The Dawkins Delusion

[lunamoth]

So, I just picked up a little book called The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath. What's not to like about McGrath...a molecular biologist turned theologian. And I think he is an Anglican to boot. :D It's co-written with his wife, a clinical neuropsychologist and biblical studies scholar.

OK, so my bias is showing...I've not read The God Delusion. I really do not want to spend that much money to hear Dawkins rant against religion. If it ever comes out in paperback, or if I find it at a garage sale, I'll get it. But that's not going to stop me from reading this critique of Dawkin's book. Haha! I'll let you all know what I think.

Anyone else read this? Have you read The God Delusion?

[MidnightBlue]

Read The God Delusion, and loved it. Haven't read The Dawkins Delusion, but if you think it presents anything worth reading I might see if the library has it.

I admit to being prejudiced against Alister McGrath; I've seen video of him where I was unable to make any sense of what he was saying. Faith is based on reason, because in the absence of evidence, we think we've figured out the best answer?

This is now his second book with "Dawkins" in the title; he may just be able to make a living off people who haven't read Dawkins but dislike him anyway.

[lilithu]

I have not and will not be reading either.

[jamaesi]

I'm with lilithu.

If I want to listen to people engage in intellectual masturbation... well, that's why I have FOXNews. A few minutes of that and I'm just fine. To actually open a book of it, with my deep respect of books and the written word, it just seems like a sin.

[MidnightBlue]

I'm not sure there's that much difference between describing books you haven't read as "intellectual masturbation" and claiming that Harry Potter promotes Satanism. :D

I know enough about McGrath to think I know what he's got to say, and I don't see any point in bothering with his latest book. However, I'm willing to reconsider if Luna reports that it's worth reading. I figure you have to be willing to consider things you disagree with, unless you're absolutely certain you're right about everything already.

[jamaesi]

I've read about them and bits and pieces from some of them, but never actually cracked them open. I don't really see a need to, from what I've read.

And of course Harry Potter promotes Satanism. Rowling is a sly and malicious women, throwing in all the evils of the modern age in there from homosexuality to magic and now coming out with them after the children have already been brainwashed. I'm throwing a book burning for that evil indoctrination manifesto later this week, I hope you'll drop by.

[WickedWit]

I'm not sure there's that much difference between describing books you haven't read as "intellectual masturbation" and claiming that Harry Potter promotes Satanism. :D


If I read half of Christopher Hitchen's book, can I call it intellectual masturbation? :D

[MidnightBlue]

If I read half of Christopher Hitchen's book, can I call it intellectual masturbation? :DThat's probably enough. Just about everything Hitchens writes is masturbation, even if it's not all that intellectual. :D

I've disliked Hitchens ever since I used to read his book reviews in New York Newsday years ago. I'm not all that happy that he's appointed himself a spokesman for atheists. On television, he's worse. He just comes off as an angry sot.

[lunamoth]

Read The God Delusion, and loved it. Haven't read The Dawkins Delusion, but if you think it presents anything worth reading I might see if the library has it.

I admit to being prejudiced against Alister McGrath; I've seen video of him where I was unable to make any sense of what he was saying. Faith is based on reason, because in the absence of evidence, we think we've figured out the best answer?

This is now his second book with "Dawkins" in the title; he may just be able to make a living off people who haven't read Dawkins but dislike him anyway.

Finished it one sitting...it was a very short book...and enjoyed it. I did not find anything earth shattering in there but I'm glad I read it because it addressed Dawkins' main points, basically the same things I could have guessed at. I thought McGrath did a good job of pointing out how Dawkins' arguments and criticisms against religion apply equally to the position of atheism.

The main surprise I got out of the book was to learn that some of Dawkins' largest critics (with respect to his polemics against religion anyway) are fellow scientists/philosphers and atheists (or nontheists).

I saw the segment where he was 'debating' with Dawkins for Dawkins' series (can't remember the name) but I think it never was aired. I'm not sure if that is the same video you saw Midnight, but I also thought McGrath did poorly in that segment. He writes much better than he speaks it seems. He makes the point in this book, not that God or faith can be logically proved, but that it is internally consistent, and reasonable, presuming you accept the existence of God. Just like atheism is reasonable if you presume there is no God.

Anyway, it was a good, non-flaming response to Dawkins' polemics. Just like Dawkins' book, it's not going to change anyone's mind. I am glad he wrote it, however, because there are a lot of Christians who are probably not conversant enough in the sciences to know that Dawkins is playing fast and loose with his facts and conclusions about the power of science to disprove God.

[lilithu]

Anyway, it was a good, non-flaming response to Dawkins' polemics. Just like Dawkins' book, it's not going to change anyone's mind. I am glad he wrote it, however, because there are a lot of Christians who are probably not conversant enough in the sciences to know that Dawkins is playing fast and loose with his facts and conclusions about the power of science to disprove God.If it truly was non-flaming then the title of the book is very unfortunate.

[Vex]

^Agreed. The title itself smacks of ad hominem. And, more importantly, since the book sets itself up as the counterargument to the God Delusion, oughtn't you read that first?

Were there any particular parts of the book you'd like to discuss?

[lunamoth]

Well, he did punctuate the title with a question mark. :p

[jordanstratford]

Ah but books are not titled to reveal their contents, but to sell more copies.

And jamaesi, I do so hope you were joking about JK Rowling.

[Buttons*]

And jamaesi, I do so hope you were joking about JK Rowling.

LOL, she is :)