What do you think?
Rate this book
Dawkinsin jumala: Geenit, meemit ja elämän tarkoitus
Biologi Richard Dawkins on tullut kuuluisaksi tieteen popularisoijana ja ateismin äänitorvena. Itsekin luonnontieteilijän koulutuksen saanut teologi Alister McGrath haastaa Dawkinsin keskusteluun ateismista, tieteestä ja Jumalasta. McGrath kumoaa Dawkinsin väitteet uskon ja järjen yhteensopimattomuudesta ja osoittaa ateistisen uskontokritiikin heikkoudet. Samalla hän tunnustelee luonnontieteen ja uskon yhteistä maastoa. Voisiko tieteen ja uskon vastakkainasettelun korvata rauhanomaisella ja luonnon ihmeitä kunnioittavalla vuoropuhelulla?
204 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2004
32 people are currently reading
424 people want to read
About the author
Alister E. McGrath
451 books498 followersAlister 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
Read
August 2, 2011This book is a helpful response to much of Dawkins' earlier work before his massively popular 'The God Delusion'. This book was originally published before 'The God Delusion' came out and does not interact with it. However, one will find it a beneficial critique of Dawkins as a whole.
First, McGrath is both a scientist and a theologian. He is an expert on the history of idea and the history of both theological and scientific development. He respects Dawkins as a scientist where Dawkins makes reasoned and empirical observations but is quite honest about when and how Dawkins 'jumps the shark' into irrational critiques of religion with little or no logic, historical depth and empirical research to the extent that he even makes assertions trends established by the best scholarship and research. McGrath points this out through the work.
McGrath begins with a discussion of evolution and the role of genetics, including Dawkins' "the Selfish Gene". He then goes on to show historically and philosophcially that evolution did not entail the rejection of God. The reader may be surprised to find numerous 19th century theologians who accepted evolution along with scientists established at the forefront their field who either believe in God or believe that Darwinism cannot adjudicate on the issue.
McGrath shows how Dawkins' critique of William Paley misses where most Christians have stood on issue of God's relationship to the universe. Beyond that, he shows how scientific theories are often advanced by 'trust' in a prevailing theory until there is a paradigm shift. This undercuts Dawkins' notions radical empiricism as the only means of science. Indeed, McGrath shows that Dawkins himself is stuck in a sort of idealist 19th century worldview that is peculiar to a time period where naive notions about the Enlightenment and prospoerity abounded. Such notions have long since been tempered by World Wars, the failure of atheistic regimes, such as the USSR and the philosophical critiques of modernist utopias.
Finally, McGrath shows the almost utter worthless of 'memes,' cultural replicators analogous to genes. He dismantles it from scientific, historical and sociological perspectives. McGrath helpful points that religion and science have not historically been at odds and Christianity is more complex that Dawkins' belittling and "infantile" caricatures. For example, McGrath points out that no serious Christian theologian has ever held that faith is blind trust in contradiction to all evidence as Dawkins posits.
While not the last word on these issues, McGrath steers us away from the rocky shoals of Dawkins' reductionist, straw-man and disrespectful arguments, directing us to the deeper seas where the issues are debated with deeper seriousness, mutual respect and academic integrity.
First, McGrath is both a scientist and a theologian. He is an expert on the history of idea and the history of both theological and scientific development. He respects Dawkins as a scientist where Dawkins makes reasoned and empirical observations but is quite honest about when and how Dawkins 'jumps the shark' into irrational critiques of religion with little or no logic, historical depth and empirical research to the extent that he even makes assertions trends established by the best scholarship and research. McGrath points this out through the work.
McGrath begins with a discussion of evolution and the role of genetics, including Dawkins' "the Selfish Gene". He then goes on to show historically and philosophcially that evolution did not entail the rejection of God. The reader may be surprised to find numerous 19th century theologians who accepted evolution along with scientists established at the forefront their field who either believe in God or believe that Darwinism cannot adjudicate on the issue.
McGrath shows how Dawkins' critique of William Paley misses where most Christians have stood on issue of God's relationship to the universe. Beyond that, he shows how scientific theories are often advanced by 'trust' in a prevailing theory until there is a paradigm shift. This undercuts Dawkins' notions radical empiricism as the only means of science. Indeed, McGrath shows that Dawkins himself is stuck in a sort of idealist 19th century worldview that is peculiar to a time period where naive notions about the Enlightenment and prospoerity abounded. Such notions have long since been tempered by World Wars, the failure of atheistic regimes, such as the USSR and the philosophical critiques of modernist utopias.
Finally, McGrath shows the almost utter worthless of 'memes,' cultural replicators analogous to genes. He dismantles it from scientific, historical and sociological perspectives. McGrath helpful points that religion and science have not historically been at odds and Christianity is more complex that Dawkins' belittling and "infantile" caricatures. For example, McGrath points out that no serious Christian theologian has ever held that faith is blind trust in contradiction to all evidence as Dawkins posits.
While not the last word on these issues, McGrath steers us away from the rocky shoals of Dawkins' reductionist, straw-man and disrespectful arguments, directing us to the deeper seas where the issues are debated with deeper seriousness, mutual respect and academic integrity.
April 12, 2015
Richard Dawkins is a compelling author with serious chops. Any book claiming to take on Dawkins must be similarly compelling & from an author with similar chops. Alister McGrath has written, and is, one.
McGrath adopts the right approach here, IMO. He does three things skillfully:
+ Accepts science. By endorsing the core of evolution and showing his excellent scientific depth in other domains, McGrath creates credibility for himself and avoids dismissal of his rebuttal.
+ Puts Dawkins in context. Science and people exist, and should be interpreted within a context. McGrath provides the context for Dawkins' science, and more importantly, the context for Dawkins himself. McGrath provides credible assertions that the latter is what drives Dawkins to his anti-religious assertions, and that it is less-so his science. Simultaneously, he lauds Dawkins as being an important, credible, and welcome voice in the human dialog about religion.
+ Identifies Dawkins logical & scientific missteps He gracefully shows how the pretty veneer of Dawkins' narrative uses common logical slight of hand tricks to make a point, and how Dawkins has allowed his anti-religious views to become a religion of his own.
No matter your religious beliefs, McGrath is worth reading.
Footnote: I have two reasons for giving this 4 stars instead of 5:
+ Formatting. The kindle version of this book is formatted with all footnotes at the end of each chapter. Because this is HEAVILY footnoted, Kindle readers must flip through dozens of footnote pages at the end of each chapter to keep reading. For the Kindle version, all footnotes should be grouped at the end of the book.
+ Lacks a contrary world view. While McGrath does a handy job of describing (and posing challenges to) Dawkins' world view, he doesn't go far enough to provide his own concise, competing world view - his philosophy of God, philosophy on the relationship between God & science, etc. I guess I'll need to go buy other books by him to discover it.
McGrath adopts the right approach here, IMO. He does three things skillfully:
+ Accepts science. By endorsing the core of evolution and showing his excellent scientific depth in other domains, McGrath creates credibility for himself and avoids dismissal of his rebuttal.
+ Puts Dawkins in context. Science and people exist, and should be interpreted within a context. McGrath provides the context for Dawkins' science, and more importantly, the context for Dawkins himself. McGrath provides credible assertions that the latter is what drives Dawkins to his anti-religious assertions, and that it is less-so his science. Simultaneously, he lauds Dawkins as being an important, credible, and welcome voice in the human dialog about religion.
+ Identifies Dawkins logical & scientific missteps He gracefully shows how the pretty veneer of Dawkins' narrative uses common logical slight of hand tricks to make a point, and how Dawkins has allowed his anti-religious views to become a religion of his own.
No matter your religious beliefs, McGrath is worth reading.
Footnote: I have two reasons for giving this 4 stars instead of 5:
+ Formatting. The kindle version of this book is formatted with all footnotes at the end of each chapter. Because this is HEAVILY footnoted, Kindle readers must flip through dozens of footnote pages at the end of each chapter to keep reading. For the Kindle version, all footnotes should be grouped at the end of the book.
+ Lacks a contrary world view. While McGrath does a handy job of describing (and posing challenges to) Dawkins' world view, he doesn't go far enough to provide his own concise, competing world view - his philosophy of God, philosophy on the relationship between God & science, etc. I guess I'll need to go buy other books by him to discover it.
June 14, 2012
Note: This review was written a long time ago which was when I read the book. It may not totally reflect my modern opinions, which have changed drastically since 2007 (in the realm of politics at least).
Dawkins' God: A Critical Look
This essay is a critical look at the ideas of Alister McGrath, who argues against some of Richard Dawkins' ideas. I will deal with the arguments that he uses against Dawkins.
Chapter Two: The Blind Watchmaker
McGrath portrays Dawkins' ideas as being:
--Darwinism is necarssarily atheistic
--Darwinism is the only way to explain the world because as God and other expalantions(like Lamarckism) fail as explanatory principles. [Dawkins' reasoning goes along these lines: It either came about by "creation" or it came about by some form of "evolution". The mind first view(the creator) explains nothing, because it leaves us with the bigger problem of who created the creator. Thus, we end up in an infinite regress of gods if we do not postulate some way of getting complexity from non-complexity, hence evolution.(see Dennett 1995; Dawkins 2006)]
McGrath has three objections to Dawkins' positions:
1. The Scientific method is incapable of proving or disproving God's existence. Science only deals with naturalistic explanations. If we are to answer the question of whether God exists, we cannot decide by science.
2. Just because God need not be invoked in the explanatory process of evolution doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
3. The "God as watchmaker" idea is an outdated view of God's creation and not typical of the Christian tradition.
Objection One
Dawkins would agree that one cannot prove/disprove the existence of God. But that does not mean that we cannot say anything about God by using science. If one wanted to be philosophical, one could argue that "we can't prove anything", we haven't proved any of our scientific theories correct, only that they are not false based on the evidence (Popperian falsificationism). As I argued in my article "Meaningless Propositions and God" the God Hypothesis makes predictions about reality, and thus can be tested using science. Withdrawing it form rational enquiry effectively makes God a meaningless idea. Thus, science can comment on the supernatural.
McGrath cites an example where 2 theories in science are equal, and we don't know which one is correct, but people decide which one is right. Firstly, they don't dogmatically assert which one is right, and the evidence will eventually be king when it comes in. Secondly, scientifically, theism and athiesm are not on the same footing; atheism is more parsimonious. It fits with more facts (eg. problem of evil, callousness of the universe, etc) and is less ad hoc than theism. If one is an atheist, a lot of facts are already explained (problem of evil etc).
Also, what other grounds are there to decide other than science? Personal experience? But we know people's personal experiences can contradict science. People can appear to percieve ESP or spirits even though there's no evidence those things are real. Of course, people from all religions have these experiences, and there is no way to tell which if any are authentic.
Objection Two
If we don't need to invoke God as an explanatory principle for anything, and we have no evidence for his existence, it's pretty likely he doesn't exist. It is again, more parsinious to postuate atheism.
Objection Three
I think that Mr McGrath has failed to note the millions of Christians who do believe in a creator who created the world instantaniously in 6 days. They do exist, most notably in the United States but some British people also believe it.
Chapter Three: Proof And Faith
(This chapter's structure seems to me a little messier, so this review of ideas will be also.)
--Dawkins defines faith as belief without evidence.
--McGrath doesn't agree with this definition, and says that faith is based on the evidence, and cites and mentions Christian Theologians to make his points.
The problem with this is that if faith was based on evidence, it would be called knowledge! McGrath doesn't even try to argue that belief in God is based on evidence. I mean, this is the point where you would expect the typical theistic arguments to come out, eg. Argument from Design or Anthropic Coinicidences, Dembski's Information Theory, Moral Arguments, Arguement from Beauty for example. And he makes none of these! I was a little surprised at that, because he has made the assertion that belief in God is based on evidence, without attempting to present any evidence.
Another problem with his arguments is that he does what he accuses Dawkins of doing in Chapter 2: picking a group unreperaentaive of Christians. Christian Theologians, in general, only speak to intelligent, well educated, moderate [in politics and Biblical interpretation] Christians. They do not encompass the views of your average Bible Belt fundamentalist.
--God could have designed the universe to be self sustaining.
I'll just hand over to Sam Harris on this point: "The fact that a bowdlerized evangelical Christianity can still be rendered compatible with science (because of the gaps in science and the elasticity of religious thinking) does not mean that there are scientific reasons for being an evangelical Christian."
--God doesn't need to be explained as he could just be a brute fact.
The principle of Occam's Razor applies here. If God supposedly just exists, why can't the universe/muliverse/matter/energy just exist?
--Dawkins' atheism is overconfident and too brashly concluded, and he is too ferocious in promoting atheism.
So it isn't reasonable to believe that God doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it? Dawkins would change his mind if you gave him scientific evidence. And as for Dawkins promoting atheism, that's just the pot telling the kettle it's black. Yes, Dawkins promotes atheism as a rational worldview. But it often seems like if any atheist says "I don't believe in your religion" they are a "militant atheist", which is completely unfair.
--RD doesn't know anything about Christian theology, so he shouldn't talk about it so rashly and openly.
Christian theology is not the same thing as the God Question. One can have read quite a lot on the existence of God and know nothing about Christian theology and its history.
--radical theory change in science, one day the scientific ideas we believe to be true may turn out not to be so.
True. But that doesn't mean God will turn out to be right, and all we can do is go with the evidence we do have.
--Dawkins is wrong to call religion a source of human misery. Athough religious people do evil, they also do good.
--Science has been used to research bombs and other ethically dubious things. Dawkins would say this is an abuse of science, so why can't evils commited in religion's name be abuses of religion?
Is it immoral to know how to manufacture a bomb? Technically, if you gave me the right equipment and chemicals, I could make TNT(trinitrotoluene). It involves using methylbenzene and NO3 2- heated to fairly high temperature (to get all nitryl groups to bond - it's called listening in chemistry class). It's immoral to drop a bomb (in most circumstances at least) but that's a different question.
Evils commited in the name of religion aren't abuses in the name of religion, because many of them are imbedded in the tenets of religion. [cut in case of offense] Immorality has nothing to do with the tenets of science, which is/should be (ethical as in not involving human rights abuses) research.
--"Stalin was an atheist"
I'm not sure what point this is meant to make. It's Hitler Ate Sugar, basically.
Chaper Four: Cultural Darwinism
--Memetics is the theory of a cultural replicator that is passed on by imitation.
--McGrath has some objections to the theory of memetics:
1. There is nor reason to assume that cultural evolution is Darwinian, or that evolution has anything to do with culture. There is telelogy in memetics and some of it is Lamarckian;
2. There is no direct evidence for the existence of memes;
3. The analogy between the meme and the gene is flawed;
4. The meme is not needed as an explanatory hypothesis.
Objection One
There are some reasons to suggest a memetic view of culture. Blackmore's The Meme Machine has some interesting information on memetics, and some suggestions as to why it is a useful concept. It does explain some things harder to account for on other views, like a purely sociobiological one. (eg why do we have big brains? Why do we do so many things our genes "dislike" eg. Birth Control? Why is it so hard for us to stop thinking? Why do we talk constantly? etc)
Admittedly there is some teleology in cultural evolution. But is this really any different from human breeders selecting the features that they like in an animal and breeding for it, ie "artificial selection"? Artifical selection doesn't invalidate evolution.
As for the Lamarckian charge, yes some cultural evolution could be described as Lamarckian or "copy-the-product". But this doesn't really matter, because the real idea behind the meme is that of a replicator. How that replicator does it is not relevant to whether memetics is valid.
Objection Two
Admittedly we don't know how memes are stored in the brain. But Darwin never knew how heredity worked, as he never read the works of Mendel. We someday may know where memes are stored. The evidence is not in on this one.
Objection Three
There is no real problem of a false analogy. The idea is the idea of a replicator. It does not have to be a replicator analogous to the gene in every single way. In fact, everything else could be different. Provided memes are replicators, the analogy is fair.
Objection Four
As I mentioned above, Blackmore's book has some interesting work on how memetics explains things better than rival theories appear to.
Also, at one point, McGrath suggests that atheism and theism are both memes and thus both equally valid. This isn't necessarily true. Atheism nor theism don't have to be memes. Memes are spread by imitation. I did not become an atheist by imitating other atheists, thus my athiesm is not a meme. The same could occur for theism. Religion is a meme, but "theism" merely most likely is. Of course, them both being memes doesn't put them both on the same footing. "The Earth is billions of years old" and "The Earth is 6,000 years old" are both memes that are obviously not equally valid.
Chapter Five: Science And Religion
--Dawkins says Religion is a medieval and uninspiring way of looking at the universe, wheras science is a wonderful way of looking at everything.
--McGrath disagrees because he believes that religion can inspire awe and reverence of nature and creation.
This criteria is fairly subjective. Being as it is mainly aesthetics, it is down somewhat to opinion what a view inspires. I do agree with Dawkins somewhat on this point, because "because God" is not an inspiring answer to anything at all, wheras science is an interesting journey of discovery about the universe we live in. I don't believe I have grounds to say that my aesthetic opinion is "right" or better than anybody else's however.
Works Referenced/mentioned:
McGrath, Alister. Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and The Meaning Of Life, Blackwell Publishing 2005.(obviously!)
Blackmore, Susan. The Meme Machine, Oxford University Press 1999.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Press 1986.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Penguin Press 1995.
Sam Harris quotation comes from this address: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2...
Dawkins' God: A Critical Look
This essay is a critical look at the ideas of Alister McGrath, who argues against some of Richard Dawkins' ideas. I will deal with the arguments that he uses against Dawkins.
Chapter Two: The Blind Watchmaker
McGrath portrays Dawkins' ideas as being:
--Darwinism is necarssarily atheistic
--Darwinism is the only way to explain the world because as God and other expalantions(like Lamarckism) fail as explanatory principles. [Dawkins' reasoning goes along these lines: It either came about by "creation" or it came about by some form of "evolution". The mind first view(the creator) explains nothing, because it leaves us with the bigger problem of who created the creator. Thus, we end up in an infinite regress of gods if we do not postulate some way of getting complexity from non-complexity, hence evolution.(see Dennett 1995; Dawkins 2006)]
McGrath has three objections to Dawkins' positions:
1. The Scientific method is incapable of proving or disproving God's existence. Science only deals with naturalistic explanations. If we are to answer the question of whether God exists, we cannot decide by science.
2. Just because God need not be invoked in the explanatory process of evolution doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
3. The "God as watchmaker" idea is an outdated view of God's creation and not typical of the Christian tradition.
Objection One
Dawkins would agree that one cannot prove/disprove the existence of God. But that does not mean that we cannot say anything about God by using science. If one wanted to be philosophical, one could argue that "we can't prove anything", we haven't proved any of our scientific theories correct, only that they are not false based on the evidence (Popperian falsificationism). As I argued in my article "Meaningless Propositions and God" the God Hypothesis makes predictions about reality, and thus can be tested using science. Withdrawing it form rational enquiry effectively makes God a meaningless idea. Thus, science can comment on the supernatural.
McGrath cites an example where 2 theories in science are equal, and we don't know which one is correct, but people decide which one is right. Firstly, they don't dogmatically assert which one is right, and the evidence will eventually be king when it comes in. Secondly, scientifically, theism and athiesm are not on the same footing; atheism is more parsimonious. It fits with more facts (eg. problem of evil, callousness of the universe, etc) and is less ad hoc than theism. If one is an atheist, a lot of facts are already explained (problem of evil etc).
Also, what other grounds are there to decide other than science? Personal experience? But we know people's personal experiences can contradict science. People can appear to percieve ESP or spirits even though there's no evidence those things are real. Of course, people from all religions have these experiences, and there is no way to tell which if any are authentic.
Objection Two
If we don't need to invoke God as an explanatory principle for anything, and we have no evidence for his existence, it's pretty likely he doesn't exist. It is again, more parsinious to postuate atheism.
Objection Three
I think that Mr McGrath has failed to note the millions of Christians who do believe in a creator who created the world instantaniously in 6 days. They do exist, most notably in the United States but some British people also believe it.
Chapter Three: Proof And Faith
(This chapter's structure seems to me a little messier, so this review of ideas will be also.)
--Dawkins defines faith as belief without evidence.
--McGrath doesn't agree with this definition, and says that faith is based on the evidence, and cites and mentions Christian Theologians to make his points.
The problem with this is that if faith was based on evidence, it would be called knowledge! McGrath doesn't even try to argue that belief in God is based on evidence. I mean, this is the point where you would expect the typical theistic arguments to come out, eg. Argument from Design or Anthropic Coinicidences, Dembski's Information Theory, Moral Arguments, Arguement from Beauty for example. And he makes none of these! I was a little surprised at that, because he has made the assertion that belief in God is based on evidence, without attempting to present any evidence.
Another problem with his arguments is that he does what he accuses Dawkins of doing in Chapter 2: picking a group unreperaentaive of Christians. Christian Theologians, in general, only speak to intelligent, well educated, moderate [in politics and Biblical interpretation] Christians. They do not encompass the views of your average Bible Belt fundamentalist.
--God could have designed the universe to be self sustaining.
I'll just hand over to Sam Harris on this point: "The fact that a bowdlerized evangelical Christianity can still be rendered compatible with science (because of the gaps in science and the elasticity of religious thinking) does not mean that there are scientific reasons for being an evangelical Christian."
--God doesn't need to be explained as he could just be a brute fact.
The principle of Occam's Razor applies here. If God supposedly just exists, why can't the universe/muliverse/matter/energy just exist?
--Dawkins' atheism is overconfident and too brashly concluded, and he is too ferocious in promoting atheism.
So it isn't reasonable to believe that God doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it? Dawkins would change his mind if you gave him scientific evidence. And as for Dawkins promoting atheism, that's just the pot telling the kettle it's black. Yes, Dawkins promotes atheism as a rational worldview. But it often seems like if any atheist says "I don't believe in your religion" they are a "militant atheist", which is completely unfair.
--RD doesn't know anything about Christian theology, so he shouldn't talk about it so rashly and openly.
Christian theology is not the same thing as the God Question. One can have read quite a lot on the existence of God and know nothing about Christian theology and its history.
--radical theory change in science, one day the scientific ideas we believe to be true may turn out not to be so.
True. But that doesn't mean God will turn out to be right, and all we can do is go with the evidence we do have.
--Dawkins is wrong to call religion a source of human misery. Athough religious people do evil, they also do good.
--Science has been used to research bombs and other ethically dubious things. Dawkins would say this is an abuse of science, so why can't evils commited in religion's name be abuses of religion?
Is it immoral to know how to manufacture a bomb? Technically, if you gave me the right equipment and chemicals, I could make TNT(trinitrotoluene). It involves using methylbenzene and NO3 2- heated to fairly high temperature (to get all nitryl groups to bond - it's called listening in chemistry class). It's immoral to drop a bomb (in most circumstances at least) but that's a different question.
Evils commited in the name of religion aren't abuses in the name of religion, because many of them are imbedded in the tenets of religion. [cut in case of offense] Immorality has nothing to do with the tenets of science, which is/should be (ethical as in not involving human rights abuses) research.
--"Stalin was an atheist"
I'm not sure what point this is meant to make. It's Hitler Ate Sugar, basically.
Chaper Four: Cultural Darwinism
--Memetics is the theory of a cultural replicator that is passed on by imitation.
--McGrath has some objections to the theory of memetics:
1. There is nor reason to assume that cultural evolution is Darwinian, or that evolution has anything to do with culture. There is telelogy in memetics and some of it is Lamarckian;
2. There is no direct evidence for the existence of memes;
3. The analogy between the meme and the gene is flawed;
4. The meme is not needed as an explanatory hypothesis.
Objection One
There are some reasons to suggest a memetic view of culture. Blackmore's The Meme Machine has some interesting information on memetics, and some suggestions as to why it is a useful concept. It does explain some things harder to account for on other views, like a purely sociobiological one. (eg why do we have big brains? Why do we do so many things our genes "dislike" eg. Birth Control? Why is it so hard for us to stop thinking? Why do we talk constantly? etc)
Admittedly there is some teleology in cultural evolution. But is this really any different from human breeders selecting the features that they like in an animal and breeding for it, ie "artificial selection"? Artifical selection doesn't invalidate evolution.
As for the Lamarckian charge, yes some cultural evolution could be described as Lamarckian or "copy-the-product". But this doesn't really matter, because the real idea behind the meme is that of a replicator. How that replicator does it is not relevant to whether memetics is valid.
Objection Two
Admittedly we don't know how memes are stored in the brain. But Darwin never knew how heredity worked, as he never read the works of Mendel. We someday may know where memes are stored. The evidence is not in on this one.
Objection Three
There is no real problem of a false analogy. The idea is the idea of a replicator. It does not have to be a replicator analogous to the gene in every single way. In fact, everything else could be different. Provided memes are replicators, the analogy is fair.
Objection Four
As I mentioned above, Blackmore's book has some interesting work on how memetics explains things better than rival theories appear to.
Also, at one point, McGrath suggests that atheism and theism are both memes and thus both equally valid. This isn't necessarily true. Atheism nor theism don't have to be memes. Memes are spread by imitation. I did not become an atheist by imitating other atheists, thus my athiesm is not a meme. The same could occur for theism. Religion is a meme, but "theism" merely most likely is. Of course, them both being memes doesn't put them both on the same footing. "The Earth is billions of years old" and "The Earth is 6,000 years old" are both memes that are obviously not equally valid.
Chapter Five: Science And Religion
--Dawkins says Religion is a medieval and uninspiring way of looking at the universe, wheras science is a wonderful way of looking at everything.
--McGrath disagrees because he believes that religion can inspire awe and reverence of nature and creation.
This criteria is fairly subjective. Being as it is mainly aesthetics, it is down somewhat to opinion what a view inspires. I do agree with Dawkins somewhat on this point, because "because God" is not an inspiring answer to anything at all, wheras science is an interesting journey of discovery about the universe we live in. I don't believe I have grounds to say that my aesthetic opinion is "right" or better than anybody else's however.
Works Referenced/mentioned:
McGrath, Alister. Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and The Meaning Of Life, Blackwell Publishing 2005.(obviously!)
Blackmore, Susan. The Meme Machine, Oxford University Press 1999.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Press 1986.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Penguin Press 1995.
Sam Harris quotation comes from this address: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2...
April 4, 2011
This was a fantastic book! Alister McGrath is a good writer and enjoyable to read. In this book he dissects and rips apart Richard Dawkins piece by piece. It's a fair treatment of the data and arguments and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the relationship between science and faith.
November 5, 2015
Dawkins Dogma
This is an interesting work from a theologian who has followed Dawkins career since the 70s. He engages deeply with The selfish Gene and the God delusion and the rest of Dawkins works. McGrath pulverizes The theory of the meme on Scientific grounds. McGrath clearly shows that Dawkins dogmatic pronouncements on atheism are not scientific but ideological presuppositions. This book is very well-documented.
This is an interesting work from a theologian who has followed Dawkins career since the 70s. He engages deeply with The selfish Gene and the God delusion and the rest of Dawkins works. McGrath pulverizes The theory of the meme on Scientific grounds. McGrath clearly shows that Dawkins dogmatic pronouncements on atheism are not scientific but ideological presuppositions. This book is very well-documented.
Read
May 30, 2019”Sorry this is not a great book. lets stop wasting time on this issue and get back to the important stuff.” this is what I wrote, but I have had a relook at it recently and there are some interesting points made. The book is certainly not against evolution. It is an argument against the kind of fundamentalist atheism that Dawkins writes about.
July 23, 2007
A part of science vs religion controversy. It critizes the anti religion school led by Dawkins and its idea of evolution biologically (dna) and spiritually (meme). Not so very convincing, as expected. And rather boring.
September 17, 2025
Abans de llegir-lo sencer em costava recordar el títol perquè em semblava inconnex. Després de fer-ho em segueix costant, i em sembla encara més difícil de justificar. En cap moment s'introdueix explícitament la idea d'un "déu de Dawkins", ni d'un sentit de la vida ja sigui seu o general. Un títol fictici però potser més adequat seria "Resposta a Dawkins des d'una perspectiva cristiana: gens, mems, i el nou ateïsme".
És molt d'agraïr que McGrath tingui una base científica sòlida i presenti correctament els conceptes biològics de Dawkins a una audiència que probablement no els coneix en profunditat. L'anàlisi dels gens és correcte i crec que fa una bona feina en deixar clars els punts d'interacció entre cristianisme i evolució, així com el context històric i del corpus de literatura coetània i posterior.
Aquest rigor però l'envolta d'una autoritat que, al meu parer, no és suficient per justificar l'atac desqualificatiu als mems que el segueix. Durant la lectura m'he arribat a plantejar que negar-ne la validesa com a marc de discussió és una necessitat de l'autor més que una opinió fonamentada, dat que concedir-los un poder explicatiu seria oferir una arma molt potent per atacar les idees religioses que clarament vol defensar. Considero que el fet que la memologia com a tal no hagi proliferat com a camp d'estudi no és suficient per desacreditar-ne el potencial valor explicatiu, tal i com sosté McGrath, sinó que reflecteix el desinterès actual per aplicar els dogmes centrals de la biologia a les ciències socials, cosa que per altra banda, entenc perfectament ja que són explicacions de processos massa foranis perquè siguin percebuts com a un valor intrínsec fora de l'àmbit de les ciències naturals. En qualsevol cas m'hauria agradat que McGrath fes una defensa molt més semblant a la de l'apartat anterior, que lamentablement no exposa en aquesta segona edició que he llegit.
En contraposició, la crítica sobre la suposada justificació científica del nou ateïsme és molt reeixida. McGrath té clarament un domini sobre la teologia del que Dawkins careix, i és just i interessant que n'exposi els errors, les limitacions, i les extralimitacions. Al final l'èxit d'aquesta crítica ve determinat per les creences del propi lector i dubto molt que ajudin a ningú a passar de l'ateisme al cristianisme o viceversa, de totes maneres és una crítica suficientment metòdica i justificada com per merèixer una futura rèplica del mateix nivell.
És molt d'agraïr que McGrath tingui una base científica sòlida i presenti correctament els conceptes biològics de Dawkins a una audiència que probablement no els coneix en profunditat. L'anàlisi dels gens és correcte i crec que fa una bona feina en deixar clars els punts d'interacció entre cristianisme i evolució, així com el context històric i del corpus de literatura coetània i posterior.
Aquest rigor però l'envolta d'una autoritat que, al meu parer, no és suficient per justificar l'atac desqualificatiu als mems que el segueix. Durant la lectura m'he arribat a plantejar que negar-ne la validesa com a marc de discussió és una necessitat de l'autor més que una opinió fonamentada, dat que concedir-los un poder explicatiu seria oferir una arma molt potent per atacar les idees religioses que clarament vol defensar. Considero que el fet que la memologia com a tal no hagi proliferat com a camp d'estudi no és suficient per desacreditar-ne el potencial valor explicatiu, tal i com sosté McGrath, sinó que reflecteix el desinterès actual per aplicar els dogmes centrals de la biologia a les ciències socials, cosa que per altra banda, entenc perfectament ja que són explicacions de processos massa foranis perquè siguin percebuts com a un valor intrínsec fora de l'àmbit de les ciències naturals. En qualsevol cas m'hauria agradat que McGrath fes una defensa molt més semblant a la de l'apartat anterior, que lamentablement no exposa en aquesta segona edició que he llegit.
En contraposició, la crítica sobre la suposada justificació científica del nou ateïsme és molt reeixida. McGrath té clarament un domini sobre la teologia del que Dawkins careix, i és just i interessant que n'exposi els errors, les limitacions, i les extralimitacions. Al final l'èxit d'aquesta crítica ve determinat per les creences del propi lector i dubto molt que ajudin a ningú a passar de l'ateisme al cristianisme o viceversa, de totes maneres és una crítica suficientment metòdica i justificada com per merèixer una futura rèplica del mateix nivell.
December 25, 2023
Chcel som tomu dať šancu, napriek obrovským osobným medzerám (úprimne a lepšie povedané, neznalosti) teológie. Najmä asi preto, lebo dobrá kritika Dawkinsovho až extrémneho ateizmu (aj osobne niektoré jeho knihy tak hodnotím) a kritiky náboženstva (viery) je opodstatnená. Preto som bol zvedavý ako sa to významnému teológovi z Oxfordu (https://lnk.sk/mck7; mimochodom, jeho najnovší text je o Tomášovi Halíkovi 😉 ) podarilo (minulý čas je na mieste, kniha "Dawkinsov Boh" vznikla ešte v roku 2005).
Myslím, že je to dobrá kniha, autor je až neuveriteľne erudovaný a širokým vzdelaním rozkročený do veľkej hĺbky ako v prírodovede tak aj v teológii (najmä v histórii teologického myslenia). A mali by si ju prečítať aj (či najmä) nekritickí obdivovatelia Dawkinsa ako zmierňujúci doplnok k jeho (provokujúcim) myšlienkam. Veľmi sa mi páčili kapitoly o memetike (McGrath ju v podstate v súlade s modernými predstavami elegantne škrtá ako nepodstatný a mylný smer v uvažovaní o kultúrnej evolúcii; v tomto smere je lepšia esejistická kniha Matt Ridleyho "Evolúcia všetkého") a o vzťahu vedy a náboženstva (najmä dobre vyargumentovanej absencii tzv. večného konfliktu medzi nimi). Napriek všetkému pozitívnemu, rozsiahlemu zdrojovému aparátu v knihe použitému či dobrej čítateľnosti textu sa podľa mňa McGrath v knihe dopúšťa aj chybných argumentácií. Napríklad ostro kritizuje Dawkinsovu definíciu (náboženskej) viery ale vyčerpávajúcu teologickú neponúka, hoci táto téma sa v knihe (a Dawkinsovom diele) opakuje veľmi často. Závažným argumentačným faulom McGratha sú ale podľa mňa pasáže, kde analogizuje Dawkinsov pohľad na náboženstvo (teizmus) ako na všeobecné zlo. McGrath zlo ateizmu ilustruje na množstve obetí sovietskeho komunizmu, pričom hrubo a vulgárne totalitu synonymizuje s ateizmom.
Šup s knihou do poličky na čestné miesto ku knihám Sebecký gén, Slepý hodinár, Rozplietanie dúhy či Boží blud. 😉
Myslím, že je to dobrá kniha, autor je až neuveriteľne erudovaný a širokým vzdelaním rozkročený do veľkej hĺbky ako v prírodovede tak aj v teológii (najmä v histórii teologického myslenia). A mali by si ju prečítať aj (či najmä) nekritickí obdivovatelia Dawkinsa ako zmierňujúci doplnok k jeho (provokujúcim) myšlienkam. Veľmi sa mi páčili kapitoly o memetike (McGrath ju v podstate v súlade s modernými predstavami elegantne škrtá ako nepodstatný a mylný smer v uvažovaní o kultúrnej evolúcii; v tomto smere je lepšia esejistická kniha Matt Ridleyho "Evolúcia všetkého") a o vzťahu vedy a náboženstva (najmä dobre vyargumentovanej absencii tzv. večného konfliktu medzi nimi). Napriek všetkému pozitívnemu, rozsiahlemu zdrojovému aparátu v knihe použitému či dobrej čítateľnosti textu sa podľa mňa McGrath v knihe dopúšťa aj chybných argumentácií. Napríklad ostro kritizuje Dawkinsovu definíciu (náboženskej) viery ale vyčerpávajúcu teologickú neponúka, hoci táto téma sa v knihe (a Dawkinsovom diele) opakuje veľmi často. Závažným argumentačným faulom McGratha sú ale podľa mňa pasáže, kde analogizuje Dawkinsov pohľad na náboženstvo (teizmus) ako na všeobecné zlo. McGrath zlo ateizmu ilustruje na množstve obetí sovietskeho komunizmu, pričom hrubo a vulgárne totalitu synonymizuje s ateizmom.
Šup s knihou do poličky na čestné miesto ku knihám Sebecký gén, Slepý hodinár, Rozplietanie dúhy či Boží blud. 😉
February 13, 2017
I really enjoyed this book because it is a really good response to Richard Dawkins and his arguments against god. Let me mention somethings in this like it tells you on how Richard Dawkins refutation on the watchmaker argument doesn't refute God's existence, how a scientific method can prove or disprove god and on thing I realised while reading this book is that all those people that credit god for evolution , an agnostic choice on whenever god caused or didn't evolution and an atheist saying evolution doesn't need god and it turns out you don't need to because it doesn't link to an atheist, agnostic or a religious person understanding of the world.
December 30, 2024
Alister McGrath provides forceful answers to the challenges to theism that Richard Dawkins makes in his books, most especially "The God Delusion". In Dawkins' view, faith is "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence". McGrath responds, the same way I would, that no serious religious person would accept this definition of faith. I came to faith, the same way McGrath did, and countless others, because that is where the evidence led. This book is a great resource that argues against a "scientific atheist" worldview.
June 23, 2022
This book is primarily a critique of the writings of Richard Dawkins and McGrath succeeds in providing a more nuanced perspective of Dawkins rather than seeing him merely as the ‘baddy’ of atheism. McGrath’s writing is always a breath of fresh air as he writes to educate rather than being combative or antagonistic. Personally, I found McGrath’s analysis of the theory of Darwinian evolutionary most beneficial and for a layman in terms of evolutionary theory I cannot recommend highly enough.
June 2, 2023
As a Christian I found this book to be an enjoyable read critiquing done of Richard Dawkins work. If you are looking for harsh put downs and gotchas then this book is not for you - it's much more thoughtful than that even admitting it really should be longer to go into all Dawkins ideas.
I'm not even put off reading Dawkins after this and will try and check out 1 book of his at least just to see some of the ideas properly for myself. I guess I'm not doing the close minded thing very well...
I'm not even put off reading Dawkins after this and will try and check out 1 book of his at least just to see some of the ideas properly for myself. I guess I'm not doing the close minded thing very well...
September 5, 2024
Wish I'd read book this years ago.
McGrath tears strips off Dawkin's arguments when the latter ventures into fields he knows little about. Dawkins may be a brilliant scientist but he is narrow-minded, illogical, aggressively nasty and ignorant when venturing into the field of religion or philosophy.
McGrath tears strips off Dawkin's arguments when the latter ventures into fields he knows little about. Dawkins may be a brilliant scientist but he is narrow-minded, illogical, aggressively nasty and ignorant when venturing into the field of religion or philosophy.
May 20, 2025
Well argued dismantling of Dawkins reasoning that scientists can’t be Christians. McGrath is a well respected theologian who studied Biochemistry to Doctorate level before turning to theology. I liked the fact that he uses scientific enquiry (Dawkins’ holy grail) to prove Dawkins wrong. Well worth a read
May 10, 2021
A very informative appreciation of Richard Dawkins’s scientific achievements with a much needed criticism of some of his more dogmatic overreaches. Written with a charitable demeanor that McGrath is known for.
July 26, 2021
Much better than the previous McGrath book I read about apologetics. While one chapter is a bit dull, McGrath excels in discussing the relationship between religion and science and he is uniquely qualified to do so. You don't have to have read Dawkins to benefit from this brief book.
March 3, 2022
Great critique of Dawkins. In many cases Dawkins is not scientific but uses his emotions. But on the other hand book does little to prove existence of God and has blind spot how religion has helped to quiet the voice of reason.
November 6, 2023
I wanted to like this book. But McGrath compares Dawkins' arguments to the "best" theologians, in the sense of the most reasonable, science-friendly Christian philosophers of the past and present, back to Augustine and his if-it-conflicts-with-reality thing. Dawkins' strawmen are not representative of "modern theology," that sort of thing.
Would that it were so simple. The problem is that most believers, Christian or otherwise, do not buy into the top-shelf theology that McGrath invokes. Most believers will doubt any science -- geology, cosmology, chemistry, climate science, biology, to say nothing of evolutionary biology -- that conflicts with their faith. They do not wrestle with how to resolve faith with objective reality and are truly not interested in knowing what a deeply reflective theologian says about it -- they reject reality. My mother turned to 12-yo me one morning in church to say "[the head elder] thinks God put the dinosaurs in the ground to test our faith." Trust me, there is less of a question in this statement than may appear. On this topic a favourite theologian of McGrath's might construct an edifying message drawing upon the extinction of such monsters as a lesson for an unstable world, never raising a doubt of their age or that they walked the earth. But, the numbers of the faithful are more likely to be on the side of rejecting its reality, on the side of "tests of faith" rather than on the marvels of evolutionary biology and the capriciousness of fate.
It is strictly true but unimaginative that science itself cannot disprove the existence of a higher being, so that the most consistent stance based on what the evidence can provide is to be an agnostic. And it is common to argue as McGrath does that atheism is built on its own type of faith, and I'll accept that is true. But that's not some slam-dunk: the holy books speak of miracles of a wholly different character than any that could be claimed to occur today, while an atheist makes no such claims, and a higher being has infinite leeway to present others just as stunning at any moment. And yet. The two slopes away from the agnostic argument are simply not equivalent, however philosophically entailed it might be that there are two. While it might not be arguing the same thing, we also mustn't forget that yes, science is culturally seated as is religious faith, yet it is not historically contingent to anywhere near the degree that religious faiths are. To a satisfying degree, sciences originating in different places find the same things; the surrounding religions do not.
Which brings me to a rather silly section contrasting Gould's and Dawkins' styles of argument, summarising and expanding upon work of T Shanahan. Gould was an effective rhetorician and was a great populariser, but far more admired outside biology than within. Gould may have used inductive argument, and Dawkins primarily deductive, and McGrath wishes to argue that Gould's are superior because of that fact. In truth either works. What's more important to know is that Gould was excellent at constructing and then picking fights with strawmen, Dawkins' ideas included. Non-biologists have trouble seeing his strawmen, but for the working biologist, Gould's arguments on such topics are weak and silly (e.g., https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993...). Gould made his contributions, but they are not of the magnitude non-biologists or Gould believed them to be.
The last think I want to mention that comes up several times is that Dawkins mischaracterises faith as being "blind" and free of evidence. McGrath states this is never how faith is thought of by an actual Christian, and presents a nuanced statement of faith. McGrath does not follow this up by walking us through the strength and support of each clause in the statement -- does not show us how faith is actually approached in its mechanics that make it neither blind nor evidence-free. I understand that this is a personal thing, but it would have been nice to see McGrath approach this in a way that counters Dawkins' characterisation.
I don't think the real argument here is between Dawkins and McGrath. Rather, both have arguments with the same set of believers, those that reject reality and the science that studies it. These believers can, do and will create much, much more trouble for a civil, democratic, just and peaceful society than could any differences Dawkins and McGrath might care to argue over.
Would that it were so simple. The problem is that most believers, Christian or otherwise, do not buy into the top-shelf theology that McGrath invokes. Most believers will doubt any science -- geology, cosmology, chemistry, climate science, biology, to say nothing of evolutionary biology -- that conflicts with their faith. They do not wrestle with how to resolve faith with objective reality and are truly not interested in knowing what a deeply reflective theologian says about it -- they reject reality. My mother turned to 12-yo me one morning in church to say "[the head elder] thinks God put the dinosaurs in the ground to test our faith." Trust me, there is less of a question in this statement than may appear. On this topic a favourite theologian of McGrath's might construct an edifying message drawing upon the extinction of such monsters as a lesson for an unstable world, never raising a doubt of their age or that they walked the earth. But, the numbers of the faithful are more likely to be on the side of rejecting its reality, on the side of "tests of faith" rather than on the marvels of evolutionary biology and the capriciousness of fate.
It is strictly true but unimaginative that science itself cannot disprove the existence of a higher being, so that the most consistent stance based on what the evidence can provide is to be an agnostic. And it is common to argue as McGrath does that atheism is built on its own type of faith, and I'll accept that is true. But that's not some slam-dunk: the holy books speak of miracles of a wholly different character than any that could be claimed to occur today, while an atheist makes no such claims, and a higher being has infinite leeway to present others just as stunning at any moment. And yet. The two slopes away from the agnostic argument are simply not equivalent, however philosophically entailed it might be that there are two. While it might not be arguing the same thing, we also mustn't forget that yes, science is culturally seated as is religious faith, yet it is not historically contingent to anywhere near the degree that religious faiths are. To a satisfying degree, sciences originating in different places find the same things; the surrounding religions do not.
Which brings me to a rather silly section contrasting Gould's and Dawkins' styles of argument, summarising and expanding upon work of T Shanahan. Gould was an effective rhetorician and was a great populariser, but far more admired outside biology than within. Gould may have used inductive argument, and Dawkins primarily deductive, and McGrath wishes to argue that Gould's are superior because of that fact. In truth either works. What's more important to know is that Gould was excellent at constructing and then picking fights with strawmen, Dawkins' ideas included. Non-biologists have trouble seeing his strawmen, but for the working biologist, Gould's arguments on such topics are weak and silly (e.g., https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993...). Gould made his contributions, but they are not of the magnitude non-biologists or Gould believed them to be.
The last think I want to mention that comes up several times is that Dawkins mischaracterises faith as being "blind" and free of evidence. McGrath states this is never how faith is thought of by an actual Christian, and presents a nuanced statement of faith. McGrath does not follow this up by walking us through the strength and support of each clause in the statement -- does not show us how faith is actually approached in its mechanics that make it neither blind nor evidence-free. I understand that this is a personal thing, but it would have been nice to see McGrath approach this in a way that counters Dawkins' characterisation.
I don't think the real argument here is between Dawkins and McGrath. Rather, both have arguments with the same set of believers, those that reject reality and the science that studies it. These believers can, do and will create much, much more trouble for a civil, democratic, just and peaceful society than could any differences Dawkins and McGrath might care to argue over.
January 25, 2016
Some decent comments and criticisms of Dawkins' work. I think he rightly attacks Dawkins for infusing more certainty into his claims than is warranted by the evidence (inferring atheism from Darwinism for instance, or not being sufficiently mindful of the possibility of radical change within science given past scientific revolutions). McGrath is correct I think, in stating that the obvious implication of Darwinism is agnosticism and not atheism, particularly not the excessively confident atheism that Dawkins claims is a logical extension of Darwinism. Russell's skepticism I have always felt, was a more reasonable stance and I am inclined to agree with McGrath on this.
It is sad that this book came out before the God Delusion and therefore does not interact with it.
McGrath's defense of Christianity as a hermeneutic tradition that seeks "authenticity" by constant reinterpretation in the light of evolving science was quite terrible. His assertion that god is an 'ultimate' that can only be described and is not in need of explanation is also difficult to stomach.
McGrath believes that the Christian definition of 'faith' is nothing at all like Dawkins' understanding of it i.e. the Christian faith is not blind trust without/despite evidence. He cites W H Griffith Thomas's definition of the Christian faith which, he says, affects all of man's nature. "It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence, continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will..." So for McGrath, the Christian faith, though it exists outside of the scientific method, is nevertheless rational, based on adequate evidence and in fact, uses something akin to the scientific method to reach its conclusions. He feels this is a good reason for science and religion to work together, so that the scientific method may be applied to exegesis (this last bit is implied). At no point does he make the case for why exegesis should be considered valid knowledge as opposed to empirical/observed evidence.
It is sad that this book came out before the God Delusion and therefore does not interact with it.
McGrath's defense of Christianity as a hermeneutic tradition that seeks "authenticity" by constant reinterpretation in the light of evolving science was quite terrible. His assertion that god is an 'ultimate' that can only be described and is not in need of explanation is also difficult to stomach.
McGrath believes that the Christian definition of 'faith' is nothing at all like Dawkins' understanding of it i.e. the Christian faith is not blind trust without/despite evidence. He cites W H Griffith Thomas's definition of the Christian faith which, he says, affects all of man's nature. "It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence, continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will..." So for McGrath, the Christian faith, though it exists outside of the scientific method, is nevertheless rational, based on adequate evidence and in fact, uses something akin to the scientific method to reach its conclusions. He feels this is a good reason for science and religion to work together, so that the scientific method may be applied to exegesis (this last bit is implied). At no point does he make the case for why exegesis should be considered valid knowledge as opposed to empirical/observed evidence.
August 14, 2014
One of the challenges that I find in reading the works of Richard Dawkins critically is that so much seems intuitively right to me. So for me this book was an attempt to see the weaknesses perceived by others.
I think McGrath is fair in some of his points, especially a broad division of the Dawkins corpus into more empirical, and more rhetorical piles, with greater merit in the former. But I think fairness to Dawkins requires recognition that McGrath's highly educated strain of Christianity is by no means all that one encounters: the belligerence of Dawkins is not in a vacuum, and Christian vehemence against science in general, and Darwin in particular is not hard to find.
McGrath is probably convincing for those who already agree with him. Certainly, the theist who had preceded me through the public library copy I read seemed to feel that body blows were being landed, defacing the text in his relish. But if Dawkins's characterization of faith as belief in the absence or even contradiction evidence is unsatisfactory to a theist, the definition that he quotes with praise strikes me as unsatisfactory as well.
Ultimately, McGrath provides the key to criticizing his own work: the argument is the weakest where the rhetoric is the strongest. What could be more rhetorical than the praeteritio of saying we can't judge atheism by its effects in communism, but its effects under communism were really horrible? For those whose dogmatic slumbers have been disturbed by the nasty clang of Dawkins, McGrath will provide a pleasant sedative. But I expect he will make few converts.
I think McGrath is fair in some of his points, especially a broad division of the Dawkins corpus into more empirical, and more rhetorical piles, with greater merit in the former. But I think fairness to Dawkins requires recognition that McGrath's highly educated strain of Christianity is by no means all that one encounters: the belligerence of Dawkins is not in a vacuum, and Christian vehemence against science in general, and Darwin in particular is not hard to find.
McGrath is probably convincing for those who already agree with him. Certainly, the theist who had preceded me through the public library copy I read seemed to feel that body blows were being landed, defacing the text in his relish. But if Dawkins's characterization of faith as belief in the absence or even contradiction evidence is unsatisfactory to a theist, the definition that he quotes with praise strikes me as unsatisfactory as well.
Ultimately, McGrath provides the key to criticizing his own work: the argument is the weakest where the rhetoric is the strongest. What could be more rhetorical than the praeteritio of saying we can't judge atheism by its effects in communism, but its effects under communism were really horrible? For those whose dogmatic slumbers have been disturbed by the nasty clang of Dawkins, McGrath will provide a pleasant sedative. But I expect he will make few converts.
September 24, 2025
As an atheist I was always going to struggle with this, but I can’t help feeling that McGrath makes a serious error of judgment that scuppers his chances early on. He protests that Dawkins unfairly attacks Christians painting them all as closed minded blind faith merchants. McGrath and the scholars he quotes here are anything but blinkered, each new scientific breakthrough is happily accepted and woven into a beautiful tapestry with God as a guiding hand in the background giving us the drive to seek out truth and beauty. Christianity has always been like this, McGrath tells us in a jaw dropping passage. Centuries of iron fisted murder, torture and genocide against anyone who disagrees with the accepted interpretation of those holy books at that time is dismissed as “the Galileo affair”. The Koran gets no mention from McGrath, indeed nothing but Christianity gets a look in. In reality Dawkins is in conflict with those fundamentalists of all religions who insist on the literal truths of their scriptures and act on them, and good on him.
May 28, 2015
It's difficult to for me to accept any theological positioning on our realities when one is an agnostic atheist who used to be a Christian. I read this book because I believe in giving myself a balanced input of perspectives when it comes to matters of existence, purpose, meanings of life, etc. But, I guess, because of the difficulty I have in accepting theological positioning, I found it hard to not say "this is just ridiculous".
I will grant that McGrath made a solid effort to be scientific in his propositions here. But he uses a lot of pseudo-science. His "evidence" is personal experience. His reasonings are circular. His refutations of Dawkins' various assertions are weak at best, and it left me with the impression that McGrath is just an indoctrinated drone who's slightly offended that anyone dare say that his god doesn't exist. Moreover, this comes across as an attack on Dawkins, rather than an attack on Dawkins' ideals and ideas.
I will grant that McGrath made a solid effort to be scientific in his propositions here. But he uses a lot of pseudo-science. His "evidence" is personal experience. His reasonings are circular. His refutations of Dawkins' various assertions are weak at best, and it left me with the impression that McGrath is just an indoctrinated drone who's slightly offended that anyone dare say that his god doesn't exist. Moreover, this comes across as an attack on Dawkins, rather than an attack on Dawkins' ideals and ideas.
January 6, 2014
A-Mac is among my favorite authors. The Blind Watchmaker is one of my favorite books. So I was excited to see McGrath engage Dawkins on the book. Unfortunately, other than on the question of "Does evolution eliminate God?" there wasn't much of an engagement. McGrath accepts most of the science in Blind Watchmaker (as do I).
McGrath does pick apart The Selfish Gene quite rigorously. Unfortunately, I did not read The Selfish Gene, because I thought "Memes" are unscientific woo-woo. The chapter-length critique of Memes was, to me very boring.
As others here are mentioned before, this is a great introduction on Science and religion: the arguments and the history.
McGrath does pick apart The Selfish Gene quite rigorously. Unfortunately, I did not read The Selfish Gene, because I thought "Memes" are unscientific woo-woo. The chapter-length critique of Memes was, to me very boring.
As others here are mentioned before, this is a great introduction on Science and religion: the arguments and the history.
September 22, 2014
Alister McGrath gives with this book a good inside into Darwinism and the thinking of Dawkins. McGrath is filleting the thinking from Dawkins. The book is easy to read and shows that there is no ‘war’ between sciences and believe. McGrath shows us that meems are not scientific at all and that cultural evolution does need the faith and believe like believers have in a God.
For everybody who like the debate about science, evolution, faith etc. the little book from Alister McGrath is a must to read.
I loved it.
Dawkins and McGrath had a debate about this. For the full version see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEmrZb...
For everybody who like the debate about science, evolution, faith etc. the little book from Alister McGrath is a must to read.
I loved it.
Dawkins and McGrath had a debate about this. For the full version see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEmrZb...
January 19, 2009
It took me a really long time to finish this book. That's never a good sign that I'm enjoying a book. McGrath spends a lot of time rehashing different points in an attempt to debunk Richard Dawkins meme theory. Dawkins used that theory to "prove" there was no God.
Really, really dry stuff.
Neither Dawkins nor McGrath has changed my opinion on the subject of the existence of a supreme being. I think it's really an individual thought process and, unless you're wavering, outside influences aren't going to have much impact.
Really, really dry stuff.
Neither Dawkins nor McGrath has changed my opinion on the subject of the existence of a supreme being. I think it's really an individual thought process and, unless you're wavering, outside influences aren't going to have much impact.
June 7, 2014
I basically agree with the author that Dawkins goes beyond the evidence, but am not sure what he thinks we're supposed to use to decide things outside of evidence. He, like Dawkins, is too polemical and too interested in scoring points, rather than getting down to brass tacks and figuring out just what we know. It's well worth your time if you're interested in this sort of stuff, though.
It's short, but it probably would have benefited from fleshing some things out a bit more.
It's short, but it probably would have benefited from fleshing some things out a bit more.
February 24, 2016
Dit boek lag al een tijdje op mn nachtkastje - ooit was ik tot halverwege gekomen maar nooit tot het einde. Prima boek dat maar weer ns onder de aandacht brengt dat darwinisme en het christendom elkaar niet uitsluiten, niet alleen omdat McGrath dat vindt maar gestaafd met een boel historische bronnen. Dawkins is tegen een soort geloof waar toch al niemand in gelooft.
Toch maar drie sterren omdat McGrath af en toe behoorlijk in herhaling valt.
Toch maar drie sterren omdat McGrath af en toe behoorlijk in herhaling valt.
January 23, 2015
Gets pretty technical in places, but fascinating not just for McGrath's dismantling of Dawkins' weaker assumptions, but for the perspectives gained on science and religion, both now and in the past. It's been interesting to read this at the same time as Stephen Greenblatt's The Swerve, which unfortunately falls into some of the same false assumptions and decontextualizations as some of Dawkins' work.
February 4, 2010
McGrath does a great job of describing the belief system of Charles Darwin and how Richard Dawkins developed his evolution based on Darwinian thought. McGrath then goes through evolution with a fine-tooth comb from a Biblical worldview. Excellent read for those interested in how Christians can counter the theory of evolution.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews