The Dawkins Delusion - the book

[McBell]

Sir, Alister McGrath (Faith, Feb 10) has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem “grumpy”, could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats (“Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?”) and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1368831.ece
​

The rest of the article pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[challupa]

Sir, Alister McGrath (Faith, Feb 10) has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem “grumpy”, could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats (“Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?”) and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1368831.ece
​

The rest of the article pretty much sums it up for me.

Good article. I think McGrath needs to have a look at where he gets his "facts" from before he attacks the unliklihood of Dawkins. I do think Dawkins is a little too militant sometimes and provides fodder for ID'ers but I don't know what else he can do to get the message across. I just read that ID will be taught in religious classes in Britain schools.

“Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.”

This is likely to set a precedent for Canada and the US that have been fighting to keep it out of schools. :slap:

 

[Charity]

I actually enjoyed reading Dawkins books, even though I view things a lot differently I still think he is brilliant.....I have several books that are written by Christians that attempt to dispute Dawkins I have also found some of them to be interesting in their attempts.

 

[fantome profane]

Here is an interesting conversation between McGrath and Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Pt. 1 of 15

 

[McBell]

Good article. I think McGrath needs to have a look at where he gets his "facts" from before he attacks the unliklihood of Dawkins. I do think Dawkins is a little too militant sometimes and provides fodder for ID'ers but I don't know what else he can do to get the message across. I just read that ID will be taught in religious classes in Britain schools.

“Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.”

This is likely to set a precedent for Canada and the US that have been fighting to keep it out of schools. :slap:

I think the real problem is that McGrath's book is nothing more than a 144 page ad hominem.
He spends all his time basically calling Dawkins an idiot.
Yet never addresses the points.

In my opinion he is doing nothing more than making a name for himself by preaching to the choir.

 

[challupa]

Here is an interesting conversation between McGrath and Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Pt. 1 of 15

Watched the first one, now I think I'm hooked and will watch the rest of them. Dawkins does seem to be trying to find common ground in Pt. 1

 

[challupa]

I think the real problem is that McGrath's book is nothing more than a 144 page ad hominem.
He spends all his time basically calling Dawkins an idiot.
Yet never addresses the points.

In my opinion he is doing nothing more than making a name for himself by preaching to the choir.

Well what else can he do when he's defending something he can't prove is true? The faith trump is always what religion comes down to. How can it not be? We have no concrete proof.

 

[challupa]

I actually enjoyed reading Dawkins books, even though I view things a lot differently I still think he is brilliant.....I have several books that are written by Christians that attempt to dispute Dawkins I have also found some of them to be interesting in their attempts.

I enjoy Dawkins too, but the one I really like reading is Christopher Hitchens.

 

[crystalonyx]

If you want a comprehensive discussion of evolution relatively in layman's terms, read Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale", a truly monumental work.

 

[Magic Man]

Good article. I think McGrath needs to have a look at where he gets his "facts" from before he attacks the unliklihood of Dawkins. I do think Dawkins is a little too militant sometimes and provides fodder for ID'ers but I don't know what else he can do to get the message across. I just read that ID will be taught in religious classes in Britain schools.

“Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.”

This is likely to set a precedent for Canada and the US that have been fighting to keep it out of schools. :slap:

I could be wrong, but I assumed that it was already OK to discuss ID in religion classes, at least in the U.S. The problem is that people are trying to get it taught in science classes. It is a religious concept, and so I have no problem with it being discussed in a religion class, just as I have no problem discussing Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, etc. in such a class. I just don't want any of that taught as science.

 

[Charity]

I enjoy Dawkins too, but the one I really like reading is Christopher Hitchens.

I have read some of Dawkins books, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens, I actually can find something good to say about all of them. I hate it when people are so free to be critical when they don't even read any of the person's books. Did you read "No One Left to Lie For" I think that was the title of the book about Clinton. Have you read any of his articles in "Vanity Fair" magagine? I think it was Hitchens who spoke of the late Jerry Falwell and stated that "Falwell didn't even believe half of the thinks he Preached.
I didn't mean to stray from the topic of Dawkins but I find it difficult to speak of him without remembering the other 3 Horsemen.....
Even though I claim Christianity no one can say that I am not open to learning about others beliefs......

 

[lunamoth]

Dawkins can say that the science is consistent with his worldview, but he tries to go and say that science supports his worldview over a theistic one, and that is where he oversteps.

Other scientists, other atheist scientists, have pointed out where his claims in The God Delusion are not supported by the science and have criticized him for this.

 

[crystalonyx]

D, but he tries to go and say that science supports his worldview over a theistic one .

.

Hmm, don't most theistic writers posit that religion supports their worldview better than a scientific one?

Aren't they overstepping?

 

[lunamoth]

Hmm, don't most theistic writers posit that religion supports their worldview better than a scientific one?

Aren't they overstepping?

Some do, and I equally disagree with their conclusions.

But Alister McGrath, Ken Miller, John Polkinghorne are all scientists who write about the relationship between science and religion without overstepping. They rightly point out that science is not inconsistent with God, rather than that science proves God.

Dawkins wants to say science disproves God and Michale Behe and other ID proponents want to say it proves God. Both sides are overstepping. Both do a diservice to science and religion and simply fuel the fires of polemics that divide us and do a diservice to our students.

 

[challupa]

Some do, and I equally disagree with their conclusions.

But Alister McGrath, Ken Miller, John Polkinghorne are all scientists who write about the relationship between science and religion without overstepping. They rightly point out that science is not inconsistent with God, rather than that science proves God.

Dawkins wants to say science disproves God and Michale Behe and other ID proponents want to say it proves God. Both sides are overstepping. Both do a diservice to science and religion and simply fuel the fires of polemics that divide us and do a diservice to our students.

I think when either side talks in absolutes, they give up some of their credibility. I don't have a problem with belief in God, but I don't think it should be seen as a replacement for science. I believe God should be between the individual and their God.

 

[challupa]

I have read some of Dawkins books, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens, I actually can find something good to say about all of them. I hate it when people are so free to be critical when they don't even read any of the person's books. Did you read "No One Left to Lie For" I think that was the title of the book about Clinton. Have you read any of his articles in "Vanity Fair" magagine? I think it was Hitchens who spoke of the late Jerry Falwell and stated that "Falwell didn't even believe half of the thinks he Preached.
I didn't mean to stray from the topic of Dawkins but I find it difficult to speak of him without remembering the other 3 Horsemen.....
Even though I claim Christianity no one can say that I am not open to learning about others beliefs......

No I haven't read much of Hitchens yet. I just found these books and have read God is not Great and The God Delusion and the rebuttal The Dawkins Delusion. I have listened to the debates between Dawkins and other on you tube but that is the extent of my reading so far. I intend to continue though.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the evangelical preachers don't believe half of what they preach. Enough of them have been found in compromising circumstances to think this probably true. Religion has become so commercialized and big business, it isn't too surprising that anyone wanting to make big bucks would like to "lead" a congregation. The TV evangelists are making a killing, pardon the pun.

 

[McBell]

But Alister McGrath, Ken Miller, John Polkinghorne are all scientists who write about the relationship between science and religion without overstepping. They rightly point out that science is not inconsistent with God, rather than that science proves God.

Which book by Alister McGrath would you recommend that supports your praise of him?
It sure isn't supported by the 144 page ad hominem book in the OP.

 

[lunamoth]

Which book by Alister McGrath would you recommend that supports your praise of him?
It sure isn't supported by the 144 page ad hominem book in the OP.

I've read mostly McGrath's theological and historical works, although I did read The Dawkins Delusion. The DD is a response to Dawkin's polemics and so you really can't say McGrath is writing an ad hominem unless you paint Dawkins with the same brush. But, no where in The DD does McGrath assert that science proves God.

I've not read it, but if you are interested in McGrath's views this looks like it will be a good start for your studies:

Amazon.com: Science & Religion: An Introduction: Alister E. McGrath: Books

But, I would recommend Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God for an excellent and accessible treatment of this topic.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Which book by Alister McGrath would you recommend that supports your praise of him?
It sure isn't supported by the 144 page ad hominem book in the OP.

:yes:

 

[Charity]

Dawkins asks " what are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is an honoured guest and science must respectfully slink away?" Dawkins does also say that there may be some genuinely profound and meaningful questions that that may be forever beyond the reach of science. He also tends to move from science by saying "science's entitlement to advise us on moral values are problematic to say the least". Then when referring to a fellow colleague Stephen Jay Gould he says "how could Gould possibly refer to the fact that religion had any right to offer moral wisdom".....So much for getting all the answers from Religion or Science I guess....