Dawkin's Delusion

[Neandertal Ned]

Dawkin's Delusion is a serious psychic disorder or mental aberration and disturbance afflicting many atheists today. This is the only conclusion that Christian psychologists, philosophers and the Christian laity can come to in light of the new evidence provided by a leading Christian theologian.



Do you have any objections to Christians labeling such a serious psychic disorder or mental aberration and disturbance as exhibited by Dawkins as Dawkin's Delusion?

[Neandertal Ned]

What does that mean? Better how?

Dawkins has already used the 'delusion' argument on Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Do you think you can do any better?

Your trying to use the delusion argument on atheists. Not very original are you. The way I try to get through (notice I said try) to Christians in general is to address the heart of the matter, the bible. If I can show the bible to be errant, fictitious, unreliable, unnecessary to modern times, fraudulent, or deprived from any sort of inspiration then I feel that I have addressed the real issue. After that, if one still believes, I would address delusion on the part of the believer. I don't think people are delusional for believing in the bible or gods or anything for that matter, but if they have been shown evidence to the contrary and they still believe, then I start to wonder.

Delusion
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

-Wiki-

It is only after I present sufficient evidence to the contrary that I start to realize the delusion of the the individual.

How has the success rate of your approach (dare I say, technique) been working out for you? Do you use the same approach with Muslims and Jews or is your mission strictly limited to converting Christians to atheism? Would you classify your approach as personal, political, psychological, biological, sociological, religious, philosophical, anthropological, spiritual or scientific? What sort of evidence do you rely on when addressing delusion on the part of the believer?

[Neandertal Ned]

Just goes to show that everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Hardly. Considering the majority of people agreed to that review as well as others who were similar and the fact that the overall rating of this book isn't exactly high, I'd say all those statistic render a very uninviting and nonfactual read.

You obviously read the wrong review and are prejudiced against Christians and Christianity in favor of Dawkins Delusion.

Review
"McGrath identifies Dawkins' flawed arguments with surgical precision. McGrath spotlights Dawkins' embarrassing biblical ignorance and exposes his religion-as-virus-of-the-mind theory as sociological naivete. This intelligent, yet accessible book is a must-read for anyone interested in the subject or for those with friends sucked under by the new current of atheist literature." (New Man, November/December 2007 )

"The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism, made famous in The God Delusion, and run him from the battlefield." (Publishers Weekly, May 14, 2007 )

"Combining scholarship with a popular style, the McGraths examine Dawkins's arguments and find them wanting. They show the inadequacy of his argument on the major points, contending that Dawkins's critique of religion is based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence rather than on hard research and that he employs rhetoric rather than rationality." (Library Journal, August 2007 )

"One could hardly think of a better apologist for theism than Alister McGrath. This atheist-turned-Christian, also of Oxford, is a professor of historical theology. But as a student of molecular biophysics, he possesses the dual credibility in science and religion that Dawkins lacks. Like watching one schoolboy do another's work, McGrath's true gift is pointing out what Dawkins is obliged to show in order to make his case." (Christianity Today, November 2007 )

"Alister and Joanna McGrath offer a meaty book without all the gratuitous gristle, clearly making their points." (Jim Miller Review, June 2007 )

"You cannot help but be impressed with the depth of scholarship which the McGraths bring to this discussion--something markedly different than Dawkins." (Deinde blog, deinde.org, August 18, 2007 )

"You cannot argue with the McGraths' credentials or the content of this book. It is very well done." (Does God Exist? November/December 2007 )

"Alister McGrath provides an excellent rebuttal to Dawkin's arguments against God and religion. Scholarly, yes but also very readable for lay people." (M. F. in Libraries Alive, February 2008 )

"[T]he McGraths' book is an effective response." (Mark D. Barret, Esq., in Lay Witness, March/April 2008 )

"While not exhaustive (by design), the McGraths have offered us a well-reasoned critique of the atheistic arguments of Dawkins, and left us with a cogent description of the inherent weaknesses in The God Delusion. I recommend it to my friends on both sides of this debate." (Cliff Martin, Outside the Box (cliff-martin.blogspot.com), June 14, 2008 )

"[H]elps theistic people respond more intelligently to the current religion-bashing that has become a source of schadenfreude for some (though certainly not all) nonbelievers." (David von Schlichten, Lutheran Partners, July/August 2008 )

"This book will be warmly received by those looking for a reliable assessment of The God Delusion and the many questions it raised--including all the relevance of faith and the quest for meaning." (Enrichment Journal, Fall 2008 )

"This book will be warmly received by those who are looking for a real assessment of The God Delusion." ("What's New on the Bookshelf" with Shirley Updyke, WRGN )

"Alister McGrath invariably combines enormous scholarship with an accessible and engaging style." (Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury )

"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." (Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University )

"Richard Dawkins's utopian vision of a world without religion is here deftly punctured by the McGraths' informed discourse. His fellow Oxonians clearly demonstrate the gaps, inconsistencies and surprising lack of depth in Dawkins's arguments." (Owen Gingerich, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and author of God's Universe )

"With rigorous logic and exquisite fairness, the McGraths have exposed Dawkins's very superficial understanding of the history of religion and theology. Because he is so 'out of his depth' in these areas, Dawkins uses his fundamentalistic scientism and atheism to constantly misjudge the possibilities for dialogue between religion and science. Thank God for scholars like the McGraths who are committed to finding truth in both." (Dr. Timothy Johnson, physician, journalist and author of Finding God in the Questions )

"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 abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." (Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project )

"In this crisp and cogent book, Alister and Joanna McGrath note, among other things, how fundamentalist scientism fuels antiscientific Christian fundamentalism. They also remind us of well-documented associations between an active faith and measures of health and well-being. A must-read contribution to today's debate other whether religion spreads dangerous falsehoods or benevolent wisdom." (David G. Myers, Professor of Psychology, Hope College )

"McGrath has distinguished himself . . . as an historical theologian, [and] a generous, . . . witty writer who brings to life topics that would turn to dust in others' hands." (Publishers Weekly )

[LiamOS]

You obviously read the wrong review and are prejudiced against Christians and Christianity in favor of Dawkins Delusion.

And you're prejudiced against anything which contradicts your view.
I fail to see what your point was.

[Neandertal Ned]

You obviously read the wrong review and are prejudiced against Christians and Christianity in favor of Dawkins Delusion.

And you're prejudiced against anything which contradicts your view.
I fail to see what your point was.

Read the review of Dawkins Delusion which I just posted. Maybe you will get the point - maybe not. It's up to you.

[LiamOS]

You obviously read the wrong review and are prejudiced against Christians and Christianity in favor of Dawkins Delusion.

And you're prejudiced against anything which contradicts your view.
I fail to see what your point was.

Read the review of Dawkins Delusion which I just posted. Maybe you will get the point - maybe not. It's up to you.

The vast majority of those are from religious publications. Do you think it's surprising that they dislike Dawkins' publishings or something?
I'm still missing your point.

[Evointrinsic]

You obviously read the wrong review and are prejudiced against Christians and Christianity in favor of Dawkins Delusion.

I've already stated that the majority of reviews are like this and the rating of the book isn't near high enough to be considered a good read. Should I only be considering the minority of positive reviews (minority by far) to be more factual than the majority? This seems like an illogical way of assessing things.

[Neandertal Ned]

You obviously read the wrong review and are prejudiced against Christians and Christianity in favor of Dawkins Delusion.

And you're prejudiced against anything which contradicts your view.
I fail to see what your point was.

Read the review of Dawkins Delusion which I just posted. Maybe you will get the point - maybe not. It's up to you.

The vast majority of those are from religious publications.

So what? Are you prejudiced against religious publications?

Do you think it's surprising that they dislike Dawkins' publishings or something?

Like or dislike, I would not be surprised that they regard Dawkins' writings as rubbish.

I'm still missing your point.

So? What point are you making?

[Nickman]

What does that mean? Better how?

Dawkins has already used the 'delusion' argument on Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Do you think you can do any better?

Your trying to use the delusion argument on atheists. Not very original are you. The way I try to get through (notice I said try) to Christians in general is to address the heart of the matter, the bible. If I can show the bible to be errant, fictitious, unreliable, unnecessary to modern times, fraudulent, or deprived from any sort of inspiration then I feel that I have addressed the real issue. After that, if one still believes, I would address delusion on the part of the believer. I don't think people are delusional for believing in the bible or gods or anything for that matter, but if they have been shown evidence to the contrary and they still believe, then I start to wonder.

Delusion
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

-Wiki-

It is only after I present sufficient evidence to the contrary that I start to realize the delusion of the the individual.

How has the success rate of your approach (dare I say, technique) been working out for you? Do you use the same approach with Muslims and Jews or is your mission strictly limited to converting Christians to atheism? Would you classify your approach as personal, political, psychological, biological, sociological, religious, philosophical, anthropological, spiritual or scientific? What sort of evidence do you rely on when addressing delusion on the part of the believer?

Evidence pertinent to the topic at hand.

[Neandertal Ned]

What does that mean? Better how?

Dawkins has already used the 'delusion' argument on Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Do you think you can do any better?

Your trying to use the delusion argument on atheists. Not very original are you. The way I try to get through (notice I said try) to Christians in general is to address the heart of the matter, the bible. If I can show the bible to be errant, fictitious, unreliable, unnecessary to modern times, fraudulent, or deprived from any sort of inspiration then I feel that I have addressed the real issue. After that, if one still believes, I would address delusion on the part of the believer. I don't think people are delusional for believing in the bible or gods or anything for that matter, but if they have been shown evidence to the contrary and they still believe, then I start to wonder.

Delusion
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

-Wiki-

It is only after I present sufficient evidence to the contrary that I start to realize the delusion of the the individual.

How has the success rate of your approach (dare I say, technique) been working out for you? Do you use the same approach with Muslims and Jews or is your mission strictly limited to converting Christians to atheism? Would you classify your approach as personal, political, psychological, biological, sociological, religious, philosophical, anthropological, spiritual or scientific? What sort of evidence do you rely on when addressing delusion on the part of the believer?

Evidence pertinent to the topic at hand.

Such as? What evidence do you provide your targets with in order to convert them to your beliefs?

[Nickman]

Such as? What evidence do you provide your targets with in order to convert them to your beliefs?

I don't try to convert anyone. When I debate with people I provide evidence for my argument on whatever the topic is. It is up to them to rebut that argument. In every debate anyone can be correct and have evidenced truth. It starts as nill and works its way from there. I only post what I can actually evidence. If I cant evidence it then I don't believe it. If I am not familiar with the topic, I sit back and read and study until I am familiar with the subject.