Customer Reviews
Good Rebuttal - By: H. Saroya, 29 Dec 2008 
I read "The God Delusion" some time ago. When reading it, I was flummoxed as to why a man trying to put forward, what is an already well accepted view on life (ie - atheism), had to adopt aggressive & condescending tone. His arguemnts too, seemed weak & tired; old & overused - nothing special.
And this is exactly what David Robertson expounds onin "The Dawkins letters" - a series of letters written by David Robertson, a Presbyterian minister, to Dawkins. The letters focus on a number of issues commented on by Dawkinsin The God Delusion. The letters are short & lucid, very readable & with a structure mirroring that of the god Delusion - ie, a single letter addresses a chapterin Dawkin's book.
I found it to be a worthwhile response from a Theistic point of view. Robertson demonstrates a keen understanding of Christian & Atheist theology & uses these strengths to dissect Dawkins warped views on religion.
I would have given it 5 stars - but Robertson inexplicably takes a few cheap shots at Islam which seemed rather unnecessary. Nonetheless, the few minor blemishes doesn't detract from what is an excellent, albeit short, read.
Through a Glass Darkly - By: K. Haswell, 21 Dec 2008 
Like the previous reviewer (S.Gerhard) I came to this book because I'd read The God Delusion (which I enjoyed, although it's not without its weak points) & wanted to read a Christian response. I'd already listened to a recording of a lecture given by Robertson at Queens College, Belfast & although unconvinced by the content, wasn't totally discouraged & thought that I'd read the book anyway, thinking it might have more to offer. Unfortunately, I can't really say that it does. Like the lecture, the book relies heavily on rhetoric & the substitution faith-based assertionin place of argument - something already pointed out by previous (non-Chrisitan) reviewers. Robertson also does all the things he accuses Dawkins of doing, e.g. preaching to the choir & taking statements out of context/misrepresenting them. His 'atheist myths' are a mixture of exaggerated caricatures of Dawkins' position & `Christian myths' turned on their head. The whole first chapter, for example, is built around a misconstrual of Dawkins' term "consciousness raising". In chapter ten, he seizes on Dawkins' rhetoric comparing the religious indoctrination of children with child sexual abuse & runs with it to create a paranoid 1984 scenario where Stalinist-atheist thought-police come around to take Christians' children away from them (p.115). Surely neither he nor anyone else can seriously believe that this is what Dawkins is advocating? Although his taking offence at the comparison with paedophiles is understandable, it's worth pointing out that Robertson himself is happy to employ rhetoric equating loving relationships between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children, when those adults happen to be of the same sex (p.38).
Many of the previous Christian reviewers of this book praise David Robertson as "gracious & humble" or some such, whilst lambasting Richard Dawkins as splentitive, vitriolic, ranting, etc. I'm afraid I don't really see a significant differencein tone between the two books. Robertson easily matches Dawkinsin terms of scorn & ridicule, & is certainly no slouch when it comes to patronizing condescension, e,g, Robertson derides the question of the origin of God as being at the level of a six-year-old. While he is entitled to that opinion & that response, I do feel obliged to point out that perhaps the reason six-year-olds ask such questions is that it only requires the intellect of a six-year-old to recognise "God has always existed' for the lazy special pleading it is.
There are inconsistencies too. On the subject of morality, Robertson argues for an absolute morality that can be derived from the Bible, while elsewhere insisting that we take the Biblein its historical context - you can't have it both ways. If you assume morality is absolute & can be derived from the Bible, then if Abraham's willingness to slit his son's throat was pleasing to Godin the Middle Bronze Age then it's pleasing to God now. Similarly, if the Lord is happy to command (and assist in) wholesale slaughter across an entire region (Josh. 10,40), then how do you get the idea that God frowns on genocide today? During the plagues of Egypt it is frequently God who `hardens pharaoh's heart' (so much for free-will!) to prevent him from allowing the Israelites depart - the purpose of this is to allow God the opportunity to demonstrate his power by sending more plagues to afflict the Egyptians (Exod. 10,1ff.), i.e to show-off. This kind of manipulation can hardly be considered moral. If David Robertson has explanations for these passages (some of which were raised by Dawkins) I'd be interested to hear them, but they should be real explanations. It's not enough to simply cite another passagein which God's got his `nice-God' hat on or simply assert: `I've read the OT & I think God is nice - trust me on this one, I'm an expert.' Well, I've read the OT too, & it strikes me that the overarching message is not love but obedience: Follow God's commands & he'll be nice to you; disobey him & he'll afflict youin all kinds of nasty ways (cf. Lev. 26,14-39). This is, of course, the moral of the Abraham story - total (unthinking) obedience brings God's favour. But I digress - the point is that I agree entirely with Robertson when he says that you have to view the Biblein its historical context. The morality on displayin the OT is entirely consistent with the Bronze/Iron Age context it derives from - a harsh & callous world that called for a harsh & callous God. This hardly recommends the OT as an instruction manual of absolute morality.
I have countless other objections to what David Robertson says & how he says it but I've almost run out of space & I don't want to rubbish the book completely. There are some valid points tucked away amongst the rhetoric & at the very least it provides an insight into the Christian position & mode of thought. If you're a non-believer, you'll find it a frustrating read, but persevere with an open-mind & you will find some food for thought. If you're a believer you'll obviously find a lot you agree with as the book is aimed at a Christian audience. At this point I can't avoid a final criticism. In the section on further reading, David Robertson says he can't recommend that his readers also read Dawkins' book - they can take his word for how bad it is! This strikes me as an astonishing statement for someone purportedlyin favour of open-mindedness, considering the other side of the argument & thinking for oneself. It would seem that this only applies to atheists; Christians should read Christian-friendly books & simply believe what their pastor tells them about mad, bad, dangerous-to-know Dawkins. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Read The Dawkins Letters by all means, but read The God Delusion as well (again with an open mind, if possible) - who knows, you may even find some of your Christian myths challenged. ;-)
Preaching to the converted - By: S. Gerhand, 14 Sep 2008 I purchased this book from Amazon marketplace, for less than the cost of the postage, & it was certainly worth the money. I have read several of the books inspired by the God Delusion, & thought this would be a good one largely on the basis of some of the reviews here. Having read it, & then re-read some all of the reviews here, it is hard to believe we are all talking about the same book. I can say with confidence that this one will definately not change anybody's mind, whatever their current stance, & I am fairly confident that the author is not even seriously trying to do this. It is clearly preaching to the converted, which the author argues is exactly what Dawkins is doing. Not that I found it any the less interesting to read as a result of this, particularly as it was cheap to buy, short, & easy to read. However, potential readers should be aware of this, & not buy it hoping to read a well-argued, balanced, response to Dawkins.
I think it is an honest, genuine response to TGD, & I like its honesty. It is not an intellectual or scholarly work, & I do not think the author is trying to pretend that it is (see introductory letter). I do not wish to rehash the comments made by earlier reviewers. My main criticism is that I felt a lot of the time Robertson was just as prone to the kind of things for which he criticises Dawkins, e.g.
-Preaching to the converted is a major one, & the reviews here seem to polarise nicely between Christians, who unsurprisingly like it, & non-Christians, who do not. I particularly liked the review which states that this book shows the flawsin Dawkins arguements, & then follows it up with the statement "I haven't read TGD yet".
- Being inconsistent (other reviews have covered this). In chapter 3, he puts forward the view that atheists arein fact neither rational nor tolerant. He focuses on homophobia (I assume he does not consider himself homophobic), & cites an example on p.38, of the Christian Unionin Birmingham, which was suspended for refusing "to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians & those of transgender sexuality". He then follows this by asking what was the logic "for leaving out polygamists, bestialists or paedophiles". With this statement, the clear implication is that he considers homosexualityin some way equivalent to beastiality or paedophilia. I do not see how this question can be seen as anything other than homophobic.
- Being patronising to those who do not share his viewpoint, e.g. p. 42 "So I do pray for you & for all those who have been deluded into thinking that there is only material, & that their Creator does not exist". How are statements like this any less patronising than referring to Christians as deluded?
- Attributing attrocities to atheists, which werein fact carried out by non-atheists. Hitler is probably not a good example, because there is obviously strong disagreement about whether he was atheist or not. However, on p.81, Robertson cites the burning of 77 Norwegian churches by "over-zealous young atheists". Well, those who responsible who voiced a particular stance, claimed to be Satanists. How can self-proclaimed Satanists possibly be atheists?
- Getting his facts wrong, & misrepresenting the literature. He acuses Dawkins, & other atheists, of doing this with the bible, but then does exactly thisin chapter 8, when discussing a Darwinian explanation of morality. I am always uncomfortable when I read the words Darwinian & genetics, as genetics was not incorporated into evolutionary theory by Darwin, whose hypothetical mechanism for heredity was pangenesis. However, the serious problem with this chapter is on p.90, where Robertson states criticises evolutionary explanations of altruism as deterministic, to the extent that "There is no concept of free will, choice or responsibility". He says this approach ligitimises any behaviour, by claiming it is allin the genes. This is completely misrepresenting the facts. There is not a single evolutionary biologist, psychologist or behavioural scientist of any profession who argues for this.
- Simply taking something Dawkins has said, & then attempting to simply twist it round & apply it to atheism, e.g.in Chapter 10, he suggests that many atheists do not believein heaven, hell & an afterlife because they take comfort from that viewpoint. This is clearly just a little fantasyin his head, as he cites no evidence to suggest that a single atheist actually does thinkin this way.
I will stop there, as this is turning into a far more negative review than I intended. This book has a place, as it does outline a particular form of Christian belief, & I would rather people read it than ignore it. But I cannot help thinking that it inadvertently ends up strengthening Dawkins position, rather than weakening it. I have no doubt that a well-argued, response to TGD, capable of really challenging what is says is possible: but we are not there yet.
enjoyable, reasoned and entertaining response to TGD - By: gracewarrior, 07 Aug 2008 
Really enjoyed the book. It was gracious, self deprecating at times, well researched and, well, real fun to read! Thankyou David Robertson as very few books cause me to devour the words as quickly as did yours. Did it need to be as thick as TGD? Nah! Does it cause one to think, both believer & atheist alike, yep! But hey that's my opinion!
Failing to address the lack of evidence - By: Trystan Swale, 28 Jul 2008 
For Robertson a lack of evidence is unimportant. He still believes. Yet why should I believe without solid evidence for the existence of God? On a critical scale the book falls staggeringly flat. Until the believer community addresses this issue there is no way I will change my outlook on life. I cannot follow what is not supported by evidence, & Robertson should consider that.
More alarming is the arrogance of the author, labelling Muslims as people needing God. So, it's possible that one deity without any supporting evidence can be better than another. Robertson also claims to speak for the Pantheist community, that they should be upset at their belief system being described by Dawkins as little more than 'sexed up' atheism. Well, as a pantheist myself, that is what it essentially is.
