True story? Hmm. It's a narrative of the events of the great fire of London based on manuscripts, letters and other archival material. I'm always uneasy about these kinds of claims to "Truth". However, it was quite an entertaining read, though the description of what happened to the man suspected of starting the fire was rather gruesome.2. Steve Fuller, Kuhn vs Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science.
I don't think a chapter each night before bed is the best way to read Fuller... I did enjoy the anecdotes, and I was inspired to read all of Fuller's Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times - a book in which he compares Kuhn to the main character in Being There (I didn't realise how insulting that was until I saw the movie!) I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Fuller came down on the side of Popper, though I was a little struck by his support for Popperian philosophy of science. This is the kind of book I generally need to read twice to fully grasp!
3. Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life.
I haven't read much of McGrath's work, which is perhaps surprising. After reading this book, I am certainly compelled to read more. McGrath's critique of Dawkins is gracious but direct. He takes on Dawkins on his own ground - rational argument - and I think McGrath comes out on top. I'll let you know for sure once I've read Dawkins' latest! McGrath primarily challenges Dawkins' view of religion, arguing that it is nothing like what most religious people subscribe to, and whether atheism necessarily follows from Darwinian Evolution (a resounding 'no', in case you were wondering!) I'm fascinated by this quote from Dawkins in the Times Literary Supplement:Alister McGrath's book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life does a fair and sophisticated job of summarising my position.
I should try to seek out the entire article - it would be interesting to read Dawkins' detailed responses to McGrath's critique. In the meantime, I can fully recommend McGrath's book - it is absolutely excellent.
Next on the reading list:
- Michael Ruse, Can A Darwinian Be A Christian?
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
- Patrick Dillon, The Last Revolution: 1688 and the Creation of the Modern World
12 comments:
I realise you haven't read it yet but what do you think of the title Can A Darwinian Be A Christian?? Would you prefer to read something called Can a Christian Be a Darwinian??
I haven't read it either but I think it's safe to say you'll enjoy it more than anything by, or even about, Dawkins. Ruse takes a far more moderate approach and even took Dennett to task for his uncompromising attitude. Dawkins describes Ruse's attitude as "appeasement", comparing himself to Churchill!
At the time McGrath wrote his book, Dawkins most explicit ant-God argument was in his chapter 'God's Utility Function' in 'River out of Eden.'
Guess what? McGrath ignored it. He ran away from the argument.
Dawkius goes on to say that all McGrath can respond is the claim (which Dawkins says is undeniable) that you cannot disprove the existence of God.
As Dawkins is , according to McGrath, not an atheist, ie Dawkins has not ruled out the possibility of God existing, then what was the point of McGrath's book?
Lara, have a look at McGrath's book called simply Nature. It's the first in his three-part series 'A scientific theology'. It's heavy going but I think you'll find it relevant.
Hi Steven, hope you're well.
Nick: I'm about half-way through Can a Darwinian be a Christian? I'm enjoying it so far, though I do have some problems with it. If the title was the other way around, I think the main difference would be the starting assumption. For Ruse, Darwinism is undeniable. For the author of the other suggested book, Christianity would be undeniable. I'll post more thoughts once I've finished reading it.
Steven: I think the point of McGrath's book was to show that Dawkins' view of religion, which he emphatically rejects as superstitious nonsense, is not a view that many Christians or other religious people would subscribe to. For many (I'm reluctant to say most) Christians, belief in God is not about unquestioning blind faith.
The other point was to examine Dawkins' view that evolution necessarily leads to atheism, something that McGrath doesn't agree with (and neither does Michael Ruse, from what I've read so far).
Byron: thanks for the book recommendation. I will certainly check it out sometime - I do want to read more of McGrath.
'For many (I'm reluctant to say most) Christians, belief in God is not about unquestioning blind faith.'
Ask Abraham , who had blind unquestioning faith in God.
Steven: it's a bit hard to call Abraham a Christian, or even a Jew, though he was chosen by God. I also think he's a different kind of example. God spoke to him personally. But besides that, did he have blind, unquestioning faith? I don't think we're told. I'm guessing he had reasons to believe God, not least that God appeared to him. Anyway, there were times he didn't trust God - the most obvious resulting in Ishmael - but he did see God keep promises.
I'm a Christian. I don't have unquestioning blind faith. Alister McGrath is a Christian. He doesn't have unquestioning blind faith. That's just two instances of falsification counting against Dawkins' thesis, and there are plenty more where they came from.
'Steven: I think the point of McGrath's book was to show that Dawkins' view of religion, which he emphatically rejects as superstitious nonsense, is not a view that many Christians or other religious people would subscribe to.'
I'm sure many astrologers don't regard astrology as nonsense.
Could you rephrase your point please?
Kierkergaard claimed that Abraham had blind unquestioning faith - belief despite the evidence.
Presuambly Abraham had faith that God would never ask him to sacrifice his son, so the evidence was against the idea that it really was God, who had asked him to do that.
But he obeyed anyway.
My point was that Dawkins regards blind faith as irrational superstition. He also thinks that all religion is blind faith, and hence religion is irrational superstition. For many (at least) Christians, Christianity is not blind faith. Hence what Dawkins rejects is not Christianity. He's setting up a straw man to knock down.
As for Abraham, I don't think your argument follows, but we don't have enough information to make that judgment anyway. Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac, the son that God had promised him. All we can know is that he had faith that God would fulfil his promises, even though it didn't seem possible at the time. This faith had basis - God had already fulfilled the promise of a son by Abraham and Sarah managing to conceive and give birth to Isaac when they were so old. As it turned out, Abraham's faith in God was justified - God provided a lamb to be sacrificed instead. This could be interpreted as God testing Abraham's faith, or God showing that he wasn't like the gods of other nations that did demand child sacrifices.
Post a Comment