The Dawkins Delusion?

Book Review

Perhaps the best way to start is with a quote from the prominent atheistic philosopher, Michael Ruse. It's on the top of the front cover of the book:

"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why."

The McGraths are Alister McGrath, Oxford scientist and theologian, and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, lecturer in the psychology of religion at Heythrop College. The book to which Ruse referred is of course Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, and the response from the McGraths is The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine.

The McGraths are Christian believers answering a strongly worded atheistic polemic against Christianity. Atheists like Ruse have already done the same, in the sense of showing that Dawkins has gone far beyond what evidence and reason can support. The McGraths did not feel the necessity to go into painful detail to answer Dawkins point by point, so their book is a small one, just 115 pages with index and annotated bibliography. I, too, will not repeat the arguments in detail, since I've had plenty to say about Mr. Dawkins along the way. But I thought you might enjoy catching some of the flavor of what the McGraths wrote, by way of a few quotes. The first begins on page 12:

"When I read The God Delusion I was both saddened and troubled. How, I wondered, could such a gifted popularizer of the natural sciences, who once had such a passionate concern for the objective analysis of evidence, turn into such and aggressive antireligious propagandist with an apparent disregard for evidence that was not favorable to his case? Why were the natural sciences being so abused in an attempt to advance atheist fundamentalism? I have no adequate explanation. Like so many of my atheist friends, I simply cannot understand the astonishing hostility that he displays toward religion."

The first person pronoun represents Alister; Joanna's contribution, we are told, is concentrated elsewhere in the book. Throughout the book you find this same respect for Dawkins the science writer combined with bewilderment regarding Dawkins the astonishingly aggressive atheist. Dawkins's disregard for evidences is no casual, defensive charge; it's detailed throughout this book. As to Dawkins's "fundamentalism," the McGraths write on page 48,

"Dawkins here cites approvingly the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne, who declared the 'the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition.' And so the world is divided into two camps--rationalism and supersition. Just as religions distinguish the saved from the damned, Dawkins shows the same absolute dichotomous mode of thought. It is either black or white; there are no shades of gray. Poor Michael Ruse. Having attacked one bunched of fundamentalists, he finds himself ostracised by another--declared to be intellectually unclean by his erstwhile colleagues.

"Dawkins is clearly entrenched in his own peculiar version of a fundamentalist dualism.... One of the greatest disservices that Dawkins has done to the natural sciences is to portray them as relentlessly and inexorably atheistic. They are nothing of the sort; yet Dawkins's crusading vigor has led to the growth of this alienating perception in many parts of North American conservative Protestantism. Is there any better way to ensure that the sciences are seen in a negative light within this community, as interest in and commitment to religion resurges throughout much of the world?"

Near the end of the book (page 96) we read this provocative suggestion:

"It is this deep unsettling anxiety about the future of atheism that explains the 'high' degree of dogmatism' and 'aggressive rhetorical style' [the quotes are from Nicholas Kristof] of this new secular fundamentalism. Fundamentalism arises when a worldview feels it is in danger, lashing out at its enemies when it fears its own future is threatened. The God Delusion is a work of theater rather than scholarship."

Of course if these were bare assertions, unsupported by discussion and evidence, they would be as overstated as they claim Dawkins's work is. But they are not. The McGraths travel quickly but with great effect along paths picking apart Dawkins's view of faith, which is a term he will only discuss under his own definition, ignoring the way people of faith actually use it; his misunderstanding of the classic theistic arguments; his philosophical errors in trying to show that science disproves God; the utter lack of evidence behind Dawkins's account of the origins of religious belief; the vacuous notion of the meme; unsupportable assertions about religion and violence; and Dawkins's disregard of piles of evidence showing that religious belief is associated with human well-being (which I have also written on previously).

One gets the sense--especially having read Alister McGrath's earlier Dawkins' God--that the McGraths really want to respect Dawkins, and that they once did, and that they are responding as charitably as they can--but that he has made it very difficult for them to continue to do so. There's a palpable sense of grief, not that their beliefs are being attacked, but that a man who has been so admirable in the past has done so poorly with it this time. The McGraths, for their part, have done an excellent job of writing--clear, to the point, not overwrought but professional and thoughtful. Their book is worth reading, especially for those who have wondered whether Dawkins's latest work had something philosophically, sociologically, or theologically valid to offer.

The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007. 98 pages plus notes, index, and annotated bibliography. Amazon Price US$10.88.

Posted: Fri - October 19, 2007 at 05:16 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

The Dawkins Delusion?

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson