Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty?

by Alister E. McGrath

"A robust defense of the God of the Bible...This is a book for serious thinkers who wish to make God real in a world that has forgotten its Creator and Maker." -- Joni Eareckson Tada

In a decade embroiled in fanaticism and fear, a renewed interest in the age-old debate over the question of God has reignited, giving rise to a new group of media-savvy contenders dubbed the “New Atheists.” As expressed in the works of best-selling authors like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the New Atheists have found a foothold in today’s cynical society, and have ramped up their efforts to debunk the existence of God.

Renowned historian, theologian, and scholar Alister McGrath is on the frontlines of this conversation,  publicly debating many of these prominent skeptics. In this thoughtful and accessible volume, McGrath gives a spirited rebuttal to the claims of the New Atheists, critiquing the New Atheism on its own merits and exploring the fundamental questions:

• Who are the New Atheists, and what do they believe?
• Is religion delusional and evil?
• Are human beings fundamentally good?
• How do reason and science prove or disprove faith?
• Is the best hope for humanity a “New Enlightenment”?

Why God Won’t Go Away explores how the movement’s ideas are defined and propagated, helping us understand the agendas and anxieties of this global movement and its appeal to society as a whole. Why God Won’t Go Away explores what is “new” about New Atheism, critiques the movement on its core themes of violence, reason, and science, and asks, where does the New Atheism go from here?

Genres: Religion, Theology, Christianity, Atheism, Philosophy, Christian, Spirituality

208 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 2011

About the author

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

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

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

Reviews

[Adam Lewis · Rating 2 out of 5]

A stimulating and sometimes correct critique of the "New Atheism" but it ultimately fails to make its case.

After initially finishing writing this review, I looked down and saw that it was a 2,500 word monster. To make it more reader-friendly, I cut out everything except the central issue that I had with the book and a very brief concluding remark.

The biggest problem in this book is the faulty critique of the by-product theory of religion. Briefly stated, the by-product theory of religion posits that religious cognition is not separate or unique. Rather, religious thought arises as part of the mundane processes in our minds that evolved for other reasons. Indeed, it could nearly be expected given cognitive evolution. In other words, gods don't have to exist for them to be believed in. Many books such as In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition) and Religion Explained have made this powerful point under the banner of cognitive science of religion (henceforth CSR).

Given the strength and level of development of this approach to religion, McGrath's critique of it is rather superficial and incoherent. To quote him directly:

"Dawkins does more than argue that scientific belief undermines belief in God; he argues that it explains it away as an unintended outcome of human evolution. Believing in God is an "accidental by-product" of the evolutionary process. Religion arises from a "misfiring of something useful. ¶ It has always seemed to me that there's a problem here. If Darwinian evolution is indeed a random process, how can we speak about `accidental' or `unintended' outcomes?" [p. 16-17]

First, evolution is not totally random. McGrath holds a PhD in molecular biophysics, so it is highly strange for him to even hypothetically posit such a thing. Perhaps he means "undirected by agency" which would be correct but that is neither here nor there in the point he is making. Organisms have to have at least some level of adaptation to their environment or they will not survive and produce offspring. Pointing this out shows us why his argument is flawed. By looking at function we can tell which things serve actual biological functions and which are by-products.

Take the Peacock's tail. Sexual selection more than likely gave it its flamboyance. It functions and serves the needs of the animal in that it gives it a reproductive advantage. In that regard, it serves a central function in this animal's survival. But it also functions as a flamboyant flag to predators. It is this second function that can accurately be termed "unintended" or an "accidental by-product". In the grand scheme of peacock life however, the tail's function as a feature essential to reproduction outweighs the occasional predated individual. How McGrath misses this quite elementary point is beyond me. (Perhaps his point is semantic as, strictly speaking, there are no "intentions" to speak of here, but surely he must know the metaphorical nature of language usage.)

How this relates to religion is quite straightforward. During human cognitive evolution, the human social environment was, if not the most important selective pressure, at least one of central importance. There is a host of cognitive features that evolved as a result such as the tendency to think in terms of agency [see Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (Cognitive Science of Religion Series)]. When people are constrained to think in terms of social causation and agency, they might even invent the agent to maintain the heuristic.

Indeed, as I recently argued in a master's thesis, social cognition pervades our thought and is the basis for religion. Just as the male peacock's tail evolved primarily to facilitate reproduction, these features of social cognition evolved for the primary function of navigating the social world. Where a biological feature is doing the job it evolved to do, it is often very good at it. But just as the colorful tail can have the by-product function of attracting predators when not in its specific functional domain, the social cognitive systems of our mind can lead us to accept false beliefs about the world when utilized outside the realm of natural human agents.

Specifically, a nearly default view on causation is of a social nature because the *real* social domain is so pervasive in our world. It is an easy step to use that type of thinking outside its domain. This is where and how many erroneous supernatural beliefs arise: mechanistic, natural causation is interpreted as being social in nature.

"Everything happens for a reason" is taken as a truism because everything caused by human agents happens for a reason. This interpretive social heuristic is simply applied scattershot across all domains. This is why gods are imagined to "do" so many things in the world from answer prayers to send "signs" in the form of natural disasters--theology as practiced by most believers across a panoply of gods and religions is simply misapplied social heuristics. This constitutes a by-product by almost all definitions.

I suspect the reason McGrath advances such a faulty critique of one of the central positions of CSR is because it is "More Dangerous than Dawkins", as one review of Jesse Bering's new book The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life put it. Granted it would be fallacious to explain religion naturalistically and then call it false on those grounds, but couple it with the strong philosophical arguments against and the dearth of scientific evidence for gods and one gets a powerful multi-pronged attack on any theological realist interpretation of religion. McGrath probably realizes this.

To make a very brief remark about the general content of the book, I'll conclude by saying it is probably worth your while to read if you are interested in the subject. It is at times a stimulating counterpoint to certain themes in New Atheist literature like the ridiculous notion of "memes" being scientific. But in the end many of McGrath's arguments are fatally littered with flaws.

In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion

Why Would Anyone Believe in God?

The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life

[Michael Boling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alister McGrath provides a brief yet well researched overview of New Atheism. McGrath divides his text into three main sections where he discusses the development of the New Atheistic ideal, how to effectively engage those who adhere to such a belief, and where McGrath believes the agenda of New Atheism is headed. I must note this book is not an apologetic for Christianity; conversely, it is a discussion of New Atheism, its agenda, and how to address this movement. With that said, McGrath nevertheless uses biblical truth as his foundational premise for interacting with the dangerous New Atheistic viewpoint.

McGrath has extensively debated supporters of New Atheism such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and his experience dealing with New Atheism can clearly be observed throughout the text. This book is well written providing the reader with a understandable summary that should prove enlightening to both scholar and layman alike. Moreover, McGrath's engaging writing style is scholarly yet approachable, a quality often missing from works on this topic. This book is replete with valuable information yet does not get bogged down with over argumentation or extensive interludes into philosophical discussions.

While arguably not as an extensive work on the subject as provided by others such as Ravi Zacharias or William Lane Craig, McGrath nevertheless extensively engages the subject matter with a deft, logical, reasoned approach thoroughly demolishing the arguments against biblical truth by those who seek to push New Atheism. Ultimately, McGrath proves quite clearly that despite repeated attempts throughout history to shut God out of society, God Won't Go Away! I highly recommend this book as it provided me with a number of solid arguments to utilize in further discussions with those who have been duped into believing Biblical faith is irrational.

I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255 <[...] : "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

[Kristofor Hellmeister · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a good book, which I wish had an updated format!

[Frank Peters · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent book which is well titled. After recently reading the book by Lennox “gunning for God” on a similar topic, I assumed that the books would also be similar. This was not the case. This book my McGrath does not seek to answer the questions of the new Atheism or to provide any apologetic for Christianity. Instead McGrath provides a short biography of the four dominant new atheists: Dennett, Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. Then he proceeds to first outline their main lines of argument and to show that the arguments are typically contradictory, overly simplistic or in the case of Dawkins especially, mostly just wrong (due to a lack of scholarship). McGrath then continues his history of the new atheism demonstrating how the groups that are being spawned are looking more and more like militaristic fundamentalists, and as a result are causing academic atheists to distance themselves from this now embarrassing movement. The book winds down with McGrath describing why he believes the movement is already dwindling, and that God just will not go away (the title).

McGrath is an interesting author, and his books range from brilliant to horribly dull. From my perspective, I find that his essays are generally outstanding, while I have found many of his larger books nearly impossible to get through (I get bored). This tiny volume reads like a series of interconnecting essays, and as a result is an outstanding read.

[Chuck Bonadies · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this book McGrath introduces the reader to the characters of the New Atheism movement as well as their ideas. He does a good job showing that the movement is much more bark than bite. Those who are well-versed with New Atheism will probably discover little new here. The book, however, would serve a great introduction.

CB

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fairly good exposition of the weaknesses of the "new atheism". He drives home the point that thorough-going atheism just does not sit well with the human psyche. He also makes a good point, however, that persons of religious faith need to at least consider some of these challenges -- that only by analyzing one's faith can it ever advance beyond naivety.

[Gary · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting little read. McGrath gives far too much away to his opponents and starts his debate with them assuming too many enlightenment myths. But he makes a number of very valuable factual statements and shows up the intolerance of the New Atheists brilliantly.

Liked it.

[Радостин Марчев]

Не лошо, но авторът може да се справи и по-добре.

[Thomas Freeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com® book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Why God Won’t Go Away by Alister McGrath

A better title might be, "New Atheism Won't Run God Off!". I wasn't familiar with McGrath before reading this book but I have since seen his name around several theological volumes. Because of the title, I really looked forward to the opportunity Thomas Nelson gave me to review this book. It reminded me of Francis Schaeffer's book "God Is Hear and He Is Not Silent". Turns out this book is much more about New Atheism than it is a defense for confidence in God.

"The New Atheism is different. It's defined not so much by being white, male and middle class--though it is worth noting that its four leading representatives are all Anglo-Saxon Protestant males from remarkably similar backgrounds of privilege and power -- as by its anti-theism -- an intense anger against religion, which is held to poison everything Christopher Hitches puts it with a commendable conclusion: "I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist." This anti-theism is equally evident in the writing of the other "Four Horsemen." But surely this leads to the group defining itself by what it's against rather than what it's for." (McGrath, pg. 36)

McGrath quickly shows the heartbeat of New Atheism is really Anti-Theism. I was excited to learn that I was going to find good research into New Atheism and quickly dug into it. He does a good job of keeping it interesting and covering all the basics in an introductory manner.

I will keep this book around for whenever I want to "brush up" on this topic, the primary proponents and some basic weaknesses to explore.

McGrath breaks the book into three parts:
1. What is the New Atheism?
His approach is to first introduce us to the four men who have done the most to encourage this so called "new" form of atheism. By following simply biographies on these men we begin to see the personal character that is propelling them to such angry and cynical rhetoric. It is easy to then begin to understand the definition quoted earlier. Who are these "Four Horseman"?

A. Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" (2004)
Harris argues that Faith provides an age of "weapons of mass destruction" to do truly evil things.

"Note that Harris's primary concern in "The End of Faith" is not to defend atheism but rather to portray religion as dangerous and deluded. Ideas that should be regarded as symptoms of mental illness--such as praying--are tolerated in Western culture simply because we've gotten used to them. Religious moderates blind society to the danger of religious extremists. The problem is not extremism or fanaticism as such but religion, which engenders such attitudes in the first place." (McGrath, pg. 5)

B. Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" (2006)
Dawkins is a British writer who has taken great lengths to carve a niche out of carving up Biblical Theism.

"First, Dawkins declares that faith is fundamentally irrational. There's no evidence for the existence of God. Those who believe in God are therefore running away from reality, seeking consolation in a make-believe, fairy-tale world... Faith is "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence." It's a "process of non-thinking" or "a persistently false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." It's "evil precisely because it requires no justification, and brooks no argument." (McGrath, pg. 13)

C. Daniel Dennett, author of "Darwins Dangerous Idea" (1995)
Dennett is not nearly as abusive in his language and is thus less recognized. But his primary contribution to New Atheism lies in his efforts to explain belief in God as a result of evolution. He sees natural selection as the cause of man's desire to believe in a God that does not really exist. He chooses to start from this proposition rather than discovering that God does not exist empirically and then determining to explain why man persists belief in God.

D. Christopher Hitchens, the late author of "God Is Not Great" (2007)
McGrath says that Hitchens' book is, "by far the most entertaining of the New Atheist works. It's driven by a passionate anger about religion, unquestionably fueled in part by the events of 9/11. But it reveals a deeper anxiety, which I believe underlies the work of other New Atheist writers as well--namely the obstinate refusal to die out as predicted by secular theorists since the 1960s. God just won't go away." (McGrath, pg. 26)

This section of McGrath's work is very interesting. He does a good job of showing the inconsistency and ridiculous notions of Hitchens.

2. Engaging the New Atheism: Three Core Themes
In the next section McGrath gives us several key thoughts that expose the weaknesses in New Atheism philosophy. His primary points are:

A. Religion is a false universal.
The new atheist go to great lengths to talk about religion as if it is a universal concept. McGrath argues that individual religions exist but not a universal concept.

B. They refuse any rationality to religious faith.
The default position of New Atheism, in the proponents minds, does not need to be defended but is just accepted. (Sounds like blind faith.) Instead, they work from the position that there is no intelligent rationale for religious faith. McGrath engages this and just be exposing the often unspoken platform reveals the weaknesses of these arguments.

C. Science is based on evidence.
Finally, McGrath shows the fallacy of depending on science as arguments against faith when the New Atheist begins from a position of faith. Their faith is that God and faith are irrational. But they have no empirical evidence to conclude this. To be agnostic and doubt God is very different than to claim there is no God for with that claim you are claiming to have proof. Without proof, you simply have faith. We can argue how reasonable the faith is but that is all.

"In a sense, the natural sciences are the one remaining aspect of the Enlightenment project that has stood the test of time. The experimental method is universally valid and blind to the culture, race, religion, or gender of its researchers. But while science may use rational methods of investigation, most notably the careful accumulation of evidence through observation and experiment, it does from time to time witness developments that are deeply counter intuitive and seem completely irrational (quantum theory providing many choice examples). Yet the question a scientist will ask is not, "is this reasonable" but, "What are the reasons for thinking this is true?" (McGrath, pg. 108)

3. Where does the New Atheism go from here?
In this concluding section McGrath shows that "New Atheism" will not be widely accepted and is already on a steady decline. They gain a lot of attention with their angst and ridicule but have no long term arguments. Instead, God is not gone and is not in danger of going away anytime soon!


The facts are:
New Atheism is a flash of anger and cynicism.
It finds it greatest attention in the flamboyance of it's proponents.
God and religious faith are not in danger from it.

This is a very good book and I do recommend it. It will provide both a good introduction and a good resource for further engagement with the "New Atheism" movement.

[Adam Lewis · Rating 2 out of 5]

A stimulating and sometimes correct critique of the "New Atheism" but it ultimately fails to make its case.

After initially finishing writing this review, I looked down and saw that it was a 2,500 word monster. To make it more reader-friendly, I cut out everything except the central issue that I had with the book and a very brief concluding remark.

The biggest problem in this book is the faulty critique of the by-product theory of religion. Briefly stated, the by-product theory of religion posits that religious cognition is not separate or unique. Rather, religious thought arises as part of the mundane processes in our minds that evolved for other reasons. Indeed, it could nearly be expected given cognitive evolution. In other words, gods don't have to exist for them to be believed in. Many books such as In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition) and Religion Explained have made this powerful point under the banner of cognitive science of religion (henceforth CSR).

Given the strength and level of development of this approach to religion, McGrath's critique of it is rather superficial and incoherent. To quote him directly:

"Dawkins does more than argue that scientific belief undermines belief in God; he argues that it explains it away as an unintended outcome of human evolution. Believing in God is an "accidental by-product" of the evolutionary process. Religion arises from a "misfiring of something useful. ¶ It has always seemed to me that there's a problem here. If Darwinian evolution is indeed a random process, how can we speak about `accidental' or `unintended' outcomes?" [p. 16-17]

First, evolution is not totally random. McGrath holds a PhD in molecular biophysics, so it is highly strange for him to even hypothetically posit such a thing. Perhaps he means "undirected by agency" which would be correct but that is neither here nor there in the point he is making. Organisms have to have at least some level of adaptation to their environment or they will not survive and produce offspring. Pointing this out shows us why his argument is flawed. By looking at function we can tell which things serve actual biological functions and which are by-products.

Take the Peacock's tail. Sexual selection more than likely gave it its flamboyance. It functions and serves the needs of the animal in that it gives it a reproductive advantage. In that regard, it serves a central function in this animal's survival. But it also functions as a flamboyant flag to predators. It is this second function that can accurately be termed "unintended" or an "accidental by-product". In the grand scheme of peacock life however, the tail's function as a feature essential to reproduction outweighs the occasional predated individual. How McGrath misses this quite elementary point is beyond me. (Perhaps his point is semantic as, strictly speaking, there are no "intentions" to speak of here, but surely he must know the metaphorical nature of language usage.)

How this relates to religion is quite straightforward. During human cognitive evolution, the human social environment was, if not the most important selective pressure, at least one of central importance. There is a host of cognitive features that evolved as a result such as the tendency to think in terms of agency [see Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (Cognitive Science of Religion Series)]. When people are constrained to think in terms of social causation and agency, they might even invent the agent to maintain the heuristic.

Indeed, as I recently argued in a master's thesis, social cognition pervades our thought and is the basis for religion. Just as the male peacock's tail evolved primarily to facilitate reproduction, these features of social cognition evolved for the primary function of navigating the social world. Where a biological feature is doing the job it evolved to do, it is often very good at it. But just as the colorful tail can have the by-product function of attracting predators when not in its specific functional domain, the social cognitive systems of our mind can lead us to accept false beliefs about the world when utilized outside the realm of natural human agents.

Specifically, a nearly default view on causation is of a social nature because the *real* social domain is so pervasive in our world. It is an easy step to use that type of thinking outside its domain. This is where and how many erroneous supernatural beliefs arise: mechanistic, natural causation is interpreted as being social in nature.

"Everything happens for a reason" is taken as a truism because everything caused by human agents happens for a reason. This interpretive social heuristic is simply applied scattershot across all domains. This is why gods are imagined to "do" so many things in the world from answer prayers to send "signs" in the form of natural disasters--theology as practiced by most believers across a panoply of gods and religions is simply misapplied social heuristics. This constitutes a by-product by almost all definitions.

I suspect the reason McGrath advances such a faulty critique of one of the central positions of CSR is because it is "More Dangerous than Dawkins", as one review of Jesse Bering's new book The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life put it. Granted it would be fallacious to explain religion naturalistically and then call it false on those grounds, but couple it with the strong philosophical arguments against and the dearth of scientific evidence for gods and one gets a powerful multi-pronged attack on any theological realist interpretation of religion. McGrath probably realizes this.

To make a very brief remark about the general content of the book, I'll conclude by saying it is probably worth your while to read if you are interested in the subject. It is at times a stimulating counterpoint to certain themes in New Atheist literature like the ridiculous notion of "memes" being scientific. But in the end many of McGrath's arguments are fatally littered with flaws.

[Zach Franz · Rating 3 out of 5]

A convincing dissection of the New Atheism's shortcomings as a philosophical movement. McGrath--an eminently credible guide due to his theological credentials and, perhaps even more so, his experience as a former atheist--does a splendid job of minimizing the snark and emotion in his responses. In fact, he has many positive things to say about prominent atheists outside the New Atheism's ranks.

This is a book with a narrow focus (hence only three stars--it feels slightly incomplete). McGrath's intent is not to fight a war for religion's scientific legitimacy, but rather to win a specific battle with the New Atheism by point out its own logical inadequacies. The main fault of the New Atheism, according to McGrath, stems from its inability to offer solutions to the problems it bemoans; it is only half a worldview. Like--if you'll forgive such a broad metaphor--a villain who's only identity is opposing the hero.

McGrath is a Christian, but hardly writes from such a perspective. Like C. S. Lewis, he is a friend of the rational believer. Much of what he says here is difficult to argue with. If you have an interest in this subject, skeptic or not I would recommend giving it a chance.

[Max · Rating 4 out of 5]

McGrath’s engaging, and often beautiful, literary style made this a very quick read. Of course, it is a short criticism of 100 pages. Well researched and presented in an accessible manner that might change minds towards both theism and deism. Though, not particularly persuasive on any key theological notions, I don’t think either myself or McGrath went into this with that intention. It’s more to be read as a critique of the pretentious New Atheism, and the limits to the humanist, rational, and reasoning elements so greatly advocated by the age of Enlightenment. A great read, even if short and simple!

[Peter Warren · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short well written book looking at the Christian Vs New Atheist debates that would appear to be ageing well on some fronts but perhaps not others. Religion may certainly be back in mainstream debate and some further liberals are thinking we have to go back to Christian style sexual ethics but yet in the main political spheres God seems pretty far away (for now at least). Having said that new atheism does not seem to have produced more much than when this book was written so that part at least seems to be correct (again for now).

[Declan Ellis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A scathing critique of the New Atheism and a measured critique of atheism in general. Helpfully clarifies the shortcomings of the philosophical position of modernism/enlightenment thinking and the limits of scientific understanding. McGrath also uses plenty literature from the humanities, which makes his arguments about sociology and the psychology of belief and disbelief much more convincing than those of his New Atheist counterparts. Recommended.

[Thomas Unitt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Certainly shows its age 14 years on. The new atheist debate has long since changed. Regardless this work feels rushed, it’s very short but could have done with more. I’m unsure the unconvinced would be satisfied with McGraths reasoning here.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

4+ stars. The author explores the New Atheism movement, exposing the elitism and arrogance of many of it's adherents. He outlines its history and quotes their spokesmen "the Four Horsemen", as he calls them. The language of this book is erudite, which may be difficult to digest for some readers (I had to lookup a few words at times).
The + I added to the four stars is due to the last chapter, which concludes on a positive note "God can no more be eliminated from human life than our yearning for justice or our deep desire to make this world a better place. We have a homing instinct precisely because there's a home for us to return to. That's one of the great themes of the New Testament. We are created with an inbuilt yearning for God..."

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

McGrath has come out with another book on New Atheism: Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? In it, McGrath attempts to summarize the situation, condition, and challenges with New Atheism as of 2010: the four main protagonists for New Atheism, the existence of a virulent web community advancing New Atheist views, the works written by the four protagonists, the issues as they relate to religion/belief, reason, and science, along with some concluding comments regarding the waning influence of New Atheism.

For someone who is relatively new to the challenges posed by New Atheism, this book is a great primer to understand the situation. If one has already read works by McGrath on the subject, they will find a nugget or two of different arguments perhaps not seen in other works, but on the whole, McGrath has written much more comprehensive, poignant, and explanatory books on this subject. The Dawkins Delusion? and The Twilight of Atheism dig deeper than Why God Won't Go Away; nevertheless, for a basic introduction to the issue, Why God Won't Go Away is a good start.

On the greater philosophical level, I fear that this book is a continuation of the trend for Christian authors to keep beating a dead horse and keep controversies alive in the name of apologetics. This is not to criticize the substance of the work nor the need to aggressively defend the faith in the face of the assaults of New Atheism; yet, as with The da Vinci Code, so with New Atheism. Much of society has moved on from this particular permutation of atheism; New Atheism never really said anything new; one cannot help but conclude that the mission of New Atheism has all but ended in utter failure. If that's the case, why keep providing them a fresh audience with these books? Perhaps it would be better to shift away from New Atheism per se and focus on the challenges of atheism in general.

McGrath does well in restraining himself when it comes to his descriptions of New Atheism and its sheer hypocrisy. He provides the evidence that New Atheism, on the whole, represents a group of people who believe in their own superiority, refusing to listen to any other perspectives, utterly convinced of their own rightness, thoroughly unwilling to subject their own views to the critical scrutiny to which they subject other views, hyper-simplistic in viewpoint to the point of being laughable, and being quite caustic, condemnatory, and dare it be said, hateful, of that which they have denounced as condemnatory and hateful. The conclusion is inescapable: many New Atheists share the same basic view of the world as the fundamentalists which they despise, merely with a different set of assumptions and ideas. Little wonder, then, that New Atheism has been seen for what it really is, and has been soundly rejected by most on either side of the God issue.

One will be hard-pressed to find a theist with a more sympathetic view toward atheists and some of their arguments than McGrath; he is willing to concede that some arguments made by atheists pose challenges, but wants the same hearing for theistic arguments. He does well at showing in the book how existence is more complicated than the triumphalist Enlightenment view can allow. The book has great value for the analysis of reason, science, and belief within it alone.

New Atheism seems to be on an irreversible decline; good riddance. But believers do need to come to terms with the effect they might have on people who have heard various tidbits in news reports. However directly or indirectly, many have absorbed a lot of the ideas promoted by New Atheists, and a lot of our cultural assumptions about existence, religion, and science are shared by the New Atheists in their tirades. We must learn how to expose the fallacies of the worldview constructs that undergird the triumphalist scientism that is so rampant and which passes as intellectually serious in much of society. We need to expose just how complicated knowledge, proof, reason, belief, and existence are, and point people back to a view of God and themselves that is rationally respectable yet without need to always defer to reason. To these ends McGrath has done us many favors in pointing the way forward; let us press on in our service to our Creator!

*--book received as part of early review program

[Chris French · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received this book for free via the Booksneeze program from Thomas Nelson. Why God Won’t Go Away is a dissection of the New Atheism Movement. McGrath starts off the book with a quick synopsis of the four literary leaders of the movement: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. Each has written his own book espousing the greatness of the New Atheism. It’s “new” because it’s different from your run of the mill atheism. This one’s angry! This anger is one of the main tenants of this type of atheism. The New Atheists don’t particularly want to debate a creationist. They mostly want to grandstand and mouth off at the ignorance and danger of religion.

The New Atheism started right after 9/11. When everyone was thinking how awful the actions of a select extremely radical group of religious people were some people, the above authors included, started thinking how awful religion itself is. They’re not blaming any one religion. They hate them all! Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and all the other religions in the world should be abolished, they say. If it wasn’t for God and religion there wouldn’t be any wars! Wait, what? Of course there would be wars without religion! To be honest I haven’t read “the four horseman’s” (term of endearment for the above literary leaders) books, but McGrath gives a pretty good overview of their works. Most of their logic doesn’t make sense. They dismiss religion not because of any argument, but because they think it’s stupid. They do this with a lot of important sounding words and flowery speech (mostly from Christopher Hitchens), but in reality it’s not that their argument is poor. It’s that they don’t have an argument at all! Calling something stupid isn’t an argument.

The New Atheism is different from the atheism most of us are familiar with in that the New Atheists don’t just want equality with religion, they want religion gone. Normal Atheists use positive arguments. By that I mean that they have their point and bring in evidence to prove that point (faulty evidence, but evidence nonetheless). New Atheists only have negative arguments. They don’t have a position by themselves. Their only move is to disavow something a creationist says, they have nothing to say that would build their argument. New Atheists are atheism’s rabid dogs. They bite anything and everything that has any connection with religion. Even the regular atheists are ashamed of their actions.

I did enjoy reading Why God Won’t Go Away. McGrath is a collegiate professor of Theology, Ministry and Education at King’s College in London. This guy is smart and he knows what he’s talking about. He’s well read on the New Atheism and even checks out their websites sometimes. He’s debated a few of the New Atheists and several of the normal atheists. His thoughts on the New Atheism are well structured and quite thorough. The only negative I found was the derision with which he treats the New Atheists. The book is filled with their snide comments. I didn’t really need any more sarcasm or venom from him. Other than that I found the book to be informative and helpful. This is definitely an introduction to the New Atheism, but he’s got some deep things that we need to think thru as Christians too.

[Nikole Hahn · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Yet I've noticed recently that all is not well within these virtual communities. They had an upbeat feel in the heady days of 2006 and 2007 when the New Atheism seemed to be like a bright new sun dawning on the world. But not now. Is a “crisis of faith” beginning to emerge?” - Pg. 41

A recent debate with atheists and memories of old debates with atheist family members gave rise to the yearning to learn more about atheism and it's roots. Alister McGrath, a former atheist, holds the chair of theology, ministry, and education at King's College London, “having previously held the chair of historical theology at Oxford University.” This atheist-turned-Christian challenges the “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheism.

“The term New Atheism was invented in 2006. Gary Wolf was writing an article for Wired, a British magazine aimed at “smart, intellectually curious people who need, and want, to know what's next.” Wolf was looking around for a snappy slogan to refer to a group of three men who'd attracted media attention through best-selling popular books advocating atheism: Sam Harris with The End of Faith (2004), Richard Dawkins with The God Delusion (2006), and Daniel Dennett with Breaking the Spell (2006)....In 2007, the New Atheism movement gained a new hero when Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great became the latest atheist best seller. The phrase the Four Horsemen began to be used to refer to these writers, who rapidly assumed celebrity status and are now collectively identified as the intellectual and cultural spearhead of the New Atheism.” - Pg. 3-4

McGrath engages the New Atheism in friendly fire. He's objective, having read books and publications from atheist writers, and proceeds to tirelessly refute each of their objections with grounded reasoning. He uses historical context to show the harm of the New Atheism. The shocking agenda of the New Atheism and the lengths they would go to eradicate all religion from society shocks other athiests. “Even says Sam Harris, 'some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.' This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

“Killing such people, he tells us, could be regarded as an act of self defense. The Inquisition, the Gestapo, the Taliban, and the KGB could not have put it better. To be honest, I found Harris's statement to be morally repulsive.” - Pg. 10

The chapters are easy to follow, but you do have to read slowly. McGrath makes every sentence count and it reminds me of studying in school. There are two pages (front and back) of suggested “further reading” for those believers or atheists who choose to learn more, and 13 pages of notes detailing his sources. His index allows for readers to investigate certain phrasing without thumbing through the pages like I do in some book reviews. McGrath's last chapter makes the New Atheism less threatening. Truth does not shy away from debate nor does it stick its head in the sand. Truth is open to discussion.

Book provided by publisher to review.

[Kathy Robbins · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Christopher Hitchens recently slammed Mother Teresa, declaring her ‘a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud,’ arguing that ‘millions of people are much worse off because of her life‘ It was a shame, he declared, that there was no hell for her to go to. It was a foolish move, and Hitchens later generously apologized for it. (One of Hitchens’s former colleagues drolly commented, ‘My sympathies were with Mother Teresa. If you were sitting in rags in a gutter in Calcutta, who would be more likely to give you a bowl of soup?’)”

The above quote is found on page 37 of Why God Won’t Go Away. This is a quote belonging to Christopher Hitchens, who is one of four contemporary authors who have been nicknamed, “The Four Horsemen.“ According to this book, the other three authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, who all have contributed atheistic ideology that have collectively become known as “The New Atheism.”

Why God Won’t Go Away is a scholarly critique of this movement. The critique is divided into three parts. The first part defines “The New Atheism,” and investigates the main fathers of this movement, analyzing the arguments put forward by each of the authors. The second part of the book discusses “The New Atheism” within the framework of three themes: violence, reason and science. Part three discusses the current status of “The New Atheism” and where the future may lead. This also concludes the critique of the movement postulating that the purpose of the movement, that being the end of religion, has failed.

Initially, before reading this book, I was intimidated by the subject matter, with which I am not well versed. My fear was that the details would be above my understanding from start to finish. This was not the case. The author painstakingly and patiently explains this ideology from the beginning of the movement, including commentary from bloggers and other world authorities from many different disciplines. Although the ideas are very deep at times and the vocabulary is sometimes challenging, it follows a logical thought pattern and is very illuminating. Basically, the author shoots down the logic of “The New Atheism”, and explains the fallacies to the theory.

I recommend this book for anyone who is capable of critical thought and who is even remotely interested in the current and historical debate between atheist thought and religious thought.













Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

[Lee Harmon · Rating 4 out of 5]

McGrath comes out of the gates with guns blazing against the New Atheism. He’s a debater, having met Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitches in debates, and his competitive stance shines through. He refuses to meet atheists on their level, insisting that "faith doesn't contradict reason, but transcends it." Questions such as, "What are we all here for?" and "What's the point of living?" are legitimate questions, and we're right to seek answers to them, but science isn't going to help.

There are three parts to the book:

Part I: McGrath discusses the New Atheism and its major proponents, giving a brief description of the work of Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. The New Atheism, he explains, is about more than promoting disbelief in God. It's about intolerance of religion completely. It is aggressive anti-theism. For many, the New Atheism has become arrogant and increasingly disconnected from the real world.

Part II: McGrath puts his research to work against the New Atheism, concluding that: (1) Atheism has simply failed to make its case that religion is necessarily and uniformly evil. (2) Belief is actually quite rational. Some of the arguments here are quite interesting, and I'm still contemplating their validity. (3) Science is inherently limited in what it can prove. McGrath quotes Stephen Jay Gould as saying, "Science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it."

Part III: A short little section about the New Atheism's future that's worth reading if only for its humorous conclusion.

The book is definitely engaging, if a little frustrating because of its limited focus. Let's be clear on what this book is not. It is not an argument for the existence of God. McGrath never once defines what he is defending--the entire point of the book seems to be to discredit the New Atheism--so I'm hoping this book was meant to lead into his 2011 book, Surprised by Meaning: Science, Faith, and How We Make Sense of Things. I'll see about getting a review copy of that one.

In the mean time, I’m left hanging. If I reject atheism, what am I supposed to replace it with? There is, for me at least, a vast difference between accepting the possibility of a divine creator and believing in that creator. Then, there is a vast difference between believing in a creator and assuming the God of the Bible is that creator. Finally, there is a vast difference between believing that Bible writers have found God and believing that the Bible is the Word of God, endorsed by God Himself. So, we’ll hopefully see where McGrath goes with this in his next book.

[David Washington · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was first introduced to Alastair McGrath in the Ben Stein documentary Expelled back in 2008. He made a brief appearance there and I had seen his name on the response to Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion with his own The Dawkins Delusion? I always wanted to read one of his books but never seemed to add one to my collection until recently. So, I decided to read his book Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty?

The book begins with an introduction to the figureheads of the New Atheist movement: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. From here it goes into looking at their arguments—or lack thereof—and the fallacy and inconsistencies of what they espouse which is a war against religion no matter how illogical and devoid of actual facts they may be. He rightly calls them atheist fundamentalists and lightly challenges the assertions that they hold.

However, the book, instead of actually answering the question in its title, seems to be a critique of New Atheism and this on a surface level though historically sound. But I found myself engaged only slightly, partly because I knew about the New Atheist movement though there were some things that I learned about it from reading the book. But there seemed to be an undertone of the Rodney King syndrome to New Atheists, pleading for, “Can't we all just get along?” From his own writing, the answer to that question is an unequivocal, “No.” But the bigger question is, “Why are you looking to do so?”

There was more time spent praising non-radical atheists instead of actually answering the question which didn't come until the last chapter in the book and then it was addressed rather dismissively.

The only way that I would suggest this book is if you wanted a quick primer of a movement that is fast fading and was curious to know about what all the hubbub was about. But if you are familiar with the topic, you can skip this altogether. However, it is a fast read which in many ways was a blessing. McGrath writes cogently but I found it to be a little banal.

[Kristine Coumbe · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are like me you may have noticed more atheism in pop culture or may even know some Atheists. You may not even understand what atheism is or where it originated. That is exactly why I was excited to read “Why God Won’t Go Away” by Alister McGrath. Thanks to McGrath's "Why God Won't Go Away" I can have lively, intelligent, and well informed discussions with my atheist friends.

Mc Grath, a former atheist, is a historian and theology scholar who knows the New Atheist movement well. McGrath has publicly debated the media savvy supporters like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Tom Harris. Some important points McGrath will outline and define are: 1)Who are the New Atheists and what do they believe? 2) Is religion delusional and evil? 3) Are Humans fundamentally good? and finally, 4)How do reason and science prove or disprove faith?

Apparently atheism has always been around. The difference now between atheism and new atheism is that the new atheism does not just attack the existence of God, but all religions. Proponents of New Atheism use faulty logic and very little evidence to support their claims which makes all proponents of this movement seem as angry and bitter.

McGrath writes with accessible language and does back up his claims with sound evidence. I feel that this short and easy to read book would be useful to both scholars and non-scholars alike. I found myself taking notes throughout reading this book. Not only do I have a better understanding of the New Atheist movement but also the leaders of the movement such as Dawkins and Hitchens. McGrath uses proper logic in defining and outlining new atheism. Which I feel most critical and nonfiction authors lack. One caveat, I wish there was a study guide included to deepen my understanding of new atheism. However,Alister
McGrath provides wonderful citations for further study.I highly recommend this well written book to all.

I received "Why God Won't Go Away" from Booksneeze and am not required to give a positive review.

[Ruth Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I began this book, I had not even heard of the "new atheist" movement. I knew what an atheist was, but I was not aware of the new direction it had taken. I was amazed with how brazen this movement had become and how hostile to religion it is. I am only familiar with tolerant atheists, and this book showed me that new atheism has gone far beyond that. It is kind of funny that new atheism, in a way, has become a religion or a church group in itself. The very thing they are fighting against is what they have become. Which is why new atheism is not the tour de force it once was.

My favorite section of the book was the section that dealt with science. I really did a lot of thinking about science's role in our everyday lives here on earth. Science answers questions like: How did we get here? and the like. What science does not answer is: Why are we here? I think that when the author pointed out that not everything can be answered by reason, he really struck a chord with me.

I appreciated the way in which the author wrote. His style is academic but quite understandable. I suppose that if you are not a theology student, you might struggle to understand some of what he says, but thankfully he deals with the topic in a simple and abbreviated way. His sense of humor often came out at just the right time, which was a nice change. Some theologians don't understand what humor is.

I would recommend this book to anyone who may be dealing with an atheist--new or not. This is one I plan to keep in my library for a long time to come!


I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

[Kevin Fuller · Rating 5 out of 5]

New Atheism is not to be confused with classic Atheism of the stripe of Iris Murdoch or other older classical authors. New Atheism, as opposed to classic Atheism, is characterized by dogmatism, polemic and as the author shows throughout this book, uncritical thinking which has devolved into brute force and name calling.

While Alister McGrath gives plenty of leg room for the classic Atheistic writers, showing them respect for their open minded and open handed approach to their world view; where they respect the opinions and arguments of their recognized Christian or Theistic peers, Mr. McGrath shows in short order the New Atheists, namely the 'Four Horsemen' consisting of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, can be characterized finally as foaming at the mouth dogmatists...exactly what they accuse those of a more religious stripe to be.

Mr. McGrath has read their books and studied the online communities of New Atheism for years now, and is well equipped to answer questions this rather new (and ultimately quickly dying out movement in my view) has raised.

Specifically, the author shows the leaders of the New Atheism appeal to Science and Rationality, yet show gaping holes in their knowledges of either. Mr. McGrath takes us on a short cruise through the philosophy of Science, where we are shown there is a huge difference between those who practice Science (empiricists who recognize the limits of human reason and their Art), and those who proclaim Scientism....folks like the New Atheist who believe credulously Science is the ultimate saviour of mankind and is infallible practically. Most interesting in these chapters is Mr. McGrath's distinction between Proof and Truth. Proof, he maintains, is limited to the sphere of Logic and Mathematics, while Truth ultimately is what we (Atheists or Theists) believe, for what ever supporting Reasons we have.

A very quick read, but containing a liberal and broad minded approach to the tension between Faith and un-Faith, I highly recommend this book to any Believer or no.

[Taunya R · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Why God Won’t Go Away, Alister challenges the beliefs embraced by four main writers: Richard Dawkins, Daniel C Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hutchins. He refers to them as “The Four Horsemen” , the result of an informal discussion among the four in 2007.

I believe the best way to understand someone’s point of view is to read what they write. Alister not only reads their books, he challenges them in debate and interacts with them in online communities. He isn’t another Christian talking about what he thinks he knows; he truly knows what he thinks. This allowed me confidence in the validity of the book’s content matter.

The beauty of the book is the atheists’ own words are used against them. Alister exposes the flaws, weaknesses and irony in their logic. For example, Christopher Hitchens believes religion causes fanaticism, thus it needs to be eradicated. Ironically in an interview he proclaims Mother Teresa a fraud and “a shame there is no hell for her to go to”. If the lack of religion is supposed to be a higher level of thinking, why would you say something this primitive?

I have read a few apologetic books before and found them condescending; this is not that type of a book. Alister treats the authors with respect. The book does lack scriptural arguments that would make this a truly apologetic resource. However, I don’t believe this would be helpful for use in an apologetic setting. In my experience, it’s been said “The Bible is a fairy-tale and no amount of scripture I can quote will make a difference”.

The book is not an easy read, but it is also not textbook-dry. I ended the book with more questions; which is as it should be. I would recommend this book for high school and college students as well as adults.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alister McGrath has given the world an important counter argument to the endless banality of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism. Indeed he goes so far as to point out the philosophical, scientific, and moral failings of a movement that is motivated less by "reason" as by emotive argumentation. he notes, with a mixture of humor and exasperation the often angry responses of New Atheists to reasoned arguments to which they cannot respond. He also notes, with the same mixture, the almost complete lack of knowledge of the history and philosophy of science among New Atheists, and their combative reactions to that ignorance being revealed. He also at various points examens the use of the word "reason" and it's use in these quarters more as a talisman, or as code for "reasoning that we agree with."
McGrath also delves into the weirder, darker aspects of the New Atheism. In particular he lifts up to the light the reliance upon the pseudo-science of memetics by writers like Dawkins. He also pushes into the light the bizarre moral world of Sam Harris, which can be summed up as: "Religion makes people torture and kill people. Therefore, we must torture and kill religious folks in order to stop it." He also makes a sly reference to how Harris, and a few others of his ilk, who seem to be as interested in using science as an apologetic for their idiosyncratic form of Buddhism.
In all, McGrath has written, in a few short but dense pages, both an apologia of Christianity and a critique of the "New Atheists." This slim volume's indictment of the moral, philosophical, scientific, and logical failings of this peculiar movement is telling. It is also telling that the chief reaction to it have been almost textbook examples of the polemics that Mcgrath outlines in the book.

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running On Empty? by Alister McGrath, is a thought-provoking book about the flaws of the New Atheist movement. While the title is a bit misleading - McGrath states in the final chapter that this book isn't the forum to explain why humans continue to be drawn to a higher power - the book is an interesting read.

The first section of the book contains a literature review of New Atheist authors and ideals. It also discusses the difference between New Atheism and more traditional atheist views. McGrath then goes on to discuss what he feels are key tenets of New Atheism - namely the ideas that religion promotes violence, that religion stands in opposition to reason, and that religion is at war with science.

The discussion of religion and violence was moot for me - after all, there are many other things besides religion that humans use as an excuse for their violent tendencies. This led straight into the discussion on reason. I enjoyed McGrath's assertions that while the New Atheism purports to belittle belief systems, theirs is a belief system as well.

However, it was the discussion of the so-called war between religion and science that I found to be the most compelling. McGrath takes a look at the view that religion and science must naturally stand against each other, with surprising insights.

In conclusion, I enjoyed this book for the ideas it presented. Highly recommended for anyone interested in apologetics.

Disclaimer: I was provided this book by the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

[Melissa Stebbins · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was keen to read this book because I have enjoyed reading some of Alistair McGrath's previous work and have found his online articles regarding science, evidence and reasoning to be quite good. On finishing this book I was left a little disappointed, probably because I would have liked him to go into some of the points in more depth. He does point you in the right direction to do further reading, so as an introduction to the issues this is a good start but I wouldn't recommend it for someone who wants to delve more deeply.

The first part of the book introduces who the New Atheists are, some of their main ideas and how 9/11 produced the type of climate in which their ideas could flourish. The second part deals with three of the main themes of the New Atheism and the major weaknesses in some of the arguments offered. Most of the arguments put forward by the New Atheism are so weak that it surprises me that they can trumpet their supposed intellectual superiority with a straight face, McGrath makes a decent effort pointing out the most obvious flaws without being too harsh. One section that I think should have been cut was "human reason and the invention of God." The argumentation in this section was weak and distracts the reader from the stronger points in other sections. The book finishes with a look towards the future and a short chapter entitled why God won't go away.

I received this book through Thomas Nelson's Booksneeze program in return for an honest review.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a relatively short book. Only 7 chapters long, I read the last 4 chapters in one night. In fact, the last two chapter are very short.

Since I bought this book from Faithlife.com for reading on the Logos 6 platform on my laptop, I assumed that it was going to be a Christian answer to the New Atheism on why people of faith are neither deranged nor idiots. Unlike traditional atheism that uses reasoning and logic to argue against religion, the New Atheism has decided that since that doesn't work they will just attack religion by trying to shame people into avoiding it and by doing a lot of yelling about stupid and irrelevant religion is for today.

McGrath, instead of responding with more yelling and name calling, uses sound reasoning and shows why science and reasoning are not incompatible with religious beliefs and faith; not just Christian beliefs but any religious belief, especially belief in God.

I actually enjoyed this book quite a bit more than the first one that I read on the same topic. It was more theological in nature while this one was much more geared to the average reader. It was close to a five star book for me. I just wish it had been a bit longer. I was really enjoying it.