The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths [Mass Market Paperback]

I was about to add some fulsome comments about this book when I saw that Mr Haswell had done it before me and very well, too. My copy of David's book has pencil notes down most pages and Mr Haswell has covered most of them and most articulately. I must add: I too was annoyed at the slur on anyone asking about the origin of God. This is a common response to this fundamental question.('Treat it with disdain or we may have to consider it seriously'!) David fails to understand that by asserting that the universe is so wonderful that it requires a creator, Christians have invoked a specific principle, viz, anything wonderful requires a creator. The 'Who created God?' question is merely to apply the self-same principle to justify the existence of God! If you don't like the principle, don't use it! David's attempt to ridicule the question as worthy of a six(teen?) year old is not only regrettable but also displays a shallowness of thinking born of his dependence on the existence of God.

And that is the problem really. Someone who feels that their life would be meaningless without God is hardly likely to be able to discuss evidence about his existence objectively. This is evident in the many books written to challenge Dawkins or atheism generally. It becomes clear that the writers have a common starting point - two immovable assumptions: a) God exists b) he is all those things that Christians believe him to be. One could have more sympathy with those who say 'I can't answer that'. There is also a tendency to try to paint atheism as a belief system diametrically opposite Theism, rather like devil-worship because it's then easier to counter-attack. But atheism is not a belief system, any more than belief in a round earth. It's simple disbelief! Atheism is based on evidence, theism on need. A theist needs God; an atheist doesn't need the absence of God. In fact most atheists wouldn't care tuppence if there actually were a Christian God (though not an Old Testament God with his psychopathic tendencies). It would be rather like a flat earth. It would change things but we would adjust!

Very few theists seem consider the significance of their use of the word 'faith' to describe their belief. The whole mantra of theism is shot through with the uncertainty encapsulated in the word. I am always reminded of this by the burial prayer 'in the sure and certain hope of resurrection'. Evidently it is not resurrection which is 'sure and certain', merely the hope of it! But why this uncertainty if theists are as confident as David Robertson? I do not have mere faith that sun will rise or birds fly tomorrow. I KNOW they will. To say that I had only 'faith' that these things will happen would display a considerable and disconcerting level of uncertainty. And so it is with faith in theism.

David's rather disdainful, nit-picking approach is perhaps understandable in view of the abrasive and combative style of Dawkin's book, which for all its length failed to highlight the simple fact that belief in an all-powerful, caring, and above all, good God is rendered totally untenable by the evidence of the millions of innocent men, women and, especially, children, who have been drowned, suffocated, incinerated and crushed in those little quirks of 'God's wonderful creation' - floods, tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes. I find theists' response to that evidence is always a little less assured than David's to Dawkins.

David Robertson is a Scottish Presbyterian who ministers in Dundee. Having read Dawkins 'God Delusion' he decided to respond with a series of letters addressing the major themes of the book. These include letters addressing: the notion that atheists are the truly enlightened, intelligent ones; the impossibility of true beauty without God; the myth of atheist tolerance and rationality; the myth of a cruel Old Testament God; the false dichotomy Dawkins creates between science and religion; the "who made God?" argument; the nonsense that all religion is inherently evil; the myth of morality within an atheistic worldview; the myth of an immoral bible, and; the charge of child abuse.

Where to start? The first half of the book is definitely less persuasive than the latter. One might conjecture that Robertson's understandable irritation with Dawkins slides off into sarcasm and thus dents the force of his presentation. Seriously critiquing Dawkins view of "multiverses" could have been achieved without mockery. Even if, especially at this point, one does think that Dawkins might deserve a dose of his own medicine. Further, the brevity he must deal with each topic to fit his chosen format (short letters), inevitably leads to some shortcuts in his arguments. For example, Robertson doesn't really address some of the real moral problems from reading the Old Testament. This is an area he really should have spent considerably more time on, as it's something one hears more and more often. His letter on this, frankly, comes across as assertion rather than explanation for how Christians view this problematic material. It lacks substance and wanders off into preaching/proclamation rather than tackling the difficulties. This was the most disappointing chapter in the book.

Nonetheless, things pick up considerably in the second half of the book. The tone changes, becoming less polemical, and far more compellingly argued. Indeed, the strongest letters cover the basis for morality without God and whether religion is really the source of all evil. Here Robertson takes Dawkins to task for his continual oversimplification, ad hominem polemics, failure to express what Christians actually believe rather than his straw-man caricatures, and his genuine failure to engage informed and erudite Christian tradition. To say one does not need to know about spaghetti monsters is surely effective and clever rhetoric, but is simply a strategy of evasion, an utter cop out to avoid being challenged by the best of Christian thought. The latter half of the book also pushes Dawkins to consider the outcome of his polemics and where it might lead, especially in view of the irresponsible charge of child abuse.

Overall, Robertson's book is well worth reading, if only for the latter half of the book, which is passionately expressed, critically on target, and better representative of the concerns about the underlying philosophy Dawkins holds. Moral relativity and the drive of the selfish gene unchecked by the good, loving, and holy God revealed in the face of Jesus, are more likely to lead to 'might is right' and 'the ends justify the means' than 'care for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger in your midst' and 'love your neighbour'.

Perhaps some day, when the heat has gone out of the current polemics, Robertson will write a much more lengthy and detailed response. If he does, I'd be glad to read it.

Like the previous reviewer (S.Gerhard) I came to this book because I'd read The God Delusion (which I enjoyed, although it's not without its weak points) and wanted to read a Christian response. I'd already listened to a recording of a lecture given by Robertson at Queens College, Belfast and although unconvinced by the content, wasn't totally discouraged and thought that I'd read the book anyway, thinking it might have more to offer. Unfortunately, I can't really say that it does. Like the lecture, the book relies heavily on rhetoric and the substitution faith-based assertion in place of argument - something already pointed out by previous (non-Chrisitan) reviewers. Robertson also does all the things he accuses Dawkins of doing, e.g. preaching to the choir and taking statements out of context/misrepresenting them. His 'atheist myths' are a mixture of exaggerated caricatures of Dawkins' position and `Christian myths' turned on their head. The whole first chapter, for example, is built around a misconstrual of Dawkins' term "consciousness raising". In chapter ten, he seizes on Dawkins' rhetoric comparing the religious indoctrination of children with child sexual abuse and runs with it to create a paranoid 1984 scenario where Stalinist-atheist thought-police come around to take Christians' children away from them (p.115). Surely neither he nor anyone else can seriously believe that this is what Dawkins is advocating? Although his taking offence at the comparison with paedophiles is understandable, it's worth pointing out that Robertson himself is happy to employ rhetoric equating loving relationships between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children, when those adults happen to be of the same sex (p.38).

Many of the previous Christian reviewers of this book praise David Robertson as "gracious and humble" or some such, whilst lambasting Richard Dawkins as splentitive, vitriolic, ranting, etc. I'm afraid I don't really see a significant difference in tone between the two books. Robertson easily matches Dawkins in terms of scorn and ridicule, and is certainly no slouch when it comes to patronizing condescension, e,g, Robertson derides the question of the origin of God as being at the level of a six-year-old. While he is entitled to that opinion and that response, I do feel obliged to point out that perhaps the reason six-year-olds ask such questions is that it only requires the intellect of a six-year-old to recognise "God has always existed' for the lazy special pleading it is.

There are inconsistencies too. On the subject of morality, Robertson argues for an absolute morality that can be derived from the Bible, while elsewhere insisting that we take the Bible in its historical context - you can't have it both ways. If you assume morality is absolute and can be derived from the Bible, then if Abraham's willingness to slit his son's throat was pleasing to God in the Middle Bronze Age then it's pleasing to God now. Similarly, if the Lord is happy to command (and assist in) wholesale slaughter across an entire region (Josh. 10,40), then how do you get the idea that God frowns on genocide today? During the plagues of Egypt it is frequently God who `hardens pharaoh's heart' (so much for free-will!) to prevent him from allowing the Israelites depart - the purpose of this is to allow God the opportunity to demonstrate his power by sending more plagues to afflict the Egyptians (Exod. 10,1ff.), i.e to show-off. This kind of manipulation can hardly be considered moral. If David Robertson has explanations for these passages (some of which were raised by Dawkins) I'd be interested to hear them, but they should be real explanations. It's not enough to simply cite another passage in which God's got his `nice-God' hat on or simply assert: `I've read the OT and I think God is nice - trust me on this one, I'm an expert.' Well, I've read the OT too, and it strikes me that the overarching message is not love but obedience: Follow God's commands and he'll be nice to you; disobey him and he'll afflict you in all kinds of nasty ways (cf. Lev. 26,14-39). This is, of course, the moral of the Abraham story - total (unthinking) obedience brings God's favour. But I digress - the point is that I agree entirely with Robertson when he says that you have to view the Bible in its historical context. The morality on display in the OT is entirely consistent with the Bronze/Iron Age context it derives from - a harsh and callous world that called for a harsh and callous God. This hardly recommends the OT as an instruction manual of absolute morality.

I have countless other objections to what David Robertson says and how he says it but I've almost run out of space and I don't want to rubbish the book completely. There are some valid points tucked away amongst the rhetoric and at the very least it provides an insight into the Christian position and mode of thought. If you're a non-believer, you'll find it a frustrating read, but persevere with an open-mind and you will find some food for thought. If you're a believer you'll obviously find a lot you agree with as the book is aimed at a Christian audience. At this point I can't avoid a final criticism. In the section on further reading, David Robertson says he can't recommend that his readers also read Dawkins' book - they can take his word for how bad it is! This strikes me as an astonishing statement for someone purportedly in favour of open-mindedness, considering the other side of the argument and thinking for oneself. It would seem that this only applies to atheists; Christians should read Christian-friendly books and simply believe what their pastor tells them about mad, bad, dangerous-to-know Dawkins. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Read The Dawkins Letters by all means, but read The God Delusion as well (again with an open mind, if possible) - who knows, you may even find some of your Christian myths challenged. ;-)