"The Dawkins Delusion?" by Alistar McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath

ISBN #978-0-8308-3446-4

I'm sure that most of you have heard of the rabidly anti Christian book, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. In "The Dawkins Delusion?" (97 pages) we find a reasonable and intelligent rebuttal to the rantings of Dawkins. Before going any further, I must point out to whomever is reading this review that Alister McGrath is certainly no fundamentalist Christian and definitely not a Creationist. There are few places, however, where he says anything negative as regards the two groups previoulsy mentioned (I would clump the two into one group but with such men as Hugh Ross about I suppose it is possible to be a self described fundamentalist and still not believe in the traditional, and correct, view of creation).

Alister McGrath (whom the book jacket describes as the main author) is a professing Believer, and takes exception to Dawkins' attack upon religion as a whole and Christianity in particular. In his four chapters (1: Deluded About God? 2: Has Science Disproved God? 3: What Are the Origins of Religion? and 4: Is Religion Evil?) McGrath engages Dawkins point by point and gives a worthy defense of religion.

The following is a lengthy quote that will serve to give the reader a taste for what the book is like. It is in regards to a portion of Dawkins' book in which he accuses religon of being evil:

"...A worldview is a comprehensive way of viewing reality that tries to make sense of its various elements within a single, overarching way of looking at things. Some, of course, are religous; many are not. Buddhism, existentialism, Islam, atheism, and Marxism all fall into this category. some worldviews claim to be unversally true; others, more in tune with the postmodern ethos, view themselves as local. None of them can be "proved" to be right. Precisely because they represent "big picture" ways of engaging with the world, their fundamental beliefs ultimately lie beyond final proof.

And here is the point: worldviews can easily promote fanaticism. Dawkins treats this as a defining characteristic of religion, airbrushing out of his accound of violence any suggestion that it might be the result of political fantaticism -or even atheism. He is adamant that he himself, as a good atheist, would never fly airplanes into skyscrapers or commit any other outrageous act of violence or oppression. Good for him. Neither would I. yet there are those in both our constituencies who would. Dawkins and I may both disavow violence and urge all within our groups to do so. But the harsh reality is that religious and antireligious violence has happened, and is likely to continue to do so..."

One other quote to whet your appetite; this from the last page of the book:

"Dawkins seems to think thast saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counterevidence, will persuade teh open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. Sadly, sociological studes of charismatic leaders--religious and secular--indicate that Dawkins may be right to place some hope in this strategy. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades rather than the evidence offered in its support. Yet the fact that Dawkins relies so excessively on rhetoric rather than the evidence that would otherwise be his natural stock in trade clearly indicates that something is wrong with his case. Ironically the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that this emperor has no clothes to wear. Might atheism be a delusion about God?"

Good stuff huh? :) Read it for more!