A review of The Dawkins Delusion? - by Alister Mcgrath

Notes toward a review of 'The Dawkins delusion' - by Alister Mcgrath
Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine

Quotes and comments;

Ch. 1. Deluded about God?

20. 'Yet The God Delusion is surely right to express concern about the indoctrination of children by their parents. Innocent minds are corrupted by adults cramming their religious beliefs down their children's throats.

- This seems an odd thing for a Christian to say. I guess being a 'liberal' he can ignore what the bible says about bringing children up with a knowledge of god. (Liberal theology is basically humanism with god tacked on as a kind of dessert dish.) I note he says nothing about Dawkins bringing up his daughter in the religion of atheism.

20. 'Bringing up children within a religious tradition, he [Dawkins] suggests, is a form of child abuse.

- This attack depends upon defining 'religion' in such a way as to exclude things like, Humanism, Evolutionism, Marxism, New Ageism, and the like.

22. 'Dawkins quotes with approval the views of his friend Nicholas Humphrey, who suggests that parents should no more be allowed to teach children about the "literal truth of the Bible" than "to knock their children's teeth out."

- Allowed? Allowed by who? Over and over again we see atheists teaming up with the massive State to attack Christianity. It's atheists who ever desire to build the super state; the all consuming state, the totalitarian state... so they can use its resources to wage war on people they don't like. This is a totally sick (perverted) comment.
- By limiting his charge to 'literal truth' Dawkins has exempted christian liberals from his attack you'll notice; knowing what great allies they are.
- Dawkins has surrounded himself with a crew of truly warped people.

24. 'In The Blind Watchmaker, he provided a sustained and effective critique of the arguments of the nineteenth-century writer William Paley for the existence of God on biological grounds. It is Dawkins's home territory, and he knows what he is talking about. This book remains the finest criticism of this argument in print.

- Mcgrath says he has no real critique of the critique Dawkins makes. This is because he (sad to say) accepts evolution! (I take it he believes in some wishy washy 'god did evolution' idea; which isn't evolution at all.)

26. 'There is no difficulty, for example, in believing that Darwin's theory of evolution is presently the best explanation of the available evidence, but that doesn't mean it is correct.'

- I'd like Mcgrath to tell me how Darwinism explains the origin of life.

30. 'As Dawkins himself pointed out elsewhere: "Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye; or than meets the all too limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa."25
- nothing has done more to corrupt scientific thinking than the idea man has the mind of a trumped up monkey.
- If you're expecting Dawkins to be consistent you might as well expect it of politicians.

30. 'The real problem here, however, is the forced relocation of God by doubtless well-intentioned Christian apologists into the hidden recesses of the universe, beyond evaluation or investigation. Now that's a real concern. For this strategy is still used by the intelligent design movement—a movement, based primarily in North America, that argues for an "intelligent Designer" based on gaps in scientific explanation, such as the "irreducible complexity" of the world. It is not an approach which I accept, either on scientific or theological grounds. In my view, those who adopt this approach make Christianity deeply—and needlessly—vulnerable to scientific progress.

- if there is no evidence of Design I don't see how you can possibly offer evidence for god. I'd like him to step up and tell us what his approach is, because apparently he doesn't have any. Is he defending spontaneous generation then? (He's flat out denying what Paul said in Romans.)

31. 'But the "God of the gaps" approach is only one of many Christian approaches to the question of how the God hypothesis makes sense of things. In my view it was misguided; it was a failed apologetic strategy from an earlier period in history that has now been rendered obsolete. This point has been taken on board by Christian theologians and philosophers of religion throughout the twentieth century who have now reverted to older, more appropriate ways of dealing with this question. For instance, the Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne is one of many writers to argue that the capacity of science to explain itself requires explanation— and that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity lies in the notion of a Creator God.

- It's not surprising he'd choose an apologetic that only has appeal to one person in a million. This isn't a bad argument, but it's woefully inadequate on its own. (Of course the bible doesn't seem to matter to christian liberals; they pick and choose whatever they like in it, like seagulls at a dump. (i.e. thinking most of the bible is junk.)

- Swinburne's argument is just the design argument in a fancy collar. In its way it's a god of the gaps arguement as well. i.e. what is it but 'science can't explain this.... therefore god.' (I can't see that this is much different. It's only 'advantage' is that its so obscure the Materialist can't really refute it.) All this does is take the gap argument to another level. (If materialism can explain the animals maybe it can explain man; if it can explain man maybe it can explain god. Are there no gaps? If there aren't isn't materialism true? It would seem so to me. If there are no 'gaps' in an argument the argument is usually said to be true. Not all 'gap' arguments are bad; there are good 'gap' arguments, and there are bad ones. (e.g. the materialist has no way to explain the origin of living things; this is a good gap argument.)
- Mcgrath seems terrified some argument for creation will be proven wrong, but he doesn't seem to be worried that evolutionary arguments have repeatedly been shown wrong for 150 years. That doesn't seem to have shaken his faith in evolution a bit.
- Swinburne's argument sounds a lot like Van Til; but as a good liberal Mcgrath can't mention Van Ttil, as he was so crude and was associated with those fundamentalists. (And worst of all, he was an American.)

Ch. 2. Has science disproved god?

34. 'As 1 pointed out in Dawkins' God, his point is fair and widely accepted: nature can be interpreted in a theistic or in an atheistic way—but it demands neither of these.

- The world demands neither a c. or a m. explanation? (I wonder if God knows about this.)
- If the universe has been created by God (as all true Christians must affirm) surely it 'demands' a creationist explanation. I don't see how that can be honestly denied. If the world was created by God, wouldn't we see evidence of this? Is he saying there would be no evidence?

35. Note; Mcgrath talks on and on about science; but never defines it. What's the point of talking about in that case? It's like talking about nothing.

37. 'Max Bennett and Peter Hacker direct particular criticism against the naive "science explains everything" outlook that Dawkins seems determined to advance. Scientific theories cannot be said to "explain the world"—they only explain the phenomena that are observed within the world.'

- What 'science' basically does (and one doesn't have to, by any means, be a materialist to do it) is to describe the world. [Basically to describe the physical world.] To describe the world is Not to explain it. i.e. is not to give an account for its origin or existence. Basic science is a relatively simple project. When Aristotle took a worm and dissected it, drew it up, and described it, he was doing science. This kind of project is available to everyone; you don't need a PHD to do science, it's been done by one and all since man stepped onto the scene.

37. 'In a significant publication titled The Limits of Science, Medawar explored the question of how science was limited by the nature of reality.

- and what is the nature of reality? The 'nature' of reality is creation. Science is limited by the particularity of the creation. If scientists (researchers, investigators) discover truth about the universe, it is truth about creation, and thus (I assume) truth about the Creator. True science is the ongoing discovery of 'secrets' hidden within the creation.

43. 'But worse was to come. 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. He was just pretending to be religious! "Isn't that just what any atheistic scientist would say, if he wanted to sound Christian?"19

- Of course Dawkins himself isn't (in any way) a consistent materialist; so who is he to talk? He couldn't live out his 'scientific' ideas for a single day. Does he really think of himself as the mindless gene carrying robot he talks about in his books? (How easy it is to write things; how hard it is to live them out.) Does he apply the same standard to atheists as to Christians? Does he have a materialist ethic?

45. 'The Dawkinsian view of reality is a mirror image of that found in some of the more exotic sections of American fundamentalism. The late Henry Morris, a noted creationist, saw the world as absolutely polarized into two factions. The saints were the religious faithful (which Morris defined in his own rather exclusive way). The evil empire consisted of atheist scientists. Morris offered an apocalyptic vision of this
battle, seeing it as being cosmic in its significance. It was all about truth versus falsehood, good versus evil. And in the end, truth and good would triumph! Dawkins simply replicates this fundamentalist scenario, while inverting its frame of reference.

- I find it amazing (unbelievable) that Mcgrath would compare Dawkins to Henry Morris. Does he have a clue what he's talking about? (Or does he, but wants to throw the atheists a bone? i.e. look at me, I loathe these 'fundies' as much as you do.) Morris was the opposite of Dawkins, a true gentleman in how he conducted himself. This is why I cannot abide liberals like Mcgrath. They treat people like Dawkins with great respect (read again the cloying words Mcgrath pens about Dawkins in the beginning of this book) and treat creationsists with abusive contempt. The sad truth is that Mcgrath (and most of his fellow liberals) are closer to Dawkins in their worldview than they are to Morris. (I reject the reading of the book of Revelation that Morris had; and reject the pre-millenial view.)

- The trouble for Mgrath is that the bible describes the world in the terms Morris did. (It talks of the antithesis between the seed of Satan and the seed of Eve; Jesus says 'he who is not with me is against me' and so on.) The liberals (in their infinite wisdom) do everything in their power to negate what the bible says about this issue.

- who's defining things in an 'exclusive' way? Morris or Mcgrath? Mcgrath doesn't even pretend to base his views on the bible.

- If Mcgrath has ever read the 'Genesis Flood' I'll eat my hat.

47. 'Dawkins here cites approvingly the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne, who declared that "the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition."

- What's so laughable in this comment is the pretense that all scientists ever do is work away (like busy beavers) on their science... and so we can all pretend that scientists are purely rational beings! This is utterly comical. Contrary to popular myth, scientists do take off their smelly old lab coats and come home... and they manage to hold a multitude of irrational beliefs. Here we have Coyne hiding behind the skirts of science while he talks (irrational) rubbish. The 'real' war? Give me a break. Maybe he'd like to define rationalism? and while he's at it superstition? These terms have become as empty as trash talk on basketball courts. i.e. rationalism is what I believe, and superstition is what people I don't like believe.

- The greatest superstition on the planet is the idea life can come from non-life... but apparently Coyne thinks that's the height of rationalism. (He's rationalizing alright.)

47. 'Dawkins seems to view things from within a highly polarized worldview that is no less apocalyptic and warped than that of the religious fundamentalisms he wishes to eradicate. Is the solution to religious fundamentalism really for atheists to replicate its vices? We are offered an atheist fundamentalism that is as deeply flawed and skewed as its religious counterparts.'

- I wonder if Jesus Christ thinks Henry Morris was/is as bad as Richard Dawkins. Maybe He thinks a bit differently on this issue than Mcgrath. You'd think he'd be a bit more careful about his rhetoric, but I don't suppose he imagines those stupid 'fundies' will ever read his book. (Ah yes; if only we could all be as saintly as Michael Ruse.)
- he describes Morris in terms nearly identical to what Dawkins does.

- Mcgrath spends much of the book criticizing Dawkins for unfairly atttackig fellow atheists; but he spends much time himself attacking fellow creationists. He mentions that Mchael Ruse wrote that he was ashamed of the shabby treatment of Dawkins, I wonder if any christian liberal will write a piece telling us how ashamed he is of how Mcgrath has treated fellow creationists. (Don't hold your breath)

44. 'It is well known that the natural world is conceptually malleable. It can be interpreted, without any loss of intellectual integrity, in a number of different ways. Some read or interpret nature in an atheist way. Others read it in a deistic way, seeing it as pointing to a Creator divinity, who is no longer involved in its affairs. God winds up the clock, then leaves it to work on its own. Others take a more specifically Christian view, believing in a God who both creates and sustains. Others take a more spiritualized view, speaking more vaguely of some "life force." The point is simple: nature is open to many legitimate interpretations.'

- I would disagree. It's not 'nature' that is open to many 'legitimate' interpretations; it's man, specifically man and his fallen nature. i.e. it's only because of man's fallen nature that we have all these interpretations. If God created the world there is only one valid, true and accurate interpretation. (I'm not saying we're capable of comprehending it fully, or even substantially.) His statement sounds suspiciously as if there Is no accurate interpretation. Creation is an objective reality, not just a subjective interpretation. [That at any rate is the biblical view of things.] To reject the objective view you have to reject scripture. Unfortunately, too many christian liberals do just this. Their greatest fear is to be branded biblicists.

47. 'I have already criticized the intelligent design movement, a conservative Christian anti-evolutionary movement whose ideas are also lambasted in The God Delusion.

- Mcgrath baffles me. I get the impression he doesn't have a clue about the creationists he talks about. He seems to live in an ivory tower somewhere, having isolated himself from 99 percent of the church by the sounds of it.
- Apparently one of the worst things he can think of to call someone is an anti-evolutionist. (Horrors.)

49. Roman Catholicism, by the way, has never had the difficulties with the notion of evolution that are characteristic of conservative Protestantism.

- Apparently 'conservative' is the worst epitaph McGrath has; he uses it continually as a term of abuse.

- The adoption of E. by christian liberals is the saddest blight on the church in many a century. (They defend this adoption of materialism by picking and choosing the bits of evolutionary theory they like, and ignoring the bits they don't like. They ignore the fact E. is materialism writ large; its a theory that claims to account for molecules to man evolution.) Despite what the pope says, there in no room for god in the theory. It's utter deceit to pretend otherwise.

- McGrath tells us earlier, that he likes to be an independent thinker, and go where the evidence is; but here he's cheering the Roman Catholic position. (You know; where the pope tells everyone what to think.)
- my only problem with evolution (and it's admittedly a small one) is that it isn't true. I guess that makes me an ignorant fundamentalist.

50. 'Yes, there are religious people who are deeply hostile to science.'

- Although he says this, he doesn't name anyone. McGrath attacks Dawkins for his lack of scholarship but he shows a remarkable lack of it himself in this book. It's nearly impossible to be 'deeply' hostile to science. Science is a word; a word that covers a multitude of things. That some people are hostile to some things scientists do (and Christians aren't alone in this by any stretch) does not equate to being hostile to science. Again you'd think McGrath would write more carefully.

- To approve of everything scientists do is the really absurd thing; a version of scientism. Far too many Christians (like M.) stand on their heads to convince the world they're in favor of everything that's been sprayed with the aroma of science. (Science and technology are interrelated; and we have many inventions from technology that are utterly frightful; not only bombs and weapons, but hi-tech surveillance equipment, internet spy programs, etc.) Since scientists are as fallen as any of us, the work they do will reflect this. To baptize all of science is a wrongheaded idea.

- There are many atheists who could be considered hostile to 'science'. (eg. the Greens)

To be continued;

Notes;
1. The Dawkins Delusion? - by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath