The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine

by Alister E. McGrath, Collicutt McGrath, Joanna

The God Delusion by world-renowned scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins received wide coverage, fueled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion.

Once an atheist himself, Alister McGrath wonders how two people, who have reflected at length on substantially the same world, could possibly have come to such different conclusions about God. In The Dawkins Delusion? McGrath and his wife, Joanna, subject Dawkins's critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny.

This book will be warmly received by those looking for a reliable assessment of The God Delusion and the many questions it raises including, above all, the relevance of faith and the quest for meaning.

Market/Audience General readers Pastors Students Culture watchers
Endorsements

"Alister McGrath invariably combines enormous scholarship with an accessible and engaging style." ROWAN WILLIAMS, Archbishop of Canterbury

"Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his muchcherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." FRANCIS COLLINS, Director of the Human Genome Project

"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." MICHAEL RUSE, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University

Features and Benefits Provides a timely response to the recent bestselling book by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion McGrath, like Dawkins, was an atheist and now, again like Dawkins, teaches at Oxford

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Theology, Christianity, Christian, Science

102 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Alister Edgar McGrath is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College. He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest and is ordained within the Church of England.

Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College. McGrath holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.

McGrath is noted for his work in historical theology, systematic theology, and the relationship between science and religion, as well as his writings on apologetics. He is also known for his opposition to New Atheism and antireligionism and his advocacy of theological critical realism. Among his best-known books are The Twilight of Atheism, The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, and A Scientific Theology. He is also the author of a number of popular textbooks on theology.

Reviews

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

The best thing that can be said for "The Dawkins Delusion?" is that at under 100 pages, it didn't waste too much of my time. To save you from wasting any of yours, let me summarize (and paraphrase): "Dawkins makes hateful baseless claims and ignores evidence that cuts against his position." If you're hoping for this book to say more, you'll be sorely disappointed (though perhaps appreciative of the irony).

I think perhaps I just need a break from this genre, for it has gotten to feel like a horribly juvenile case of "he said, she said." Here are some of my major critiques of this particular installment:

As I already implied, the authors mirror many of the things they criticize about Dawkins. For instance, they chastise his use of religious extremists examples as being representative of the faithful as a whole. Which is fair, until they respond in kind: "Atheism must indeed be in a sorry state if its leading contemporary defender has to depend so heavily--and so obviously--on the improbable and the false to bolster his case." I'm not sure who on either side would consider Dawkins to be representative of atheists as a whole, making the authors, at best, hypocritical (at worst - dare I say - deluded).

Other parts of the book are merely irrelevant: "I subsequently found myself persuaded that Christianity was a much more interesting and intellectually exciting worldview than atheism." Perhaps law school has gotten the best of me, but I am desperately waiting for the "And therefore..." Who cares about what is interesting or exciting? I thought this was a discussion about what is "right," or at the least, what is well argued.

Finally, the "I was a believer-turned-atheist" or "I was an atheist-turned believer" claim is 1) completely overdone, and 2) entirely unpersuasive. I'll stop there because this is a review, not a rebuttal, but hopefully these observations underpin at least some of the weaknesses I saw in this book.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I picked up this book, I thought to myself that the authors were going to have a hard time disputing 400 pages of atheist vitriol with less than 100 pages. I was wrong. The McGraths (husband and wife), both fellow Oxfordians with Dawkins, cleanly and effectively eviscerate many of Dawkins' most egregrious arguments in The God Delusion. I did my best to approach this book with an open mind (as I did with Dawkins' book) and to weigh the arguments on their own merit. This task was much easier to do, reading The Dawkins Delusion? than it was reading Dawkins himself. While Dawkins goes out of his way (and indeed out of the confines of scientific inquiry) to castigate and villify believers, the McGraths don't attempt to alienate atheists for their beliefs. They simply ask that Dawkins drop his pretensions of objectivity and uncorrupted rationality and examine the highly subjective and irrational book that he has penned. The Dawkins Delusion is not an apologetic for Christianity (although it is discussed and the McGraths are both Christian) but instead seeks to engage Dawkins on a handful of his arguments. They state from the beginning that the book will not be a point-by-point refutation, but will instead examine key points and let the reader contemplate the fidelity of the rest of Dawkins' book.

I felt that this book was an even-handed and honest counter-point to The God Delusion. The authors highlight the points that they believe Dawkins gets right and challenge the points where he fails. It is a small book, but a fairly dense read. I read it twice to make sure I understood everything and I'm glad I did. While I don't agree with the McGraths across the board, theologically, I admire their deft and competent refutation of The God Delusion, which I found to be a highly flawed and hypocritical book. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has read The God Delusion. It is important to read Dawkins' book first, so that the references in The Dawkins Delusion? make sense. Thanks for taking the time to read my review!

[Alex J. O'Connor]

I'm not a 'Dawkinsian' in any sense of the word; I feel the author of this book's target is flawed in many ways in his approach to religion. However, this book is frankly appalling. It is littered with misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and also is at times exactly wrong.

For just one example, on page 58 McGrath claims that Leviticus 25 prohibits slavery. A minute's skim reading of this chapter reveals instead that it explicitly *endorses* slavery:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (Leviticus 25:44-46, NIV)

That last admonishment is the source of McGrath's misapprehension as the chapter does state that Israelites specifically must not be taken as slaves:

"Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves" (25:42)

However this is a clear example of the 'in-group' Biblical instruction that McGrath claims does not exists later in his book!

I would have awarded two stars, however I think of many ways the book could have been worse, such as focusing on Dawkins rather than his ideas, which McGrath avoids. I would not recommend this book, as there are better criticisms of Dawkins' works available.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this concurrently with The God Delusion, and must say I really appreciated McGrath's tone of patience and reasonableness, even when it was clear he strongly disagreed with Dawkins' arguements. As someone who is examining his beliefs and is fairly open to good arguments, no matter what they are, I found this slim volume helpful as a reminder, while reading Dawkins, that the passion and certainty of the author should not be substitutes for logic and evidence. For what it is intended to be, this is an effective book.

[Steve Cann · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oh dear me. I approached this book with an open mind, having recently read the excellent God Delusion, to see if the authors could provide me with a solid argument in defence of religion - and perhaps even give me a hint of proof of the existence of the supernatural deity they cling to.
No chance! This book appears to be the literary equivalent of the proverbial child who has thrown his or her toys out of the pram.

It begins (mistakenly) with repeatedly classing atheist belief as 'dogmatic' (foolishly firing back the very same accusation most thinking people would level at fundamental religion) and never really lets up from there. Atheism isn't dogmatic or fundamental - it's simply a case of 'opting-in' to reality and accepting what is as IS.
Why the need to add anything else, when reality itself is so beautiful and awe-inspiring.

The authors seem to have read a completely different book to me - I found The God Delusion gentle, intelligent, passionate, well-constructed, and a thorough investigation into what it is that is so seductive about religion. Richard also examines why it's endured for so long, in the face of such overwhelming evidence that supernatural deities don't exist.
It's crystal-clear to me that these deities are simply the product of over-active human imaginations, stemming (often) from childhood indoctrination.

The authors also clearly seem to have desperately searched The God Delusion for any tiny facet that they think they can seize upon to discredit Richard and his book, and all of their arguments are extremely weak indeed and poorly thought out. I'm sorry to say, but the level of writing and intellect on display here is no higher than that of a 12-year-old.
This (tellingly brief) book most certainly would not 'convert' any atheist - I imagine it would have the opposite effect! And yes - you simply just can't argue 'god' into existence.

I don't even class myself as an 'atheist' - why do I need to label myself with a word to describe the lack of belief in something for which I am 99.9999999% certain doesn't exist anyway? 'God' simply doesn't exist outside of language - it's an entirely made-up human construct. Humans created 'god' in their own image - NOT the other way around.

It seems to me from this reactionary book that Richard has certainly made some big waves in religious waters, and has certain 'believers' running scared. What a pity then that they still can't think out of their religious box. They'd be far better off waking up to reality, breaking free of their chains, and living life without the religious blinkers on - knowing it's the ONLY life they'll ever have.
This is the 21st century after all - NOT the Bronze Age.

[Marvin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A friend of mine told me a story about the first book club he went to in our little desert town. The book to be discussed was The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown. It was a big meeting but only a few were there to discuss the book. The bulk of the attendees were from churches in the area and their sole purpose for attending was to shut down the discussion, an objective which they achieved. The meeting soon degenerated into chaos.

This is typical of my many years of studying various religions and philosophies in my own personal journey. I have never seen a group of atheists invade a church but more often than not I have seen religious people attempt to break up peaceful gatherings of atheists or other freethinkers.

Enter Richard Dawkins, a man many Christians describe as more than arrogant and for lack of a better term, a "rabble-rouser". Personally I do not see him as arrogant so much as refreshingly assertive. Yet religiously inclined individuals have elevated his musings into the level of anti-Christ. A cottage industry has arisen for the sole purpose of refuting The God Delusion. The Dawkins Delusion is only one of many.

But it is also one of the best for Alister E. McGrath is much more reasonable than many. As a scientist he understands where Dawkins is coming from. However, as a Christian he sees Dawkins as falling into many of the fundamentalist traps his Christian brethren falls into. In many cases he is right. The Dawkins Delusion is significantly refreshing because McGrath for the most part stays civil and makes some good points.

One of these points is that Dawkins does not differentiate between a belief in God and Religion. I think it is true that belief or disbelief in God never harmed anyone. It is the structure surrounding that belief that motivates the type of action I described above or, in extreme situations, war and atrocity. By the way, this is why the tactic of equating such True Believer philosophies like Nazism and Communist with Atheism is so ridiculous. I personally believe that religion actually came before the belief in God as demonstrated by what we know of early Pantheistic practices that were motivated by the need to control, or more precisely the delusion of control, over nature and that the idea of a supreme deity was a later development. McGrath quite rightly makes the distinction of belief in God and religion but the fact that he is advocating for a specific religion makes this point irrelevant.

But McGrath totally dismisses Dawkins' speculation that a belief in God is a Darwinian device that developed from a need to survive. He dismisses it as bad science with no basis. Yet he also ignores the fledgling science of Evolutionary Psychology that is attempting to scientifically explore this idea. This leads to what I sees as McGraths's biggest flaw. He attempt to criticize Dawkins by admiring Dawkins's early works of science, i.e. The Selfish Gene and others, but then scolds him for mere speculation in The God Delusion. The problem with this is that Dawkins never claims his speculation in The Gods Delusion is science and clearly marks speculation as being speculation. This is where McGrath gets in trouble for he is faulting Dawkins for the same "leap of faith", which Dawkins does not do, that Christians do daily.

I give credit to McGrath for recognizing many pitfalls of religious beliefs. He dismisses Intelligent Design as being unscientific and the "God of the Gap" theory as being an useless relics of the 19th century. However, there are clues that McGrath may not be totally sincere in these ideas especially when he comments that evolution is "just another explanation".

But overall, The Dawkins Delusion is one of the best, perhaps the only, intelligent and reasonable rebuttals to much of Dawkins say in his controversial The God Delusion and is worth the time to read for both sides of the discussion. Frankly, it is nice to read someone who would rather discuss with than shut down the other side. For those who are interested there is an interesting and very respectful debate between Dawkins and McGrath available on Youtube.

[jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read The Dawkins Delusion not long after reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I have to say, he "eviscerates" (Dawkins' cheesy word) Dawkins' arguments.

I had problems with The God Delusion as I noted in my review of the book and I don't hide the fact that I am a Christian. Maybe because of this I was more critical while reading Dawkins than I was with McGrath. I certainly did not make a conscious decision to do so.

McGrath completely tears down virtually all of Dawkins' arguments. In fact, I wanted to reduce my rating of The God Delusion down from 4 because I was so embarrassed that I had such a high opinion of it. There is little to no theology in the book. Instead, McGrath argues against Dawkins on the basis of reason and observation.

Honestly, I don't know what to say. I was embarrassed for Dawkins. I was embarrassed of approval of the book. If you think Dawkins has sealed the deal in the question of the existence of God, you need to read this counterpoint to The God Delusion.

[Cheri · Rating 1 out of 5]

The McGraths engage in a much more civil debate than Dawkins; I'll give them that. And that IS important. However, they deliberately miss many of the points that Dawkins makes in his book. Their arguments turn into more of a defense of their particular religion (Christianity) than a rebuttal to Dawkins assertions that support a theory that there is no god. Given the brevity of the book, which amounts to little more than a rap on the knuckles for being disrespectful, the McGraths would probably have been better more appropriately published as an op ed piece for a magazine.

[Charbel · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Dawkins Delusion? promises counter-arguments to those presented by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, but unfortunately fails. Instead of a comeback volume designed to dispute Dawkins' massively popular book, we get just-over-a-100 pages of rants that strangely read like a negative review of the God Delusion.

I picked up this book for two reasons: 1) I liked the idea that someone wanted to add something to the debate, and 2) the authors seemed credible to do that, with Alister McGrath having a strong background in science and theology. However, I was thoroughly disappointed.

One of the things that ticked me off was the constant depiction of atheists in the book as nothing more than "Dawkins followers", as if all atheists belong to the church of Richard Dawkins. The fact that atheism is fundamentally unorganized in any way seemed to have escaped the authors, as did the idea that atheists openly criticize Dawkins and specifically view him positivly only for his outspokenness on the subject and his wonderful scientific contributions.

Beyond that the rest of the book is merely a collection of pseudo-arguments that constitute nothing more than a waste of time. For example, on the subject of faith Dawkins is very clear that accepting things without questioning them is ludicrous, but McGrath (which McGrath is not clear) goes on to say that that is not the definition of the 'Chrisitan faith', as opposed to the Muslim faith, or the Hindu faith or the Buddhist faith. Hence we see that McGrath is biased in his (or her) "arguments" defending not religion in general, but specifically the Christian religion. In fact, most of his arguments are Christio-centric and seem to forget all other religions. Well then what is the definition of the Chrisitan faith according to McGrath? None apparently is given.
Another "argument" presented goes like this (I'm paraphrasing): if God does not exist, then how come so many people turn to religion late in life?
This argument seems to indicate that there is, not just a correlation, but a direct causation between the existence of God and late in life conversions. McGrath seems to forget one of the fundamental themes of psychology, the question of whether human beings are consistent in their believes, their tastes, their personalities, all their lives, or are they prone to change. Never mind that personal experience is largely the main force behind these conversions, and that personal experience is subjective and is very much up for interpretation; and hence can't be used in an objective debate. But to McGrath all of that is irrelevant.

In conclusion, this book seems to be an attack on Dawkins for having written The God Delsuion in the first place. Obviously McGrath, who was once an atheist, felt offended by Dawkins' book and decided to declare out loud (though in a very well written manner) that he regrets nothing, which on its own is fine, but after having put the term "atheist fundementalism" in the title, as if atheists form some sort of militia led by Dawkins, is highly inadequate for such a measly piece of "objective reasoning".

[Drew Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! While reading it, be sure to remember that it is merely a response essay rather than a book presenting an argument. McGrath does a fantastic job explaining his purpose in the introduction, so be sure to read that and not just jump in chapter 1. There are only 4 chapters for a total of 100 pages, but it is very rich in context and does a brilliant job pointing out the flaws in Dawkins's argument in "The God Delusion". Even though McGrath disagrees with Dawkins, even showing where he thinks Dawkins is wrong, there is still a great respect throughout the book for Dawkins and his position at Oxford. The main thing is that if you are Atheist, Christian, or any other way of thinking, that you read this with an open mind. Don't come into this, or any other book for that matter, with a predisposition of "This is wrong", "This is right", "I'm sticking to what I believe no matter what this books says" or even "This book is going to change my life". We should always approach a book with the mentality of "I want to know what this book has to say so that I can find out more about who I am and what I believe."

[Karl · Rating 5 out of 5]

A succinct and fair-minded critique of Richard Dawkins' misrepresentation of religion, religious people and belief in God.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

McGrath is a real smart guy and his criticisms made me think more deeply about what I read in The God Delusion.

[Tim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hmm.. I only got about 1/3 of the way through this very short book which was a present to me by someone who disagrees with Dawkins' 'God Delusion'...even though they haven't read that book.

Essentially, Dawkins who writes in a fundamental atheist manner in his book 'The God Delusion' and is responded to here in this book by McGrath, a fundamental Christian. There was great potential to hear reasoned debate and response to the Dawkins.

Sadly i could not not appreciate his arguments because he was often too busy heaping scorn upon Dawkins in what felt like an effort to ridicule him in the same way that he himself criticises Dawkins of doing.. After a couple of chapters of this I could stomach it no longer.

It seemed like a rallying call for worried Fundamental Christians who wanted someone to present an "answer" to the popular book of Dawkins which could potentially influence the faiths of people away from the Fundamental Christian's god.

I must point out that i felt Dawkins should have kept his own writing less confrontational and let his facts and arguments speak for themselves. I think both men have let their emotions get somewhat the better of them in these books.

I may one day reread both Dawkins book and this book after each other and see if i can set aside the personal rudeness and point scoring, to determine if either writer actually presents sensible arguments.

[Jeff · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked this book up with the Dawkin's God Delusion because it was right next to it. I'm sorry to say as short as it is I couldn't get through two chapters. Every other paragrah seemed to reference an earlier book or argument either by McGrath or Dawkins. When he wasn't self-promoting he was nitpicking on Dawkin's choice of examples or quotes. I won't say that its not informative as to different interpretations of the situations Dawkin raises in his book but it does little else. I found it a bit insulting, any reader should know that the author has an objective, especially when the author spells it out for you at the beginning of the book. The whole Atheism fundamentalism he insists on pushing Dawkins into was a bit strange, trying to compare religion to Athesim is just silly.

[Alec · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this alongside the God Delusion is perhaps one of the most interesting and engaging discursive experiences I have had with two books. Regardless of your preconceptions, you should read both of these books, if only to inform yourself of the debate and to show you that neither side can conclusively "win" in these ostensibly rational/logical back-and-forths. What you will learn is that the perspective of both writers/camps is largely informed by their presuppositions (which is not a bad thing). The most important thing I learned from this book in particular is that Dawkins' attempt at scientifically disproving God's existence is thinly-veiled by the misplaced confidence of (now out-dated) logical positivism.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

[The] McGrath(es) do(es) a nice job at showing how The Dawkins constantly overreaches in his criticisms of God (Christianity, religion, &c.). How Dawkins continually substitutes rhetoric, vitriol, and ignorance in lieu of sustained and cogent argumentation. How Dawkins is selective in his appeal to history to indict the faithful (e.g., Pape's analysis of the motives of suicide bombers, the claims of some who died under the French revolution, the phenomena attending the problems in Northern Ireland, etc.,). Basically, McGrath does an excellent job at showing The Dawkins to be a third-rate hack. Someone who needs to keep his nose in the Petri dish and out of the business of philosophers and theologians.

Be that as it may, the book is extremely short and this doesn't allow McGrath to really law the wood to The Dawkins. McGrath doesn't go for the jugular - just what The Dawkins needs. Don't get me wrong, the ad hominem approach definitely has its merits, but this isn't the most powerful way to proceed. The Dawkins should be ripped apart logically, philosophically, and theologically. McGrath doesn't do this. Perhaps its because they are both at Oxford? Perhaps it is because McGrath is an English gentleman? Nothing wrong with that. But The Dawkins has chosen to get into the mud. If you're going to wrestle someone in the mud, you're going to get dirty. McGrath maybe gets a spot (or two!) on his pressed white shirt. To clean for my liking!

[Kris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, pointed, and effective. As usual, McGrath cuts right to the heart of the matter, elucidating and unraveling Dawkin's flawed ideas. My only complaint is that it's not a longer work, though I know there are more thorough rebuttals in McGrath's other works, like Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life.

Here are some good quotes from McGrath describing Dawkin's writing:

"The book is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument."

"...Dawkins's pervasive cognitive bias, which accentuates the evidence he likes and overlooks or discounts that which he does not."

"...his utter determination to find nothing but fault with religion of any kind."

Thank you, dear Amy, for gifting this to me!

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

A VERY fair and forthright dealing with a few of the quotes from Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

Otherwise, he is obviuosly ignorant of the science involved.

[Teresa · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hahahaha. Comedic and stupid

[Ben Daryos · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب جدلي ونقضي من أوله إلى آخره وهو جيّد، لكن وددت أنه وضع براهين لوجود الإله أو لزوم الحاجة إلى الدين.

[Carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, for some reason this book is coming up pretty high on my Goodreads list, even though it's been a while since I've read it. My review seems a bit like trash talk to me now, esp. seeing as I still haven't actually read Dawkins' book. To be honest, I saw an uncut debate between these two on youtube a while back, and have to admit Dawkins came out on top. Well, it's been a while-- and I just don't trust debates anyway, I think written, relatively sympathetic communication is the best way to work through things. Well, there is a lot more I'd like to dig into re: the thought of both of these thinkers, so I think I will just say that I'm not so sure I stand wholeheartedly behind my review anymore, though I will need to return to this later to be sure. Gosh, I need to not get onto this stuff past midnight when I can't sleep...

Finally finished! A great book. Short, sure, but the last two chapters in particular really dug into the meat of the issues, and the final chapter even got into binary oppositions, deconstruction, and all that other epistemologically and ontologically savvy goodness that Dawkins lacks. Also check out Terry Eagleton's review here:
[http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_....]
My original review before finishing the book is below.

Here is another link I came across recently, though I haven't had a chance to read it yet-- Willard's critique of Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker: [http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artv...]

Looks good so far, though definitely feels as though written for a popular audience (meaning, it feels at times as though there could be more meat-- though every time I think that I come across something that really satisfies). I really need to actually get around to reading Dawkins' book. I also really liked Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion (which can be found online somewhere-- I'll try to find the link and paste it here). From what I understand, Dawkins jumps into several different fields he is inadequately prepared to discuss, let alone criticize (Christian theology and worldview, philosophy, epistemology, etc), and McGrath and Eagleton are well suited to take him to task for those particular failings. Eagleton, of course, is not a scientist (actually, I don't even know if he is a Christian, but that is beside the point-- I'm more interested in the fact that his background in criticism and philosophy give him the epistemological sophistication and humility which Dawkins lacks), but McGrath is a very appropriate choice for a response, as he not only has degrees in both a science (I believe it was one of the biological sciences) and in theology (at least I think he had a degree-- he may have just studied on his own), but also converted to Christianity from Atheism after pursuing both fields of knowledge.
Again, I really need to read Dawkins' book-- I suspect, from these reviews, that my post-modern-academic heart will scream with outrage at every other word of Dawkins' clumsy logical-positivism, but if I'm going to be outraged anyway, I may as well make sure that I'm outraged at the real thing, and not just some idea.

[Thomas Cavan Gui · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mcgrath在此書一直是用一種無語的語氣表達Dawkins太槽多無口了。毫無疑問這不是一種理性辯論的態度，畢竟這種比較嚴肅的書籍不應該頻繁出現umm這樣純口語的字樣。但真要說來還得是Dawkins開了壞頭，他確實太傲慢了，如同好鬥的鬥牛犬一樣反宗教，傲慢、武斷，對教徒人身攻擊，甚至悍然開除別人的科學家籍。面對這種貨色還是得陰陽怪氣好使。總而言之Dawkins這樣的原教旨無神論蠢到只配和某些極端基要派互相提供樂子。另外還是需要“感謝”史達林和他的孝子等tankie，Dawkins信誓旦旦地說無神論比宗教溫和得多，這兩位沾滿基督徒鮮血的屠夫用事實把Dawkins臉抽爛了。

[Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

First off I'll admit to not having read The God Delusion itself. So until then, my 4/5 rating is provisional; 3.5/5 would probably be more accurate, and giving 4/5 instead of 3/5 shifts the average rating in that direction.

The absolutely fundamental point for anybody thinking of reading this book to consider is that it is NOT a plug for Christianity. The book is very short (my edition is 78 pages - 12 of those pages are notes, references and further reading) and focuses on refuting the points Dawkins makes in The God Delusion. The fact that the McGraths are Christian is almost incidental: they occasionally draw upon examples from Christianity. From the offset it is evident that the purpose of the book is to discredit The God Delusion.

The book is very focused: there is little of the rhetoric and nastiness which I understand plagues The God Delusion. Most of the points made are very well-written, although the McGraths occasionally ignore what I feel to be the more obvious responses to Dawkins' ramblings. The most prominent example is the section attempting to refute Dawkins' idea that Christian faith is irrational. The McGraths put across a slightly convulated argument; I was expecting them to point out that the Greek word used in the New Testament for "faith" is "pistis", which is best translated to "trust based on prior evidence". The Biblical definition of faith is completely rational and certainly not "blind", and I am surprised Alister McGrath (of all people) did not make that point.

While the McGraths correctly criticise Dawkins for tarring all Christians with the same brush, they occasionally slip and describe Dawkins as, among other things, atheism's "leading contemporary defender". I am sure that any reasonably well-educated atheist would be offended by being put in the same corner as Dawkins.

All that said, the vast majority of the arguments are very fluid and to the point. For someone looking for a response to the claims made in The God Delusion and only in The God Delusion, this is a good candidate for reading.

[Tattered Cover Book Store]

Whether you loved The God Delusion or hated it (few people felt anything in between), you really ought to read this book. (If you didn't read The God Delusion, then there's not much point in reading this one either.) In 97 pages, the McGraths lay out clearly and concisely the many points in
Dawkins's book that are exaggerated, misguided, or just plain false. Though we keep the book in Theology, it does not in fact propose any religious stance or system, but rather defends the legitimacy (rather than the truth or falsity) of "the religious" against Dawkins's ultimately
uninformed attack. If you support Dawkins's message, you should know where he misrepresents the details; if you oppose it (or just kind of thought Dawkins was a jerk about the whole thing), The Dawkins Delusion will help you to clarify that opposition.

Chris C

Ryan replies:

The Dawkins Delusion? is quite possibly the longest ad hominem argument I have ever come across. When McGrath is not directly attacking Dawkins for not being greatly skilled in theology (a dubious skill), then he is accusing him of making arguments which he claims (and wants you to believe) are unsophisticated (Silly Dawkins apparently those are not proofs offered by Aquinas, they are only meant to show internal consistency with a belief in god). Not to mention McGrath is creating a vast army of straw men to take over the debate. All the while misquoting, misrepresenting, and
misunderstanding what is actually said by Dawkins.

[Bas · Rating 1 out of 5]

As I am not the greatest fan of Professor Dawkins when he ventures out in the field of theology, I was looking for some well substantiated criticism on Dawkins book. I should have known better from the reading the subtitle "Atheist fundamentalism...".

It would be kind of acceptable that the authors do not know the difference between the scientific concepts of the 'Grand Unified Theory' and the 'Theory of Everything', if only they refrain from making analogies using these concepts. Their completely wrong interpretation of Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot's analogy, though understandable, should be dismissed for the very same reason.

But it also turns out that the McGrath's don’t even know their bible, quoting Leviticus to point out an example of a 'good verse' that prohibits slavery, but leaving out the verse that explains that the above is only valid for Israelites - all other peoples are allowed to be enslaved. Given the fact that this is in the very next verse in Leviticus, one could even say that they are deliberately deceiving the readers.

And the silly, ignorant and downright deceitful rubbish keeps piling up in rapid pace throughout the book. Clearly not understanding what atheism is, and especially not providing any credible, fact based or even remotely interesting argument against Dawkin's book.

A total disappointment and disaster of a book, written by the very type of single-minded religious fools that Dawkins describes in his.

[Cate · Rating 1 out of 5]

I truly was hoping to read some
compelling arguments against Dawkins - but I struggle to believe the authors have actually read the God Delusion. They don’t bring any convincing argument on their side in order to disprove of Dawkins’ arguments. Moreover, they keep repeating the same concept of “you can’t prove god but faith is reasonable” (paraphrasing) without addressing any of the arguments that Dawkins or in general sceptics bring against it - that is, faith is not a rational nor reasonable epistemology. People can believe xyz and the contrary of xyz, based on faith. The authors keep defending Christianity with any (illogical) “reasoning” possible, but they rarely address any other claim forwarded in the book they claim to be responding to. (Not to mention the fact that Dawkins more in general talks about religion and the blind accpetance of dogmas, and beliefs without evidence - he does not stop at Christianity, which is what the authors do).
One major thing that bugged me, they refer to atheism as dogmatic (????????????? It is the very opposite of that and Dawkins even spends 300-something pages trying to explain that!) yet they are perfectly fine with dogmas within Christianity.

Speaking of faith. All these 3/4/5 stars reviews on here seriously make me lack faith in humans’ ability to deal with logic and rationality, and specifically, human’s ability to recognise the lack thereof.

[Jan · Rating 1 out of 5]

If a one-star rating seems a bit harsh, it's because I normally quite like and respect McGrath as one of only a few apologists that don't see apologetics as an ends-justify-the-means-type propaganda war.
In that light, this book is one big disappointment. He wastes precious ink and paper on how he *could* have written a point-by-point rebuttal in a book that is already disappointingly thin. The points he chooses to address are not Dawkins' strongest arguments at all, and all too often deliberate misrepresentations of his weaker ones. He does present some valid criticisms, but given the amount of ad hominems and stawmen, and big talk in the opening chapter, it's just not a good book.
The God Delusion has some severe flaws, but is in many ways a decent book. The Dawkins Delusion fails to assess it properly, and given my expectations of McGrath's intellectual worth, it gets one star, to mark the contrast.

[Virgiliana · Rating 3 out of 5]

McGrath does a nice job of exposing Dawkins' The God Delusion for the unscholarly jumble of half-arguments that it is. McGrath's clarity of thought and calm, even tone provide a soothing contrast after one has endured Dawkins' venomous ramblings. But other than that, McGrath's response seems superfluous to anyone familiar with the history of serious debate between Christians and atheists. I suppose his effortless refutation of Dawkins' accusations would be helpful to someone who has only been introduced to atheist apology through Dawkins.

[Mark Schmidt · Rating 1 out of 5]

This books is an absolute joke. McGrath comes of as a rationalizing angry educated idiot.

Throughout the book McGrath scoffs at Dawkins again and again while spouting fallacious and absolutely ridiculous remarks. McGrath even goes so low as to attack Dawkins' ideas by using ad hominem directed at Dawkins' eloquence with words.

Grow up McGrath!

[Abdel Aziz Amer · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكتاب هو رد على كتاب "وهم الإله" لريتشارد دوكينز كواحد من أكبر دعاة الإلحاد في العالم في عصرنا الراهن .. وربما هو أكثر ملحد في العالم ستجد لكتبه ردود عليها.

قد تندهش من صغر حجم هذا الكتاب الذي هو 100 صفحة للرد على كتاب من 400 صفحة ولكن المؤلفان وضحا سر هذا الصغر بأن كتاب دوكينز هو في حقيقته يضم أخبار موجزة وإعادة لمعلومات قديمة سبق نشرها آخرين وتم ترتيبه بصورة فضفاضة للإيحاء بأنه يملك حجة .. وأن الرد عليه بهذه الصورة الفضفاضة المبالغ فيها حرفاً بحرف لن تخرج إلا كتابًا أكثر مللاً ونزقًا.

الكاتب ينطلق من مرجعية مسيحية وبالتالي فهو يبني عليها دفاعه وحائط صده ضد مزاعم دوكينز .. ولذلك في أحد الفصول دافع عن مزاعم العنف بإسم الدين وقال أن دوكينز ربما كان يقصد بحديثه عن هذا الموضوع الدين الإسلامي نظراً لنزعته الجهادية !

الكتاب ترجمته سيئة جداً جداً وصعبة الفهم ولا أنصح بقرائته بهذه الترجمة لأنها تهدر على قارئها فائدة كبيرة نظراً لأهميته وأهمية الكتاب الذي يرد عليه في الأوساط الإلحادية.