What do you think?
Rate this book
Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Riposte to "The God Delusion"
The God Delusion is a clarion call to the faithless, the waverers, and even firm religious believers, to follow the author into radical atheism not merely as a private conviction but as a public profession. Wouldn't humankind be better off without religion, he asks. John Cornwell's Darwin's Angel is not so much a combative repudiation of Dawkins' arguments as a playful conversation with them, posing alternative view-points, exposing lapses in logic and errors of fact, from the vantage point of a friendly Guardian Angel.
160 pages, Hardcover
Published September 6, 2007
About the author
John Cornwell
83 books50 followersJohn Cornwell is a British journalist, author, and academic. Since 1990 he has directed the Science and Human Dimension Project at Jesus College, Cambridge, where he is also, since 2009, Founder and Director of the Rustat Conferences. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Letters (University of Leicester) in 2011. He was nominated for the PEN/Ackerley Prize for best UK memoir 2007 (Seminary Boy) and shortlisted Specialist Journalist of the Year (science, medicine in Sunday Times Magazine), British Press Awards 2006. He won the Scientific and Medical Network Book of the Year Award for Hitler's Scientists, 2005; and received the Independent Television Authority - Tablet Award for contributions to religious journalism (1994). In 1982 he won the Gold Dagger Award Non-Fiction (1982) for Earth to Earth. He is best known for his investigative journalism; memoir; and his work in public understanding of science. In addition to his books on the relationship between science, ethics and the humanities, he has written widely on the Catholic Church and the modern papacy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 28, 2012
There is much wrong with this book in terms of tenor, argument, thrust and integrity and to list all it's faults would be tedious; so I'll restrict myself to the more obvious howlers.
First the style. You can't read Darwin's Angel without feeling patronised and queasy at its soppy tone. Cornwell's central conceit of a caring angel is condescending, disingenuous and grating and the final dedication: "with affection from Darwin's Angel and Yours." is frankly creepy. The conversational style palls quickly with phrases such as: "I want to explore with you..." reading as though he were an awkward uncle talking down to a child The combination of professed compassion for Dawkins in conjunction with blatant ad hominem attack seem like the ramblings of an schizophrenic.
But what of substance? This book is billed as a riposte to TGD so you expect meaty argument but Cornwell’s thought is convoluted. He enjoys rambling from one idea to another often losing us (and himself) in pointless tangential peregrinations. For example chapter 18, ostensibly about a Darwinian account of religion, dissolves into a long digression on the uses of church buildings which adds nothing but tedium. In another chapter he picks up on a quote from Dostoyevsky employed by Dawkins as an illustration; instead of engaging with the point of the argument Cornwell chides Dawkins for misunderstanding Dostoyevsky which cues a completely irrelevant précis of The Brothers Karamazov. This sidetracking with quotes occurs again on page 114 where Dawkins uses a line from Yeats, ignoring the actual point again Cornwell argues that the poem has a different theme- well, perhaps it does, who cares! these quotes are illustrative of points, window-dressing, not arguments in themselves.
His eagerness to engage only with the petty and trivial is demonstrated further when he gets lost in discussions about whether atheists are really cleverer than theists (chapter 16)- his lacklustre conclusion (sans argument natch) is that there are different kinds of intelligence; but really who cares? Or when he takes Dawkins to task for employing purpose-laden words in evolution discussions: "Your addiction to teleological explanations of natural functions is patently unscientific" (page 133)- which simply betrays an ignorance of what Dawkins' repeatedly asserts:- that such phrasing is an accident of language- metaphors- which would be awkward to avoid and imply nothing about purpose.
Cornwell prefers insinuation to argument. There are multiple ad hominem attacks on Dawkins with allegations of egoism, self-delusion even messiah-complex but when he does try to engage he misunderstands what Dawkins is driving at. On page 54 he brands Russell's Teapot as `arbitrary' but the whole point of the teapot story is that it IS arbitrary. It is a device to show that the theists claim that atheists can't disprove God is a hollow one- Cornwell's choice of counter argument (with one of the ineffectual Five ways of Aquinas) just shows how little he has understood the point being made. In fact Cornwell seems confused on even basic points of terminology as when he conflates Theism and Deism on page 12 and again on page 158.
Much in Darwin's Angel is simply asserted rather than argued as when later in the same chapter he characterises Mutiverse theory as "hardly a compelling scientific argument"- try saying that to the hundreds of physicists currently theorising just such a thing. He counters Dawkins Ultimate 747 with the line that God is simple and can therefore be a legitimate candidate for ultimate cause, but does he reinforce this assertion with robust evidence; do we hear reasoned argument- of course not, why bother with such things when you can just assert (page 60) that: "theologians deny that God is made up of parts... they insist on his simplicity". You might question how a god without parts could design, build and maintain a universe not to mention listen to the prayers of billions and intervene on a day to day basis (not only on this planet but throughout creation) but it will do you no good against the ruthless assertion that god is SIMPLE. Theologians say so! That does for Cornwell's Angelic alter ego, and it should do for you! How pleasant to be able to define things into reality like that.
Some things are expected in this type of book- so it comes as no surprise that we get the usual Hitler and Stalin were atheists therefore... Try telling him that atheism is not a positive doctrine that it entails nothing; engenders no belief, no dogma rather it is a LACK of belief- and he won't hear you. No, instead he will in a breath-taking calumny (chapter 19) infer that Dawkins' meme theory of religious induction would ultimately lead to Nazi-esque `solutions' for religious believers if ever power was given to those of Dawkins' persuasion- a somewhat un-Angelic accusation.
The central challenge for any Christian apologist is to layout the case for God. When Cornwell's attempt finally comes (chapter 20) we cannot fail to be impressed by it's simplicity. It rests on the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing" There’s no need for argument of course, just an assertion that science can't address the issue but somehow theologians can. Somehow without the use of, logic, objective reason, and evidence based common sense (all of which are the province of science) theologians can ascertain this great truth of the cosmos.
So there you have it- a typical piece of theological claptrap. A vainglorious attempt to dismiss in the crudest possible way the New Atheist agenda and a disingenuous, dissembling devil in the guise of a wheedling, mawkish angel.
Angels are a man-made fiction, and this book is a similar disappointment; as a riposte to Dawkins it has no substance.
First the style. You can't read Darwin's Angel without feeling patronised and queasy at its soppy tone. Cornwell's central conceit of a caring angel is condescending, disingenuous and grating and the final dedication: "with affection from Darwin's Angel and Yours." is frankly creepy. The conversational style palls quickly with phrases such as: "I want to explore with you..." reading as though he were an awkward uncle talking down to a child The combination of professed compassion for Dawkins in conjunction with blatant ad hominem attack seem like the ramblings of an schizophrenic.
But what of substance? This book is billed as a riposte to TGD so you expect meaty argument but Cornwell’s thought is convoluted. He enjoys rambling from one idea to another often losing us (and himself) in pointless tangential peregrinations. For example chapter 18, ostensibly about a Darwinian account of religion, dissolves into a long digression on the uses of church buildings which adds nothing but tedium. In another chapter he picks up on a quote from Dostoyevsky employed by Dawkins as an illustration; instead of engaging with the point of the argument Cornwell chides Dawkins for misunderstanding Dostoyevsky which cues a completely irrelevant précis of The Brothers Karamazov. This sidetracking with quotes occurs again on page 114 where Dawkins uses a line from Yeats, ignoring the actual point again Cornwell argues that the poem has a different theme- well, perhaps it does, who cares! these quotes are illustrative of points, window-dressing, not arguments in themselves.
His eagerness to engage only with the petty and trivial is demonstrated further when he gets lost in discussions about whether atheists are really cleverer than theists (chapter 16)- his lacklustre conclusion (sans argument natch) is that there are different kinds of intelligence; but really who cares? Or when he takes Dawkins to task for employing purpose-laden words in evolution discussions: "Your addiction to teleological explanations of natural functions is patently unscientific" (page 133)- which simply betrays an ignorance of what Dawkins' repeatedly asserts:- that such phrasing is an accident of language- metaphors- which would be awkward to avoid and imply nothing about purpose.
Cornwell prefers insinuation to argument. There are multiple ad hominem attacks on Dawkins with allegations of egoism, self-delusion even messiah-complex but when he does try to engage he misunderstands what Dawkins is driving at. On page 54 he brands Russell's Teapot as `arbitrary' but the whole point of the teapot story is that it IS arbitrary. It is a device to show that the theists claim that atheists can't disprove God is a hollow one- Cornwell's choice of counter argument (with one of the ineffectual Five ways of Aquinas) just shows how little he has understood the point being made. In fact Cornwell seems confused on even basic points of terminology as when he conflates Theism and Deism on page 12 and again on page 158.
Much in Darwin's Angel is simply asserted rather than argued as when later in the same chapter he characterises Mutiverse theory as "hardly a compelling scientific argument"- try saying that to the hundreds of physicists currently theorising just such a thing. He counters Dawkins Ultimate 747 with the line that God is simple and can therefore be a legitimate candidate for ultimate cause, but does he reinforce this assertion with robust evidence; do we hear reasoned argument- of course not, why bother with such things when you can just assert (page 60) that: "theologians deny that God is made up of parts... they insist on his simplicity". You might question how a god without parts could design, build and maintain a universe not to mention listen to the prayers of billions and intervene on a day to day basis (not only on this planet but throughout creation) but it will do you no good against the ruthless assertion that god is SIMPLE. Theologians say so! That does for Cornwell's Angelic alter ego, and it should do for you! How pleasant to be able to define things into reality like that.
Some things are expected in this type of book- so it comes as no surprise that we get the usual Hitler and Stalin were atheists therefore... Try telling him that atheism is not a positive doctrine that it entails nothing; engenders no belief, no dogma rather it is a LACK of belief- and he won't hear you. No, instead he will in a breath-taking calumny (chapter 19) infer that Dawkins' meme theory of religious induction would ultimately lead to Nazi-esque `solutions' for religious believers if ever power was given to those of Dawkins' persuasion- a somewhat un-Angelic accusation.
The central challenge for any Christian apologist is to layout the case for God. When Cornwell's attempt finally comes (chapter 20) we cannot fail to be impressed by it's simplicity. It rests on the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing" There’s no need for argument of course, just an assertion that science can't address the issue but somehow theologians can. Somehow without the use of, logic, objective reason, and evidence based common sense (all of which are the province of science) theologians can ascertain this great truth of the cosmos.
So there you have it- a typical piece of theological claptrap. A vainglorious attempt to dismiss in the crudest possible way the New Atheist agenda and a disingenuous, dissembling devil in the guise of a wheedling, mawkish angel.
Angels are a man-made fiction, and this book is a similar disappointment; as a riposte to Dawkins it has no substance.
July 1, 2012
Did not finish - automatically 1 star. This is a critique of Chapers 1-4 to give an idea of what was wrong with the book.
I must say, that of the content I have read, I am not enjoying this book. Often I feel there isn't really enough meat to Cornwell's argument so it was hard to discuss. Sometimes, I did not understand what he was getting at. I feel like sometimes, Richard was quoted out of context, and because he does not give the page references to the quotes of Dawkins', it is difficult to check whether a quote is in or out of context. This is really bad form. I cannot tell if this is sloppiness or intentional so Cornwell can misrepresent Richard without sneaky atheists being able to pin him down on it(I can, I believe, sometimes, but if I can't find the quote there's no way I can.) Whether or not is it is deliberate it leads the reader to think he's trying to misrepresent Dawkins on purpose.
Here's another oddity for you: the subtitle of the book is different on the front cover where it is "An Angelic Riposte To The God Delusion" than on the inside page, where it is "A Seraphic Response to The God Delusion."
A quick note on cites: the main books used are Darwin's Angel(Cornwell, J. Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Riposte To The God Delusion, Profile Books 2007) and The God Delusion (Dawkins, R. The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006). Quotes from Darwin's Angel will be referred to in brackets after the quote as DA, p. 2, wheras The God Delusion quotes will be TGD, p. 2.
Main Review
Preface
I don't actaully have too much to say about the preface. The first point I would make is that Cornwell, rather than writing as himself, decides to write the book from the perspective of Dawkins' guardian angel. I'm not sure, to be honest, what this is supposed to achieve. Some of these are summary points and I will adress them in the course of the main book rather than repeating myself.
Misrepresentations of Dawkins in the Preface
"He has established his own "Ten Commandments"" (DA, p.16)
I'm not sure what Cornwell means. I think he is referring to a passage in TGD where RD cites an example of some "New Ten Commandments" he found on an atheist website. Dawkins then gives some examples of some of his own that he would consider including. This is hardly setting up moral rules in stone unlike the Bible and it is merely used as an example of the way mankind's morality changes and how it is not based on religion.
"He has un-faithed, or "outed" in eternity such as Jefferson, Dostoyevsky, and Einstein; he has even "outed" my former protege Father Mendel, who was so admirably a man of both sceinec and religion."(DA, p. 16)
Dawkins actually quotes Einstein(TGD, p. 15) as saying "I do not believe in a personal god." I think this is rather a case of Einstein outing himself than Dawkins doing it for him.
Regarding Jefferson. Dawkins does not outright say that "Jefferson was definetly an atheist." His comments are more along the lines of the fact that Jefferson's ideas were compatible with atheism, and he quotes Christopher Hitchens on the issue, who believes it was likely Jefferson was an atheist, although it cannot be proved because he could not declare it at the time. This can be found on pages 42-3 of TGD.
Dostoyevsky: There is only one reference to him in the index, pg. 227, which is mainly a quote from The Brothers Karamazov, in a section discussing whether we need God to be good. I do not see any reference to Dostoyevsky's opinions on atheism, only that of one of this characters.
Mendel: Richard on Mendel "Mendel, of course, was a religious man, an Augustinian monk; but that was in the nineteenth century, when becoming a monk was the easiest way to pursue his science."(TGD, p. 99). As far as I know, it is the only entry about Mendel in the book, and Dawkins specifically said he was a religious man! Cornwell quotes this passage from Dawkins, but curiously omits the "religious man" clause(DA, pg. 16).
I A Summary Of Your Argument
As this is just a summary, I will deal with it as the claims come up in the main book.
Misrepresentations of Dawkins in Chapter I
"In your mind there is essentially no difference between an Al Qaeda terrorist and your North Oxford neighbour who goes to church twice a year."
Richard does believe moderate faith can be dangerous but he would never make a comparison this ludicrous. Richard's argument is basically that the respect for moderate faith protects fanaticism, and that a lot of fanatics are actually not taught by other fanatics, they are taught by moderates.
Chapter II - Your Sources
Cornwell criticises Richard for citing his own works and own experiences with people and their experiences of his work. For a start, Richard is going to refer to his own personal experience in a book about religion and there is nothing wrong with using anecdotes to make a valid point. Religious writers refer to their own experience of the divine, don't they, and I'm sure Cornwell sees nothing wrong with that. Secondly, one does not have the space to rehash everything one may have already argued in other books. Other arguments in other books may be useful if you want to know more about a particular topic, for example, Richard's books on evolution would be relevant to chapers 5 and 6 of TGD. Thirdly, Richard is not the only person to refer to his own work in a new book. For example, Daniel Dennett, refers back to Darwin's Dangerous Idea in his book Freedom Evolves in the section about the Life game by John Conway. Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis lists several of his own books and articles in the Bibliography and refers to Has Science Found God? more than once in the main text, eg. pg. 95, 99. Steven Pinker does it in The Blank Slate, pg. 80, 393. It's not just Richard, then.
Misrepresentations of Richard Dawkins in Chapter II.
"Your book is an innocent of heavy scholarship as it is free of false modesty." (DA, pg. 29)
Okay, this is more of an ad hominem, but in my opinion you cannot assert(and assertion it is; he doesn't argue for it) this sort of thing in a book meant to be a scholarly rebuttal of Dawkins.
"You might have discussed at least in brief your intellectual antecedents: [...] Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud."
Is this passage trying to imply that Richard is a Social Darwinist (or, technically a Social Spencerist, as it was not Darwin's idea). I can assure you that this is not true. He has stated many times that he does not believe the theory of evolution should dictate our morality. And aren't Spencer and on the other hand Marx and Freud completely different. Marx and Spencer are arguably as unlike as you can get. Though they both would have seen the analogy between the nineteenth century society (ie. free market capitalism) and the theory of evolution. Also, they are both buried in Highgate Cemetery; other than that I fail to see what they have in common.
Communism relied on the idea that people change based on the historical conditions, broadly. Freud believed that all mental problems were to do with upbringing and not genes. Spencer was the opposite, he appeared to be a genetic determinist, or at least somebody who believed that genes were very influental in determining personality. [not an expert on either Freud or Spencer to make that clear. Marx I have more of a handle on]. Although nature and nurture are in no way incompatible and both are needed and both affect each other, one cannot totally agree with the thoughts of all of these thinkers.
I fail to see how Marx is particularly relevant to Dawkins' work; I'm pretty sure Dawkins is not a Marxist so what reason would he have for mentioning Marx? Marxists often make arguments/assumptions from Marxism to atheism, because Marxism is a materialist theory; unless you are going to follow suit why bring it up? Same with Freud as I don't think Dawkins is a Freudian either. They're relevant if you're doing a history of atheism/materialism, but that's not what Dawkins' book is about. The problem with even comparing Spencer to Dawkins is Spencer's name brings to the fore ideas of Eugenics and other unsavoury practice, so it ends up just being an attempt to tar by association.
Chapter III - Imagination
To be honest, I'm not sure what Cornwell's point in this chapter is. He seems to criticising Richard's dismissal of theology and Richard's apparent disdain for the imaginiation. I'm tempted to just dismiss a lot of the chapter as just being straw mannery because Richard has nothing agianst the dimention of imagination. For a start, Richard is a scientist. Science is a wonderfully imaginative discipline. How imaginitive did Einstein have to be to come up with the theory of relativity for instance? Science combines this imagination with fact and observation. How could Richard dislike imagination when imagination is exactly what drives his dicipline? In a similar vein, he also portrays Richard as having something against literature, again, I don't really see how he does. Maybe Richard is more interested in scientific fact, but then again, I am very interested in scientific fact and that doesn't mean I don't read any fiction, and that's his perogative anyway. Cornwell hasn't really demonstrated that Dawkins is against or dislikes either of those things. In his book Unweaving the Rainbow, Dawkins maintains that science is poetic.
There were a couple of points in this chapter I found a little bit, well, stupid. For instance, he says, "but do you really wish your readers to accept that writers such as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoyevsky ... the entire canon of world literature ... is just so much untruth? Fiction?" (DA, p. 35.)
Well, isn't that the point? I'm not sure what he means, or what he's getting at. The only thing I can think of is that he thinks these books contains moral truth, which may or may not be true, but then later he says, "you no longer believe in the power of the imagination to impart literary, poetic, religious and moral truth either?"(DA, p. 36) which implies he considers the truth of literature to be different from moral truth, so now I'm very confused. What exactly is "poetic truth"?
Chapter IV - Beauty
This is a discussion of the argument from beauty, which Dawkins rebuts in TGD. This chapter, again, seemed to be straw manning and didn't make a lot of sense in places. I think somehow he's just misread or misunderstood Dawkins, but I don't see how he's got the interpretation that he has.
For example, Cornwell says this: "You allow that art often prompts feelings of "sublimity" but then you make this curious statement: "[Shakespere's sonnets] ... are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn't." Whose standpoint are you adopting? The poet's? The reader's? God's? Or Richard Dawkins, as an angel, surveying all three? I think you might mean that a poem can have sublimity --whether the poet believes in God or not." I don't think that's what Richard means at all. I think it is fairly obvious from the book that Richard means exactly what he is saying here. He means that a piece of art is sublime whether God exists or not. It is pretty obvious what he means.
Cornwell then mentions that a suspention of belief is not the same thing as faith, but this is another strawman because nowhere does Dawkins say that it is.
Richard said in TGD that the argument that beauty exists, thus god exists in not spelled out properly. So Cornwell attempts to rebut this point by citing an example of a theologian who explictly spells out this kind of argument.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your average, run-of-the mill religious believer does not often read theologians, often does not care what they have to say, maybe doesn't even understand what they have to say most of the time. And I'm not sure I understand this theologian's argument either, at least not in the way that Cornwell describes it. I haven't read the book in question, but Cornwell quotes him as saying "I will put forward the argument that experience of aesthetic meaning in particular [...] infers the necarssary possibility of this real presence[ie. God.]"(Steiner, G. quoted in DA, p. 40)
To me that seems like it is saying effectively that aesthestics exist and this implies that God must exist, but Cornwell doesn't like this interpretation even though it seems the most obvious on a reading of the text. He says "'[N]ecarssary probability" of God's presence is not the same as requiring that God actually exists. Steiner [...] is arguing that there is a connection, by analogy, between authentic original artistic creativity and the idea of the sustaining creation of God in the world." But doesn't God need to exist for him to have a creation? How does the idea that an analogy works make God true? And why in the cited paragraph does he appear to be saying something totally different?
[NOTE: This review was written in 2008, and thus may not currently fully represent my current perspective; I might have raised different points had I read it now. Has been somewhat edited from original review]
I must say, that of the content I have read, I am not enjoying this book. Often I feel there isn't really enough meat to Cornwell's argument so it was hard to discuss. Sometimes, I did not understand what he was getting at. I feel like sometimes, Richard was quoted out of context, and because he does not give the page references to the quotes of Dawkins', it is difficult to check whether a quote is in or out of context. This is really bad form. I cannot tell if this is sloppiness or intentional so Cornwell can misrepresent Richard without sneaky atheists being able to pin him down on it(I can, I believe, sometimes, but if I can't find the quote there's no way I can.) Whether or not is it is deliberate it leads the reader to think he's trying to misrepresent Dawkins on purpose.
Here's another oddity for you: the subtitle of the book is different on the front cover where it is "An Angelic Riposte To The God Delusion" than on the inside page, where it is "A Seraphic Response to The God Delusion."
A quick note on cites: the main books used are Darwin's Angel(Cornwell, J. Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Riposte To The God Delusion, Profile Books 2007) and The God Delusion (Dawkins, R. The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006). Quotes from Darwin's Angel will be referred to in brackets after the quote as DA, p. 2, wheras The God Delusion quotes will be TGD, p. 2.
Main Review
Preface
I don't actaully have too much to say about the preface. The first point I would make is that Cornwell, rather than writing as himself, decides to write the book from the perspective of Dawkins' guardian angel. I'm not sure, to be honest, what this is supposed to achieve. Some of these are summary points and I will adress them in the course of the main book rather than repeating myself.
Misrepresentations of Dawkins in the Preface
"He has established his own "Ten Commandments"" (DA, p.16)
I'm not sure what Cornwell means. I think he is referring to a passage in TGD where RD cites an example of some "New Ten Commandments" he found on an atheist website. Dawkins then gives some examples of some of his own that he would consider including. This is hardly setting up moral rules in stone unlike the Bible and it is merely used as an example of the way mankind's morality changes and how it is not based on religion.
"He has un-faithed, or "outed" in eternity such as Jefferson, Dostoyevsky, and Einstein; he has even "outed" my former protege Father Mendel, who was so admirably a man of both sceinec and religion."(DA, p. 16)
Dawkins actually quotes Einstein(TGD, p. 15) as saying "I do not believe in a personal god." I think this is rather a case of Einstein outing himself than Dawkins doing it for him.
Regarding Jefferson. Dawkins does not outright say that "Jefferson was definetly an atheist." His comments are more along the lines of the fact that Jefferson's ideas were compatible with atheism, and he quotes Christopher Hitchens on the issue, who believes it was likely Jefferson was an atheist, although it cannot be proved because he could not declare it at the time. This can be found on pages 42-3 of TGD.
Dostoyevsky: There is only one reference to him in the index, pg. 227, which is mainly a quote from The Brothers Karamazov, in a section discussing whether we need God to be good. I do not see any reference to Dostoyevsky's opinions on atheism, only that of one of this characters.
Mendel: Richard on Mendel "Mendel, of course, was a religious man, an Augustinian monk; but that was in the nineteenth century, when becoming a monk was the easiest way to pursue his science."(TGD, p. 99). As far as I know, it is the only entry about Mendel in the book, and Dawkins specifically said he was a religious man! Cornwell quotes this passage from Dawkins, but curiously omits the "religious man" clause(DA, pg. 16).
I A Summary Of Your Argument
As this is just a summary, I will deal with it as the claims come up in the main book.
Misrepresentations of Dawkins in Chapter I
"In your mind there is essentially no difference between an Al Qaeda terrorist and your North Oxford neighbour who goes to church twice a year."
Richard does believe moderate faith can be dangerous but he would never make a comparison this ludicrous. Richard's argument is basically that the respect for moderate faith protects fanaticism, and that a lot of fanatics are actually not taught by other fanatics, they are taught by moderates.
Chapter II - Your Sources
Cornwell criticises Richard for citing his own works and own experiences with people and their experiences of his work. For a start, Richard is going to refer to his own personal experience in a book about religion and there is nothing wrong with using anecdotes to make a valid point. Religious writers refer to their own experience of the divine, don't they, and I'm sure Cornwell sees nothing wrong with that. Secondly, one does not have the space to rehash everything one may have already argued in other books. Other arguments in other books may be useful if you want to know more about a particular topic, for example, Richard's books on evolution would be relevant to chapers 5 and 6 of TGD. Thirdly, Richard is not the only person to refer to his own work in a new book. For example, Daniel Dennett, refers back to Darwin's Dangerous Idea in his book Freedom Evolves in the section about the Life game by John Conway. Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis lists several of his own books and articles in the Bibliography and refers to Has Science Found God? more than once in the main text, eg. pg. 95, 99. Steven Pinker does it in The Blank Slate, pg. 80, 393. It's not just Richard, then.
Misrepresentations of Richard Dawkins in Chapter II.
"Your book is an innocent of heavy scholarship as it is free of false modesty." (DA, pg. 29)
Okay, this is more of an ad hominem, but in my opinion you cannot assert(and assertion it is; he doesn't argue for it) this sort of thing in a book meant to be a scholarly rebuttal of Dawkins.
"You might have discussed at least in brief your intellectual antecedents: [...] Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud."
Is this passage trying to imply that Richard is a Social Darwinist (or, technically a Social Spencerist, as it was not Darwin's idea). I can assure you that this is not true. He has stated many times that he does not believe the theory of evolution should dictate our morality. And aren't Spencer and on the other hand Marx and Freud completely different. Marx and Spencer are arguably as unlike as you can get. Though they both would have seen the analogy between the nineteenth century society (ie. free market capitalism) and the theory of evolution. Also, they are both buried in Highgate Cemetery; other than that I fail to see what they have in common.
Communism relied on the idea that people change based on the historical conditions, broadly. Freud believed that all mental problems were to do with upbringing and not genes. Spencer was the opposite, he appeared to be a genetic determinist, or at least somebody who believed that genes were very influental in determining personality. [not an expert on either Freud or Spencer to make that clear. Marx I have more of a handle on]. Although nature and nurture are in no way incompatible and both are needed and both affect each other, one cannot totally agree with the thoughts of all of these thinkers.
I fail to see how Marx is particularly relevant to Dawkins' work; I'm pretty sure Dawkins is not a Marxist so what reason would he have for mentioning Marx? Marxists often make arguments/assumptions from Marxism to atheism, because Marxism is a materialist theory; unless you are going to follow suit why bring it up? Same with Freud as I don't think Dawkins is a Freudian either. They're relevant if you're doing a history of atheism/materialism, but that's not what Dawkins' book is about. The problem with even comparing Spencer to Dawkins is Spencer's name brings to the fore ideas of Eugenics and other unsavoury practice, so it ends up just being an attempt to tar by association.
Chapter III - Imagination
To be honest, I'm not sure what Cornwell's point in this chapter is. He seems to criticising Richard's dismissal of theology and Richard's apparent disdain for the imaginiation. I'm tempted to just dismiss a lot of the chapter as just being straw mannery because Richard has nothing agianst the dimention of imagination. For a start, Richard is a scientist. Science is a wonderfully imaginative discipline. How imaginitive did Einstein have to be to come up with the theory of relativity for instance? Science combines this imagination with fact and observation. How could Richard dislike imagination when imagination is exactly what drives his dicipline? In a similar vein, he also portrays Richard as having something against literature, again, I don't really see how he does. Maybe Richard is more interested in scientific fact, but then again, I am very interested in scientific fact and that doesn't mean I don't read any fiction, and that's his perogative anyway. Cornwell hasn't really demonstrated that Dawkins is against or dislikes either of those things. In his book Unweaving the Rainbow, Dawkins maintains that science is poetic.
There were a couple of points in this chapter I found a little bit, well, stupid. For instance, he says, "but do you really wish your readers to accept that writers such as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoyevsky ... the entire canon of world literature ... is just so much untruth? Fiction?" (DA, p. 35.)
Well, isn't that the point? I'm not sure what he means, or what he's getting at. The only thing I can think of is that he thinks these books contains moral truth, which may or may not be true, but then later he says, "you no longer believe in the power of the imagination to impart literary, poetic, religious and moral truth either?"(DA, p. 36) which implies he considers the truth of literature to be different from moral truth, so now I'm very confused. What exactly is "poetic truth"?
Chapter IV - Beauty
This is a discussion of the argument from beauty, which Dawkins rebuts in TGD. This chapter, again, seemed to be straw manning and didn't make a lot of sense in places. I think somehow he's just misread or misunderstood Dawkins, but I don't see how he's got the interpretation that he has.
For example, Cornwell says this: "You allow that art often prompts feelings of "sublimity" but then you make this curious statement: "[Shakespere's sonnets] ... are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn't." Whose standpoint are you adopting? The poet's? The reader's? God's? Or Richard Dawkins, as an angel, surveying all three? I think you might mean that a poem can have sublimity --whether the poet believes in God or not." I don't think that's what Richard means at all. I think it is fairly obvious from the book that Richard means exactly what he is saying here. He means that a piece of art is sublime whether God exists or not. It is pretty obvious what he means.
Cornwell then mentions that a suspention of belief is not the same thing as faith, but this is another strawman because nowhere does Dawkins say that it is.
Richard said in TGD that the argument that beauty exists, thus god exists in not spelled out properly. So Cornwell attempts to rebut this point by citing an example of a theologian who explictly spells out this kind of argument.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your average, run-of-the mill religious believer does not often read theologians, often does not care what they have to say, maybe doesn't even understand what they have to say most of the time. And I'm not sure I understand this theologian's argument either, at least not in the way that Cornwell describes it. I haven't read the book in question, but Cornwell quotes him as saying "I will put forward the argument that experience of aesthetic meaning in particular [...] infers the necarssary possibility of this real presence[ie. God.]"(Steiner, G. quoted in DA, p. 40)
To me that seems like it is saying effectively that aesthestics exist and this implies that God must exist, but Cornwell doesn't like this interpretation even though it seems the most obvious on a reading of the text. He says "'[N]ecarssary probability" of God's presence is not the same as requiring that God actually exists. Steiner [...] is arguing that there is a connection, by analogy, between authentic original artistic creativity and the idea of the sustaining creation of God in the world." But doesn't God need to exist for him to have a creation? How does the idea that an analogy works make God true? And why in the cited paragraph does he appear to be saying something totally different?
[NOTE: This review was written in 2008, and thus may not currently fully represent my current perspective; I might have raised different points had I read it now. Has been somewhat edited from original review]
March 23, 2014
Critical responses to Richard Dawkins' international best-seller "The God Delusion" have ranged from the scholarly to the acerbic. Few of Dawkins' critics have tried humour, and none have been as successful as John Cornwell. Adopting the guise of Charles Darwin's (and Dawkins') guardian angel, Cornwell engages the various aspects of Dawkins' argument in a series of epistolatory responses that are characterised by wit, insight, and a gently rebuking humour. Indeed, so gently does Cornwell disassemble Dawkins' position that it is only toward the end of the book that the reader realises the viciously depersonalising and totalitarian nature of Dawkins' argument and its implications for humanity(if religious belief is a disease that infects society, what is to be done with the "diseased" believers?). Long beforehand, however, the observant reader has also noted how Cornwell has wittily yet pointedly uncovered Dawkins' intellectual shabbiness, his evasions, inconsistencies, category errors, inclination toward the use of abuse (both general and particular) instead of data when his position is challenged, and, above all, his self-referencing framework that is actually a teleological assertion disguised as scientific analysis. But what makes this book truly admirable is that it is not Cornwell's purpose to either revile Dawkins or suggest that he is wrong and theists are right; on the contrary, the whole book is a plea for Dawkins' to seriously engage the issue of religious belief, to think through his position, and not (to borrow a phrase from Terry Eagleton) buy his rejection of the possibility of God "on the cheap". Compelling, witty, and insightful reading.
July 16, 2024
Intriguing to see what a low rating this book has! Having skimmed some of the comments, I now recall coming across this book on goodreads before and consequently dismissing it as not worth reading - a fact I'd happily forgotten when I picked it up on a whim from the free shelf in a charity shop. Despite what others (seemingly Dawkins fans) are saying, I like this. I like the format and Lewis-esque writing style. I think Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is a very poorly researched and heavily unsubstantiated book, but a response to it could risk straying into some of the very arguments he makes about religion. However, save perhaps one instance, this book successfully avoids all of those. Yes it does go off on tangents and becomes a little convoluted in places, but the author does indicate at the start that he is not there to provide answers but to continue to prompt reflection, which he did with me.
November 15, 2010
He probably hated the book even before reading it. First I got disappointed for the size of the book. 3 page chapters? Are you kidding? Chapters Imagination and Does God Exist? are just plain pathetic. Why does he hate "why" questions? (Note that this is also a "why" question!) Probably because he lacks solid answers for solid questions. What's wrong with that? And this is what I can't stand. These people keep insisting that holding mysticism is something that one should be proud of, and is something that nurtures life. This book is pathetic and so is the author.
August 14, 2012
It's depressing to see how a book like this draws the stooges out of the woodwork - no doubt not a one of them have read a page of it - to denounce it with one star reviews for blasphemy against the high priest of their particular faith. This book is gentle, witty, and sharp at once. Three things the book it pokes fun at can never be accused of. I don't think it matters whether you're a regular church goer or wouldn't dream of entering the doors, a book like this, like Camus' work, or that of any other intelligent and sane human being, deserves more than to be bitched over along party lines. The review lists for books like this one end up looking like a dog turd fight between the volunteer propaganda brigades of Theists and Atheists rather than any consideration for the text at hand at all. A turd fight would be more interesting; I would be barracking for the turds.
December 22, 2012
Witty at times, interesting throughout and an enjoyable read
July 30, 2011
John Cornwell wrote Darwin’s Angel as if by ‘an angel special to natural historians and biologists’.
Hmm... For a review please see: Touched by an angel.
Hmm... For a review please see: Touched by an angel.
July 16, 2019
3.5
i read this hoping it would articulate some of my own qualms i had with r dawkins’s ‘the God delusion’ - and it did to a small degree, but it really excelled in undermining the aura of certainty dawkins exudes eg. in his interpretation of dostoyevsky, by offering alternative convincing explanations. it shows how a lot of the sources etc. dawkins uses are in some way twisted to benefit a pre-decided argument.
mostly it serves to keep the conversation open, where dawkins’s aim was to close it.
i read this hoping it would articulate some of my own qualms i had with r dawkins’s ‘the God delusion’ - and it did to a small degree, but it really excelled in undermining the aura of certainty dawkins exudes eg. in his interpretation of dostoyevsky, by offering alternative convincing explanations. it shows how a lot of the sources etc. dawkins uses are in some way twisted to benefit a pre-decided argument.
mostly it serves to keep the conversation open, where dawkins’s aim was to close it.
January 25, 2018
This work is very intelectual and many of the arguments are only understandable if one is equipped with a broad general knowledge of philosophies and the New Atheism Arguments.
The language Cornwall used is fascinating yet sometimes it feels like his arguments are pointing at some weak detail in Dawkins God Delusion which actually isn't even interesting looking at - in my opinion.
The language Cornwall used is fascinating yet sometimes it feels like his arguments are pointing at some weak detail in Dawkins God Delusion which actually isn't even interesting looking at - in my opinion.
February 8, 2012
My Facebook profile describes my religious views as ‘a happy and contented atheist’ and I stand by that. The God Delusion did not bring me to that conclusion and this book has not shown me the error of my ways.
If I had to summarise The God Delusion I would say that this is a book that says there is no God and people that do not accept this are fundamentalists, and potential suicide bombers. This is not an opinion that I agree with. I do not believe in God; but I would never storm into a church/mosque/synagogue/temple (delete as applicable) to enforce this view upon the people gathered in worship. Equally, do not knock on my door or stop me in the street and try to save my soul: I do not think I have one and you will only make me angry at your arrogance. Your belief does not bother me, provided you do not disrupt my life or try to kill me and I only ask that you respect my lack of belief in the same way.
Richard Dawkins is an extremist atheist, and The God Delusion is a flawed book; but so is this riposte. Many of the arguments and rebuttals to Dawkins’s book could quite simply be reversed to attack this book. The best example is Dawkins assertion that as an elderly man lies dying, it represents a long line of a person dying in stages: the young man has already died, as has the adolescent and the child before that. This book - quite rightly - points out that this is small consolation to the teenage cancer suffer and his family as he lies dying. This is a fair point; but saying that his soul will live on and God loves him, He just moves in mysterious ways, has always struck me as a cop out that is equally unfair.
The second major flaw in this book is the assertion that the faithful can answer the question, “If not this universe, why not nothing?” whereas atheists cannot. Philosophical questions do not have a real answer when compared to scientific questions: I know that two and two make four but I do not know what the sound of one hand clapping is. On top of that, the reason the universe is here is that a singularity exploded as explained by the Big Bang of the theory.
I am sorry, but I think that all religion is an attempt to understand how the universe works without resorting to science and all those horrid equations: but provided you do not strap explosives to your body and get on the same tube train as me, allow the shops to open on Sundays and do not try to stop me earning double-bubble during a religious festival, then we can actually get on just fine and dandy.
If I had to summarise The God Delusion I would say that this is a book that says there is no God and people that do not accept this are fundamentalists, and potential suicide bombers. This is not an opinion that I agree with. I do not believe in God; but I would never storm into a church/mosque/synagogue/temple (delete as applicable) to enforce this view upon the people gathered in worship. Equally, do not knock on my door or stop me in the street and try to save my soul: I do not think I have one and you will only make me angry at your arrogance. Your belief does not bother me, provided you do not disrupt my life or try to kill me and I only ask that you respect my lack of belief in the same way.
Richard Dawkins is an extremist atheist, and The God Delusion is a flawed book; but so is this riposte. Many of the arguments and rebuttals to Dawkins’s book could quite simply be reversed to attack this book. The best example is Dawkins assertion that as an elderly man lies dying, it represents a long line of a person dying in stages: the young man has already died, as has the adolescent and the child before that. This book - quite rightly - points out that this is small consolation to the teenage cancer suffer and his family as he lies dying. This is a fair point; but saying that his soul will live on and God loves him, He just moves in mysterious ways, has always struck me as a cop out that is equally unfair.
The second major flaw in this book is the assertion that the faithful can answer the question, “If not this universe, why not nothing?” whereas atheists cannot. Philosophical questions do not have a real answer when compared to scientific questions: I know that two and two make four but I do not know what the sound of one hand clapping is. On top of that, the reason the universe is here is that a singularity exploded as explained by the Big Bang of the theory.
I am sorry, but I think that all religion is an attempt to understand how the universe works without resorting to science and all those horrid equations: but provided you do not strap explosives to your body and get on the same tube train as me, allow the shops to open on Sundays and do not try to stop me earning double-bubble during a religious festival, then we can actually get on just fine and dandy.
May 25, 2012
I've read several responses to Dawkins' most famous book (as well as the book itself), but this one comes the closest to my own perspective. I wouldn't identify as a creationist, but I'm also not an atheist, so finding someone that argues with Dawkins' presuppositions rather than his scientific assertions is difficult. This book is short and imperfect, but a decent response.
December 17, 2015
cornwell refutes to Dakins book The god delusion. His riposte is heavy in sarcasm and suggests that Dawkins used no real sources for his book, had unsubstantiated and contradictory statements. He accuses him of prejudice and turns his argument back on himself
August 30, 2009
An elegant and incisive response to Richard Dawkins. Perhaps not the best riposte available but arguably the most witty.
Read
January 31, 2018Read this years ago...not quite what I was hoping.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews