Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

Insightful analysis that could be better

Customer Rating:

Reading many of the other reviews of this book, it's pretty clear that most had their minds made up before they ever opened it. I don't recognize in many of the hostile reviews the book that I read. This probably shows that both Dawkins and McGrath are inevitably preaching to the choir, to use a religious metaphor - that Dawkins (writing about religion) will persuade many zealous atheists, despite the (sometimes almost unbelievable!) superficiality of his analysis, and that McGrath will persuade many devout Christians, despite the circularity of some of his arguments. So, having said all that, Dawkins' God is a lucidly written book, which homes in relentlessly on the weaknesses in Dawkins' treatment of religion - it's strength is that it covers a wide range of Dawkins' writings (rather than just book - a number of Amazon reviewers seem to have missed this, terming Dawkins' God a rebuttal of The God Delusion - read the footnotes!). Its weaknesses are threefold, I think. First is that at times McGrath on Dawkins is guilty of the same sin as Dawkins on religion - he asserts without sufficient evidence. Yes, this is a short book, for general readers, but some more substantiation is needed of claims about the nature of faith. McGrath is doubtless right that many university-based theologians don't treat faith as simplistic, which is one of Dawkins' major arguments, and very annoying to the many Christians who do blend faith and reason. But there are also many religious people who DO have a very simple faith - and in fact many Christians, at any rate, are proud of that, and actively try to promote simple and simplistic faith, rejecting any use of reason or science. McGrath's characterization of the nature of Christian is not substantiated, in effect he says "It's so because I say it's so" - and thus he fails to acknowledge the complexity and nuances of the nature of religious faith is more complex. (Dawkins is, of course, exactly the same!) The second weakness is that the writing, though lucid and attractive, is sometimes disorganised. The structure and transitions from one section to the next don't always make sense. This is not always the case and even when present it sometimes is only an irritation, but at times it's a serious weakness. The chapter on the 'battle between science and religion' is an example - McGrath keeps asserting that in fact the idea that science and religion have always been in conflict is wrong - but he doesn't really substantiate that in his text (I'll come back to that in a minute) and just keeps repeating it, writing around and around in a circle. To be fair to McGrath, his notes cite a series of works on the history of the relationship between science and religion which do support his view - but he doesn't summarize their arguments very well, so that there is no evidence in the text - and there really needs to be, it can't all be left to reading a dozen monographs or articles. Third, at times McGrath descends into petty points scoring. Again, it isn't frequent, but I think it happens more as the book advances, and while Dawkins is actually much nastier, personally, about people of faith than McGrath is about Dawkins, it still isn't to McGrath's credit. When the arguments become ad hominem, too, it is likely to make a reader doubt the argument. Nevertheless, much of the book is a detailed and insightful dissection of Dawkins' writings, which superbly brings out that Dawkins is a superb writer with a gift for a brilliant turn of phrase, but that he completely loses his detachment when dealing with religion, in response to which tends to assemble a series of weak, even inane, arguments that have been around forever, and advances them as though they are somehow new, brilliant insights. However, the occasional circularity of some of McGrath's own arguments and a slight tendency to assume, rather than demonstrate, the accuracy of some of his assertions, mean that some of Dawkins' criticisms of religion are unanswered. This is insightful, and exposes the superficiality of much of Dawkins' writing on religion - but it is not the comprehensive critique of Dawkins that the book's publicity claims it to be.

Not the rebuttal theists might be looking for

Customer Rating:

I'm still in the "decision" phase over my own beliefs, and over the many "facts" thrown around at the moment. I'll admit I'm leaning towards Atheism..I say this so it's clear where my review comes from. I have recently read Dawkins' "The God Delusion" along with books by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens on a similar theme. So some rebuttals to balance out seemed required. (Although 38 years as a Christian with all the Religious Instruction, Sunday school, Christmas and Easter Stories probably should have weighted the effort far in theist corner anyway). Alistair McGrath was new to me, and I read the first 30 pages of the book nodding at agreement. His opening discourse on belief rang very true to me. The "healthy" nature of questioning is stressed. Very good. Now for the dénouement. The rebuttal. Did Mgrath read the same book? I read above that he wrote this before Dawkins published "Delusion" and then added specific notes about "Delusion" after the event. I can believe that (a cynical cash in springs to mind) But it's the tone that really is all wrong. Dawkins is accused (often rightly) of being brusque and offish. My feeling is (to paraphrase Bill Hicks) 'He's sorry if he comes across as not caring a jot about your beliefs and thinking you ever so slightly naive for having them...but he does think that, so that's why he seems that way - sorry' That rubs people up the wrong way. It maybe loses as many sympathizers as it gains (but then subjectivity in this regard is what he seems to be railing against anyway). But McGrath.... "I come not to praise Caesar .... " "Brair Rabbit" "Wolf in sheep's clothing" .. After being given the idea that it was a thoughtful book by the opening chapters - I realised that I had been set up for the "sucker punch" From 30 pages on, the book plunges into nay saying, repetition and "my dad's bigger than yours" obstrepousousness. I'll cite one example. Arguing that Dawkins treats religion as a virus (which he does - the Bill Hicks quote could be played again here) McGrath argues that "It isn't"... Wow... Why Mr. McGrath ? Because it's obvious..And 77% of people say so (an exact percentage quoted in the book) 77% eh impressive ...can you give me a source for this tidbit? Oh no..You've moved on and started another unsubstantiated swipe. Now I realise that "unsubstantiated" doesn't mean "unsubstatiatable" (apologies to the English language there) but to plough through, either cited unsourced data (oh there are some - but not many), nay saying (the added bits after Dawkins published I bet - one nights work it would seem) or simply re-hashing the arguments already made seems a waste. Theism has a case. It has a case based in logic not anger and spite. It is thoughtful and sympathetic not relying mainly on the arguments of; "It's hallowed by history so it must be right" or "1.8 billion people can't be wrong" Those aren't arguments; they are facts in apropos of nothing, proving nothing. Serving simply to make Atheist rhetoric all the more pronounced. I would like to read a book that explains man's right to pick and choose beliefs from whatever holy book they cherish. Points out the fragility of ecumenical pact declarations and what right each God allows them. Unifies thought to explain the (literally) thousands of religions and gods that exist. The problem is, a book that attacks an argument whilst largely ignoring the common point of reference (i.e. what the original argument was about), stands to lose direction. It needs focus, it needs to substantiate it's own claims to authority based on the beliefs of the author before it can launch an assault on the aggressor. McGrath fails in this regard in just about every respect. But I really want to read a book that DOES address those issues. Where is THAT book? - This certainly isn't it. Could someone pick up McGrath's dropped baton and see where it is please?

Tedious

Customer Rating:

I fully agree with the previous reviewer who gave 1 star. Thoroughly deserving I feel. I also enjoyed J.Knight's comment "Dawkins doesn't need to study astrology to know that the suggestion that the motion of heavenly bodies millions of miles away affects the details of our lives is absurd.". I would suggest that J.Kinght doesn't understand what the requisites of absudity are; at least heavenly bodies are based in reality... bearded bloke in the sky is not (maybe he uses the planets and stars when he's on holiday... you can keep that one for your next debate) ;)

Thin and Poorly Argued

Customer Rating:

The book starts with a 48-page overly polite introduction to Dawkins- the literary equivalent of the much deprecated "with all due respect..." of Radio 4 political interviews. In an attempt to convey intellectual rigour there is also an additional 40 pages of reference, bibliography and index. That leaves 110 pages out of 202 for poor argument. The flaws in the arguments are too numerous to mention but typical is McGrath's berating of Dawkins for saying in answers after a debate: "The fact that religion may console you doesn't of course make it true. It's a moot point whether one wishes to be consoled by a falsehood." but then defending Tertullian for writing "He was buried, and rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible". The defence of Tertullian is that the context of the writing makes it immediately obvious that he is not discussing the evidential basis of Christianity. Particularly disappointing is the dismissal of memes. Susan Blackmore's outstanding work, "The Meme Machine" is referenced just once against "Dawkins' work [on memes] has generated considerable popular discussion", although McGrath does deign to mention the work in fleeting terms another twice. The cover of the book declares, "Alister McGrath ... disarms the master". Not so by any measure.

A necessary, if disappointing effort.

Customer Rating:

After following the reviews of Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', and expressing my own disappointment at that particular book, I thought I'd give my opinion of another work, set as a counter-point to the anti-vangelist and pseudo-philosopher that Richard Dawkins has become. In this work, there is no doubt that McGrath picks up on some of the key problems with Richard Dawkins recent ventures out of his field of expertise, and highlights one or two of the philosophical issues with Dawkins' approach. After the sensation that The God Delusion caused, there is no doubt that it is necessary for the counterpoint to be made, and McGrath does so, fairly eloquently. However, it seems to me that, having read both works, Dawkins' God just doesn't cover nearly enough of the bases. Firstly, and somewhat unnecessarily, there are times when McGrath comes across as simply arguing ad hominem against Dawkins. Whilst there can be no doubt that Dawkins' own style can be adversarial, even designed to provoke, there can be no better response than one that sticks to the facts, and sticks to logic. Whilst McGrath doesn't even come close to matching Dawkins' fervour and aggressiveness, his tone feels slightly disappointing, just the same. Second, McGrath doesn't offer a great deal in response to many of the arguments that Dawkins puts forward, whether philosophical or scientific - even when Dawkins has stretched the laws of logic to breaking point and beyond, and a simple rebuttal would have taken just a few pages to propose. McGrath is clear enough in his purpose, and his reasons for not doing so, but the effect of this is to give the impression that this is a response that is not always full and comprehensive. Instead, McGrath seems to re-iterate the same, or similar points over and over again, and whilst often salient, I was left feeling like I wanted more. However, none of this can detract from the fact that this is still a relatively good effort, if unexceptional. McGrath does raise some important problems with Dawkins' methodology, and issues challenges that seem, as yet, to be unanswered. No doubt this will provide just enough security to those wishing to dismiss Dawkins out of hand, yet not quite enough of a defence against those wishing to force an agenda of Dawkensian secularism. A solid, but not altogether satisfying read.