Customer Reviews
Insightful analysis that could be better - By: Arquebusier1572, 07 Sep 2008 
Reading many of the other reviews of this book, it's pretty clear that most had their minds made up before they ever opened it. I don't recognizein many of the hostile reviews the book that I read. This probably shows that both Dawkins & McGrath are inevitably preaching to the choir, to use a religious metaphor - that Dawkins (writing about religion) will persuade many zealous atheists, despite the (sometimes almost unbelievable!) superficiality of his analysis, & that McGrath will persuade many devout Christians, despite the circularity of some of his arguments.
So, having said all that, Dawkins' God is a lucidly written book, which homesin relentlessly on the weaknessesin Dawkins' treatment of religion - it's strength is that it covers a wide range of Dawkins' writings (rather than just book - a number of Amazon reviewers seem to have missed this, terming Dawkins' God a rebuttal of The God Delusion - read the footnotes!). Its weaknesses are threefold, I think.
First is that at times McGrath on Dawkins is guilty of the same sin as Dawkins on religion - he asserts without sufficient evidence. Yes, this is a short book, for general readers, but some more substantiation is needed of claims about the nature of faith. McGrath is doubtless right that many university-based theologians don't treat faith as simplistic, which is one of Dawkins' major arguments, & very annoying to the many Christians who do blend faith & reason. But there are also many religious people who DO have a very simple faith - &in fact many Christians, at any rate, are proud of that, & actively try to promote simple & simplistic faith, rejecting any use of reason or science. McGrath's characterization of the nature of Christian is not substantiated,in effect he says "It's so because I say it's so" - & thus he fails to acknowledge the complexity & nuances of the nature of religious faith is more complex. (Dawkins is, of course, exactly the same!)
The second weakness is that the writing, though lucid & attractive, is sometimes disorganised. The structure & transitions from one section to the next don't always make sense. This is not always the case & even when present it sometimes is only an irritation, but at times it's a serious weakness.
The chapter on the 'battle between science & religion' is an example - McGrath keeps asserting thatin fact the idea that science & religion have always beenin conflict is wrong - but he doesn't really substantiate thatin his text (I'll come back to thatin a minute) & just keeps repeating it, writing around & aroundin a circle. To be fair to McGrath, his notes cite a series of works on the history of the relationship between science & religion which do support his view - but he doesn't summarize their arguments very well, so that there is no evidencein the text - & there really needs to be, it can't all be left to reading a dozen monographs or articles.
Third, at times McGrath descends into petty points scoring. Again, it isn't frequent, but I think it happens more as the book advances, & while Dawkins is actually much nastier, personally, about people of faith than McGrath is about Dawkins, it still isn't to McGrath's credit. When the arguments become ad hominem, too, it is likely to make a reader doubt the argument.
Nevertheless, much of the book is a detailed & insightful dissection of Dawkins' writings, which superbly brings out that Dawkins is a superb writer with a gift for a brilliant turn of phrase, but that he completely loses his detachment when dealing with religion,in response to which tends to assemble a series of weak, even inane, arguments that have been around forever, & advances them as though they are somehow new, brilliant insights. However, the occasional circularity of some of McGrath's own arguments & a slight tendency to assume, rather than demonstrate, the accuracy of some of his assertions, mean that some of Dawkins' criticisms of religion are unanswered. This is insightful, & exposes the superficiality of much of Dawkins' writing on religion - but it is not the comprehensive critique of Dawkins that the book's publicity claims it to be.
Not the rebuttal theists might be looking for - By: Scritty, 30 Aug 2008 
I'm stillin the "decision" phase over my own beliefs, & over the many "facts" thrown around at the moment. I'll admit I'm leaning towards Atheism..I say this so it's clear where my review comes from.
I have recently read Dawkins' "The God Delusion" along with books by Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens on a similar theme. So some rebuttals to balance out seemed required. (Although 38 years as a Christian with all the Religious Instruction, Sunday school, Christmas & Easter Stories probably should have weighted the effort farin theist corner anyway).
Alistair McGrath was new to me, & I read the first 30 pages of the book nodding at agreement. His opening discourse on belief rang very true to me. The "healthy" nature of questioning is stressed. Very good. Now for the dénouement.
The rebuttal.
Did Mgrath read the same book? I read above that he wrote this before Dawkins published "Delusion" & then added specific notes about "Delusion" after the event.
I can believe that (a cynical cashin springs to mind) But it's the tone that really is all wrong.
Dawkins is accused (often rightly) of being brusque & offish. My feeling is (to paraphrase Bill Hicks)
'He's sorry if he comes across as not caring a jot about your beliefs & thinking you ever so slightly naive for having them...but he does think that, so that's why he seems that way - sorry'
That rubs people up the wrong way. It maybe loses as many sympathizers as it gains (but then subjectivityin this regard is what he seems to be railing against anyway).
But McGrath.... "I come not to praise Caesar .... " "Brair Rabbit" "Wolfin sheep's clothing" ..
After being given the idea that it was a thoughtful book by the opening chapters - I realised that I had been set up for the "sucker punch"
From 30 pages on, the book plunges into nay saying, repetition & "my dad's bigger than yours" obstrepousousness.
I'll cite one example.
Arguing that Dawkins treats religion as a virus (which he does - the Bill Hicks quote could be played again here) McGrath argues that "It isn't"...
Wow...
Why Mr. McGrath ?
Because it's obvious..And 77% of people say so (an exact percentage quotedin the book)
77% eh impressive ...can you give me a source for this tidbit? Oh no..You've moved on & started another unsubstantiated swipe.
Now I realise that "unsubstantiated" doesn't mean "unsubstatiatable" (apologies to the English language there) but to plough through, either cited unsourced data (oh there are some - but not many), nay saying (the added bits after Dawkins published I bet - one nights work it would seem) or simply re-hashing the arguments already made seems a waste.
Theism has a case. It has a case basedin logic not anger & spite. It is thoughtful & sympathetic not relying mainly on the arguments of;
"It's hallowed by history so it must be right" or
"1.8 billion people can't be wrong"
Those aren't arguments; they are factsin apropos of nothing, proving nothing. Serving simply to make Atheist rhetoric all the more pronounced.
I would like to read a book that explains man's right to pick & choose beliefs from whatever holy book they cherish. Points out the fragility of ecumenical pact declarations & what right each God allows them.
Unifies thought to explain the (literally) thousands of religions & gods that exist.
The problem is, a book that attacks an argument whilst largely ignoring the common point of reference (i.e. what the original argument was about), stands to lose direction.
It needs focus, it needs to substantiate it's own claims to authority based on the beliefs of the author before it can launch an assault on the aggressor.
McGrath failsin this regardin just about every respect.
But I really want to read a book that DOES address those issues.
Where is THAT book? - This certainly isn't it.
Could someone pick up McGrath's dropped baton & see where it is please?
Tedious - By: Mr. Simon C. Blower, 23 Aug 2008 I fully agree with the previous reviewer who gave 1 star. Thoroughly deserving I feel. I also enjoyed J.Knight's comment "Dawkins doesn't need to study astrology to know that the suggestion that the motion of heavenly bodies millions of miles away affects the details of our lives is absurd.". I would suggest that J.Kinght doesn't understand what the requisites of absudity are; at least heavenly bodies are basedin reality... bearded blokein the sky is not (maybe he uses the planets & stars when he's on holiday... you can keep that one for your next debate) ;)
Thin and Poorly Argued - By: B. Clay, 27 Mar 2008 The book starts with a 48-page overly polite introduction to Dawkins- the literary equivalent of the much deprecated "with all due respect..." of Radio 4 political interviews. In an attempt to convey intellectual rigour there is also an additional 40 pages of reference, bibliography & index. That leaves 110 pages out of 202 for poor argument.
The flawsin the arguments are too numerous to mention but typical is McGrath's berating of Dawkins for sayingin answers after a debate: "The fact that religion may console you doesn't of course make it true. It's a moot point whether one wishes to be consoled by a falsehood." but then defending Tertullian for writing "He was buried, & rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible". The defence of Tertullian is that the context of the writing makes it immediately obvious that he is not discussing the evidential basis of Christianity.
Particularly disappointing is the dismissal of memes. Susan Blackmore's outstanding work, "The Meme Machine" is referenced just once against "Dawkins' work [on memes] has generated considerable popular discussion", although McGrath does deign to mention the workin fleeting terms another twice.
The cover of the book declares, "Alister McGrath ... disarms the master". Not so by any measure.
A necessary, if disappointing effort. - By: Asa Joseph, 04 Dec 2007 
After following the reviews of Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', & expressing my own disappointment at that particular book, I thought I'd give my opinion of another work, set as a counter-point to the anti-vangelist & pseudo-philosopher that Richard Dawkins has become.
In this work, there is no doubt that McGrath picks up on some of the key problems with Richard Dawkins recent ventures out of his field of expertise, & highlights one or two of the philosophical issues with Dawkins' approach. After the sensation that The God Delusion caused, there is no doubt that it is necessary for the counterpoint to be made, & McGrath does so, fairly eloquently.
However, it seems to me that, having read both works, Dawkins' God just doesn't cover nearly enough of the bases. Firstly, & somewhat unnecessarily, there are times when McGrath comes across as simply arguing ad hominem against Dawkins. Whilst there can be no doubt that Dawkins' own style can be adversarial, even designed to provoke, there can be no better response than one that sticks to the facts, & sticks to logic. Whilst McGrath doesn't even come close to matching Dawkins' fervour & aggressiveness, his tone feels slightly disappointing, just the same.
Second, McGrath doesn't offer a great dealin response to many of the arguments that Dawkins puts forward, whether philosophical or scientific - even when Dawkins has stretched the laws of logic to breaking point & beyond, & a simple rebuttal would have taken just a few pages to propose. McGrath is clear enoughin his purpose, & his reasons for not doing so, but the effect of this is to give the impression that this is a response that is not always full & comprehensive. Instead, McGrath seems to re-iterate the same, or similar points over & over again, & whilst often salient, I was left feeling like I wanted more.
However, none of this can detract from the fact that this is still a relatively good effort, if unexceptional. McGrath does raise some important problems with Dawkins' methodology, & issues challenges that seem, as yet, to be unanswered. No doubt this will provide just enough security to those wishing to dismiss Dawkins out of hand, yet not quite enough of a defence against those wishing to force an agenda of Dawkensian secularism.
A solid, but not altogether satisfying read.
