The Dawkins Delusion
The Dawkins Delusion - by Alistair McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath.
I must admit that this was a very good read. McGrath gives a fair and well argued critique of a book he describes as "often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids, suitably overstated to acheive maximum impact, and loosely arranged to suggest they constitute an argument". He essentially portrays Dawkins as an "Athiest Fundamentalist" who's main aim is not to pass on the message of evolution to the uninitiated, but to wipe out all world religion. One of my favourite quotes sums up how McGrath views Dawkin's world view:
"Here is Ruse's comment on what happened next:
'When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkins' response was simply that the Pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine... Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist.'
Ruse's comment immediately helps us understand what is going on. If Dawkins' agenda was to encourage Christians to accept biological evolution, the Pope's statement would have been welcomed... Dawkins is unable to accept that the Pope - or presumably any Christian - could accept evolution."
It appears that Dawkins is a character who shares many attributes with fundamentalist Christians and is in fact doing more damage to the atheist/Darwinian cause than any creationist. In my opinion, and I have held this view for some time, he does genuinely believe that evolution is the be all and end all of life on earth: "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” (A River Out of Eden, Dawkins 1995). However, until reading this book, I pretty much agreed with him - though I was willing to compromise for religion. Having read this book my eyes have been opened even further to the possibility of a God. One of the most important revelations (as well as the aforementioned "Real Magic" was that many scientists are religious. And, in the words of Gould "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with atheism"). Religious belief is not infantile, or stupid.
Thus, I must agree with McGrath. While Dawkins' books on the natural sciences are well argued, clear and enlightening, it appears that The God Delusion is a departure from his usual well argued, scientific, evidence based writing. Now, I have not read The God Delusion, but having read this critique I'm not sure I want to. Dawkins arguments seem to lack depth and carefully researched arguments - many of his points rely on long-defunct Christian theology, in short, if you do read the God Delusion, read The Dawkins Delusion as well - at least give religion a fair shot. McGrath has the advantageous position of an ex-atheist Christian trained in molecular biophysics and also theology. Read the book, and make your own mind up. In my mind, Dawkins has lost alot of respect.
How much is religion "blind faith" and how much of it is reasoned?
Labels:
books,
c u r r e n t l y,
religion,
review
Stumble It!
3 comments:
McGrath spoke at St Ebbes a week before that book was published. Here's the audio, although from what I gather it's pretty much the same as the book.
The question and answer session after was also recorded, it gets a bit hot!
Alister McGrath - 7th Feb 2006
Incase you've missed it, I left a comment on one of your posts below.
Have read the post and listened to the whole lecture. Basically, and this is very not scientific of me, I'm starting to think that Dawkins is a bit of a Pillock.
His continual use of "It is..." rather than "My theory goes..." pissed me off in the selfish gene and it sounds like he hasn't changed much in the thirty years since.
I've done atheism, agnosticism and religion just by keeping an open mind and reacting to what I discover. I don't need an idea of God to survive, it just seems like the most sensible explanation.
That said, I can't agree with McGrath's immedeately going religion = christianity, nor his dismissal of the idea of memes because we can't see them.
G
Ps, When's the vet armada? And have you give Soph your scores for the trumps yet?
I think that's fair - I do genuinely think that Dawkins wholeheartedly believes what he says, but he's blinding himself to alternatives and becoming amazingly biased in the process. I've never "done" any position other than agnostic. I can't really see much to support either way, and so im floundering in apathy. Perhaps I'll drag myself out this holiday!
No, I haven't done the trumps yet - I shall go do it now, though I fear I'll be a lame card! Armada is usually the day of our may ball - Monday 18th.
Tom
Post a Comment