ePub Dawkins' GOD: Genes; Memes; and the Meaning of Life by Alister E. McGrath in History

Review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. THE THEOLOGIAN/APOLOGIST CRITIQUES RICHARD DAWKINS’ [PRE-2005] ATHEISMBy Steven H ProppAlister Edgar McGrath (born 1953) is an Irish theologian; priest; intellectual historian; scientist; and Christian apologist; who is a professor at the University of Oxford; and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College. He has written many other books; such as Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers and Skeptics Find Faith; Surprised by Meaning: Science; Faith; and How We Make Sense of Things; A Cloud of Witnesses: Ten Great Christian Thinkers; Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths; etc.He wrote in the introductory section of this 2005 book; “The real issue for me is how [Richard] Dawkins proceeds from a Darwinian theory of evolution to a confident atheistic worldview; which he preaches with messianic zeal and unassailable certainty… this book is not a critique of Dawkins’ evolutionary biology. I… propose to engage… the broader conclusions that he draws from these; particularly concerning religion and intellectual history…. My concern… is supremely the critically important and immensely problematic transition from BIOlogy to THEOlogy.” (Pg. 10-11) He continues; “So why write such a book?... Dawkins clearly wants to provoke such a debate and discussion; and it would be churlish not to accept such a invitation… I write as a Christian theologian who believes it is essential to listen seriously and carefully to any criticism of my discipline; and respond appropriately to it.” (Pg. 13)He also reveals; “In my first term at Oxford University; late in 1971; I began to discover that Christianity was rather more interesting and considerably more exciting than I had realized. While I had been severely critical of Christianity as a young man; I had never extended that same critical evaluation to atheism; tending to assume that it was self-evidently correct; and was hence exempt from being assessed in this way… My doubts about the intellectual foundations of atheism began to coalesce into a realization that atheism was actually a belief system; where I had assumed it to be a factual statement about reality… By the end of November 1971; I had made my decision: I turned my back on one faith; and embraced another.” (Pg. 5-6)He observes; “[Dawkins] The brilliant scientific popularizer became a savage anti-religious polemicist; preaching rather than arguing… his case. I…was deeply distressed at this development in someone I had admired. Dawkins’ account of religion tends to amount to little more than freak-pointing; with the extreme portrayed as the typical… Yet while Dawkins' atheism became more strident in its tone and more aggressive in its assertions; it did not become noticeably more sophisticated in terms of the arguments offered… Dawkins writes with erudition and sophistication on issues of evolutionary biology… Yet when he comes to deal with anything to do with God; we seem to enter into… the world of a schoolboy debating society; relying on rather heated; enthusiastic overstatements…” (Pg. 8-9)He notes; “Dawkins’ assessment … is excessively dependent on the assumption that [William] Paley (or Paleyesque) approaches to the biosphere are typical or normative for Christianity. He also seems to assume that the intellectual case for Christianity rests largely… upon an ‘argument for design’… Dawkins makes a superb case for abandoning Paley. Sadly; he seems to think this also entails abandoning God.” (Pg. 71)He suggests; “Dawkins presents Darwinism as an intellectual superhighway to atheism. In reality; the intellectual trajectory mapped out by Dawkins seems to get stuck in a rut of agnosticism… There is a substantial logical gap between Darwinism and atheism; which Dawkins seems to prefer to bridge by rhetoric; rather than evidence. (Pg. 80-81) He quotes Dawkins as defining faith as ‘blind trust; in the absence of evidence; even in the teeth of evidence.’ But McGrath comments; “So what is the evidence that anyone---let alone religious people---defines ‘faith’ in this absurd way? … No evidence is offered that it is representative of religious opinion… I don’t accept this idea of faith; and I have yet to meet a theologian who takes it seriously… It is Dawkins’ own definition… being represented as if it were characteristic of those he wishes to criticize.” (Pg. 85)He states; “Dawkins argues that; since God is ‘complicated;’ he is ‘improbable.’ … it is quite unclear why this has any relevance… it does not matter whether God is improbable… improbable things happen… Anyway; why does God need to be EXPLAINED? Which of the several diverging theories of scientific explanation is Dawkins basing this assertion upon?” (Pg. 93-94)He points out; “given that the natural sciences proceed by inference from observational data; how can Dawkins be so sure about atheism?... It is as if atheism was the secure and inevitable result of a seamless logical argument. But how can he achieve such certainty; when the natural sciences are not deductive in their methods?... I have doubt that Dawkins is persuaded of the case for atheism. Yet the case made is nor PUBLICLY persuasive. Dawkins is obliged to make a ‘leap of faith’ from agnosticism to atheism…” (Pg. 95-96)He criticizes Dawkins’ conception of a ‘meme’ [i.e.; a unit of cultural transmission]: “Although now a quarter of a century old; the ‘science’ of memetics has failed to generate a productive research program in mainstream cognitive science; sociology; or intellectual history… Not surprisingly; Dawkins himself has moved on; distancing himself from any suggestion that he offered the meme concept as an explanation of human culture in general… The memo concept was either redundant or wrong---and quite possibly both.” (Pg. 134-135)This book is not likely to convince any admirers of Dawkins; but McGrath’s critiques make some valuable points for those who wish to critically analyze and study Dawkins’ atheism.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. and I thoroughly enjoy it. I can relate to him personally as ...By The Virgin GreenThis is the first McGrath book I've read so far; and I thoroughly enjoy it. I can relate to him personally as we have similar backgrounds; but it's not necessary in order to appreciate the book. His arguments are good and concise; and he explains things well. Although he initially says he's prepared to write a rebuttal of Dawkins on his (Dawkins') own terms - to use the same kind of rhetoric he uses - it's remarkably free of that; only bringing in an incredulous tone when it's needed. That is to say; it's not full of that sort of "This is what these people believe - isn't that just so stupid?" attitude; except; well; when it is just so stupid. And even then he explains why; unless it's obvious.I would tell anyone expecting a review of Christian theology or even McGrath's own personal beliefs to look elsewhere. And that's a good thing. McGrath points out what is wrong with Dawkins' claims; not why someone should be offended by them personally as a Christian. He doesn't say that Dawkins is wrong because the Bible says he is. The only time he even seems to bring Christianity itself into the picture is when he is correcting a false conviction or claim about Christianity that Dawkins has made. Even now I really don't know what the particulars of McGrath's personal Christianity are - he just doesn't go into them.Overall I thoroughly enjoyed this book and look forward to reading the rest of his work.2 of 3 people found the following review helpful. A Masterful ReplyBy Don RoyMuch of Richard Dawkins' 'success' over recent years stems from his audience's lack of background in the fields that he ventures into in his effort to build a case. We are deeply indebted to people like Alister McGrath who do have the conceptual tools to penetrate Dawkins' claims and point out what is unsupportable and contradictory; e.g. the existence and function of 'memes'. Many 'armchair scientists' would do well to spend time with McGrath and be enlightened. Readers would appreciate reading this in association with one of McGrath's other productions; 'Surprised by Meaning'. It complements this work to present a clear and persuasive argument and a worthy contribution to the debate. 'It is also refreshing to see McGrath attacking the argument and not the man!Surprised by Meaning