2008-09-07 Insightful analysis that could be better

Reading many of the other reviews of this book, it's pretty clear that most had their minds made up before they ever opened it. I don't recognize in many of the hostile reviews the book that I read. This probably shows that both Dawkins and McGrath are inevitably preaching to the choir, to use a religious metaphor - that Dawkins (writing about religion) will persuade many zealous atheists, despite the (sometimes almost unbelievable!) superficiality of his analysis, and that McGrath will persuade many devout Christians, despite the circularity of some of his arguments.
So, having said all that, Dawkins' God is a lucidly written book, which homes in relentlessly on the weaknesses in Dawkins' treatment of religion - it's strength is that it covers a wide range of Dawkins' writings (rather than just book - a number of Amazon reviewers seem to have missed this, terming Dawkins' God a rebuttal of The God Delusion - read the footnotes!). Its weaknesses are threefold, I think.
First is that at times McGrath on Dawkins is guilty of the same sin as Dawkins on religion - he asserts without sufficient evidence. Yes, this is a short book, for general readers, but some more substantiation is needed of claims about the nature of faith. McGrath is doubtless right that many university-based theologians don't treat faith as simplistic, which is one of Dawkins' major arguments, and very annoying to the many Christians who do blend faith and reason. But there are also many religious people who DO have a very simple faith - and in fact many Christians, at any rate, are proud of that, and actively try to promote simple and simplistic faith, rejecting any use of reason or science. McGrath's characterization of the nature of Christian is not substantiated, in effect he says "It's so because I say it's so" - and thus he fails to acknowledge the complexity and nuances of the nature of religious faith is more complex. (Dawkins is, of course, exactly the same!)
The second weakness is that the writing, though lucid and attractive, is sometimes disorganised. The structure and transitions from one section to the next don't always make sense. This is not always the case and even when present it sometimes is only an irritation, but at times it's a serious weakness.
The chapter on the 'battle between science and religion' is an example - McGrath keeps asserting that in fact the idea that science and religion have always been in conflict is wrong - but he doesn't really substantiate that in his text (I'll come back to that in a minute) and just keeps repeating it, writing around and around in a circle. To be fair to McGrath, his notes cite a series of works on the history of the relationship between science and religion which do support his view - but he doesn't summarize their arguments very well, so that there is no evidence in the text - and there really needs to be, it can't all be left to reading a dozen monographs or articles.
Third, at times McGrath descends into petty points scoring. Again, it isn't frequent, but I think it happens more as the book advances, and while Dawkins is actually much nastier, personally, about people of faith than McGrath is about Dawkins, it still isn't to McGrath's credit. When the arguments become ad hominem, too, it is likely to make a reader doubt the argument.
Nevertheless, much of the book is a detailed and insightful dissection of Dawkins' writings, which superbly brings out that Dawkins is a superb writer with a gift for a brilliant turn of phrase, but that he completely loses his detachment when dealing with religion, in response to which tends to assemble a series of weak, even inane, arguments that have been around forever, and advances them as though they are somehow new, brilliant insights. However, the occasional circularity of some of McGrath's own arguments and a slight tendency to assume, rather than demonstrate, the accuracy of some of his assertions, mean that some of Dawkins' criticisms of religion are unanswered. This is insightful, and exposes the superficiality of much of Dawkins' writing on religion - but it is not the comprehensive critique of Dawkins that the book's publicity claims it to be.