Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Shop now Shop now Learn more



on 22 March 2014
Systematic and analytical - challenges rationally and in a well constructed manner. Well worth reading - sent well packaged and timely as well, so very pleased.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 9 September 2016
Prof McGrath has have right to challenge all types of damaging fundamentalism within Theism or Atheism...however,his ideas do not establish the collossal claim for a God which demands extraordinary evidence which we don't have..every Claim for Christianity or any Religion can be questioned if not refuted ..so this leads us to Agnosticism,doubt or Scepticism certainly not Theism...
22 Comments| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 2 July 2015
Very readable, it highlights the religious atheism espoused by Dawkins.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 8 February 2009
When Dawkins wrote his now infamous book he didn't use science to discredit religious arguments such as creationism and ID, instead he discredited science by turning evolution into a religious argument of his own rather unintelligent design that he evangelically promoted.

It is this brand of evangelical science that we don't need, and it is this kind of thing that pushes people away from evolution as a science rather than attracts them to it.

In brief, Dawkins flagrantly ignored fundamental scientific questions about evolution, blamed everything organized religion, and said that anybody who doesn't agree with him was a brainwashed spaghetti monster worshiper (You should look up the Spaghetti monster, it comes up a lot when people get stupid about science V religion).

Thankfully what we have here in the Dawkins Delusion is an antidote to Dawkins' evangelical brand of science. A book that is not afraid to ask some of the fundamental questions that Dawkins wishes didn't exist, and which points out that you can be sane, religious and scientific all at the same time. It is not an evangelical religious pamphlet denouncing evolution. It doesn't shove conservative religious views down your throat, and it doesn't aim to discredit either Dawkins or evolution. Instead it calmly reminds readers that when one person pushes an idea as hard as Dawkins pushes evolution, and as blindly as he does, then they are a fanatic, and if a person denounces something as hard as Dawkins denounces religion, and basically called those who believes it idiots, then they are intolerant.

To sum up. The Dawkins Delusion is a calm, sane, step back from the edge edge of the cliff, and reminder that A) Religion and science can co-exist, and that people who think that they can't as vigorously as Dawkins does as no better than the religious fanatics that they believe that they are fighting.

You don't have to like what the The Dawkins Delusion says, and you certainly don't have to believe in it. But it you read Dawkins' book then this book is a must read just so that you can get the other side of the story, because when you refuse to listen to both sides of an argument then you yourself have stepped to far in your beliefs and have become a fanatic.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 9 April 2016
Good
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 19 January 2016
Seems to be a personal attack on Dawkins and the manner in which he presents his arguments rather than the underlying validity of his arguments. A rather unnecessary and knee-jerk reaction which does not help the debate. Don't waste your time with it.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 16 July 2017
I'm very familiar with Dawkin's God Delusion and was interested to read this for balance. It was disappointing to say the least. Full of ad hominem attacks, and a long sequence of strawman arguments. This adds nothing to the debate and would only be appreciated by a person of faith who wanted seemingly "authoritative" words to justify their beliefs.
11 Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 10 April 2015
If you are going to read this book, PLEASE read Dawkins' book first. I found this book to be a hideously misrepresentative and evasive response to what Dawkins actually says and argues. It is in fact exactly what he tries to portray Dawkins' book as: rhetorical, strident and anecdotal rather than presenting rational arguments. Read both and decide for yourself. Where am I coming from saying this? I am an Oxbridge Thinking Evangelical turned atheist after not using the normal safety valve of stopping thinking and appealing to 'mysteries beyond our tiny minds' when it started to hurt and expose the bases for my belief. PS: You should also search YouTube for 'Dawkins McGrath' to see these authors face to face - watch them all.
0Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 16 January 2013
I was going to write a long review for this shoddy little book, however as many of the previous reviewers have already picked up on the errors, inconstancies and poorly argued points I won't waste too much time on it.

Just to say that McGrath seems unable to even fully take his own arguments on board. For example, he accepts that Dawkin's critique of Paley's notion that a watch must have a watchmaker is fair, gracious and accurate (p7) but seems unable to see that this critique is equally valid for Swinburne's notion ((p12) that explicability itself requires explanation. Explicability- the capacity to do science - is also a product of the blind watchmaker.

Moreover, McGrath attacks Dawkins for his selective use of scripture to attack Christianity, particularly the Old Testament, when he does it himself. Take page 58 for example, McGrath claims the Bible prohibits slavery and child sacrifice. Though he has to go to the Old Testament to make his case, as Jesus proscribed neither. He cites Leviticus 25, as prohibiting slavery, it does not, it very clearly prohibits Jews owning other Jews as slaves but encourages Jews to take slaves from other nations/tribes. And child sacrifice is not forbidden, (Leviticus 18.21; 20.2) is only forbidden in the worship of Molech - a false god - not in the worship of the one true God of the Bible. Read it for yourself.

Like most preachers, because he is a theologian he arrogantly assumes the readers will think he knows the Bible better than they do, he does not. In his final paragraph McGrath sums it quite clearly "For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support."
11 Comment| 14 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 10 August 2015
Excellent, thank you
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)