larger a role in the creation of the Earth as she did in the creation of the peacock's tail; We call the second conclusion science and the first metaphysics or philosophy, but that's little more than a play on words. Right or wrong, the argument against God as cannot meaningfully be dismissed as "unscientific".

McGraith ignores the major implication of Darwinism on the explanatory power of atheism. After Darwin, atheists only need to assume a very simple universe: we know how complicated life forms can evolve from simplicity. But a theist has to assume the pre existence of an all powerful creator. Occham's razor is clearly on the atheist's side.

McGraith's other successful attack is on Dawkins's linkage between religion and violence. Dawkins argues that religion causes great harm; McGraith counter argues that religion also brings great good, and that atheism's record is every bit as mixed as that of Christianity or Islam. McGraith rightly points out that goodness and badness has very little to do with one's metaphysical persuasion: "there seems to be something about human nature which makes our belief systems capable of inspiring both great acts of goodness and great acts of depravity" (p.114).

What if we conclude that religiosity has little to do with morality (Contra the so-called Reagan doctrine and ideas of theist philosophers like C. Stephan Layman)? That sits perfectly with an atheist model of the universe, but doesn't correspond to a Christian one. After all, atheism only implies that there is no God; it says nothing about morality. But Christianity assumes that its followers are doing God's will, and are striving to the best of their ability to adhere to his ways: shouldn't that effort show some results?

Although McGrath does indeed elaborate on "Genes, memes, and the meaning of life", his book is very short of talking about God, Dawkins' or otherwise. Thus he ignores the Dawkins' strongest critique of theism - that it is false. Even barring all the other objections to God's existence, it is up to its proponents to defend the concept, just as was up to Darwin to promote the concept of Natural Selection, and for Dawkins to persuade us of the legitimacy of the "Gene's viewpoint of the world". No such defence is offered anywhere in the 159 pages of Dawkins' God.

McGrath may counter that his is not an evangelic book in the conventional sense, and that the task of validating theism is left for another day. But when a leading advocate of Christianity, despite all of his knowledge and sophistication, fails to make the case for it, one wonders.

If T.H. Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog" just over a century ago, surely Richard Dawkins would be Darwin's pit bull terrier today. A leading proponent of neo-Darwinism, Dawkins is just as famous for his aggressive, almost obsessive, promotion of atheism. His many well-written books and articles have made him a formidable proponent of both Darwinian theory and secular humanism.

Yet to date no book-length critique of Dawkins has appeared from a biblical point of view. Until now that is. The just-released Dawkins' God is an important assessment and critique of Dawkins and his crusade against religion. While McGrath respects and admires Dawkins when he sticks to the realm of science, it is when Dawkins wanders out of the domain of science, attacking religion in the name of science, that McGrath shows his very real shortcomings.

Thus this book is not so much a critique of Darwinism as a critique of philosophy and ideology masquerading as science. Dawkins should know as well as anyone that science has limits, and questions of God's existence do not fall within those limits. Yet the works of Dawkins are permeated with emotive and irrational attacks on faith and religion. This misuse and abuse of science by Dawkins in this regard is a major theme of this volume.

McGrath begins by analysing Dawkins' work on genes. For Dawkins, genes are everything, or at least they can account for everything. Thus Dawkins takes neo-Darwinism as an explanation of observable natural phenomena, and elevates it to a worldview, an all-embracing metanarrative. Again, he takes science where it was never meant to go.

McGrath analyses this further in the false disjunction Dawkins time and again sets up: one either lives by blind faith or the facts and evidence of science. Take you pick, it is one or the other. Of course he misrepresents both. No reputable Christian thinker has ever identified religious belief as mere blind faith. Faith is grounded on evidence, and Christianity offers a fair amount of evidence for its truth claims.

And science is far from the neutral, totally objective scenario that Dawkins paints. It deals with evidence and observations, yes, but also deals in probabilities as much as in certainties. The constant revision and overturning of scientific theories means that scientists should remain humble, not arrogant. So too of course should Christians, who need to continually refine and clarify their theological convictions. Both involve elements of faith and reason. Both should be approached with care and humility.

The replicators of ideas and beliefs - what Dawkins calls memes - the cultural equivalent of genes, are also critiqued by McGrath. The truth is, they are not the fruit of scientific discovery but philosophical postulation. Dawkins says people believe in God, not because he exists, but because of God memes. The idea of God, says Dawkins, like a virus, is passed along and replicated in culture, just as physical traits (in the form of DNA) are passed along by means of genes.

But as McGrath rightly points out, is this God meme concept just another meme, another virus, another false belief being passed along? And if there is a God meme, could there not be an atheist meme as well? The fact is, Dawkins has a philosophical precommitment to atheism, and he tries to smuggle this belief system in while piggy-backing of Darwinism. But as McGrath establishes, Darwinism does not necessarily entail atheism. Nor does it necessarily entail theism for that matter.

Science in general and evolutionary biology in particular can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Such questions lie outside of the purview of science. But Dawkins' hatred of religion leads him to blur the boundaries of where science leaves off and other disciplines (theology, philosophy) begin.

What one makes of Darwinism is a matter of scientific debate. The evidence can be weighed and considered. But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.

Those wanting an attack on Darwinism will not find it here. The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice.

But this volume does do a good job of demonstrating the proper limits of genuine science, and the very poor intellectual armaments Dawkins brings to bear against faith and religion. It will not be the end of the debate, but it is a much needed contribution to some crucial issues we all must grapple with.

Alistair McGrath wrote this before Richard Dawkins brought out "The God Delusion", and it will be interesting to see later revisions because Dawkins answers many of his points. However, The God Delusion is, for the most part, a more thorough articulation of points Dawkins has made in various other forums, so McGrath's book remains mostly relevant.

I recommend this book, it is, with momentary exceptions, an enjoyable read, and a good introduction to the wonderful world of modern liberal Protestant theology. The language is accessible except where McGrath is forced to descend into the obscurantist world of theo-babble. McGrath's arguments against Dawkins are about as sophisticated as they get. And therefore it is extremely interesting how totally unsatisfactory, in fact rather pathetic, they are.

McGrath starts with a precis of the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, and of Richard Dawkins' work that is correctly described by Dawkins himself as admirable. He has criticisms of Dawkins' sometimes confrontational approach that is, to some extent, justified. His criticism of Dawkins' idea of 'memes' is understandable. But you may already be seeing where the problem is; while his arguments are without doubt more sophisticated, the actual points being made are just the same as everyone trots out whenever they're criticising Dawkins: he is arrogant, his meme theory is flawed, he is claiming authority beyond his qualifications, and his characterisation of religion is a flimsy strawman. None of these really address the arguments made and are distinctly unsatisfying.

The claim of authority, for instance, presupposes that there is a qualification one must obtain before one can legitimately comment on religion. Dawkins' own response is probably best: "I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?" (Science&Theology News). Dawkins doesn't need to study astrology to know that the suggestion that the motion of heavenly bodies millions of miles away affects the details of our lives is absurd.

McGrath continually expresses annoyance at Dawkins' failure to find out what the current status of sophisticated theological belief is. He gets really worked up at Dawkins' clear characterisation of religious faith as 'belief without evidence'. He claims that theologians haven't had that view of faith in over a century, and proceeds to give a definition of faith so obscure and convoluted it is hard to believe that he was able to write it with a straight face. Basically, McGrath thinks that Dawkins should be waging a battle in the lofty halls of theological academia. But he isn't, of course. He is engaged against the beliefs of the average person, and the average person has beliefs that are clearly a world apart from those of McGrath and his colleagues. One is forced to wonder whether McGrath ever asked a typical christian whether they think you need evidence to have faith, before writing this book. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who spends time with real christians unlike, apparently, McGrath, that faith really is, as St Paul said, "the promise of things wished for, the hope of things unseen", and that strong assent to some religious proposition in the absence of evidence is indeed seen as a virtue, which is what Dawkins so objects to.

In actual favour of his own beliefs McGrath presents almost nothing. Basically, nothing Dawkins has said proves god doesn't exist (another mischaracterisation, since Dawkins never claims it does). Dawkins' own response would be to make the same argument about other superstitions, but this isn't the forum for debate. Suffice it to say, McGrath engagingly presents to us the entirety of the vapidity of christian apologetics: "God works in mysterious ways, way too mysterious for you to understand without decades of study so just shut up and take my word for it, ok? Everything is fine, nothing to see here." This is telling stuff and anyone who wants to have their religious beliefs justified should read this book to realise why there's no point.

My only real complaint about this book (in terms of the reading enjoyment) is that McGrath is a bit schizophrenic. Most of the time he is respectful of Dawkins' viewpoint and applauding him for kicking off a robust debate, but occasionally he'll just fly off the wall and start calling Dawkins names. It would appear that this corresponds with the weakest parts of his arguments. So he is positively foaming at the mouth over Dawkins' definition of religious faith; I think he is less upset at Dawkins' definition and more that the common believer really does have the unsophisticated beliefs that McGrath derides. If only they knew what I knew, he seems to be screaming, they would be immune to Dawkins' arguments! This invective is somewhat offputting.

Otherwise I recommend this book, particularly to Dawkins fans who want to see just why Dawkins' religious opinions are so solidly unanswerable.

This book is a long screed against Richard Dawkins. It is couched in academic language and convoluted phrasing. However, Mr. McGrath has only a couple of points that he tries to make. I kept track of the pages on which he repeats the same assertions about Mr. Dawkins. The points are: Mr. Dawkins disbelieves in the wrong God (or faith); God can't be logically disproved; various authorities are invoked who disagree with Mr. Dawkins; and, amazingly, Mr. McGrath asserts that Mr. Dawkins does not base his arguments upon evidence. [I was persuaded to read this book -- bought it used -- by the comments of some believers in the Amazon discussions. Same with Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ. This may be the last attempt at reading an apologist.]

First and foremost, Mr. McGrath asserts that the God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is not the Real God, not the God of "thoughtful Christian theologians." Alternately, McGrath tries to make the case that the faith that Dawkins criticizes is not what Christians mean by faith. McGrath makes one of these two claims on, at least, pages: 10, 42, 52, 59, 60, 71(3-times), 73, 75, 76, 80, 83, 85, 86, 89, 92, 93, 96, 99, 101, 108, 117, 118, 140, 143, 146, 151, 156, 157, and 158. (29 pages of the 159 pages of the text.) I think one can safely say that this is one of McGrath's major assertions.

Mr. McGrath repeats that Mr. Dawkins disbelieves the wrong God or faith on at least 18% of the pages of the book. Emphasis through repetition I suppose. Strangely, Mr. McGrath never straightens us out with the Real definition of the God Christians believe in. The closest he comes, anywhere in the book, is in on page 93, where, after he trashes the "Divine Designer" God of William Paley, he states, "A theologian might respond by arguing that God created an environment within which incredibly complex entities could develop from quite simple beginnings by quite simple processes." This is the deistic God: the God who set up the natural laws and set the thing in motion [initiated the Big Bang perhaps?] This God is extremely difficult [seemingly impossible] to distinguish from nature. Mr. McGrath never describes the Christian God in the entire book. Why? Because the essential features of the Christian God are exactly the ones that Dawkins doesn't believe in, contrary to McGrath's repeated assertions.

And, not surprisingly, Dawkins specifically addresses the deistic God on page 147 of "A Devil's Chaplain:*" "If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or help evolution over difficult jumps; forgives sins or dies for them?" Why doesn't McGrath answer Dawkins' challenge, since he spends much this book attacking "A Devil's Chaplain" and "Unweaving the Rainbow?" Because he can't.
(* Not to mention his more recent, "The God Delusion.")

I was raised a Christian and the God I was taught about had at least these features: He created the earth, flooded it during Noah's time, specially created all of life, sent his "son" to be born from a young virgin Jew in Palestine, the "son" died to atone for everyone's sins, even sins not yet committed, this God was all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, this God answered prayers and "saves" people from natural disasters, etc. Which of these features does Mr. McGrath disavow? And how would that God fit with Christian theology? He never tells us.

Here is Mr. McGrath in print elsewhere (National Catholic Register online):

"The second point I'd want to make is that certainly I believe in the Nicene Creed, but I don't believe it because someone has rammed it down my throat. I believe it because I've looked at it very closely and I believe it to be right. I am very happy to be challenged about that because I believe in being open and accountable."

Continued, click on comments

A. McGrath is on my short list of must read authors. He is interesting, a good writer and tackles things that are important and does a consistently good job. It helps that i am deeply concerned with the same topics as he studies and writes about, but with even average interest in the topic you will find him a very good resource.

My problem with the book is my problem, not his, for i've heard it all before. The ideas are familiar and don't challenge me anymore, at least not like they did when i first encountered them. So the book feels slow and mild, but it isn't, it's me.

It's the audience that is important here. It is not addressed to people who have read much in the topic, but those who have just encountered Dawkins (maybe SJG, and Dennett or Wilson as well) and find his argument that science has disproved God and that it is irrational to be a Christian in this time of scientific epistemology, persuasive or at least unsettling.

To them it will present a very competent and interesting travel through the issues, both the metaphysical and the scientific levels. For this reason alone it is recommended to it's intended audience as the best accessible reply to the metaphysical ideas of Dawkins masquerading as scientific truth when they are nothing more than Dawkins strong anti-theological opinions.

Alister McGrath's book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, is a brilliant work by an Oxford colleague of Richard Dawkins that takes Dawkins' atheistic worldview to task in a systematic and thoroughly reasoned manner. According to McGrath, Dawkins' conviction is that Darwinism provides total explanatory power that renders God as redundant, with no discernible "utility function" in scientific explanation. Thus, Dawkins has concluded that God does not exist and, via a number of books over the years, has advanced his atheistic agenda through rhetorical, superficial and inaccurate attacks on theology presented in the most naïve light.

McGrath divides Dawkins' writings effectively into two categories: the first category deals with ethological (viz., animal behavior) questions in an evidence-based mode of argument that presents alternative viewpoints carefully and thoughtfully, whereas his second category of works dealing with religion are characterized by a strongly dichotomist mode of argument where anecdote displaces evidence and alternatives are treated as rubbish. In the latter category, the tone of Dawkins writings, according to McGrath, is aggressive and dismissive, showing little, if any, attempt to take alternatives seriously. So when it comes to dealing with the behavior of the religious, Dawkins appears to step outside his normally rigorously empirical approach.

What is interesting is that McGrath followed a similar route to Dawkins as a young man at Oxford with atheistic leanings that went on to gain a doctorate in molecular biophysics. The difference, however, is that McGrath actually took the time to investigate Christianity and found it to be intellectually enriching over and against religious stereotypes, and assertions of "blind faith" (blind faith, of which, has never been advanced by any serious Christian writer of note). Further, he realized he had not extended the same critical evaluation to atheism that he had to Christianity. According to McGrath, his doubts about the intellectual foundations of atheism began to coalesce into a realization that atheism was actually a belief system, where he had previously assumed it to be a factual statement about reality.

During his years of doctorate work and scientific research, McGrath also pursued an undergraduate degree in theology followed by advanced research in the relation of theology and science. He eventually left scientific research and went on to become a professor of Historical Theology at Oxford. This description of McGrath's path is important because it underscores how two people within similar environments can adopt completely divergent worldviews. Dawkins, who has no formal theological training, becomes a dogmatic atheistic stating that faith is one of the world's greatest evils, with no empirical evidence to support this contention. McGrath, however, who has extensive theological training, becomes a thoughtful Christian who states that at best, Dawkins arguments lead to agnosticism, as the outcome of the debate between atheism and religious belief is a stalemate since no one can prove God's existence, and nobody can disprove it. It is, essentially, an epistemological question that cannot be settled (solely) by scientific means.

It is remarkable to see such a "reversal" of roles in the clash of worldviews between a dogmatic atheist and a reasoning theist. Not only does McGrath match Dawkins credentials in the scientific world, but exceeds him in the theological where Dawkins seriously lacks credibility. Unfortunately, I'm certain avid readers of Dawkins have probably never heard of McGrath and would not give this deserving scholar's views serious consideration. Like Dawkins in the area of religious faith, they too show little attempt, if any, to critically evaluate their own atheism and take well reasoned alternative views seriously. Instead, they follow Dawkins uninformed lead which consists of, as McGrath notes, flagrantly biased anecdotes and hopelessly unsubstantiated generalizations regarding religious behavior, with rhetoric displacing careful observation and analysis.

Many of the other reviews have covered much ground, but all seem to have missed one thing: the point of McGrath's argument. It is really quite simple: Science cannot proove the existance of God, but neither can it proove the non-existance of God. Either way, you are excepting your position on faith, but faith isn't always a bad thing. Consider the proposition: it is always, everywhere, and at all times wrong to believe something not based on proof. Correct? No, there is no proof for that statement, and thus it is self-referentially incoherent. McGrath talks about this in 'The Twilight of Atheism'.

If you accept that statement as true, you cannot prove either the existance, or the non-existance of God. If you recognise the incoherance of it, you must realize that the only way to know anything at all is by faith.

It is quite a simple argument really. McGrath isn't trying to prove the existance of God, he is trying to show the fallacy involved in Dawkin's polemic against God.

On 6th January The Independent Newspaper carried an article by Richard Dawkins "Darwin's Rottweiler", entitled in large print, "GOD the root of all evil?". In this piece, Dawkins introduces his forthcoming TV series entitled, The Root of All Evil? He rehearses his old arguments about religion being the cause of untold suffering in the world and that Darwinism has made God an unnecessary construct. Dawkins repeats his claim that bringing up children in a religious context is tantamount to "mental child abuse."
.
It was interesting the read this article after just finishing McGrath's systematic and devastating critique of Dawkin's atheism. McGrath is well placed to write such a book as he holds a doctrorate in biophysics and is an eminent theologian. McGrath shows that Darwinism has not eliminated God from the universe. Darwinian evolution cannot in itself adjudicate on the God question. He refutes Dawkins' assertion that natural selection must lead inevitably to atheism.
.
McGrath subjects Dawkins' theory of "memes" that enables him to label religion as a "virus of the mind" to sustained criticism at every level. The author demonstrates that "memes" have no empirical, scientific basis. He also points out that even given the validity of "meme" theory, atheism could just as well be a "virus of the mind", making Dawkins' argument self-defeating.
.
The author questions Dawkins' definition of faith as irrational blind trust and urges him to take a more evidence-based approach to the relationship between Christianity and science. He concludes by saying,
.
Scientists and Theologians have so much to learn from each other. Listening to each other, we might hear the galaxies sing. Or even the heavens declaring the glory of God. (Psalm 19:1).
.
McGrath does not utilise the arguments of Intelligent Design. He cautiously accepts the Darwinian account of the origin of species and shares Augustine's symbolic view of the Genesis creation account. He notes that Theological conservatives such as B. B. Warfield reacted favourably to Darwinism. Six day creationists may disagree with McGrath on these points. But he has done us a great service in subjecting Dawkins' agressive, but unfounded and irrational atheism to rigourous scholarly analysis. In the light of this book, "Darwin's Rottweiler" should scurry away with his tail between his legs rather than continute to bark out his atheism in the press and on TV.

According to Dawkins, faith "means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence". This, says McGrath, "bears little relation to any religious (or any other) sense of the word." In its stead McGrath presents the definition of faith by the Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith-Thomas: "It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct." Such a definition - which McGrath describes as "typical of any Christian writer" - is an example of what Dawkins, in reference to French postmodernists, calls "continental obscurantism." Most of it describes the psychology of belief. The only clause of relevance to a scientist is "adequate evidence," which raises the follow-up question, "Is there?"

Obviously McGrath must think there is, but he never says. On this point I found the book frustrating. As McGrath's relentless deconstruction of Dawkins unfolds, he repeats, over and over, that religion offers a worldview every bit as sophisticated and worthy of respect as science. His defense of religious faith is a passionate and honorable one, but he never delivers an answer to the God question. The closest thing to an argument for God's existence I could find in the book is this: "Why should God require an explanation at all? He might just be an `ultimate,'... one of those things we have to accept as given, and is thus amenable to description, rather than explanation." That may be, but like all other arguments made in favor of God's existence, this only works as a reason to believe if you already believe. If you do not already believe, science cannot help you.

I was eager to read Dawkins' God because of the weight of the contestants and what they represent. McGrath dodges the biggest question of all, the question at the heart of Dawkins's writings: Is there a God? Whether Dawkins is simplistic or sarcastic or sardonic is a secondary issue. By elevating it to the primary focus of the book, McGrath missed an opportunity to make his case, pace Dawkins, and give us the very best arguments in his arsenal. With McGrath, I still do not know why he believes in God. With Dawkins, there is no doubt about where he stands.