Read it some time ago-when the swedish edition came. Dawkins book The God delusion (swedish Illusionen om Gud). As a paleontologist I have known Dawkins work for a long time. Found him to be a good scientist, giving good argumentation and sound facts to support his theories in his first book (The selfish gene) as well as some later work. I was impressed, even if I did not support his quite reductionist ideas. I could never see the gene as the fundamental entity the way he does, and could support criticism by Gould and by Conway Morris (who has a view on evolution which is close to my own) - but still, Dawkins did a good job.
But not in this book. I am not fond of creationistic fundamentalism, or Christian fundamentalism in general. Even if I consider myself to be evangelic, and not liberal. I did not know that there is something like atheistic fundamentalism. Now I now there is. Propagated by Dawkins. Unscientific, manipulating, picking facts as he likes, omitting what he dislikes, no carefull analyses as I was used from him...
I am not going to give a critique of the book - that would take another book (such a one was written by Alistair McGrath, read that if you happen to be impressed by Dawkins. A good antidote). But I agree to what someone has said: if this is the best atheism can come with to its defence, atheism has very big problems indeed.
In my opinion, Christianity does not need any fundamentalistic defenders, manipulating facts and giving biassed analyses. Apparently, Dawkins, foreman of intellectual atheism, thinks atheism does need that kind of defence.
Read the books - both of them - and judge for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
If you read "Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins you can learn, that he is an admirer of Simon Conway Morris' book "Life' Solution".
Unscientific, manipulating, picking facts as he likes, omitting what he dislikes ...
McGrath provides footnote references to particular pages in The God Delusion - check if Dawkins in fact fails to provide a definition of delusion.
1) "Thomas Aquinas ... Dawkins misunderstands an a posteriori demonstration of the coherence of faith and observation to be an a priori proof of faith..." p. 26
Reference 14 - God Delusion pp. 77-79
Dawkins clearly writes "Thomas Aquinas' five are a posteriori arguments, relying upon inspection of the world." p. 80 - so how can McGrath honestly claim Dawkins misunderstood that very thing?
2) '... Dawkins then weakens his argument by suggesting that all religious people try to stop scientists from exploring those gaps: "one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding."' pp. 29-30
Reference 24 - God Delusion p. 126
Dawkins clearly writes "In this respect, science finds itself in alliance with sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer, united against the common enemies of naive, populist theology and the gap theology of intelligent design." p. 127 - so how can McGrath honestly claim Dawkins' comment is about all religious people?
3) "When Dyson commented that he was a Christian who wasn't particularly interested in the doctrine of the Trinity, Dawkins insisted that this meant that Dyson wasn't a Christian at all." pp. 44-45
Reference 19 - God Delusion p. 152
McGrath snipped off a rather important part of Dyson's comment. According to Dawkins, Dyson said: "I ... do not care much about the doctrine of the Trinity or the historical truth of the gospels." p. 152
Dawkins would not be alone in being puzzled that someone who doesn't care about the historical truth of the resurrection claimed to be a Christian. (Why has McGrath hid that from his readers?)
4) "... the TV series The Root of All Evil? ... Dawkins sought out religious extremists who advocated violence in the name of religion, or were aggressively antiscientific in their outlook. No representative figures were included or considered." p. 51
Alister McGrath himself was not only considered but filmed for that TV series!
Dawkins has previously stated that leading UK religious figures were invited to take part:
"We did invite the Archbishop of Canterbury - and the Chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Westminster - to be interviewed. All declined, no doubt for good reasons."
"Diary - Richard Dawkins", New Statesman, Published 30 January 2006
As I'd watched and enjoyed the interview between McGrath and Dawkins for "The Root of All Evil?" reading McGrath deny that any representative figure had been considered was sickening - I gave up on his book at that point.
Well I agree that McGrath made a few misses. And yes I saw him intervued by Dawkins. I enjoyed that one.
Nevertheless, seen as a whole, McGraths book is serious and mostly right. Dawkins - whose scientific sharpness I have admired as a fellow evolution scientist even if I did not always agree - seems to have changed into an "atheist fundamentalist". I had expected a better book from him.
> I had expected a better book from him.
I expected a better book from McGrath - fool me once...
> ... seen as a whole, McGraths book is serious and mostly right.
I beg to differ - seen as a whole, McGrath's book is not what it claims to be, actually it's a polemic.
Post a Comment