| ||||||||||||||||||||
![]() Trade In this Item for up to £0.25
Trade in Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.25, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Product details
|
"Alister McGrath′s book Dawkins′ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life does a fair and sophisticated job of summarising my position." Richard Dawkins, Times Higher Education Supplement
"Dawkins is disposed of with panache, and with McGrath′s ususal clarity and conciseness." Theology
"Lucid and brief, without being perfunctory or dismissive, and fulfils the role of guide to the educated layperson without eliciting boredom from the academic familiar with the field ... The end result of this effort by McGrath is that, once again, I would have no hesitation in recommending the book as a basic text for A–level or first–year undergraduate students looking for their appetite to be whetted for a number of connected fields of scholarship, or indeed for the ′educated layperson′ seeking a grasp of the issues without having to wade through hundreds of pages of science and theology ... A very finely judged piece of writing." Kaleidoscope
"With clear and incisive argumentation, McGrath takes Dawkins on and exposes many of the weaknesses in his case for atheism." Reformed Theological Journal
"Wielding evolutionary arguments and carefully chosen metaphors like sharp swords, Richard Dawkins has emerged over three decades as this generation′s most aggressive promoter of atheism. In his view, science, and science alone, provides the only rock worth standing on. In this remarkable book, Alister McGrath challenges Dawkins on the very ground he holds most sacred – rational argument – and McGrath disarms the master. It becomes readily apparent that Dawkins has aimed his attack at a naive version of faith that most serious believers would not recognize. After reading this carefully constructed and eloquently written book, Dawkins′ choice of atheism emerges as the most irrational of the available choices about God′s existence."
Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project
“In this tour–de–force Alister McGrath approaches the edifice of self–confident, breezy atheism so effectively promoted by Richard Dawkins, and by deft dissection and argument reveals the shallowness, special–pleading and inconsistencies of his world–picture. Here is a book which helps to rejoin the magnificence of science to the magnificence of God’s good Creation.”
Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology, Cambridge University
“This is a wonderful book. One of the world’s leading Christian contributors to the science/religion dialogue takes on Richard Dawkins, Darwinism’s arch–atheist, and wrestles him to the ground! This is scholarship as it should be – informed, feisty, and terrific fun. I cannot wait to see Dawkins’s review of Alister McGrath’s critique.”
Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University
“A timely and accessible contribution to the debate over Richard Dawkins’s cosmology which exposes philosophical naivety, the abuse of metaphor, and sheer bluster, left, right and centre. Here Alister McGrath announces what every Darwinian Fundamentalist needs to hear: that science is and always has been a cultural practice that is provisional, fallible, and socially shaped – an enterprise to be cultivated and fostered, but hardly worshipped or idolised. A devastating critique.”
David N. Livingstone, Professor of Geography and Intellectual History, Queen’s University, Belfast
“Alister McGrath critically examines the places where Richard Dawkins’ well–established biological science changes into the speculations which undergird Dawkins’ own anti–religious faith. In his appreciative examination and ruthless analysis of Dawkins writings and the polemics associated with them, McGrath has done a marvellous apologetic job, as well as providing a particular service for those daunted by scientific authoritarianism. We are all in his debt for rigorously identifying and exposing the weaknesses of some of the commonly used arguments against the Christian faith.”
R. J. Berry, formerly Professor of Genetics, University College, London and President of the Linnean Society
“Alister McGrath subjects the atheistic world–view of Richard Dawkins to critical analysis and finds it severely lacking in intellectual rigour. As a former atheist himself, and a biochemist turned theologian and philosopher, the author is well placed to appreciate Dawkins’ well–deserved reputation as a populariser of evolutionary theory, but equally well qualified to assess his stratagem of using a biological theory for ideological purposes. This book is essential reading for those interested in the traffic of ideas between science, philosophy and religion.”
Dr Denis Alexander, Chairman, Molecular Immunology Programme, The Babraham Institute and Fellow of St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
23 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Insightful analysis that could be better,
By Arquebusier1572 (Reading, England) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Paperback)
Reading many of the other reviews of this book, it's pretty clear that most had their minds made up before they ever opened it. I don't recognize in many of the hostile reviews the book that I read. This probably shows that both Dawkins and McGrath are inevitably preaching to the choir, to use a religious metaphor - that Dawkins (writing about religion) will persuade many zealous atheists, despite the (sometimes almost unbelievable!) superficiality of his analysis, and that McGrath will persuade many devout Christians, despite the circularity of some of his arguments.
So, having said all that, Dawkins' God is a lucidly written book, which homes in relentlessly on the weaknesses in Dawkins' treatment of religion - it's strength is that it covers a wide range of Dawkins' writings (rather than just book - a number of Amazon reviewers seem to have missed this, terming Dawkins' God a rebuttal of The God Delusion - read the footnotes!). Its weaknesses are threefold, I think. First is that at times McGrath on Dawkins is guilty of the same sin as Dawkins on religion - he asserts without sufficient evidence. Yes, this is a short book, for general readers, but some more substantiation is needed of claims about the nature of faith. McGrath is doubtless right that many university-based theologians don't treat faith as simplistic, which is one of Dawkins' major arguments, and very annoying to the many Christians who do blend faith and reason. But there are also many religious people who DO have a very simple faith - and in fact many Christians, at any rate, are proud of that, and actively try to promote simple and simplistic faith, rejecting any use of reason or science. McGrath's characterization of the nature of Christian is not substantiated, in effect he says "It's so because I say it's so" - and thus he fails to acknowledge the complexity and nuances of the nature of religious faith is more complex. (Dawkins is, of course, exactly the same!) The second weakness is that the writing, though lucid and attractive, is sometimes disorganised. The structure and transitions from one section to the next don't always make sense. This is not always the case and even when present it sometimes is only an irritation, but at times it's a serious weakness. The chapter on the 'battle between science and religion' is an example - McGrath keeps asserting that in fact the idea that science and religion have always been in conflict is wrong - but he doesn't really substantiate that in his text (I'll come back to that in a minute) and just keeps repeating it, writing around and around in a circle. To be fair to McGrath, his notes cite a series of works on the history of the relationship between science and religion which do support his view - but he doesn't summarize their arguments very well, so that there is no evidence in the text - and there really needs to be, it can't all be left to reading a dozen monographs or articles. Third, at times McGrath descends into petty points scoring. Again, it isn't frequent, but I think it happens more as the book advances, and while Dawkins is actually much nastier, personally, about people of faith than McGrath is about Dawkins, it still isn't to McGrath's credit. When the arguments become ad hominem, too, it is likely to make a reader doubt the argument. Nevertheless, much of the book is a detailed and insightful dissection of Dawkins' writings, which superbly brings out that Dawkins is a superb writer with a gift for a brilliant turn of phrase, but that he completely loses his detachment when dealing with religion, in response to which tends to assemble a series of weak, even inane, arguments that have been around forever, and advances them as though they are somehow new, brilliant insights. However, the occasional circularity of some of McGrath's own arguments and a slight tendency to assume, rather than demonstrate, the accuracy of some of his assertions, mean that some of Dawkins' criticisms of religion are unanswered. This is insightful, and exposes the superficiality of much of Dawkins' writing on religion - but it is not the comprehensive critique of Dawkins that the book's publicity claims it to be.
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent critique of Dawkins,
This review is from: Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Paperback)
So what happened in 1859? Darwin's 'on the origin of species' de-bunked religion, by showing that the creatures on earth evolved by natural selection and so were not designed by God. The church were outraged, and the declining dregs of religion have stubbornly maintained that Darwin was wrong and creationism is true. Right??
No. This may be the Dawkinsian view of the impact of Darwin's theory of evolution, but it is quite foreign to Darwin. Mcgrath explains that the pre-darwinian victorian explanation of the apparent design of creatures (Paley's watch theory) was not accepted by many of the leading theologians of the time (e.g. Neuman) and so its demolition at the hands of Darwin took only a particular view of creation apart, not the notion of nature as God's creation itself. Dawkins' God is superbly written. This book is a challenge to the portrayal of both science and religion that remains present in the writings of Richard Dawkins. It is important because Dawkins' view of science is triumphalistic, historically shaky and masks of the role of human thought processes and discursive practices in shaping how one does science. This is NOT an attack on science itself, but an unrealistic view of it, which seems to see science as a transparant account of the world in itself rather than a socially mediated picture of phenomena, understood in specific, contextually limited ways. Science is there to develop coherent accounts of phenomena, not to implant static facts about states of affairs. Dawkins' portrayal of religion is exposed as rather feeble too. He sees God as a highly complex super-human, who crafted the world like a carpenter. No wonder he rejects this God's existence, and sees natural selection as his alternative. But is this really what theologians mean when they speak of God? No. It may be what some religious groups believe, but tackling this picture is hardly tackling theism at its most intellectually rigorous. Try reading Karen Armstrong, Martin Buber, Carl Jung or William James and it is quite clear that the God they believe in bares no relation to the God Dawkins rejects. Mcgrath shows that science has much less say on the God question than Dawkins claims. True enough, but the fundamental difficulty in marrying God and natural selection is that natural selection is littered by a history of violence and wastefulness, where the best suited to the environment survive, not necessarily the nicest. Mcgrath doesn't address this problem adequately. This aside, Mcgrath's main point, that science doesn't necessitate atheism is correct as far as I can see. Many physicists in particular see theism as an intelligible account of the order and beauty of the physical world. But I don't see science as a good central ground to base theism or atheism, and neither does Mcgrath. Mcgrath excellently exposes Dawkins' misleading definitions of terms such as 'faith', which he defines in a way completey foreign to christian theology, and yet treats his definition as if it were central to theology. He also challenges Dawkins notion of biological replicators that copy and transport facets of cultural practices and beliefs, named 'memes'. Mcgrath's book displays a superb overview of the historical relationship between science and religion. If you are agnostic, or an atheist whom does not see Darwin as God's undertaker, then this book will not challenge you. I still don't know exactly why Mcgrath is a christian, and I've now read 4 of his books. But this book is a great critique of the 'science killed God' line of thinking. Well worth a read.
37 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Limited scope but enjoyable.,
By Lixma (Earth...usually) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Paperback)
The trouble with dealing with issues of evolutionary theory versus theistic accounts of creation is that the arguments for and against either stance have been repeated ad nauseum and in voluminous proportions. A. McGrath's focus is much narrower and mostly successful. He argues that Dawkins' evolutionary inspired atheism is based on a very simplistic view of Christian theology, one that doesn't take into account a great deal of modern and historical work.
As such, the book is not written to debate the issue of whether life on Earth was specialy created or not but simply to demonstrate that Dawkins' apparent certainty in his atheism cannot reliably rest on evolutionary arguments. With this remit McGrath succeeds, mostly. There is an unfortunate irony that emerges as the reader progresses, however. McGrath quite rightly notes that any scientific theory is subject to change and/or total rejection and that Dawkins' certainty in Darwinian evolution is an impressive act of faith. But Dawkins knows this and accepts it. McGrath's worldview however appears impervious to contradictory evidence and he spends a lot of time describing how scientific advances in knowledge have been "accomodated" by Christian theologans and that this is a sign that theology is in good health. McGrath takes great pains to tell us that when the Bible says "A" and scientific enquiry says "B" then a good theological approach is to re-interpret the Bible in light of this new evidence. Surely this highlights the total meaningless of the whole theological enterprise? It becomes a game with no rules (intellectual tennis without a net?) McGrath finally makes an appeal to find common ground between science and religion and claims both fields can offer insights to the other. He neglects to mention even one religious "insight" that has furthered human knowledge and I am struggling to think of one too. Despite these flirts with danger the book is enjoyable, interesting and sincere. Dawkins' atheistic arguments are simplistic and McGrath shows us how - but not really why. That would require a much bigger book.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews |
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
|
|
|