Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is immensely popular and has been hailed as a convincing defense of atheism. The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism, made famous in The God Delusion, and run him from the battlefield. 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. This book is concise and well-reasoned, and serves its purpose as a contrast and alternative to The God Delusion by means of those very characteristics. Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. It is a curious book, written with a sort of high censoriousness that wouldn’t shame a #MeToo convention. The best thing that can be said for "The Dawkins Delusion?" Not a line-by-line or premise-by-premise refutation of Dawkins' God Delusion, but it does not set out to be. To save you from wasting any of yours, let me summarize (and paraphrase): "Dawkins makes hateful baseless claims and ignores evidence that cuts against his position." Apparently Dawkins has many devotees who share his single-minded purpose of … . A succinct and fair-minded critique of Richard Dawkins' misrepresentation of religion, religious people and belief in God. As someone who is examining his beliefs and is fairly open to good arguments, no matter what they are, I found this slim volume helpful as a reminder, while reading Dawkins, that the passion and certainty of the author should not be substitutes for logic and evidence. .” (p. 147, 2006 edition; p. 176, 2008 edition), “. . Dawkins, an ethologist and evolutionary biologist, says in his anti-religious diatribe “The God Delusion,” “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.” McGrath is everything that Dawkins is not: level-headed, balanced and winsome. .” “If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion – the God Hypothesis – is untenable. is well-written and easy to read, and it gives the reader a clear understanding of why Dawkins need not be taken seriously. But does that give me the right to attack his person and publish a book about it attacking his mental powers by calling my book "The Dawkins Delusion"? Start by marking “The Dawkins Delusion? As McGrath said, Dawkins' book "is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument" (13). Though Dawkins is looking for everyone to read this book with an open mind, whether you’re devoutly religious, agnostic or atheist. This essay was originally written as a guest post for an agnostic friend’s blog. Not a line-by-line or premise-by-premise refutation of Dawkins' God Delusion, but it does not set out to be. […] 3. . Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. In his preface, Dawkins outlines some of his reasons for writing the book. Richard Dawkins would indeed be very improbable by chance, yet this has no bearing whatsoever on the probability of his existence. THE DAWKINS DELUSION . In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to show the irrationality of a belief in God by attacking the idea of such a being on all fronts. 2008 Christian Bookseller's Covention Book of the Year Award winner World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: "If this book works as … Read "The Dawkins Delusion? 2008 Christian Bookseller's Covention Book of the Year Award winner World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." What you will learn is that the perspective of both writers/camps is largely informed by their presuppositions (which is not a bad thi. – Dawkins did not convince me that God is a delusion! I wish this book were a little longer and meatier, but I suppose the nature of Dawkins book didn't really leave room for that kind of engagement. Refresh and try again. It’s difficult to work out whether Dawkins is angrier at the religious for their faith or at God for his non-existence. There are only 4 chapters for a total of 100 pages, but it is very rich in context and does a brilliant job pointing out the flaws in Dawkins's argument in "The God Delusion". THE DAWKINS DELUSION . McGrath does a nice job of exposing Dawkins', anyone that has read the The God Delusion. Many people would say yes. Anyone who has read Dawkins or is interested in the relationship of religion and science, So, for some reason this book is coming up pretty high on my Goodreads list, even though it's been a while since I've read it. Yet not as risible as Dawkins writing itself! If you're hoping for this book to say more, you'll be sorely disappointed (though perhaps appreciative of the irony). This book is accurate, incisive, persuasive, well-researched and, above all, fair. Dawkins’s The God Delusion is a primary text of the New Atheism. I found it a bit insulting, any reader should know that the author has an objective, especially when the author spells it out for you at the beginning of the book. is that at under 100 pages, it didn't waste too much of my time. To see what your friends thought of this book, When I picked up this book, I thought to myself that the authors were going to have a hard time disputing 400 pages of atheist vitriol with less than 100 pages. I won't say that its not informative as to different interpretations of the situations Dawkin raises in his book but it does little else. Craig presents the core of Dawkins' argument, which grapples with "the appearance of design" and the fine tuning of the universe. He demonstrates how (ironically) unscientific, dogmatic and angry Dawkins has become in many respects - unfortunately a trend which has continued since his publication of 'The God Delusion' in 2006. World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” The volume has received wide coverage, fueled much passionate debate, and spread confusion and distrust. (If you didn't read The God Delusion, then there's not much point in reading this one either.) any [Dawkins] capable of designing a [book carefully and foresightfully about evolution], must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide . Dawkins was made to explain six main claims in his book that were utilized to secure a ground to refute religion and to refer to belief in God’s existence as a delusion. a [Dawkins] capable of designing a [God Delusion book], or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable.” (p. 153, 2006 edition; p. 183, 2008 edition), “I left the conference stimulated and invigorated, and reinforced in my conviction that the argument from improbability – the ‘Ultimate 747’ gambit – is a very serious argument against the existence of [Dawkins], and one to which I have yet to hear a theologian give a convincing answer . How does Dawkins get trapped by his own argument -and thus according to his own reasoning refute the existence of himself? The God Delusion is a 2006 nonfiction book by British biologist and author Richard Dawkins. Exact same reasoning applied to Dawkins’ existence: “The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that [Dawkins] does not exist. How Dawkins continually substitutes rhetoric, vitriol, and ignorance in lieu of sustained and cogent argumentation. And that IS important. Chapter 4 of the book “The God Delusion” is titled “Why There Almost Certainly is No God”. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. Dawkins subtly switches the meaning of improbable throughout chapter 4 of his book: Sometimes improbable means “improbable as to existence” other times  improbable  “means improbable as to coming about by chance”. Well, it's been a while-- and I just don't trust debates anyway, I think written, relatively sympathetic communication is the best way to work through things. For those who aren’t looking to have their faith and beliefs gravely challenged, you may want to skip this book. . Despite the fact that the author agrees that religion has its own benefits, he further notes that certain religious actions such as killing and prosecution vehemently outweighs its benefits. While reading it, be sure to remember that it is merely a response essay rather than a book presenting an argument. .” (p. 147, 2006 edition; p. 176, 2008 edition), “. Therefore, trying to rebut every inaccuracy would be tedious and dull. In proving God’s non-existence, Dawkins releases his first premise by attacking the basis or lack of it in faith. Dawkins sets out not only to defend atheism but to portray its worldview as morally and aesthetically pleasing in a way that atheist thinkers of the past (say, Nietzsche) didn’t. I read this concurrently with The God Delusion, and must say I really appreciated McGrath's tone of patience and reasonableness, even when it was clear he strongly disagreed with Dawkins' arguements. However, they deliberately miss many of the points that Dawkins makes in his book. However, this book is frankly appalling. I won't say that its not informative as to different interpretations of the situations Dawkin raises in his book but it does little else. I only got about 1/3 of the way through this very short book which was a present to me by someone who disagrees with Dawkins' 'God Delusion'...even though they haven't read that book. The Dawkins Delusion?, subtitled Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine is a book by Christian theologian Alister McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt McGrath, written as a critical response from a Christian perspective to Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion. The God Delusion is a 2006 book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, a professorial fellow at New College, Oxford University, and former owner Charles Simoni, for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. How Dawkins continually substitutes rhetoric, vitriol, and ignorance in lieu of sustained and cogent argumentation. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Over the years, Richard Dawkins has made a pretty good living by trashing God. Yet last fall Dawkins made news with a new book, The God Delusion, dismissing all religious faith as “insanity.” Arguing that “natural selection and other scientific theories are superior to a God hypothesis in explaining the living world,” Dawkins says he wrote the book as a … The Dawkins Delusion Responding to Dawkins' runaway best-selling book, "The God Delusion," William Lane Craig engages with Dawkin's primary argument for atheism. Welcome back. It is littered with misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and also is at times exactly wrong. To be honest, I saw an uncut debate between these two on youtube a while back, and have to admit Dawkins came out on top. Dawkins, for his part, approvingly quoted the writer Robert M Pirsig’s observation that “when one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. Recommended by Chad, and largely appreciated -- not just for the facts, but also for the dispassionate and reasoned tone in which the McGraths go about this task. Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine” as Want to Read: Error rating book. The work was published in the United Kingdom in February 2007 by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and in the United States in July 2007. I read The Dawkins Delusion not long after reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I have to say, he "eviscerates" (Dawkins' cheesy word) Dawkins' arguments. Some things are improbable in one way and not in another. The Dawkins Delusion? Richard Dawkins has every right to look at me as a believer in God and say that the idea of God is a delusion, since it is all in the mind and in the heart, etc. According to the thesis of ‘ The God Delusion’, authored by Richard Dawkins, generally religion has caused more negative impacts up on human kind and hence it’s bad. any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide . In 97 pages, the McGraths lay out clearly and concisely the many points in, Recommended by Chad, and largely appreciated -- not just for the facts, but also for the dispassionate and reasoned tone in which the McGraths go about this task. It’s difficult to work out whether Dawkins is angrier at the religious for their faith or at God for his non-existence. Alister McGrath acted like a Christian fundamentalist when he responded to the book of Richard Dawkins with an attack on his personality in the form of a book "The Dawkins Delusion". The main thing is that if you are Atheist, Christian, or any other way of thinking, that you read this with an open mind. Ali. For what it is intended to be. . Someone who needs to keep his nose in the Petri dish and out of the business of philosophers and theologians. I approached this book with an open mind, having recently read the excellent God Delusion, to see if the authors could provide me with a solid argument in defence of religion - and perhaps even give me a hint of proof of the existence of the supernatural deity they cling to. . The volume has received wide coverage, fueled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion. . [The] McGrath(es) do(es) a nice job at showing how The Dawkins constantly overreaches in his criticisms of God (Christianity, religion, &c.). It will give even the initially neutral reader the opportunity to see that real science is notthe enemy of religion and that the religiously oriented interpretation is superior to the atheistic one." God almost certainly does not exist.” (p. 157, 158, 2006 edition; p. 187, 189, 2008 edition). Basically, McGrath does an excellent job at showing The Dawkins to be a third-rate hack. J. Parker says: February 4, 2007 at 9:36 am. Neil Spencer. The McGraths (husband and wife), both fellow Oxfordians with Dawkins, cleanly and effectively eviscerate many of Dawkins' most egregrious arguments in.