|
| Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God | 
 enlarge | Authors: Scott Hahn, Benjamin Wiker
Publisher: Emmaus Road Publishing
Category: Book
List Price: $12.95
Buy New: $8.17
You Save: $4.78 (37%)
New (13) Used (3) from $8.17
Avg. Customer Rating:  19 reviews
Sales Rank: 7785
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 152
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 8.2 x 5.3 x 0.4
ISBN: 1931018480
EAN: 9781931018487
ASIN: 1931018480
Publication Date: May 8, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The essential book for dismantling Richard Dawkins' atheistic agenda. Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker collaborate to debunk Dawkins' theories and show how inconsistent and illogical his conclusions truly are. This is the definitive book for college students or faithful Christians hoping to answer Dawkins' claims and assert the logic and beauty of their faith.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 14 more reviews...
 Surprisingly supportive of Dawkins. August 6, 2008
100 out of 135 found this review helpful
I was amazed at the loose argument put together by the authors. Everybody should just fast-forward to the last chapter and have a good laugh at the backwards thinking associated with these religious supporters.
Stem cell research is actually equated to an evolved form of cannibalism. Smart a@@ remarks are made about Dawkins. A hyperthetical King Dawkins is dragged through the mud and for some reason they bring his wife into the discussion in an attempt to irritate Dawkins. Clearly nothing is sacred to the writers.
Yes, that last chapter really shows the true colors of our religious authors. It is clear that by the end of their book they must have realized, as I did, that they had better throw some sticks and stones because the words used surely did nothing to dent Dawkins' argument.
For me they actually reinforced Dawkins argument. Pity they couldn't just turn the other cheek. Instead they apparently are going to take it on the nose.
 Only convincing from a cursory analysis September 6, 2008
71 out of 82 found this review helpful
I felt like large portions of this book were based on a few misunderstandings on the part of Hahn and Wiker. For instance, the authors wrote page after page explaining how exceedingly unlikely it is that a modern living cell could randomly jostle into place and come to life. Dawkins would agree with them on this point; even the simplest modern cells are extremely complex. But in The Blind Watchmaker (a book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker in Answering the New Atheism) Dawkins devoted an entire chapter to the subject of the origins of life. Dawkins even wrote "the only machinery of replication that we know [DNA] seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection" [p. 200]. He went on to explain how simple pre-DNA replicators could have provided the scaffolding necessary to evolve modern DNA replication. Hahn and Wiker quoted Dawkins from this very same chapter but omitted his explanation of the origins of life and instead erected a straw man argument to knock down. It's hard to believe that they were unaware of Dawkins' explanation, especially seeing as how Dawkins also devoted another chapter on the origins of life in Climbing Mount Improbable, another book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker. From Climbing Mount Improbable: "the original replicator probably was not DNA...unlike DNA, the original replicating molecules cannot have relied upon complicated machinery to duplicate them" [p. 285]. The (intentional?) omission of these arguments was disappointing.
The authors explicitly do not deny "that evolution is in very important ways a partial cause of human intelligence" [p 82]. However, they argue, there is "an enormous discrepancy between what is needed to survive, and the intellectual ability we've actually got" [p 50]. Human brains can figure out "what's going on inside atoms or inside black holes" which is "not at all necessary for Darwinian survival" [p. 50]. But various theories explain humans' intellectual capacities: for example, the use of language provided a significant benefit for those best able to use it, which led to more capable brains, which led to more complex language, which fueled a rapid self-sustaining upward spiral in mental capacity and language complexity. And there is no shortage of examples of evolved traits later being put to uses far different than those that provided the original benefits. There is little mystery here. Plus, human minds have great difficulty understanding and imagining quantum mechanics, for instance, because the concepts are very different than the familiar ones that we need to survive. This makes perfect sense in light of evolution.
Dawkins' main argument in The God Delusion is that "a designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right" [p. 136]. Hahn and Wiker assert that "it is only in Dawkins' treating God as having an evolved, material intelligence that allowed him the dubious luxury of discounting His existence as very, very improbable...since God is by definition purely spiritual, then the contingency of material atom-shuffling is inapplicable" [p. 65]. But if not atom-shuffling, then what? However God came to be still needs an explanation which is entirely side-stepped by the authors. Why would non-physical intelligence need any less explanation than physical intelligence? I can understand it would be a different kind of explanation, but the authors offer none at all and utterly fail to counter Dawkins' main argument. It's like answering "why is the sky blue?" with "it's not blue, it's light blue" and then failing to offer an explanation of why the sky is light blue.
Most of the authors' discussion of atheist morality is based on a simple assumption that is just false: that whatever is best for our selfish genes is by definition "moral". "Does it promote survival? If it does, it is `good'" [p. 118]. Thus, they question how Dawkins can condemn the brutal practices in the Old Testament as immoral since natural selection is equally brutal. Even granting their premise for the moment, they do not make any attempt to defend the atrocities described in the Old Testament as moral according to their own God-given standard of morality. They criticize morality based on natural selection as no better than that of the Old Testament, then go on to upbraid morality based on natural selection as repugnant. Does that mean the morality taught in the Old Testament is also repugnant? Because that was what Dawkins argued and all the authors effectively responded with was "oh yeah? Well your morality is repugnant, too!" But in doing so they assumed that what is good for our selfish genes is by definition "moral" according to the atheist. This leads to all kinds of wild conclusions that sound more like a caricature of imaginary outrageous "evil people" rather than real life atheists. Dawkins explicitly states in The Selfish Gene "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution" [p. 2].
Either Dawkins is right and there is no personal God, or he is wrong and there is one. If he is right, then all the moral principles of Christianity espoused by the authors must come from the very same sources as Dawkins' morality. That is, they are invented by humans who are the product of evolution. Evolved human beings are perfectly capable of inventing their own systems of morality. Those systems aren't right or wrong in an absolute sense, but they can be better or worse at attaining such goals as minimizing suffering and pain.
The final chapter is a truly ridiculous "warning" to all the faithful of the awful perversions of society that would surely befall any country who allowed an atheist any kind of political power. It is reminiscent of the ludicrous 1930's anti-marijuana propaganda film "Reefer Madness" which depicted mild mannered citizens transforming into raving lunatics, killing each other and jumping out of windows after smoking marijuana. The atheists will take your children away! They'll shut down the churches! They'll mandate abortions and euthanasia! The authors described Hitler, not Dawkins, and not atheists in general.
It would take another entire book to counter all the authors' arguments, so I have offered only a few here. But despite this books shortfalls, it is an interesting read which provides insights into Catholic philosophy and views of atheists.
 Interesting but not much help to the seeker August 24, 2008
57 out of 77 found this review helpful
Dawkins and his like-minded associates have written what many consider to be polemics rather than sound, scientific arguments against the existence of God. Dawkins, in particular, seems to write more out of anger and frustration than on the basis of sound critical thinking and detailed factual analysis. That is not to say that he fails to ask key questions and to point out weaknesses and fallacies in much of Christian thinking. Alas, his snide, condescending, and pretentious style so puts off many of his readers that they fail to consider the possible worth of his arguments. Thereby, he does himself and other proponents of reasoned atheism a great disservice.
Into the frey marches then Scott Hahn, a prolific and pablumesque purveyor of conventional Roman Catholic doctrine. (Forgive the disgusting alliteration.) Dr. Hahn is a popularizer of the Roman Church who attempts to subject Dr. Dawkins to a thrashing based on the basis of old Roman arguments in not-quite-so-acid tones of dismissal.
Neither author is especially successful. Dawkins because he picks the low-hanging fruit of doctrinaire Christianity and assumes that by poking holes in some of its more simple-minded assertions he has destroyed theism in toto. Hahn because, like Aquinas, his reasoned deconstructions of Dawkins' thought begin with a number of basic assumptions that he puts forward with little or no effort at proof.
If only philosophers and theologians would recall that their disciplines are invariably retrospective and reductionist, it would be easier to focus on the underlying question of whether or not there is a sentient generative force in the creation. Lacking the tools to research that ultimate question very effectively,we use the tools that we have, often without realizing just how frail and flawed they are.
The strongest argument that human beings have for appreciating the reality and presence of God is experience of the divine. So long as Dawkins considers that he can vitiate such experience by declaring it irrational and delusional, and so long as Hahn can parlay that experience into the glories of the Roman Church, neither will be of great help to the seeker. They will only serve as cheerleaders and propagandists for their respective followers.
 Pleasantly Suprised June 3, 2008
41 out of 61 found this review helpful
I have spent some time reading Dawkin's God Delusion, Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis, and numerous other works by the "four horsemen" in recent years. I have come to respect intellectual couragousness by the authors; but, not the tone many of their criticisms have taken.
I and many like me who may not possess degrees in the natural sciences (or philosophical logic, for that matter!) are often misled by seemingly powerful rhetoric in these books. These ideas, left uncontested, may result in eternal consequences for atheists should the precepts of Christianity prove true.
'The Reason for God', Keller was failed to meet Dr. Dawkins' face to face as necessary on many of his arguments. It specifically managed to avoid many of scientific speak that would have given it more credibility and convincing.
For this reason we should be grateful for Dr. Hahn's commitment to balancing the argument. He succeeds in providing a systematic, logical dismantling of many of Dawkins' errors, whilst giving credit where due.
I predict this book will engross curious minds until the last page and you will walk away having a renewed "faith" in the logic of the Church's positions.
As far as cons are concerned:
No good news for some Protestants who do not admit the possibility of macroevolution (including homosapeins). The arguments are written by a Catholic theologian who has absorbed some well established laws and theories as tentative fact. If your beliefs stand to be threatened by the ever growing realization of macroevolution, then Dawkins has you pinned on many points, I'm afraid.
Also, While Dr. Hahn truly attempts to keep his composure and professionalism throughout the book when refuting "absurdities", he does trip sometimes into condescending undertones against those who may have been persuaded by Dawkins' works.
As a final note, I should like to add that the final part on imagining a "King Richard" governmental policy is a fascinating parody and also frightening when compared with similar Marxist governmental experiments.
Overall, this is just the kind of rebuttal that is required to match the quality of Dawkins' persuasion. I am on edge to see what he should pen next. For similar theologian heavyweight issues, see Ratzinger (Benedict XVI).
A very important book. Everyone should read it. July 12, 2008
21 out of 38 found this review helpful
I know we should never judge a book by its cover, but in this case the cover is particularly good. It depicts a caricature of Dawkins, cast as Adam in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam. But in contrast with the original painting, in which Adam submissively holds his finger out to receive life from the finger of God, Dawkins arrogantly holds his finger up, refusing to acknowledge God's existence. A painting represents a moment of time frozen in eternity, and thus, the finger of God continues to point, offering life to Dawkins, but he continues to refuse it. Also unlike the original, in which Adam in his innocence is completely naked, Dawkins at least has a copy of The God Delusion to cover him - but the book is rather small and serves to emphasize his nakedness as much as to cover it. And that is the message: this excellent book leaves him looking very naked indeed.
I have seen several attempts, both long and short, to unravel the errors of The God Delusion (and I have even made one myself), but as far as I can see, this book far surpasses all of them. Its great strength is that the authors do not attempt to knock down Dawkins' assertions point by point but tease out the illogicalities and inconsistencies underpinning his whole argument.
The first four chapters deal with the question of God's existence. Here the authors demonstrate admirably how Dawkins fudges the concepts of probability and the anthropic principle to manufacture arguments which have the illusion of substance but in reality are utterly invalid. They then explain how his failure to grasp the basic principles of philosophy and theology lead him to misinterpret completely the demonstrations of the existence of God, most significantly Thomas Aquinas' five proofs. Since these arguments are central to Dawkins' thesis, discrediting them destroys his whole case.
Along the way, they make some other interesting points: for example, that the human intellect and the development of science cannot be explained on evolutionary principles, since the intellect goes far beyond what is necessary for survival and reproduction, and science, at least in its early stages, was a purely intellectual pursuit with no relevance to survival or reproduction. They also demolish the "prayer experiment" quoted by Dawkins. Most importantly, perhaps, they show how his refusal to understand the nature of God makes most of his arguments irrelevant.
Chapters 5 and 6 deal with moral principles and show that both Darwin and Dawkins are inconsistent in their application of morality. Darwin stated that morality should be based on evolutionary principles, but then contradicted this by exalting the value of sympathy over everything else. Dawkins, claiming that our moral values have all been derived from natural selection and that there is no such thing as absolute good or evil, goes on to propose that we should support good and oppose evil by upholding moral norms which are directly opposed to natural selection. Tellingly, neither of them could give any good reason why this does not invalidate their principles.
Chapter 5 is very well argued but probably a bit long-winded and heavy for the average reader, but chapter 6 is the climax of the book, a brilliant tour de force, which does not so much demolish Dawkins' arguments on morality as allow him to demolish them himself by showing that his ideas are completely self-contradictory. Essentially, Dawkins believes that our understanding of the universe should be based on evolutionary principles, yet all his complaints against the morality of the Bible are really directed against the application of these principles. The Jews of the Old Testament were the perfect exemplars of a world ruled by natural selection, and thus should be most worthy of an evolutionist's praise.
However, it is chapters 7 & 8 which are the most important. They show that Dawkins' atheist rhetoric is not merely an academic exercise but a manifesto designed to be put into practice, like The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf. Their glimpse of a world based on Dawkinsist principles is truly frightening, and perhaps closer than we think.
Everyone who has read Dawkins, and even those who have not, should read this book. The tragedy is that relatively few will.
P.S. I must admit, however, that there is one respect in which The God Delusion is far superior to Answering the New Atheism: Dawkins provides an excellent index, while Hahn and Wiker have none.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
