Customer Reviews

The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

David Robertson, a Free Church of Scotland pastor who lives in Dundee, wanted there to be an intelligent Christian response to Richard Dawkins' bestselling The God Delusion. To that end he wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins and subsequently posted it on his church's web site. The letter somehow found its way to Dawkins who posted it on his own website where it generated a response that was massive in scope and in passion. According to the back of The Dawkins Letters, "The ferocity, and shallowness of thinking, of some of the responses spurred David to write further letters, which form the basis of this book. They explain a credible basis for faith that counteracts the `atheist myths' that so much popular discussion is based upon."

The Dawkins Letters, then, is a series of letters from Robertson to Dawkins--a series of ten letters that call Dawkins to account for the errors and inaccuracies within his book. It also responds to his arguments--both his novel new ones and the tired rehashed ones common to a whole generation of atheists. Generally speaking, Robertson does a superior job of doing this. He says in his Introduction that he will no doubt be criticized by some for being too harsh and by others for being too gentle; some will say that this is an in appropriate forum for attempts at humor and others will simply miss the humor altogether. But, says Robertson, "It will be helpful to remember that these are personal letters, not an academic discourse, not an exercise in English grammar." In order to make this a personal rebuttal and in order to reach a wide audience, he has decided not to make this an academic treatise, though I'm sure he would have been capable of doing so.

The book does a particularly good job of point out the unending contradictions between what Dawkins wants to believe and what he must actually believe on the basis of his atheistic beliefs. After all, most atheists stop far short of following their beliefs to fair conclusions. Robertson calls them on this time and time again.

I had very few notable concerns with the book. Robertson perhaps cedes a little too much to theistic evolution, intelligent design, or old earth creationism. He does not state his position on the age of the earth and the way life came about, but neither does he deny the validity of any of the possibilities. I was a little disappointed in this. But beyond that I found little that I objected to. I thought he did as good a job of anyone of interacting with atheistic arguments and of challenging atheists to understand the contradictions inherent in their worldview. Anyone who has read The God Delusion would do well to follow it with this intelligent, measured, respectful response.

Being a former atheist, and finding Dawkins' arguments so flimsy, I was thinking of writing my own critique of Dawkins' book. But now, having read this, I find it is not necessary after all! Thank you, David!

This book consists of the author's own letters which were posted on the Dawkins website. The author replies to Dawkins' 'God Delusion' chapter-by-chapter and has a knack of getting to the nub of the issue each time. Easily the best critique of Dawkins' ideas in book form currently available.

Borders bookstores have reported that 'The Dawkins Letters' is now outselling Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' throughout their stores in the UK. This book deserves it!

David Robertson is a Scottish Presbyterian who ministers in Dundee. Having read Dawkins 'God Delusion' he decided to respond with a series of letters addressing the major themes of the book. These include letters addressing: the notion that atheists are the truly enlightened, intelligent ones; the impossibility of true beauty without God; the myth of atheist tolerance and rationality; the myth of a cruel Old Testament God; the false dichotomy Dawkins creates between science and religion; the "who made God?" argument; the nonsense that all religion is inherently evil; the myth of morality within an atheistic worldview; the myth of an immoral bible, and; the charge of child abuse.

Where to start? The first half of the book is definitely less persuasive than the latter. One might conjecture that Robertson's understandable irritation with Dawkins slides off into sarcasm and thus dents the force of his presentation. Seriously critiquing Dawkins view of "multiverses" could have been achieved without mockery. Even if, especially at this point, one does think that Dawkins might deserve a dose of his own medicine. Further, the brevity he must deal with each topic to fit his chosen format (short letters), inevitably leads to some shortcuts in his arguments. For example, Robertson doesn't really address some of the real moral problems from reading the Old Testament. This is an area he really should have spent considerably more time on, as it's something one hears more and more often. His letter on this, frankly, comes across as assertion rather than explanation for how Christians view this problematic material. It lacks substance and wanders off into preaching/proclamation rather than tackling the difficulties. This was the most disappointing chapter in the book.

Nonetheless, things pick up considerably in the second half of the book. The tone changes, becoming less polemical, and far more compellingly argued. Indeed, the strongest letters cover the basis for morality without God and whether religion is really the source of all evil. Here Robertson takes Dawkins to task for his continual oversimplification, ad hominem polemics, failure to express what Christians actually believe rather than his straw-man caricatures, and his genuine failure to engage informed and erudite Christian tradition. To say one does not need to know about spaghetti monsters is surely effective and clever rhetoric, but is simply a strategy of evasion, an utter cop out to avoid being challenged by the best of Christian thought. The latter half of the book also pushes Dawkins to consider the outcome of his polemics and where it might lead, especially in view of the irresponsible charge of child abuse.

Overall, Robertson's book is well worth reading, if only for the latter half of the book, which is passionately expressed, critically on target, and better representative of the concerns about the underlying philosophy Dawkins holds. Moral relativity and the drive of the selfish gene unchecked by the good, loving, and holy God revealed in the face of Jesus, are more likely to lead to 'might is right' and 'the ends justify the means' than 'care for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger in your midst' and 'love your neighbour'.

Perhaps some day, when the heat has gone out of the current polemics, Robertson will write a much more lengthy and detailed response. If he does, I'd be glad to read it.

This was a fun read. To be honest, it's been awhile since I read "The God Delusion," and didn't think much of it at the time of reading. As countless critics (atheistic and theistic) have pointed out, it doesn't offer much of an argument scientifically, philosophically or elsewise. It surely wouldn't cause anyone to "be an atheist by the end of the book," unless they were an atheist at the start. I was surprised at its high sales volume, but seeing as how it has become something of a 'bible' for atheists (with some wanting it placed alongside Gideon New Testaments in hotels), I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Thus, I didn't expect to read many responses to a book that I found intellectually vapid. Recently though, I listened to an interesting interview with David Robertson, and enjoyed his candor. I enjoyed his getting behind the rhetoric to the presuppositions underlying Dawkins' "arguments." I was tickled to hear that Dawkins' website, which claims to be a "clear thinking oasis" had banned Robertson on multiple occasions. They didn't ban him for profanity, spam or any other valid reason, but instead because he 'caused arguments' by challenging people to think outside of their paradigm. Since hearing this amusing story, I've read of others with similar stories. Obviously, clear thinking does not necessarily mean free thinking.

In the end, I'm glad that I read this book because it was fun. Robertson succeeds at getting beneath the rhetoric and showing how Dawkins' "arguments" truly pose no threat to historic Christianity. I enjoy how Robertson gives respect to Dawkins' arguments, but critiques their foundations showing that they are often philosophically untenable and more often than not lead to absurdities.

Accordingly, I heartily recommend this book for those who want to see the often amusing outcomes of Dawkins' statements when pressed to their natural end. No, it doesn't present philosophical, revelational or historical arguments for God's existence, because that isn't the book's intent. The more subtle goal is to show the absurdity (and often downright falsity) of Dawkins' "arguments." In this regard, the book excels.

Richard Dawkins published a book entitled The God Delusion which articulated his brand of atheism. In light of the buzz surrounding the book, a pastor in Scotland wanted to equip his church to think about the book and the faith of Christianity. So he wrote an open letter to Dawkins and posted it on the church's website. Soon after this, the letter was published on Dawkins' own website, where it generated a substantial response from the congregation of atheists.

There remained a tone of anger bathed in shallowness resulting in inconsistencies and unfair characterizations of Christianity. So Pastor David Robertson wrote more letters to Dawkins. These letters form the basis for The Dawkins Letters.

Robertson interacts with each of the chapters in Dawkins' book. He aims to do so with clarity, kindness, and biblical fidelity. I believe he has done so.

In each of the chapters Robertson inserts the word "myth" before the various chapter titles that Dawkins employed. He then sets out to refute Dawkins biblically. Robertson tries to fly under the radar, claiming that he is no scientist or scholar, just a pastor, however, at the same time he is no dummy. He interacts with Dawkins, shows inconsistencies, and most importantly, provides an answer. His tone is humble and in some cases very evangelistic. In my view Robertson did his job and as a result this little book (140 pages) will help you wade through the issues and interact biblically.

This book was stongest in it's exposure of the logical fallicies, circular reasoning, and unreasoned bias written in The God Dellusion. The stongest chapters in this book are in the begining of the book. However, as the book hits about it's half way points, it seems like the logic in his arguments weeken, his points aren't clearly demonstrated and it simply seems to be getting rushed. The author does a better job with philopshy and and logic then he does defending the Bible. His arguements for defending the Bible are the weekest part of the book. However, i still gave it a 4 due to the fact that the books aim was to show the irrational logic of Dawkins, and in that respect, he did a good job.

I appreciate the willingness of people to come out and Stan's up for what they believe to be true. Unfortunately, the so-called myths in this book can hardly be atheists or myths. Christians are pretty good at labeling and creating pejoratives for their opponents, especially atheists. One only need look at Hal Lindsey's website to see the Christians have a persecution complex. Why is it okay for the Christian to humiliate their opponent, but the atheist cannot? Atheism is a response to the nonsense that is Christianity. Atheists did not ask for these people to create these fabulous and fantastical tales. It strikes me odd that Christians can get away with believing what ever they want but atheists cannot-- not that we want to make up our beliefs. Christianity is begging the question, if a god existed blah blah blah. I think Christians need to stop talking as if their belief in the existence of god matters and start demonstrating that god exists, that is show us your deity. Show me this supernatural realm you speak of and stop copping out with that tired Feyman quote about quantum theory too. I personally, long for the day when religion, especially Christians are no longer relevant or around. I am not interested in their arguments why atheists are atheists and am not interested in their god-- whether it exists or not remains to be demonstrated. Robertson claims to have read a hundred books-- who cares. I have thousands (this includes numerous bibles and other religous texts) and neither of them demonstrate the existence of a god. This is a rant of course, but seriously when do words, that is logical arguments make things exist? I think the title of the book gives the author's true intention away. Want to make money insert Dawkins here.

This book is written in a conversational tone and an easy read - despite the weight of the topic / subtopics. I highly recommend it - especially for college students whose faith in God is challenged on a daily basis. David Robertson doesn't just spew out facts, he does so with respect and grace for Dawkins and atheists who very often respond to him unreasonably with much offensive language.

While David Robertson does score a few hits on Dawkins by raising some valid criticisms of "The God Delusion" these are heavily out numbered by the misses.
Roberston's arguments often do not address the point he feels he is attacking and others are just not convincing.
When Robertson attacks Dawkins description of the Old testiment God as cruel and vicious which Dawkins bases on such things as the biblical flood etc Robertson quoates a bit of the old testement which basically says God is a realy nice chap. Since both are using the old testiment as their source the obvious conclusion is that God is a realy nice chap who destroyed all human and animal life on Earth apart from one family and their pets.
When Robertson gets on to the subject of morality he uses the type of argument all too frequently trotted out in Christian literature, the argument from consequences. He argues that without God there can be no absolute morality and any form of relative morality will allow anyone to justify any action however bad and thus lead to the type of terrible attrocites that litter the history of the 20th centuary. Since this is unattractive consequence of relative morality there must be an absolute morality therefore God must exist. This type of argument boils down to if A is true then B will happen, I don't want B to happen so A must be false.
Someone could argue that if they were poor they could not buy the things they want, could not go on nice holidays and could not eat at the restaurants they like, this would be unpleasent for them therefore they must be rich but I suspect their bank manager would not be impressed.

What a cynical attempt to cash in on the atheist movement by publishing a series of disingenuous rants that were posted on some christian bozo's web site.

This guy's postings are available online for free (so no need to spend the money to buy his stupid book.).

They consist of incoherent ramblings that never actually address the thesis of Richard Dawkins's book: That the idea that there is some supernatural jewish grandfather living in the sky is a load of bunk. (Actually Dawkins addresses all kinds of mythological grandfathers, not just jewish ones as in judeo-christo-islamism.