McGrath on Dawkins: “philosophically naÃ¯ve and deficient”

4 February 2007

Richard Dawkins’ self-appointed nemesis, the equally vociferous Alistair McGrath, is to release another ad hominem titled book, The Dawkins Delusion? later this month.

On the Ekklesia (a religious think tank) web site there is, what basically boils down to, an advertisement for this book masquerading as a news article. This article also acts as a mouthpiece for McGrath to take a few scattered pot shots at Dawkins.

McGrath, who holds doctorates in both molecular biophysics and theology, was formerly an atheist himself, and has praised the scientific writing of Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, also at Oxford. But he argues that Dawkinsâ€™ increasingly shrill critique of religion is simplistic.

In an earlier book, â€˜Dawkinsâ€™ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Lifeâ€™, which Professor Dawkins has declined to respond to, other than through a short rhetorical dismissal, Professor McGrath claimed his colleagueâ€™s anti-religious pronouncements were philosophically naÃ¯ve and deficient.

“Formerly an atheist”? I would have thought that at birth, babies generally don’t have any understanding of christian (or any other) dogma, so are de facto atheists. Is this what they mean here?

Anyway… McGrath here complains that Dawkins’ criticisms of religion are simplistic and philosophically naÃ¯ve and deficient. I would opine, though, that most of the people who are of a theistic bent that read The God Delusion are just as theologically inept, perhaps even more so if they haven’t actually taken the time to investigate their faith.

Unlike McGrath, most believers don’t have PhDs in theology, I would gambit that most of them haven’t even read their scripture the whole way through, and I would not be surprised to learn that most of them haven’t taken any time to think about their faith critically. To call Dawkins’ theological or philosophical credentials into question, as Eagleton did in his infamous Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching review in the London Review of Books, is to completely miss the entire point of the book.

In an issue of The War Cry, a balanced and well-adjusted organ if ever there was one, McGrath wrote:

Dawkins works on the assumption that his readers know very little about Christianity. He asserts that if you believe in evolution then you cannot believe in God, because evolution is by definition atheistic. But that is a very inaccurate interpretation.

Exactly how is this inaccurate? As mentioned above, most non-theological believers don’t know very much about christianity, it’s origins, the horrors discharged in its name (except the Inquisition, I’d expect most people to have heard about that little episode), the sheer incredulity and brutality that those parts of the bible not mentioned in the sunday schools or from the pulpit are full of, the philosophical arguments for and against a god, and so on.

Does McGrath really think that the grannies that gather together every Sunday at 11am for a singalong, a cup of tea and a natter with the parson are theologically literate? Does he presume to think that most people who, in the UK, call themselves CofE, yet don’t bother going to church apart from the usual BM&D reasons, actually give two figs about whether there is or isn’t a god? I say that you’re barking up the bloody wrong tree there, mate. He goes on:

Dawkins also interprets a Christian’s ‘faith’ as ‘blind trust’. To him ‘faith’ means running away from evidence. But that’s not a Christian definition of faithâ€¦ People like simple answers to hard questions. That’s why Dawkins is so popular.

People like simple answers to hard questions? Of course they bloody do! What simpler answer is there to any question than “god did it, so leave it alone”?! That’s exactly who The God Delusion is aimed at!

He continues: “When I was an atheist, I sounded like Richard Dawkins. I focused only on the things that fitted my theory. One of the things that made me stop being an atheist was realising things are rather more complicated.”

I love it when people use their own well-rehearsed diatribes to prove their own point.

Really, McGrath dude, get a clue…

Possibly related posts:

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: media

Comments

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

7713 Responses2007-02-04+17%3A01%3A46nullifidian to “McGrath on Dawkins: “philosophically naÃ¯ve and deficient””

TW on February 4th, 2007 5:39 pm

Thanks for the heads up. It amazes me the depths that creationist / religious [insert derogatory term of choice] will go to.

I bet Dawkins actually likes it!
nullifidian on February 4th, 2007 5:47 pm

McGrath is a loon. I think there’s an element of him needing to be seen as a senior academic defender of faith, rather than leaving it to the likes of the effete common or garden variety theist, whose arguments are of the 99p-store standard.
Why Dont You Blog? » The Anti-Dawkins on February 4th, 2007 6:03 pm

[...] entertaining link courtesy of the Nullifidian Blog. This time it is Professor Alister McGrath who comes under the spotlight. Claiming his two [...]
Zarove on February 12th, 2007 6:22 pm

As un[popular as I’ll be here for saying this, the accusations against McGrath aren’t Valid. Dawkins sets about to destroy beleif in God in general, not to address the common pew sitters. Therefore, saying that McGrath ought to look at Grannies who get togather for a singalong and lookign at those who dont go to Church but callthemselves Christians is rather a bit of a misdirection from McGraths point.

His problem with Dawkins is the same one even other Atheistshave had. Dawkins simply doesn’t allow for any possibility other thna his own predetermiend worldview, and doesn’t even understand the theology he is disparaging.

Dawkins is not a Brillaint man when it comes ot addresisng either religious belifs or Human nature and society, and by ignorign wat Christians ( And most rleigious people in general) mean by Faiht and assumign all Faiht is blind and no one has ever criticlaly evaluated their faiht is to do a great dissrvice tothe reader. After all,the vast majoriy of Atheist havent criticlaly evaluated thir atheism either, and theirs a fair share of completley mindless atheists.

On the other hand, to ignore the not-so-average pewseter who has invesed itme in reading their scripture thrugh and htuinking on such matters is irresponcible and rperehensable. And to completley ignroe theologians whilst writtign a tracg on theology is neglegent.

I’ve read “The God Dilusion” and wasn’t imressed.Even the Science sections, which Dawkisn ought to excell in,, are so filled with Logical flaws and presumption passed off as fact as ot make them near worthless, and the rest, his comparring the wrost actiosn den inthe name of religion tothe best ccomplishments in scieunce, are onesided and unjust.

Indeed, the very premise of their bign a war betwee Science and relgion just plays on a commonmyth thats not really true.

Dawkins didnt address any thilogical points, outside of some famous ones, such as Aquinas’s, and even then misrepresented ( Or misunderstood) them.

And his beligerant, arrogant tone combines with the above to render the book nohignbut a hateful diatribe.
Nullifidian : Blog Archive : Awooga! Awooga! on February 12th, 2007 9:33 pm

[...] yea, oh yea! My first fundietroll, and in the guise of none other than the infamous Zarove. And on Darwin Day, no less! [...]
Ron on February 12th, 2007 10:54 pm

Jeebus on a stick Zarove. There is a thing called spell-check that will make your ravings easier to understand. Oh, try reading Dawkins’ other book “The God ILLUSION.” I will likewise try to find “The God DILUSION” so I can better understand your point.

Way to go Nullifidian, this one’s a keeper.

Happy Darwin Day to you both.
nullifidian on February 12th, 2007 11:30 pm

Thanks Ron, same to you!

As TBEJ said, his can spell (or at least find their way around a spell checker)…

Perhaps he’s using the Argumentum ad conturbem (if my Latin’s not as rusty as I suspect it might be!)
TW on February 15th, 2007 6:00 pm

Blimey – nice line in troll you attract!

I see what people mean about his writing style – it does start off well, but obviously the excitement got him/her towards the end. I suspect the illegibility is there to mask the mountains of logical fallacies and pure nonsense.

Wish I got ones like this….
Why Dont You Blog? : Dawkins Delusions - Deluded Reviewers? on March 3rd, 2007 4:16 pm

[...] Now we have looked at McGrath in the past (here and here, and this has also been looked at on Nullfidian’s blog) so there is no pressing need to revisit that aspect – suffice it to say McGrath is confused on [...]
Nullifidian : Blog Archive : Simon Conway Morris: Is Dawkins Coherent? on March 4th, 2007 4:18 am

[...] I’ve mentioned before, this is a misrepresentation of the point of The God Delusion, and shows that not only have [...]
Dan on May 8th, 2007 8:50 pm

A compilation of McGrath’s errors and misinterpretations in “The Dawkins Delusion” can be found here:

For someone who insists on accuracy in others, he sure makes a lot of mistakes of his own.

Dan
Dan on May 8th, 2007 8:52 pm

Sorry about that edit, all went wrong:

McGrath’s errors available here:

Deluding who about what?
nullifidian » The Times: How dare you call me a fundamentalist on May 13th, 2007 7:20 pm

[...] an example of one of his replies, which echoes many of my thoughts of the purpose of The God Delusion: You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . â€œyou attack [...]