Alistair McGrath came out with a book called The Dawkins Delusion? a while back, in response to The God Delusion, obviously. It seems to have sank without much of a trace, and what I've read of McGrath on the net has been tediously unimpressive — he's another believer who mistakes criticizing Dawkins for a positive step in defending his faith — so I haven't bothered to read it, especially since right now we're flooded with good books on unbelief. I was sent a scathing critique of McGrath that I'll cite here, though; it looks like his book is nothing but a long tirade against a straw Dawkins.
If anyone has any positive reviews of McGrath's book, go ahead and post a link. As it stands, it's a book I don't have to add to my summer reading list.
- Log in to post comments
I'm afraid I haven't read it (yet - I probably should, to be fair), but a blog entry entitled "The McGrath Delusion" inevitably jumps out at someone like me (even though I am not related to Alister, or at least not unless there is a connection going back at least a few centuries). But I thought I'd share my own "McGrath delusion" - I had a wonderful discussion of Dawkins' book back in April with someone I encountered on the Dawkins discussion forum. We represented the perspectives of faith and atheism. The direct link to my original post is http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/200704.html#e86
The subsequent discussion is found in subsequent posts.
Theres a lot of UK based religious commentators beginning to come out of the woodwork these days to snipe at Dawkins.
This one below is one of the worst.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2078536,00.html
By the way, I'd shoot the elephant.
I wouldn't shoot the elephant. It's the last one alive, it's going to die soon anyway, and it (presumably) isn't pregnant so doesn't offer even a slim chance of preserving its species.
Anyway, here's a link to a really nice article on richarddawkins.net, nicked from the Ottawa Citizen by the look of it:
Those Fanatical Atheists
The decision whether to shoot the elephant or not would appear to have absolutely nothing to do with whether one was an atheist or not, would it? Unless a believer was a fan of, say, Ganesh.
I think it's worth discarding "gotcha" hypotheticals since they have nothing to do with real life.
If it's the last elephant on Earth, what difference does it make whether I shoot it or not? A single elephant can't reproduce, and a population of one isn't enough to maintain the vitally necessary genetic diversity.
If there's only one elephant, the species is already extinct for all practical purposes.
McGrath loves to describe himself as a "former atheist"; in fact, he became "an atheist" when he was 13, and by the time he went to university at 18, he joined the Christian Union and became a Christian. In other words, he seems to have confused the words "atheist" and "teenager". Someone should tell him that throwing a hissy fit at god does not necessarily qualify one to be an atheist. Yet he tries to project himself as someone who was won over to Christianity by the evidence that he encountered in his (all too brief) scientific studies. Horsepants!
The man is an embarrassment to Northern Ireland (but maybe not the worst embarrassment we can muster).
I think to say that McGrath's book vanished without a trace is an exaggeration.
I don't think McGrath's book has actually been released in the US. I think it was only initially released in the UK. At least, initially it was only available from Amazon.co.uk, not from Amazon.com. According to Amazon.co.uk, its UK publication date is Feb. 16, 2007; currently Amazon.com has the UK edition for sale with a publication date of 2007, but also lists an American edition, coming out on June 30, 2007.
On Amazon.co.uk it is currently ranked #182 in books (The God Delusion is currently #23) so that is not exactly a book that vanished without a trace, though not up with Dawkins of course. In contrast, in the US, the UK edition of McGrath's book is at #16,083 whereas Dawkins's is at #19. The not-yet-published American edition is at #34,739.
Shoot the elephant, quickly remove some samples (remember to get the gametes), and freeze them in liquid nitrogen for possible attempts to reconstitute elephants as a species (if a suitable gestational host can be found). Duh.
Alternately, why not pick up the baby and run out of the way. That's what I'd probably really do, given that I'm only marginally sure of which end of the gun to point away from myself when shooting and not at all confident of the ability of a single bullet to stop a charging elephant.
McGrath was formerly an atheist ? A bit like Kirk Cameron I suppose. I'm so glad that the atheist union has greatly improved its quality control system since the bad old days of Pol Pot and Stalin!
Wikipedia links to an apparently positive review at New Scientist, but it's behind a subscription wall. Wikipedia quotes the conclusion of the review:
"a fine, dense, yet very clear account, from [McGrath's] particular Christian perspective, of the full case against Dawkins"
link: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19325931.800-review-ithe-…
Wikipedia also links to the review PZ mentions. Which seems to be mostly a catalog of typos, spelling errors, and other minor quibbles, to be honest. The reviewer would have done better to separate out the main points, make them clearly, and then move on to the little stuff.
The elephant social environment might be necessary for raising functional elephants. So if the last elephant was a female, the best bet would be to have it gestate and take care of the cloned offspring. If it's a bull elephant, shoot away.
I shall buy a copy of my distant relative's book. Then lovingly tear the pages out and tar them for use between the frames and planks of the replica Beagle.
McGraths for evolution!
McGrath is an emotional, "feel good", motivational theologian. He gains momentum by fostering fields of lilacs rubbing up against the crotch of C.S. Lewis.
From my reading, the review PZ cites does mention a couple of incorrect dates, but most of the reviewer's criticisms of McGrath concern the fact that he frequently misrepresents Dawkins' positions, and often fails to address Dawkins' actual contentions.
Dunno if I should be taking a page from the creationist book, but if folks are writing whole books in response to this one book by Dawkins, then he must be doing something right.
Earlier today, I read
http://aloadofbright.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/book-review-the-dawkins-d… which I thought was informative.
Ha HA! You shot the elephant, but what you didn't know is that baby grew up to be Hitler!
Gotcha.
And Francis Collins, and C.S. Lewis. The implications are clear:
Leaving atheism makes you stupid.
I've a paperback of McGrath's book which I bought early '05, apparently in San Francisco at the SFSU bookstore. I was reading lots of crap then (wonder if I can still get my money back, hmm.) It got reviews: notably Machael Shermer's in Science, 8 April '05 p.205-6, titled "The Blind Godmaker". Full-text for this isn't free there, but is here, and the wikipedia entry for McGrath's book (!) excerpts highlights from Shermer also.
(That's Michael Shermer, of course. Oops.)
If the book is titled "The McGrath Delusion," at least subtitle it "Dawkins' Flea."
The New Scientist article is written by one Brian Appleyard; a quick google isn't much help in deciding where he is on the rational spectrum (or maybe there are several people with that name).
The linked-to review by Ron Bye was, contra Kremer, most informative of McGrath's poor effort.
-- CV
He's on CBC's The Hour tonight.
Reid Carson,
My point was simply that the reviewer doesn't seem to distinguish between a point like "McGrath misspells Antony Flew's name" and a point like "Dawkins does address Swinburne's arguments on p. such and such". This makes the review read rather strangely to say the least. In particular the review seems to start with the small stuff and build up to more serious matters, while constantly reverting to petty nit-picking.
I agree there are serious points made in the review, though to evaluate them I'd have to take some time to read over the relevant parts of McGrath and Dawkins. My suggestion was that the reviewer should have made the major points first and then move on (if he really felt compelled to) to the typos, etc. Here are some (most?) of the many minor points made in the review, none of which actually seem to contribute to the reviewer's argument:
* Gould referred to himself as an agnostic, not an atheist.
* Prospect's survey conducted in September-October 2005, not November.
* Dawkins does not use the words "mad, deluded people." (Note that McGrath doesn't say that Dawkins uses those words. There are no quotation marks. The issue is whether that is part of the take-home message of TGD.)
* Dawkins did not participate in the offical "Thought of the Day" but in an "unofficial 'Thought'."
* McGrath misspells Antony Flew's name.
* McGrath misquotes Dawkins, substituting "persistently" for "persistent."
* McGrath gets a quote from Lewis Carroll wrong.
* McGrath has the wrong source for the phrase "God of the gaps."
* McGrath leaves off the word "Our" in the title of a book "Our Cosmic Habitat," and refers to the author as "Sir Martin Rees" rather than "Lord Martin Rees."
* McGrath incorrectly dates a 1914 survey as having taken place in 1916, its date of publication.
* Madame Roland was executed in 1793, not 1792.
As I say, it is hard to see how this Syllabus of Errors contributes anything to the argument of the review.
thwaite: that's a different McGrath book.
Oh, crap...Appleyard is a certifiable kook. He's a vitalist and fan of Intelligent Design creationism.
As the author of the cited review (it's *Dan*, by the way, not *Ron*, whoever said that), can I just observe that in my introductory remarks I say, quite clearly:
>>I have not attempted to provide any kind of thematic >>grouping of particular points: I started at the >>beginning of the book and worked through inexorably to >>the end, picking out the problems as I went. There are >>a lot of them.
If it seems like I start small and work upwards, reverting constantly, then that's just the way it went.
I acknowledge it would be better to write it up in a more narrative form, but I haven't had time to do that.
There is a serious point behind my picking up on apparently minor points (I admit I also found it fun). McGrath, in his anti-atheist books, makes quite a big deal of other peoples' mistakes, their failure to cite sources properly, their inattention to texts. So when McGrath makes exactly the same kind of mistakes, I think this is interesting and significant.
Some of the errors I found are indeed minor. But if McGrath can be wrong about those things, what else might he be wrong about? (A line of argument McGrath himself uses in his book, by the way). Also, McGrath is marketed on accuracy and scholarship.
Getting the quote from Lewis Carroll wrong is exactly the kind of thing McGrath would have jumped on had someone else written it. It's an indication of insufficient attention to the source material.
The mistake about Thought for the Day you have down as "minor", but I think it's more significant than that, because the whole point of Dawkins' appearance was that Thought for the Day is closed to the non-religious.
You miss out one of the biggest mistakes, which was his misquotation of Lenin's letter to Molotov, completely reversing the meaning of what Lenin was saying.
The rest of the critique concentrates on his misreading of Dawkins.
Dan
I'm the author of A Load of Bright and the book review of The Dawkins Delusion which John Morales kindly referenced.
A commenter on that review linked to this article, which is a superbly detailed point-by-point response to The Dawkins Delusion.
Oops again: a different book indeed! Wish it were a different idea, if idea is the right word.
I'll go make another pot of coffee now...
re: #26 "...(it's *Dan*, by the way, not *Ron*, whoever said that)..."
D'OH! My profuse apologies! Too many names scribbled on my notepad. I'd better start opening multiple windows so I can check back to the actual websites.
-- CV
Back in January I wrote a post entitled The Alister McGrath Delusion. Does that count?
The review by commenter #27 above is a pretty comprehensive take down of McGrath's book.
Sheesh, hasn't anyone here ever seen "Speed"? Obviously you're supposed to shoot the baby. I mean, duh.
I saw The Alistair McGrath Delusion at the Fillmore back in the day.
Someone stole my 'the baby is Hitler' joke. Dammit.
CortxVortx:
Tabbed browsing is your friend.
(Although, in Soviet Russia, web browsers keep tabs on you.)
"Kept" ;-)
If you are going to pick nits: no they didn't :)
LOL, probably not!
CV said:
Brian Appleyard is best known for writing a book called Understanding the Present, which was essentially an attack on science for not providing a replacement to fill the void where it allegedly had torn down people's beliefs. He is a well known critic of modern science. My opinion of him is very low, to say the least, and I could not believe that New Scientist allowed him to write for them.
Ксения:
"Soviet Russia", within the context of antimetabolic jokes, exists in a Platonic realm of absolutes and, therefore, will endure forever.
tobe38:
New Scientist is rather notorious among physicists for promoting bad science.
"Kept" ;-)