Two Interesting Books to Read on the God Question

The books reviewed hereunder on my kitchen table!

1. The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006 by Professor Richard Dawkins.

2. Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, Blackwell Publishing, 2005, by Professor Alister McGrath.

Both of these books are worth reading in tandem as essentially one is the rebuttal of the other.  McGrath's book is a rebuttal of the writings and teachings of  Richard Dawkins up until 2005, that is, all his books that appeared before The God Delusion, but nonetheless, they both can be profitably read as a commentary on one another.  This strategy is a good way of learning about the connotations, denotations, ramifications and implications of philosophical positions on any question.  Such a way of reading is decidedly philosophical and indeed Socratic in approach.  As our debate teacher, Mr Michael McLoughlin always reminded us young students at school: "Always bear in mind the arguments of the opposition."

The God Delusion is a wonderful read, albeit quite polemic like God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens which I reviewed in these pages - HERE.  Dawkins writes well and convincingly most of the time.  However, he is at pains to convince the reader that what he's writing is the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that anything contrary is a lie.  To this extent Professor Dawkins is an evangelist for his viewpoint - he wants to convince the reader that he the author is right and that you are wrong if you hold a contrary viewpoint.  This, I believe, is poor philosophy; I prefer a more open-minded approach.  However, be this as it may, Mr Dawkins writes a lot of sense most of the time.

Another criticism I would make against the author is that he does not refer to the books and articles written by his opposition - that is, books by mainline theists.  Checking his bibliography reveals that he has read little or no theology of worth.  Concerning the second book above Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, Blackwell Publishing, 2005,  Professor Alister McGrath does list in his bibliography works by major scientists and indeed all the until then-written books by Richard Dawkins.

In the preface to his book, Dr Dawkins outlines his reasons and motivations for writing his book.  These are interesting to ponder as they set the tenor of the book.  Firstly he states that he wishes to raise the consciousness of the populace concerning the fact that (i) atheism is a reasonable option, "a brave and splendid one" (p. 1) (ii) that there are many horrors committed in the name of religion of all kinds - he instances the horrific destruction of The Twin Towers plus the murder of thousands of people therein, (iii) that "the God Hypothesis" is not scientific and as such is not alone flawed, but patently false, (iv) that his reasoned arguments will convince the reader that "there almost certainly is no God." (p. 2 et passim)  (v) that indoctrination is rife and wrong,  (vi) that the "magnificence of the real world...can fill the inspirational world that religion has historically - and inadequately - usurped." (p.3) (vi) that "atheist pride" should be raised among the populace like "gay pride." 

By now the reader is firmly convinced of the point of Dr. Dawkins's project - namely to convince the reader that he is right and that if you have any other viewpoint, you are simply wrong.  If you are not convinced he also speaks about the "vice of religion" (p.6).  Finally, in his preface, he brings his reader's attention to his website named appropriately enough Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

It appears to this reader that Professor Dawkins can himself quote theologians and believers (though if you read this book you will find that he is way more likely to quote more fundamentalist approaches to religion rather than the works of more mainline theologians - so he's highly selective in his quotations!) out of context while at the same time excoriating believers for taking him and indeed Einstein out of context.  He also confuses religion with spirituality quite often to my mind.  Carl Sagan, most probably an atheist, was a very spiritual fellow in the broadest of meanings of the term.  However, to be fair to Professor Dawkins he does stress the point that it is not Einsteinian religion or Saganian religion that he hates but rather supernatural religion.  Quite simply, anything that cannot be seen or experienced is beyond the human ken and therefore invalid and false.

However, I must admit that Professor Dawkins is probably correct when he says that these days the concept of God has been watered down, and that when we debate we must be exact in the meanings of our terms.  One can only agree profoundly here.  There's no use debating with another person if one does not agree on the meaning of one's terms.  Otherwise one is debating at cross purposes.

For Dawkins the word God "denotes a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship.'" (p. 13)  He also stresses that "(A)s I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional." (p. 15)  Belief in a personal God, he stresses is totally absurd while belief in say Deism and Pantheism may be less so. (See Chapter 1 passim)  I love especially this rendering of terms by Dr Dawkins: "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism.  Deism is watered down theism." (p. 18)

The second book above Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, Blackwell Publishing, 2005, is by Professor Alister McGrath.

Alister Edgar McGrath (b.1953) is an Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently a Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture.  Relevantly and appropriately McGrath holds two doctorates from the University of Oxford, a D. Phil in Molecular Biophysics and a Doctor of Divinity. He is an Anglican and is ordained within the Church of England.   McGrath gives a short introduction to his own personal history in science and indeed theology in his first chapter.  He shares much in common with Dr Dawkins, with his Doctor of Science degree.  He recounts how he, too, had once a simplistic (atheistic) faith in the truths of science and had felt quite evangelistic (my words) about spreading his newly acquired gospel (good news: my words here again).

Within the first few pages, the reader will quickly realise that Professor McGrath is far more careful, though equally brilliant a scholar, as Professor Dawkins.  Indeed, immediately one realises that this man is more widely read and far more nuanced in his views.  Here we have considered scholarship and no polemics.  It's more Socratic in tone.  This is one of the things that the present writer finds about militant atheistic scientists is that they have little time for philosophy.  I can understand their having little or no time for theology (which presumes the existence of the Deity) but I cannot understand their dismissive attitude to philosophy.  That's why, I believe that Dawkins and Hitchens - and indeed the wonderful Stephen Hawking who also is very dismissive of philosophy - can seem so bloody arrogant in their viewpoints! 

I loved these well-balanced lines from Professor McGrath:

During October and November 1971, I began to discover that the intellectual case for atheism was rather less substantial that I had supposed.  Far from being self-evidently true, it seemed to rest on rather shaky foundations.  Christianity, on the other hand, turned out to be far more robust intellectually than I had supposed.  My doubts about the intellectual foundations of atheism began to coalesce into a realization that atheism was a belief system, which I had assumed to be a factual statement about reality.  I also discovered that I knew far less about Christianity than I had assumed. (Op. cit., p. 5)

This is a well-argued book by a consummate scholar schooled to doctoral level in both science and theology at Oxford University.  His arguments are well-balanced and argued convincingly.  Unlike Dawkins, he does not seek to convince us of his beliefs by excoriating those of his readers. No, he is ready to let reason lead where it will.  "The truth will out" as the saying goes.  I have not yet finished reading this book, but I look forward to so doing over the next couple of days.