Ouch!
by Krauze
It looks like Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion, is getting shredded by the reviewers. Here are the reviews I've stumpled upon. If you know of any other (positive or negative), add them to the comments.
Thomas Nagel, "The Fear of Religion" (HT: Paul Nelson):
All explanations come to an end somewhere. The real opposition between Dawkins's physicalist naturalism and the God hypothesis is a disagreement over whether this end point is physical, extensional, and purposeless, or mental, intentional, and purposive. On either view, the ultimate explanation is not itself explained. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God, and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics.
Jim Holt, "Beyond Belief" (HT: Darwinian Fundamentalism and Verum Serum):
The book fairly crackles with brio. Yet reading it can feel a little like watching a Michael Moore movie. There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy.
Marilynne Robinson in Harper's (not yet online thanks to Macht for the link – HT: Denyse O'Leary):
Dawkins deals with [scientific racism and the Holocaust] in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of … an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point.
Terry Eagleton, "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching" (HT: Positive Liberty):
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Dawkins is having a little trouble getting a break nowdays, it seems. Check out this one, from his own 'official' website. It's an article from Wired by Gary Wolf, entitled "Battle of the New Atheism."
Dawkins isn't the only focus of the story, but the evangelicals don't come off well, though Daniel Dennett shows a hint of saving grace by acknowledging arguably evolutionary issues related to faith that Dawkins and Harris love to ignore.
There are lots of mine-able quotes from Wolf, but the last 3 paragraphs in his conclusion really says it all (so as to be legal to lift entirely)…
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Has anyone read Guenter Lewy's "Why America Needs Religion"
Comment by Doug — October 23, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Um, should I be drawing any kind of inference from the fact that Richard Dawkins name is about ten time the size of God's on the book cover?
Comment by tenstrings — October 23, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Marilynne Robinson's review is online here.
Comment by macht — October 23, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 pm
As a Christian and the very kind of person who would be held up as the polar opposite of Dawkins let me offer some words of praise for his ideas. I think he raises tough questions Christians should ponder and have good answers (not just dismissals or evasions) for, namely the various objections he raises about the God of the Old.
What are his weakest arguments are his arguments for Darwinian evolution, his explanation for universal fine tuning, and his arguments by definition of science vs. design. If he took on the design theorists in this realm he'll be cut to shreds.
I might gladly debate some like him on science, but I would be reluctant to debate him on theology. I think the issues he raises about the Old Testament, I would have to concede are troubling even to many Christians, more challenging than even the thought of Adam and Eve and special creation.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 23, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Hey Krauze,
you posted this quote up – so do I take it that you agree with this statement?
Comment by Odd Digit — October 24, 2006 @ 5:55 am
October 24th, 2006 at 6:02 am
Salvador says:
See Dover for relevent examples of what happens when 'design theorists' take on proper scientists in the realm of 'arguments for Darwinian evolution'.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 24, 2006 @ 6:02 am
October 24th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Dover is what happens when judicial activists make elite opinion a matter of law.
Comment by Scott in PA — October 24, 2006 @ 10:06 am
October 24th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Odd Digit,
I wouldn't hold up a hypocritical judge who attends a Christian church on Sunday and then says the Bible isn't true religion (as he did in a graduation speech) and exemplified judicial incompetence and bias from the bench as something to brag about. Not to mention he made erroneous statements of fact from his ruling and accepted improper testimony and misrepresentations from Ken Miller under oath. His ruling is emblematic of how Dawkins and friend continue to promote Darwinism in the guise of science. ID is winning in the court of public opinion and getting a fair hearing among the scientists of tomorrow.
In any case, back to the original topic, unlike most of Dawkins reviewers, I think he makes a case against the Christian faith which Christians would do well to address. I would have a difficult time myself addressing those issues, and hence, one rarely sees me discuss those topics as I don't think I have yet a good enough answers.
In contrast, I think he is very unconvincing in his science. Even in a recent class in biology in Cornell by Allen MacNeill, I was surprised that even pro-evolutionist were disappointed in his book, Blind Watchmaker. He continues to fail to make a convincing case for his "science".
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 24, 2006 @ 11:48 am
October 24th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Hi Odd Digit,
No, I don't agree with everything written in the reviews, but gave them as samples of what the various reviews said. In the case of the eugenics quote, however, I agree with it to the degree that I think eugenics was a science, not that it still is.
Comment by Krauze — October 24, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
October 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Hey Sal,
The issues of the God of the OT are exactly those that I'm dealing with over at my blog. I agree that they need to be dealt with, especially since many people let these hang ups keep them from really engaging the story of the Bible. But the problem I have with answering people like Dawkins is that the question is already framed antagonistically. You are not talking to someone who wants to hear the story as it was meant to be heard – you're talking to someone for whom no stick is too dirty to beat it with. For instance, they take things in the Bible that are common to the ancient world, and act as if they are particular to the Bible.
Not that I don't think he should be responded to – I just don't personally understand how to get past first base with those type of critics.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — October 26, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
October 26th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Over-compensation? ("I am Richard Dawkins! Hear me and tremble!!")
Comment by Douglas — October 26, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
October 26th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Salvador,
What issues in the OT give you pause?
Comment by Douglas — October 26, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
November 8th, 2006 at 10:33 am
You asked to let you know if there were any other reviews of The God Delusion. You might be interested in checking out the review that I've just written at
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2006/11/review-of-god-delusion.html
Comment by robinphillips — November 8, 2006 @ 10:33 am