The Dawkins Delusion?
21 Feb 2007
There has been much in the blog world in response to Richard Dawkins and his book ‘The God Delusion’. Alister McGrath also a professor at Oxford and contemporary of Dawkins has written a new book, ‘The Dawkins Delusion?’. If your looking for a short and comprehensive response to Dawkins, this book seems to do the job (96 pages).
Over the years I’ve interacted with many christians who find that once something is in a popular book (the Davinci Code, the Gospel of Judas) it is something that must be true/taken seriously, and even more so for a book by someone as clever as an Oxford Professor like Dawkins.
You can catch an article by McGrath here in the UK Daily Mail national newspaper (thanks to Sivin Kit for heads up on this).
Richard Dawkins is interviewed by Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central’s ‘The Colbert Report, you can see the entertaining video here.
Tagged: Alistair-McGrath, Richard-Dawkins
14 comments
Trackback
Comment by Helen
8.18 pm on 21 Feb 2007
I would rather McGrath had written a polite respectful response to Dawkins’. I haven’t read it but it doesn’t seem from the title and from newspaper quotes by McGrath that ‘polite’ or ‘respectful’ apply to what McGrath’s book.
Does it matter what tone Christians use in their books (and blog posts and comments?)
Sorry if this is off-topic but the tone really does put me off reading someone’s defence (defense?) of ‘why they are correct’.
It puts me off reading Dawkins (although I probably will read The God Delusion at some point) – and it isn’t going to endear me to McGrath’s book.
Comment by Jason
8.23 pm on 21 Feb 2007
Hi Helen, sorry but have I missed something, the article my McGrath is rather tame compared to the vitriol Dawkins pours on anyone who believes in God? Where was he less than polite? He critiques Dawkins thinking and arguement, but that’s academic dispute. If you are refering to the book, again it is critical of Dawkins thinking, and as far as I could tell in no way rude, in the way Dawkins is.
Comment by Helen
10.03 pm on 21 Feb 2007
Admittedly I often consider things rude which other Christians don’t.
I think this is rude:
“Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivialising counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion.”
That was in a newspaper interview.
I don’t think it should be an issue whether Dawkins was rude or not, because Jesus didn’t say (as best I recall) “it’s ok to be rude back if people are rude to you”.
But if you disagree that McGrath is rude then, I accept that, since as I said, I often find myself in disagreement with Christians on that issue.
Comment by Jason
12.01 am on 22 Feb 2007
Helen, sorry Helen I can’t see how that’s rude of McGrath at all. I think it’s a reasonable representation of the things Dawkins writes and says frequently.
Comment by Paul
11.19 pm on 21 Feb 2007
I’m not sure I would say just because Dawkins has written a book we should take him seriousy – i would say we should take him seriously because he is a human being who is passionate about his faith in no God – i think it would be arrogance on our part to write him or his views off…
Dawkins backs some valid/useful critique which we would should hold our hands up to and admit where he is righ. As people who often talk about missional and that it is about life for God now not just in heaven we should see Dawkins emphasis on making life better now as a welcome point in common…
Comment by Jason
12.06 am on 22 Feb 2007
Paul, yet he does so by using the most crass stereotypes of christianity, likening belief in God to Santa Clause, stating the atheism is a sign and mark of intelligence etc etc. There are many other atheists I’d like to dialigue with (and do in my reading), and there are christians who are far better at critiquing christianity themselves, and more honestly than Dawkins.
Alas the good bits he has to say get lost in the fundamentalist vitriol and bile.
Comment by David
8.41 am on 22 Feb 2007
I read a review from the London Review of Books of ‘The God Delusion’ a while ago, which was pretty scathing. I don’t think Dawkins’ book is written to such a high standard as perhaps his previous books.
Comment by Paul
9.50 am on 22 Feb 2007
It’s good to know that crass stereotyping is not just the monoply of christians then ;)
Comment by James Prescott
8.55 am on 23 Feb 2007
I read excerpts of Dawkins’ book in The Times. One of the arguments he puts across is that the work of the Holy Spirit through praying for individuals is all a trick of the mind. I find that interesting when I hear testimonies of how people have been raised from the dead or cured of incurable conditions like Aids. I also heard of someone with a brain tumour being prayed for and the whole thing coming off in the doctors hand. Obviously these are also tricks of the mind!!
Comment by Marcia
1.48 pm on 23 Feb 2007
Thanks for posting the link to that article. It was exactly how I felt when I read the book. I was willing to listen to a rational argument, but I didn’t find one.
And Helen, I have to agree with Jason. I don’t see anything rude there at all.
Comment by Helen
2.51 pm on 23 Feb 2007
Marcia, I know it’s just my opinion but to me comments like this…
“Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivialising counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion.â€
…come across as rhetoric intended to score points off and put down Dawkins rather than speaking the truth in love to Dawkins. Of course I don’t know McGrath’s heart or motives – I’m just saying that’s how words like this come across to me. Maybe Jason knows him and knows he’s a wonderful humble loving man and what I’m saying comes across as very unfair. All I have is words to go on since I’ve never even met McGrath.
I think the bottom line is, I find that my definition of ’speaking the truth in love’ is not the same as that of other Christians – and I wonder about that, but I also respect that they (you) have a right to your own opinion. And that I have no authority on which to claim I am right and they (you) are wrong.
Comment by Marcia
3.13 pm on 23 Feb 2007
Hi Helen–I think we can agree that trying to determine someone’s heart based on printed words can be hard to do!
So, if you were writing the article, how would you have phrased that statement differently? Or would you have left it out entirely?
Comment by Helen
8.06 pm on 23 Feb 2007
Thanks for your response, Marcia.
First of all I would avoid “Mr X seems to think”.
Firstly, it’s speculative. Secondly the intent of statements beginning that way, in every context I can think of, is to ridicule or put down Mr X. If you read “Marcia seems to think” would you be expecting a compliment to follow? I know that if I read “Helen seems to think” I’d already be psyching myself up for the next words to be a put down.
I agree with whoever came up with I statements. My approach would be to explain why I like to be treated with respect and am more likely to listen to someone who does treat me with respect. That if Mr X would like me to listen I it is in his best interests to express his beliefs/views/opinions more respectfully than [and I can give quotes showing what I found disrespectful].
My feeling disrespected is a fact and it is something I have first hand information about so I am qualifed to comment.
If I comment on Mr X I will stick to demonstrable behavior/actual quotes and avoid speculation about what he ’seems to think’. Especially given the connotations of this phrase in common usage.
Anyway I don’t expect anyone will ask me to write a newspaper article about Mr X so this is all hypothetical :-)
Did that answer your question at all?
Comment by Marcia
9.03 pm on 23 Feb 2007
It did answer my question, actually. I don’t believe I would be offended by that phrasing, but I can now see where someone might.
Comments are now closed.