Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn more Shop now Shop now
Customer Review

23 of 40 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The worst of the responses to The God Delusion, 9 Nov. 2007
This review is from: The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Paperback)
This is a truly disgraceful book that doesn't contain a SINGLE positive argument in support of Christianity - just page after page of ad hominem attack on Richard Dawkins. If you're really interested in the argument for Christianity, David Robertson's book "The Dawkins Letters" is a much better choice. It still distorts and misrepresents Dawkins at every turn, but does at least attempt a real argument. McGrath's book doesn't even try.

Since McGrath is an Oxford theologian I really thought this would be the meatiest of the various anti-God Delusion books I've read. I simply couldn't have been more wrong. It's a sad waste of trees, a sad waste of time, and a sad waste of money. (When I read John Cornwell's book Darwin's Angel, I thought THAT must be the worst of the bunch. But McGrath has proved me wrong there too.)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 27 Jan 2008 21:53:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2008 23:49:03 GMT
Another unscientific response from a Dawkins' fan. I wonder why he doesn't introduce some fan club guidelines on the website. Aren't you supposed to be specific, and cite page numbers, etc. and be disciplined?
What exactly is a 'disgraceful' book? How can you say that there is not 'a SINGLE positive argument in support of Christianity’? How about page 53 on Jesus? You may not rate what he says but that is a different matter.
The Dawkins' website seems to offer cheap degrees in 'ad hominem' spotting to the fans, but Dawkins cannot expect to get away with similar tactics on individuals (like Collins & S J Gould) who refused to acquiesce. Your contribution tells us that you found at least one AHA on each page of McGrath's book ('page after page')-. Did you really? Come on! Give us a break, Paula.

Hardly 'reassuringly rational', indeed neither reassuring nor rational - instead rather reassuringly rant-full!

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Sep 2008 14:57:55 BDT
A. Kelly says:
Really, come on. This is a user review of an Amazon product - WHY are you expecting a scientific paper with references?! Where is yours? Why no moaning that Paula is just as brief and to-the-point with her user reviews of cookery books? And as for the 'page after page' attack - this is a well-used turn of phrase that we are all familiar with, why in this one instance does it have to be absolutely literally (some might say 'fundamentally'...) interpreted? I thought Christians were supposed to be good at non-literal interpretation?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›