Challenging Richard Dawkins:why Richard Dawkins is wrong about God

Most of the critiques of religion and the responses have been written by biologists, theologians of philosophers. The social scientits have been almost silent. This book is an exception. There is a wealth of material in psychology, social psychology and sociology. There is no need to resort to speculation. There are lot of studies concerning violence, mental health, well-being even happiness which shows that religion is a positive factor in human life.

There is no need to deny that a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religions, but atheistic societies have not fared too well. Can we really get rid of any religions or ideologies or any great ideas? I do not want to be in such kind of society.

It seems that science is a new God for many. One can paint a very idealistic view of science and technology, but in reality almost any technical invention has a negative side in it. The scientists are building bombs and supporting with their inventions the greenhouse effect. Of course, some scientists are in the service of good, but so are many religious persons.

I do not understand what is the point of making religion and science opponents. There is so much to do for common good.

So many factual errors about science or Dawkins's book that it's hardly worth persisting with. (37/43 people found this helpful)

If you're going to criticise a book, one of the first things you ought to do is quote from it correctly, surely? This book is littered with misreadings of what Dawkins says - and I don't mean misreadings of Dawkins's attitude, but plain old misreadings of Dawkins's text. On page 12, she says that 'Dawkins complains that he (Mendel) never got in touch with Darwin.' Look up the page reference - and the pages either side - and you can't find Dawkins saying any such thing. A little later, quoting Dawkins's affinity for the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, she refers to the 'Infinite Impossibility Drive,' when any HHGG fan knows that it's the Infinite Improbability Drive. And so on.

She makes hair-raising mistakes with her science, also. She says that computer parts are 'made of silicon, a more lasting carbon compound than human flesh,' - for Heaven's sake, woman, silicon is a different element from carbon, it's not a ruddy carbon compound. Einstein did not say 'God does not play dice' when the first atomic bomb was dropped; he said it because he could not come to terms with the probabalistic nature of quantum physics, and later he withdrew the statement. And so on - I drew the examples above from the first 40 pages and I could have cited more.

She says, on the basis of no evidence that I can see, that Dawkins 'has no interest in the current areas of scientific discovery, and considers all other areas of scholarship, including theology, a waste of time and effort.' Other people have testified to the range of Dawkins's interests, especially music, but that doesn't suit Ms. Jones; and under the heading 'Recent Discoveries in Cosmology' she cites facts such as the moon is dead, light takes eight minutes to travel from the sun, and the average distance between stars in space, but nothing more sophisticated than that ... hardly 'recent discoveries.'

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether she's actually chosen not to understand what Dawkins has to say; for example, in attempting to rebut Dawkins's drawing of an analogy between genes, natural viruses, infactions, and computer viruses (where Dawkins is saying that they are all transmissible between organisms) she says 'the transmission of genes requires a male and a female parent ... viruses are invasive ... their transmission is quite different from that of infective bacteria ... a computer virus is a means of wrecking other people's computer programs.' Besides being inaccurate in her differentiation of viruses from bacteria (and hasn't she heard of prions?) her last point is of a different order from all the others.

Of course, she uses all the tricks of language that you might expect in polemic (so people 'boast' or 'complain' or 'caricature') but so does Dawkins - though not to anything like the same extent, and hardly ever to make a weak point appear stronger.

It terrifies me that this woman is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, though this fact may explain the close-to-certifiable behaviour of the one psychiatrist whom I know well (and to whom every medical professional in my area refuses to refer their patients). I shall strap myself to the mast and finish it, but after a couple of hundred pages of bad science and her failure to read the book she's criticising I'll need a good wallow in something literate, astringent, and considerably better-informed that this unpleasant piece of polemic.

Excellent (18/41 people found this helpful)

This book really is a challenge to Richard Dawkins. Beautifully written and throughly researched, entertaining and thought-provoking. This book would be great for anyone who wonders if there is God. The wide range of subjects covered including cosmology, philosophy, biology, quantum mechanics, history and biology make it a such a wide ranging book (and a great read, whether you have read Dawkins or not). Its also an easy read and fun - highly recommended.

Challenging Richard Dawkins:why Richard Dawkins is wrong about God

Kathleen Jones

Reader Reviews:

Excellent response to the intolerant critique of Dawkins (9/27 people found this helpful)

So many factual errors about science or Dawkins's book that it's hardly worth persisting with. (37/43 people found this helpful)

Excellent (18/41 people found this helpful)

Similar Products

Categories