Why God Won't Go Away: Engaging with the New Atheism [Paperback]

Much more accessible than The Dawkins Delusion, written with clarity, brevity and academic rigour, this book is, as the subtitle states, an engagement with "new atheism". McGrath has, in parts, sacrificed detail for the sake of readibility, but generally strikes the balance well. In particular, he takes apart some of the false assumptions and academic/logical errors that can be found in the works of Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.

As others have pointed out, this is not a proof for the existence of God - the subtitle is a better description of the text. It is, however, clear, gracious, well written and well researched. Whilst he does take an occasional swipe at his opponents, the general tone is one of courtesy.

This book has been needed for a long time.

It has to be noted, the book is quite short, so it cannot cover all the ground that may be considered necessary as a response to New Atheism. Instead, what we have is a book that pulls at some of the loose threads in modern atheistic writing and thinking, going someway (but not all the way) to unravelling the most popular arguments against God and religion. The book is one-sided, but then again so are the books which McGrath critiques. He doesn't really get onto the reasons "why God won't go away" until the last 5 pages of the book. So while the main title may be misleading, the sub-title of engaging with the New Atheism better denotes what the book does. McGrath takes on some of the challenges that are levelled at religious belief and practice. His key tactic is to undermine the basis on which the argument is made, often by holding up a mirror to atheism itself and hoping, like a lumberjack, that once its base has been hacked away somewhat, that the argument will fall under its own weight.

In his overview of each of the 4 main figureheads of New Atheism, McGrath does give credit where it is due and is not at all dismissive of the critiques of religion given. His analysis is both concise and insightful, showing up areas of lax thinking on the part of those concerned.

Personally, I found the critiques insightful, powerful and effective. However, I can easily imagine that not all readers would concur with me on this front. To that end, I think this book deserves a serious and considered response.

In rough outline, McGrath states what he understands to be the characteristics of New Atheism and how it arose, before going on to look at 3 key assertions made by the movement, giving counter-arguments along the way before finally giving an appraisal of the state of New Atheism and where its potential future may lie.

The book is not without its flaws, though. McGrath does, at times, fall into the same trap that some of those he disagrees with have also done, by not being precise. In particular, the definition of New Atheism seems to be lacking. He references its beginnings as a term, and makes reference to its ideology and aims, but not once does he actually define what it is. Yet at the same time he is critical of these "New Atheists" for not being precise about the terms "religion" and "God."

The other downside for me, and this is true of some of McGrath's other apologetic writings, is that he states the case against one side, but does not do very well on positing the case FOR Christianity. To be fair to McGrath though, he does acknowledge this and points the reader to 3 books, including Simply Christian by Tom Wright and The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism by Tim Keller.

Overall, this is a valuable contribution to "God debate" and I think deserves careful consideration alongside the writings of Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens.

This book looks at the books/arguments by the four horsemen of the New Atheism (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens). The book is only slightly longer than "The Dawkins Delusion?", so it is a summary/refutation of their arguments and he writes with great clarity as he condenses the various arguments. He tries to engage with the New Atheism, rather than throw stones. He understands the New Atheism well, as he has debated them and inhabited their websites and discussion boards. Those who liked "The Dawkins Delusion" will also like this book; those who hated it will also hate this book, especially as he shines the light of truth and exposes their arguments as the sham they actually are. I only gave it four stars as it could be a bit longer, but as with most of McGrath's books it is highly readable. It is a case of quality over quantity.

Chap 1: The New Atheism: how it started. He looks at the four horsemen of the New Atheism and their books/arguments, which was fascinating.

Chap 2: Looks at what's `New' about the New Atheism, which is characterised "by its anti-theism - an intense anger against religion which is held to poison everything". It ignores any good done by theists as well as any bad done by atheists. Hitchens even slammed Mother Teresa, which is an excellent way of alienating your audience, which is one of the features of the New Atheism, it just polarises the issue, making rational dialogue impossible.

Chap 3: Looks at when religion goes wrong: violence. Of particular interest to me was his description of the Soviet Union as the first officially atheist state, which included the propaganda of atheism (p 50). "When religious belief conspicuously and obstinately failed to disappear as a result of social and political change, he (Lenin) eventually put in place measures designed to eradicate it through the `protracted use of violence'." One wonders what comrade Dawkins would do if he had power?

Chap 4: Looks at Reason, the rationality of beliefs. Dawkins asserts that religious faith is simply and necessarily a revolt against reason and evidence. The reality is much more complex, and McGrath discuses this. World-views ultimately lie beyond final rational proof.

Chap 5: A question of proof: science. McGrath summarises the New Atheism world-view thus. "... science is about what can be proved to be true whereas religion is about running away from the facts and seeking consolation in outdated, discredited and immoral Bronze Age myths." He also looks at the flat earth argument beloved by atheists and shows that virtually every Christian scholar of the Middle Ages believed in the sphericity of the earth (p 81).

Chap 6: Where is the New Atheism Now? In a part of this discussion he has a paragraph heading "When reason fails: the New Atheist art of ridicule". I have noticed the use of ridicule in a Dawkins-Lennox debate and in videos that other atheists have kindly given me links to. The problem is that ridicule only alienates your audience; it is not a good way to win friends and influence people. Plus ridicule is a very poor argument, one would expect better arguments from the New Atheists.

Chap 7. God won't go away: beyond the New Atheism. In the 1960's it was thought that with education, "...they would live to see a world in which the infantile illusions of religion would be outgrown" (p 96), clearly this has not happened, even in the affluent/educated USA, which should be a good nurturing ground for atheism. Why is this? "There's something about human nature that makes us want to reach out beyond rational and empirical limits, questing for meaning and significance." (p 98)