Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God

by Benjamin Wiker and Scott Hahn

An important new work from Dr. Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker The essential book for dismantling Richard Dawkins' atheistic agenda. Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker collaborate to debunk Dawkins' theories... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1931018480
• ISBN13: 9781931018487
• Release Date: May 2008
• Publisher: Emmaus Road Publishing
• Length: 151 Pages
• Weight: 0.50 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.4" x 5.4" x 8.2"

Customer Reviews

A sound, sensible rebuttal to "The God Delusion"

It's refreshing to read such a well organized collection of thoughts and well-reasoned arguments, particularly when it addresses a collection of irrational, poorly-reasoned ideas such as those presented by Dawkins in "The God Delusion," a book so poorly written as an argument that even prominent atheist Michael Ruse said it made him "embarrassed to be an atheist." Harsh words, particularly when they're coming from a friendly camp. Ruse isn't the only "friendly" critic, by any means. I feel it's a shame, to be fair about it. I have always been impressed with Dawkins' skills as a writer dealing with popular and controversial ideas, and he just doesn't present a very smart argument in "The God Delusion." This book was badly needed. Dawkins is a very persuasive writer and has a devoted following, so getting readers of all stripes to buy into his argument is a simple task. But for anyone looking for a reasonable, rational argument, Dawkins' book is something of an embarrassment, regardless of your worldview. Dawkins proposes to disprove the Judeo-Christian God, but knows next to nothing about Him. As the authors of this book point out, Dawkins creates a strawman God on his own terms, and then proceeds to beat the tar out of him. There's just one problem: this god that Dawkins is trying so hard to disprove isn't even remotely like the God found in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Anyone can prove or disprove something when they are allowed to invent the premise to fit their argument. If you would allow me to create my own definition of God, I'm pretty certain I could prove His existence using established scientific facts, as I'd simply invent a definition of God that allowed me to do so. As the authors point out, Dawkins has committed this same sleight of hand, and slipped it right past many readers, who apparently saw nothing wrong with it. For those who haven't read this book yet, I'll try to explain it as quickly as possible, as understanding it is critical to understanding the rest of this review. To disprove the Judeo-Christian God, one must accept the description of Him found within the Judeo-Christian scriptures. This description suggests a God who existed before the creation event, and therefore outside of our four-dimensional world. He's also described as existing before our dimension of time began, and therefore not constrained by it. Additionally, this god-being is a spirit, not a physical entity. Dawkins dispenses with all of these annoying points, and moves forward with his own conveniently-designed definition of an evolved god. Dawkins believes that as our own intelligence is the result of evolution, then this God must have evolved as well. The numerous problems with this concept should be immediately clear. For starters, evolution works on physical beings with DNA, which, to the best of our knowledge, only exists within this 4-D Universe. How can you apply the powers of natural selection to a spirit? The problems then continue to s

Answering Dawkins fuzzy philosophy

For those in the faith and those outside of it, who move past any knee jerk reactions to reading a book disputing the neo-atheistic world view, will find a well thought-out, succinct, and civil dissection of Dawkin's beliefs and philosophy. Hahn and Wiker raise many well justified objections to Dawkin's atheism. Ranging from the absurdity implicated by his over confidence that chance is the explanation for any and every seemingly miraculous event (including the creations of the universe), to how that absurdity violates various maxims proposed by atheistic Philosophers (ex: No event that is more miraculous than the miracle that seeks to discredit can be used as a explanation to deny that a miracle actually occurred -David Humes). They also point out that Dawkin's is criticizing a theology that he himself proves he does not fully understand (see his "Athiests for Jesus" essay, and a large part of the God delusion.)Including how he asserts that we can live by (some of)Jesus's teachings without belief in their very foundation, God (mind you Neiche pointed out in the 1940s that if you remove God the entirety of christian ethics falls apart, including those adopted by secular culture) This book does what it sets out to do, provide insight into the various flaws in Dawkin's arguments in an academic and civil manner. Which, unfortunately is more than we can say about Dawkin's approach to dealing with "dyed-in-the-wool-faith-heads" or religious people to most. I would recommend this book to anyone curious about the "dialogue" between Religious scholars and neo-anti-theists. It might not change your mind but it will definitely provide a different and hopefully insightful prospective into Dawkin's beliefs. Five Stars

Case Dismantled

Hahn and Wiker do an excellent job of pointing out Dawkins philosophical shortcommings. Unfortunitely when one is so specialized in their field, they tend to miss other spheres of learning. I think if anything, they were a little too easy on Dawkins thinking. Dawkins idea of climbing mount Improbable in 3.5 billion years are according to David Berlinski's thinking, climbing Mount Impossible. Dawkins underplays chance, at this juncture, because chance must end before natural selection kicks in. Dawkins avoids chance at any cost, including the statue of the Virgin Mary's moving her arm, until his position becomes adsurd. There is an old saying in philosophy, namely, "what chance creates, chance destroys, because there is no meaning or purpose to chance". If you don't believe me, try chance out the next time you go to Vegas and you will prove this empirically. Some say chance is way overused and overstressed in the book. Not so, to begin life chance is necessary due to complxity, in the simplest molecule and a molecule is a long stretch to a cell. This is Dawkins leap of faith, comparable to Pascal's leap of faith. They both use ad-absurdums to prove their claims. Saint Thomas Aquinas deductive argument for God's existence, is unacceptable. But put Thomas's argument into an inductive framework and his argument works very well. Dawkins has enough science to lead one into things that are not science. They are purely Dawkins things that exist in Dawkins mind. David Berlinski says biology is much too much talk and little science, in short Berlinski says, "it's a room full of smoke". Now David Berlinski is much smarter and more diverse in education than Dawkins. Berlinski would have never been caught in the trap that Dawkins was hung in by Ben Stein. It wasn't hard to see what was coming. Dawkins seems to have some character defects according to his own writing and mouth. I see shades of solopsism in his thinking. Solopsists think, "the only reality that exists, is the reality I perceive in my own mind". He is not entirely this way, but I see the tendency is there. Now to the relative merits of relative morality and absolute morality. Under the 20th century "ism's"and their relative morality,there were more people killed than in the rest of all recorded history of mankind. Now just stop and think about that for a minute and it won't be some giant intellect that gives you the answer. "Comments by a Guilty Bystander" Edward Patrick O'Brien

Calm and rational response to Dawkins

I have never written a review before, but I felt so strongly about this book not because it is a defense of religion (it does not directly advocate any form of theism), but because it is a fully rational response to Dawkins and set out according to the very terms he has laid forth in his arguments against God. This book is written in a calm, collective, and fully rational way. It does so not by citing the Bible, but by playing on the same field as Dawkins and according to his own terms of evolutionary biology. This book demonstrates very effectively how Dawkins's unsound (but apparently sound for him) argumentation for the non-existence of a supernatural Being amounts to little more than soaring and highly influential rhetoric and oftentimes just plain bad science. It does all of this in a respectful and relaxed way, unlike the hostility, sneering tone, and sharp ridicule found in "The God Delusion". If you have read parts or all of "The God Delusion", or if you have heard about the book and are somewhat unsure exactly what Dawkins is all about, I very highly recommend this book. This book is NOT another "religious" book frantically written to help readers save their respective religion out of fear of atheism. It is a book of cool reason, the very reason that Dawkins himself, I imagine, would advocate but evidently doesn't practice. After reading some of the reviews on "The God Delusion" on this website, I noticed that there is a short video clip of Dawkins speaking about his book. In it he says, "I give in the book the argument, I think it is a rather strong argument, that there is no supernatural, supreme Being." And further, "The existence of God is a scientific question." If you have not seen this clip, I would highly recommend viewing it after reading "Answering the New Atheism". I very kindly urge reading "Answering the New Atheism" in order not to instantly become a devout believer, but in order to think and to reason logically. Please do not let Dawkins's rhetorical masterpiece undermine your intelligence.

Pleasantly Suprised

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).