Dawkins Delusion? -

Alister McGrath

Spck Publishing

2007

96 páginas

3h 12m

ISBN-13: 9780281059270

World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." The volume has received wide coverage fuelled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion.
Alister Mcgrath is ideally placed to evaluate Dawkins' ideas. Once an atheist himself, he gained a doctorate in molecular biophysics before going on to become a leading Christian theologian. He wonders how two people, who have reflected at length on substantially the same world, could possibly have come to such different conclusions about God. Mcgrath subjects Dawkins' critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny. His exhilarating, meticulously argued response deals with questions such as:
- Is faith intellectual nonsense?
- Are science and religion locked in a battle to the death?
- Can the roots of Christianity be explained away scientifically?
- Is Christianity simply a force for evil?
This book will be warmly received by those looking for a reliable assessment of The God Delusion and the many questions it raises - including, above all, the relevance of faith and the quest for meaning.

The authors:
- Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford
- Joanna Collicutt McGrath is Lecturer in Psychology of Religion at Heythrop College, University of London.

"Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister Mcgrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has his much rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." (Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project)

"Richard Dawkins' utopian vision of a world without religion is here deftly punctured by McGraths's informed discourse. His fellow Oxonian clearly demonstrates the gaps, inconsistencies, and surprising lack of depth in Dawkins' arguments." (Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy, Harvard University)