backwards maybe, 15 Sep 2008
This is a thick tomb, not so portable as a set of keys but much more portable than a well stocked library. - what you need to look up the writings of the authors mentioned in this book. This book is a tourist guide to intellectual places you have never considered visiting, or wanted to but didn't know where to start.
I think this book may have been more readable to the non English Lit. graduate had the contents been presented from the most recent to the least. It takes effort to read the early entries and to understand them.
Stick with it nonetheless your brain may ache from the effort but it will be fitter because of it.

Thoughtful selection of Atheist, Agnostic and Rationalist writing from across the ages., 25 May 2008
This book is perhaps slightly undersold by it's title, it's a pretty solid tome, still portable I suppose but it must be a good 2 or 3 inches thick. The second part of the title is also a little misleading, the majority of the authors are indeed atheists, but not limited to the more militant kind one might expect Hitchens to choose. There's a broad spectrum of Humanist, Secularist and Rationalist writing spanning from Lucretius and Spinoza to Ibn Warraq and Sam Harris. The book progresses through these in a roughly chronological order charting the way human thought on the divine (or lack thereof) has changed and progressed.

The readings are well chosen and Hitchens provides a little introduction and context to each section (if I had one minor complaint it would be that these intros could have been even longer, they were fascinating in their own right). He also provides an overall intro to the book as a whole.

If I was to direct someone, atheist or theist, to a single book to explain non-theistic world views to them, it would have to be this.



Nourishment for the mind, 11 Mar 2008
An absolutely dazzling work. As a recovering Christian I am actively seeking out the thoughts of the great secularists down through the ages.
Particular highlights for me were the writings of Mark Twain on the Church's position on slavery, and also a remarkable deconstruction of every Christian argument regarding morality and God by Elizabet Anderson. Its one of those books that I'd love my wife and my Christian friends to read. Sadly, the bubble of false consolation and cognitive bias appears overwhelmingly strong. My experience tells me that the only evidence that Christians can cope with is Christian evidence. A truly impartial assesment of the available evidence from both sides seems a pose a real challenge to them.

A vital purchase, 13 Feb 2008
Here's a book that will expand your mind. And how could it not? Look at the contributors it boasts: Einstein, Darwin, Orwell, Larkin, Twain, McEwan, Rushdie, Hume, Shelley, Russell, Dawkins and many more. Plus you get a main introduction and author introductions from the erudite and savagely witty Hitchens.
A word of warning: the first 100 pages are a bit sticky to wade through. This is because the book's essays are arranged in chronological order so we start with some ancient texts where the English is very heavy and dozens of commas adorn each sentence. There are some wonderful points made of course, but extreme concentration is required to pick them all up.
Things brighten after that and the book becomes highly readable. The majority of the essays are informative, stimulating and beautifully written. Highlights for me included Dawkins (as ever), who once again comes over as the world's best science writer, Larkin's stirring poem Aubade, AC Grayling's succinct essay, Can An Atheist Be A Fundamentalist?, and Ibn Warraq's brilliant dismantling of Islamic beliefs. If only Muslims would read it - but if they did they'd likely just throw it on the nearest fire.
We have much work to do. It may be a thousand years before the awfulness of religion is eradicated from the world, but books like this help: they perpetuate the `drip-down' effect. In the West we were well on the way to eradicating it before several million Muslims came to live here. Personally I doubt that nothing but a devastating clash of civilizations can be the result (we have of course already seen such clashes). Reading this book underlined my belief that this will be the case.
In conclusion, this book is highly recommended. If you only buy one atheist book buy this one (although The God Delusion is also fantastic). In the end you must decide which version of man's evolution and the planet's creation you believe: the views of thousands of the world's greatest ever minds of the past few hundred years; or words written a long, long time ago by people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun went round it, as passed on to them by other people who could not read or write and had not travelled, in their whole lives, more than a few miles from their primitive, parochial townships. I know who I'd prefer to believe.
PS On reflection I'd give this five stars but Amazon don't appear to allow you to edit star ratings.

Excellent, 10 Feb 2008
The choice of writings contained within this anthology is wide and varied, and endlessly fascinating and intellectually stimulating. There is enough ammunition contained within its covers to keep the active atheist on the offensive through many a debate.

An interesting feature for me is just how many times in this volume I have come across paragraphs, just sentences even, that by themselves fatally undermine the entire 'logic' of organised religion. Example: the quote from Mill regarding the monstrous cruelty (and thus laughable improbability) of a supposedly merciful and loving supreme being who plainly (according to the good books, damned in their own words as ever) creates beings by his own hand solely to condemn them to hell fire and damnation. Do what? My other favourite is Ian MacEwan's comments on curiousity being one of the definitions of human freedom of thought, and how organised religions fear almost nothing more - see St Augustine on that one. It's true: the Western religions live in terror of truly free thought, yet without it the human race would still be living in caves. Humanity has advanced to attain astonishing levels of scientific knowledge, yet for centuries it has been a continual fight to achieve it against the squeals of thwarted God-botherers.

Outstanding.

backwards maybe, 15 Sep 2008
This is a thick tomb, not so portable as a set of keys but much more portable than a well stocked library. - what you need to look up the writings of the authors mentioned in this book. This book is a tourist guide to intellectual places you have never considered visiting, or wanted to but didn't know where to start.
I think this book may have been more readable to the non English Lit. graduate had the contents been presented from the most recent to the least. It takes effort to read the early entries and to understand them.
Stick with it nonetheless your brain may ache from the effort but it will be fitter because of it.

Thoughtful selection of Atheist, Agnostic and Rationalist writing from across the ages., 25 May 2008
This book is perhaps slightly undersold by it's title, it's a pretty solid tome, still portable I suppose but it must be a good 2 or 3 inches thick. The second part of the title is also a little misleading, the majority of the authors are indeed atheists, but not limited to the more militant kind one might expect Hitchens to choose. There's a broad spectrum of Humanist, Secularist and Rationalist writing spanning from Lucretius and Spinoza to Ibn Warraq and Sam Harris. The book progresses through these in a roughly chronological order charting the way human thought on the divine (or lack thereof) has changed and progressed.

The readings are well chosen and Hitchens provides a little introduction and context to each section (if I had one minor complaint it would be that these intros could have been even longer, they were fascinating in their own right). He also provides an overall intro to the book as a whole.

If I was to direct someone, atheist or theist, to a single book to explain non-theistic world views to them, it would have to be this.



Nourishment for the mind, 11 Mar 2008
An absolutely dazzling work. As a recovering Christian I am actively seeking out the thoughts of the great secularists down through the ages.
Particular highlights for me were the writings of Mark Twain on the Church's position on slavery, and also a remarkable deconstruction of every Christian argument regarding morality and God by Elizabet Anderson. Its one of those books that I'd love my wife and my Christian friends to read. Sadly, the bubble of false consolation and cognitive bias appears overwhelmingly strong. My experience tells me that the only evidence that Christians can cope with is Christian evidence. A truly impartial assesment of the available evidence from both sides seems a pose a real challenge to them.

A vital purchase, 13 Feb 2008
Here's a book that will expand your mind. And how could it not? Look at the contributors it boasts: Einstein, Darwin, Orwell, Larkin, Twain, McEwan, Rushdie, Hume, Shelley, Russell, Dawkins and many more. Plus you get a main introduction and author introductions from the erudite and savagely witty Hitchens.
A word of warning: the first 100 pages are a bit sticky to wade through. This is because the book's essays are arranged in chronological order so we start with some ancient texts where the English is very heavy and dozens of commas adorn each sentence. There are some wonderful points made of course, but extreme concentration is required to pick them all up.
Things brighten after that and the book becomes highly readable. The majority of the essays are informative, stimulating and beautifully written. Highlights for me included Dawkins (as ever), who once again comes over as the world's best science writer, Larkin's stirring poem Aubade, AC Grayling's succinct essay, Can An Atheist Be A Fundamentalist?, and Ibn Warraq's brilliant dismantling of Islamic beliefs. If only Muslims would read it - but if they did they'd likely just throw it on the nearest fire.
We have much work to do. It may be a thousand years before the awfulness of religion is eradicated from the world, but books like this help: they perpetuate the `drip-down' effect. In the West we were well on the way to eradicating it before several million Muslims came to live here. Personally I doubt that nothing but a devastating clash of civilizations can be the result (we have of course already seen such clashes). Reading this book underlined my belief that this will be the case.
In conclusion, this book is highly recommended. If you only buy one atheist book buy this one (although The God Delusion is also fantastic). In the end you must decide which version of man's evolution and the planet's creation you believe: the views of thousands of the world's greatest ever minds of the past few hundred years; or words written a long, long time ago by people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun went round it, as passed on to them by other people who could not read or write and had not travelled, in their whole lives, more than a few miles from their primitive, parochial townships. I know who I'd prefer to believe.
PS On reflection I'd give this five stars but Amazon don't appear to allow you to edit star ratings.

Excellent, 10 Feb 2008
The choice of writings contained within this anthology is wide and varied, and endlessly fascinating and intellectually stimulating. There is enough ammunition contained within its covers to keep the active atheist on the offensive through many a debate.

An interesting feature for me is just how many times in this volume I have come across paragraphs, just sentences even, that by themselves fatally undermine the entire 'logic' of organised religion. Example: the quote from Mill regarding the monstrous cruelty (and thus laughable improbability) of a supposedly merciful and loving supreme being who plainly (according to the good books, damned in their own words as ever) creates beings by his own hand solely to condemn them to hell fire and damnation. Do what? My other favourite is Ian MacEwan's comments on curiousity being one of the definitions of human freedom of thought, and how organised religions fear almost nothing more - see St Augustine on that one. It's true: the Western religions live in terror of truly free thought, yet without it the human race would still be living in caves. Humanity has advanced to attain astonishing levels of scientific knowledge, yet for centuries it has been a continual fight to achieve it against the squeals of thwarted God-botherers.

Outstanding.

Witty and Friendly, 22 Sep 2008
Darwins Angel pokes the holes in Dawkins arguments easily (it does not take much) and with a great deal of wit. That is the great enjoyment of the book. Cornwell uses the guise of Darwins Angel who becomes Dawkins Angel as he claims to be Darwins heir, of which Darwin I am sure would be horrified although I am sure Professor Dawkins would think it a great mark of respect for Darwin to be associated with him.

Each argument is dealt with and the flaws in the logic appear all too apparent, and there are some laugh out loud moments. An entertainng book with a very serious purpose!



Creepy comeback, 21 Sep 2008
Honestly, this is creepier than Stephen King. It's an attack on Dawkin's book while trying to disguise itself as a friend - the result is a kind of illness of the intellect. Because this is so transparent it's a little bit funny, and certainly a textbook on malicious spin doctoring - but when the writer's motive is more obvious to the reader than the author you know you're dealing with a bit of a nutter. A very stupid book.

backwards maybe, 15 Sep 2008
This is a thick tomb, not so portable as a set of keys but much more portable than a well stocked library. - what you need to look up the writings of the authors mentioned in this book. This book is a tourist guide to intellectual places you have never considered visiting, or wanted to but didn't know where to start.
I think this book may have been more readable to the non English Lit. graduate had the contents been presented from the most recent to the least. It takes effort to read the early entries and to understand them.
Stick with it nonetheless your brain may ache from the effort but it will be fitter because of it.

Thoughtful selection of Atheist, Agnostic and Rationalist writing from across the ages., 25 May 2008
This book is perhaps slightly undersold by it's title, it's a pretty solid tome, still portable I suppose but it must be a good 2 or 3 inches thick. The second part of the title is also a little misleading, the majority of the authors are indeed atheists, but not limited to the more militant kind one might expect Hitchens to choose. There's a broad spectrum of Humanist, Secularist and Rationalist writing spanning from Lucretius and Spinoza to Ibn Warraq and Sam Harris. The book progresses through these in a roughly chronological order charting the way human thought on the divine (or lack thereof) has changed and progressed.

The readings are well chosen and Hitchens provides a little introduction and context to each section (if I had one minor complaint it would be that these intros could have been even longer, they were fascinating in their own right). He also provides an overall intro to the book as a whole.

If I was to direct someone, atheist or theist, to a single book to explain non-theistic world views to them, it would have to be this.



Nourishment for the mind, 11 Mar 2008
An absolutely dazzling work. As a recovering Christian I am actively seeking out the thoughts of the great secularists down through the ages.
Particular highlights for me were the writings of Mark Twain on the Church's position on slavery, and also a remarkable deconstruction of every Christian argument regarding morality and God by Elizabet Anderson. Its one of those books that I'd love my wife and my Christian friends to read. Sadly, the bubble of false consolation and cognitive bias appears overwhelmingly strong. My experience tells me that the only evidence that Christians can cope with is Christian evidence. A truly impartial assesment of the available evidence from both sides seems a pose a real challenge to them.

A vital purchase, 13 Feb 2008
Here's a book that will expand your mind. And how could it not? Look at the contributors it boasts: Einstein, Darwin, Orwell, Larkin, Twain, McEwan, Rushdie, Hume, Shelley, Russell, Dawkins and many more. Plus you get a main introduction and author introductions from the erudite and savagely witty Hitchens.
A word of warning: the first 100 pages are a bit sticky to wade through. This is because the book's essays are arranged in chronological order so we start with some ancient texts where the English is very heavy and dozens of commas adorn each sentence. There are some wonderful points made of course, but extreme concentration is required to pick them all up.
Things brighten after that and the book becomes highly readable. The majority of the essays are informative, stimulating and beautifully written. Highlights for me included Dawkins (as ever), who once again comes over as the world's best science writer, Larkin's stirring poem Aubade, AC Grayling's succinct essay, Can An Atheist Be A Fundamentalist?, and Ibn Warraq's brilliant dismantling of Islamic beliefs. If only Muslims would read it - but if they did they'd likely just throw it on the nearest fire.
We have much work to do. It may be a thousand years before the awfulness of religion is eradicated from the world, but books like this help: they perpetuate the `drip-down' effect. In the West we were well on the way to eradicating it before several million Muslims came to live here. Personally I doubt that nothing but a devastating clash of civilizations can be the result (we have of course already seen such clashes). Reading this book underlined my belief that this will be the case.
In conclusion, this book is highly recommended. If you only buy one atheist book buy this one (although The God Delusion is also fantastic). In the end you must decide which version of man's evolution and the planet's creation you believe: the views of thousands of the world's greatest ever minds of the past few hundred years; or words written a long, long time ago by people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun went round it, as passed on to them by other people who could not read or write and had not travelled, in their whole lives, more than a few miles from their primitive, parochial townships. I know who I'd prefer to believe.
PS On reflection I'd give this five stars but Amazon don't appear to allow you to edit star ratings.

Excellent, 10 Feb 2008
The choice of writings contained within this anthology is wide and varied, and endlessly fascinating and intellectually stimulating. There is enough ammunition contained within its covers to keep the active atheist on the offensive through many a debate.

An interesting feature for me is just how many times in this volume I have come across paragraphs, just sentences even, that by themselves fatally undermine the entire 'logic' of organised religion. Example: the quote from Mill regarding the monstrous cruelty (and thus laughable improbability) of a supposedly merciful and loving supreme being who plainly (according to the good books, damned in their own words as ever) creates beings by his own hand solely to condemn them to hell fire and damnation. Do what? My other favourite is Ian MacEwan's comments on curiousity being one of the definitions of human freedom of thought, and how organised religions fear almost nothing more - see St Augustine on that one. It's true: the Western religions live in terror of truly free thought, yet without it the human race would still be living in caves. Humanity has advanced to attain astonishing levels of scientific knowledge, yet for centuries it has been a continual fight to achieve it against the squeals of thwarted God-botherers.

Outstanding.

Witty and Friendly, 22 Sep 2008
Darwins Angel pokes the holes in Dawkins arguments easily (it does not take much) and with a great deal of wit. That is the great enjoyment of the book. Cornwell uses the guise of Darwins Angel who becomes Dawkins Angel as he claims to be Darwins heir, of which Darwin I am sure would be horrified although I am sure Professor Dawkins would think it a great mark of respect for Darwin to be associated with him.

Each argument is dealt with and the flaws in the logic appear all too apparent, and there are some laugh out loud moments. An entertainng book with a very serious purpose!



Creepy comeback, 21 Sep 2008
Honestly, this is creepier than Stephen King. It's an attack on Dawkin's book while trying to disguise itself as a friend - the result is a kind of illness of the intellect. Because this is so transparent it's a little bit funny, and certainly a textbook on malicious spin doctoring - but when the writer's motive is more obvious to the reader than the author you know you're dealing with a bit of a nutter. A very stupid book.

Preaching to the converted, 14 Sep 2008
I purchased this book from Amazon marketplace, for less than the cost of the postage, and it was certainly worth the money. I have read several of the books inspired by the God Delusion, and thought this would be a good one largely on the basis of some of the reviews here. Having read it, and then re-read some all of the reviews here, it is hard to believe we are all talking about the same book. I can say with confidence that this one will definately not change anybody's mind, whatever their current stance, and I am fairly confident that the author is not even seriously trying to do this. It is clearly preaching to the converted, which the author argues is exactly what Dawkins is doing. Not that I found it any the less interesting to read as a result of this, particularly as it was cheap to buy, short, and easy to read. However, potential readers should be aware of this, and not buy it hoping to read a well-argued, balanced, response to Dawkins.

I think it is an honest, genuine response to TGD, and I like its honesty. It is not an intellectual or scholarly work, and I do not think the author is trying to pretend that it is (see introductory letter). I do not wish to rehash the comments made by earlier reviewers. My main criticism is that I felt a lot of the time Robertson was just as prone to the kind of things for which he criticises Dawkins, e.g.

-Preaching to the converted is a major one, and the reviews here seem to polarise nicely between Christians, who unsurprisingly like it, and non-Christians, who do not. I particularly liked the review which states that this book shows the flaws in Dawkins arguements, and then follows it up with the statement "I haven't read TGD yet".
- Being inconsistent (other reviews have covered this). In chapter 3, he puts forward the view that atheists are in fact neither rational nor tolerant. He focuses on homophobia (I assume he does not consider himself homophobic), and cites an example on p.38, of the Christian Union in Birmingham, which was suspended for refusing "to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians and those of transgender sexuality". He then follows this by asking what was the logic "for leaving out polygamists, bestialists or paedophiles". With this statement, the clear implication is that he considers homosexuality in some way equivalent to beastiality or paedophilia. I do not see how this question can be seen as anything other than homophobic.
- Being patronising to those who do not share his viewpoint, e.g. p. 42 "So I do pray for you and for all those who have been deluded into thinking that there is only material, and that their Creator does not exist". How are statements like this any less patronising than referring to Christians as deluded?
- Attributing attrocities to atheists, which were in fact carried out by non-atheists. Hitler is probably not a good example, because there is obviously strong disagreement about whether he was atheist or not. However, on p.81, Robertson cites the burning of 77 Norwegian churches by "over-zealous young atheists". Well, those who responsible who voiced a particular stance, claimed to be Satanists. How can self-proclaimed Satanists possibly be atheists?
- Getting his facts wrong, and misrepresenting the literature. He acuses Dawkins, and other atheists, of doing this with the bible, but then does exactly this in chapter 8, when discussing a Darwinian explanation of morality. I am always uncomfortable when I read the words Darwinian and genetics, as genetics was not incorporated into evolutionary theory by Darwin, whose hypothetical mechanism for heredity was pangenesis. However, the serious problem with this chapter is on p.90, where Robertson states criticises evolutionary explanations of altruism as deterministic, to the extent that "There is no concept of free will, choice or responsibility". He says this approach ligitimises any behaviour, by claiming it is all in the genes. This is completely misrepresenting the facts. There is not a single evolutionary biologist, psychologist or behavioural scientist of any profession who argues for this.
- Simply taking something Dawkins has said, and then attempting to simply twist it round and apply it to atheism, e.g. in Chapter 10, he suggests that many atheists do not believe in heaven, hell and an afterlife because they take comfort from that viewpoint. This is clearly just a little fantasy in his head, as he cites no evidence to suggest that a single atheist actually does think in this way.

I will stop there, as this is turning into a far more negative review than I intended. This book has a place, as it does outline a particular form of Christian belief, and I would rather people read it than ignore it. But I cannot help thinking that it inadvertently ends up strengthening Dawkins position, rather than weakening it. I have no doubt that a well-argued, response to TGD, capable of really challenging what is says is possible: but we are not there yet.



enjoyable, reasoned and entertaining response to TGD, 07 Aug 2008
Really enjoyed the book. It was gracious, self deprecating at times, well researched and, well, real fun to read! Thankyou David Robertson as very few books cause me to devour the words as quickly as did yours. Did it need to be as thick as TGD? Nah! Does it cause one to think, both believer and atheist alike, yep! But hey that's my opinion!

Failing to address the lack of evidence, 28 Jul 2008
For Robertson a lack of evidence is unimportant. He still believes. Yet why should I believe without solid evidence for the existence of God? On a critical scale the book falls staggeringly flat. Until the believer community addresses this issue there is no way I will change my outlook on life. I cannot follow what is not supported by evidence, and Robertson should consider that.

More alarming is the arrogance of the author, labelling Muslims as people needing God. So, it's possible that one deity without any supporting evidence can be better than another. Robertson also claims to speak for the Pantheist community, that they should be upset at their belief system being described by Dawkins as little more than 'sexed up' atheism. Well, as a pantheist myself, that is what it essentially is.

God, not alive and well!!, 24 Jul 2008
Another book to help Atheists sleep soundly - and another challenge to Dawkins which fails miserably. All response to Dawkins' scientific arguments seem to stem on believing in something that has no evidence of having ever existed - a bogeyman figure who created everything that in fact physics, science, nature has given us. If this God exists then please get rid of all disease and misery, or is this part of a greater plan - a plan that we should all suffer? What kind of caring God would do that? But then the religious ones would reply, 'God works in mysterious ways'!! So does the Bogeyman!!

Not much of an answer, 10 Jul 2008
A very thin reply to Dawkins. Robertson manages a bit of sniping at odd bits of Dawkins book, which are valid, but not important, and all that is left are two tactics: One - to present atheism as a kind of fundamentalism and therefore one of many Faith approaches, of which others are Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. This nonsense has been comprehensively dealt with elsewhere, but let it be reiterated that atheism is not a faith, but a position reasonably arrived at. Two - to reposition Christianity as a sort of brave, beleaguered beacon of light in the darkness of the secular world, which is exactly a parody of the current situation where it is undeservedly privileged. Alice is through the looking-glass again.

backwards maybe, 15 Sep 2008
This is a thick tomb, not so portable as a set of keys but much more portable than a well stocked library. - what you need to look up the writings of the authors mentioned in this book. This book is a tourist guide to intellectual places you have never considered visiting, or wanted to but didn't know where to start.
I think this book may have been more readable to the non English Lit. graduate had the contents been presented from the most recent to the least. It takes effort to read the early entries and to understand them.
Stick with it nonetheless your brain may ache from the effort but it will be fitter because of it.

Thoughtful selection of Atheist, Agnostic and Rationalist writing from across the ages., 25 May 2008
This book is perhaps slightly undersold by it's title, it's a pretty solid tome, still portable I suppose but it must be a good 2 or 3 inches thick. The second part of the title is also a little misleading, the majority of the authors are indeed atheists, but not limited to the more militant kind one might expect Hitchens to choose. There's a broad spectrum of Humanist, Secularist and Rationalist writing spanning from Lucretius and Spinoza to Ibn Warraq and Sam Harris. The book progresses through these in a roughly chronological order charting the way human thought on the divine (or lack thereof) has changed and progressed.

The readings are well chosen and Hitchens provides a little introduction and context to each section (if I had one minor complaint it would be that these intros could have been even longer, they were fascinating in their own right). He also provides an overall intro to the book as a whole.

If I was to direct someone, atheist or theist, to a single book to explain non-theistic world views to them, it would have to be this.



Nourishment for the mind, 11 Mar 2008
An absolutely dazzling work. As a recovering Christian I am actively seeking out the thoughts of the great secularists down through the ages.
Particular highlights for me were the writings of Mark Twain on the Church's position on slavery, and also a remarkable deconstruction of every Christian argument regarding morality and God by Elizabet Anderson. Its one of those books that I'd love my wife and my Christian friends to read. Sadly, the bubble of false consolation and cognitive bias appears overwhelmingly strong. My experience tells me that the only evidence that Christians can cope with is Christian evidence. A truly impartial assesment of the available evidence from both sides seems a pose a real challenge to them.

A vital purchase, 13 Feb 2008
Here's a book that will expand your mind. And how could it not? Look at the contributors it boasts: Einstein, Darwin, Orwell, Larkin, Twain, McEwan, Rushdie, Hume, Shelley, Russell, Dawkins and many more. Plus you get a main introduction and author introductions from the erudite and savagely witty Hitchens.
A word of warning: the first 100 pages are a bit sticky to wade through. This is because the book's essays are arranged in chronological order so we start with some ancient texts where the English is very heavy and dozens of commas adorn each sentence. There are some wonderful points made of course, but extreme concentration is required to pick them all up.
Things brighten after that and the book becomes highly readable. The majority of the essays are informative, stimulating and beautifully written. Highlights for me included Dawkins (as ever), who once again comes over as the world's best science writer, Larkin's stirring poem Aubade, AC Grayling's succinct essay, Can An Atheist Be A Fundamentalist?, and Ibn Warraq's brilliant dismantling of Islamic beliefs. If only Muslims would read it - but if they did they'd likely just throw it on the nearest fire.
We have much work to do. It may be a thousand years before the awfulness of religion is eradicated from the world, but books like this help: they perpetuate the `drip-down' effect. In the West we were well on the way to eradicating it before several million Muslims came to live here. Personally I doubt that nothing but a devastating clash of civilizations can be the result (we have of course already seen such clashes). Reading this book underlined my belief that this will be the case.
In conclusion, this book is highly recommended. If you only buy one atheist book buy this one (although The God Delusion is also fantastic). In the end you must decide which version of man's evolution and the planet's creation you believe: the views of thousands of the world's greatest ever minds of the past few hundred years; or words written a long, long time ago by people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun went round it, as passed on to them by other people who could not read or write and had not travelled, in their whole lives, more than a few miles from their primitive, parochial townships. I know who I'd prefer to believe.
PS On reflection I'd give this five stars but Amazon don't appear to allow you to edit star ratings.

Excellent, 10 Feb 2008
The choice of writings contained within this anthology is wide and varied, and endlessly fascinating and intellectually stimulating. There is enough ammunition contained within its covers to keep the active atheist on the offensive through many a debate.

An interesting feature for me is just how many times in this volume I have come across paragraphs, just sentences even, that by themselves fatally undermine the entire 'logic' of organised religion. Example: the quote from Mill regarding the monstrous cruelty (and thus laughable improbability) of a supposedly merciful and loving supreme being who plainly (according to the good books, damned in their own words as ever) creates beings by his own hand solely to condemn them to hell fire and damnation. Do what? My other favourite is Ian MacEwan's comments on curiousity being one of the definitions of human freedom of thought, and how organised religions fear almost nothing more - see St Augustine on that one. It's true: the Western religions live in terror of truly free thought, yet without it the human race would still be living in caves. Humanity has advanced to attain astonishing levels of scientific knowledge, yet for centuries it has been a continual fight to achieve it against the squeals of thwarted God-botherers.

Outstanding.

Witty and Friendly, 22 Sep 2008
Darwins Angel pokes the holes in Dawkins arguments easily (it does not take much) and with a great deal of wit. That is the great enjoyment of the book. Cornwell uses the guise of Darwins Angel who becomes Dawkins Angel as he claims to be Darwins heir, of which Darwin I am sure would be horrified although I am sure Professor Dawkins would think it a great mark of respect for Darwin to be associated with him.

Each argument is dealt with and the flaws in the logic appear all too apparent, and there are some laugh out loud moments. An entertainng book with a very serious purpose!



Creepy comeback, 21 Sep 2008
Honestly, this is creepier than Stephen King. It's an attack on Dawkin's book while trying to disguise itself as a friend - the result is a kind of illness of the intellect. Because this is so transparent it's a little bit funny, and certainly a textbook on malicious spin doctoring - but when the writer's motive is more obvious to the reader than the author you know you're dealing with a bit of a nutter. A very stupid book.

Preaching to the converted, 14 Sep 2008
I purchased this book from Amazon marketplace, for less than the cost of the postage, and it was certainly worth the money. I have read several of the books inspired by the God Delusion, and thought this would be a good one largely on the basis of some of the reviews here. Having read it, and then re-read some all of the reviews here, it is hard to believe we are all talking about the same book. I can say with confidence that this one will definately not change anybody's mind, whatever their current stance, and I am fairly confident that the author is not even seriously trying to do this. It is clearly preaching to the converted, which the author argues is exactly what Dawkins is doing. Not that I found it any the less interesting to read as a result of this, particularly as it was cheap to buy, short, and easy to read. However, potential readers should be aware of this, and not buy it hoping to read a well-argued, balanced, response to Dawkins.

I think it is an honest, genuine response to TGD, and I like its honesty. It is not an intellectual or scholarly work, and I do not think the author is trying to pretend that it is (see introductory letter). I do not wish to rehash the comments made by earlier reviewers. My main criticism is that I felt a lot of the time Robertson was just as prone to the kind of things for which he criticises Dawkins, e.g.

-Preaching to the converted is a major one, and the reviews here seem to polarise nicely between Christians, who unsurprisingly like it, and non-Christians, who do not. I particularly liked the review which states that this book shows the flaws in Dawkins arguements, and then follows it up with the statement "I haven't read TGD yet".
- Being inconsistent (other reviews have covered this). In chapter 3, he puts forward the view that atheists are in fact neither rational nor tolerant. He focuses on homophobia (I assume he does not consider himself homophobic), and cites an example on p.38, of the Christian Union in Birmingham, which was suspended for refusing "to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians and those of transgender sexuality". He then follows this by asking what was the logic "for leaving out polygamists, bestialists or paedophiles". With this statement, the clear implication is that he considers homosexuality in some way equivalent to beastiality or paedophilia. I do not see how this question can be seen as anything other than homophobic.
- Being patronising to those who do not share his viewpoint, e.g. p. 42 "So I do pray for you and for all those who have been deluded into thinking that there is only material, and that their Creator does not exist". How are statements like this any less patronising than referring to Christians as deluded?
- Attributing attrocities to atheists, which were in fact carried out by non-atheists. Hitler is probably not a good example, because there is obviously strong disagreement about whether he was atheist or not. However, on p.81, Robertson cites the burning of 77 Norwegian churches by "over-zealous young atheists". Well, those who responsible who voiced a particular stance, claimed to be Satanists. How can self-proclaimed Satanists possibly be atheists?
- Getting his facts wrong, and misrepresenting the literature. He acuses Dawkins, and other atheists, of doing this with the bible, but then does exactly this in chapter 8, when discussing a Darwinian explanation of morality. I am always uncomfortable when I read the words Darwinian and genetics, as genetics was not incorporated into evolutionary theory by Darwin, whose hypothetical mechanism for heredity was pangenesis. However, the serious problem with this chapter is on p.90, where Robertson states criticises evolutionary explanations of altruism as deterministic, to the extent that "There is no concept of free will, choice or responsibility". He says this approach ligitimises any behaviour, by claiming it is all in the genes. This is completely misrepresenting the facts. There is not a single evolutionary biologist, psychologist or behavioural scientist of any profession who argues for this.
- Simply taking something Dawkins has said, and then attempting to simply twist it round and apply it to atheism, e.g. in Chapter 10, he suggests that many atheists do not believe in heaven, hell and an afterlife because they take comfort from that viewpoint. This is clearly just a little fantasy in his head, as he cites no evidence to suggest that a single atheist actually does think in this way.

I will stop there, as this is turning into a far more negative review than I intended. This book has a place, as it does outline a particular form of Christian belief, and I would rather people read it than ignore it. But I cannot help thinking that it inadvertently ends up strengthening Dawkins position, rather than weakening it. I have no doubt that a well-argued, response to TGD, capable of really challenging what is says is possible: but we are not there yet.



enjoyable, reasoned and entertaining response to TGD, 07 Aug 2008
Really enjoyed the book. It was gracious, self deprecating at times, well researched and, well, real fun to read! Thankyou David Robertson as very few books cause me to devour the words as quickly as did yours. Did it need to be as thick as TGD? Nah! Does it cause one to think, both believer and atheist alike, yep! But hey that's my opinion!

Failing to address the lack of evidence, 28 Jul 2008
For Robertson a lack of evidence is unimportant. He still believes. Yet why should I believe without solid evidence for the existence of God? On a critical scale the book falls staggeringly flat. Until the believer community addresses this issue there is no way I will change my outlook on life. I cannot follow what is not supported by evidence, and Robertson should consider that.

More alarming is the arrogance of the author, labelling Muslims as people needing God. So, it's possible that one deity without any supporting evidence can be better than another. Robertson also claims to speak for the Pantheist community, that they should be upset at their belief system being described by Dawkins as little more than 'sexed up' atheism. Well, as a pantheist myself, that is what it essentially is.

God, not alive and well!!, 24 Jul 2008
Another book to help Atheists sleep soundly - and another challenge to Dawkins which fails miserably. All response to Dawkins' scientific arguments seem to stem on believing in something that has no evidence of having ever existed - a bogeyman figure who created everything that in fact physics, science, nature has given us. If this God exists then please get rid of all disease and misery, or is this part of a greater plan - a plan that we should all suffer? What kind of caring God would do that? But then the religious ones would reply, 'God works in mysterious ways'!! So does the Bogeyman!!

Not much of an answer, 10 Jul 2008
A very thin reply to Dawkins. Robertson manages a bit of sniping at odd bits of Dawkins book, which are valid, but not important, and all that is left are two tactics: One - to present atheism as a kind of fundamentalism and therefore one of many Faith approaches, of which others are Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. This nonsense has been comprehensively dealt with elsewhere, but let it be reiterated that atheism is not a faith, but a position reasonably arrived at. Two - to reposition Christianity as a sort of brave, beleaguered beacon of light in the darkness of the secular world, which is exactly a parody of the current situation where it is undeservedly privileged. Alice is through the looking-glass again.

Polemic, 05 Sep 2008
A new addition to the recent new atheist polemics. Stenger has done only marginally useful scientific work. As for his suggestion that Anthropic Fine tuning is a non-problem because of his simplistic program MonkeyGod that purports to simulate universes and "show" that anthropic universes are commonplace, no serious cosmologist who takes this seriously. Martin Rees's "Just Six Numbers" is a good guide to the real science. This book might be useful to those who are making use of the freedom God has given them to reject Him (see Pascal on 'why God hides'), but in reality the case for theism has never been stronger. Evidence of the Big Bang, anthropic coincidences, the fantastic complexity and functionality of biological systems, and the deepening intractability of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and consciousness all support theism.

Not a universally accepted viewpoint by scientists, 02 Jun 2008
"God" is clearly important enough to have generated a vast plethora of literature for and against "Him".

Whilst quite clearly presented and logical, Hitchens axiomatic basis for existence is for physical "obersvability" in some sense. Yet this is the the longest standing argument of asthestic philosophy, not something new.

I would love to see Hitchens expand his axiomatic basis for existence to encompass arguments that were new and more convincing that 'I cannot see(observe)' so 'I dont believe'

Our own existence is confounding enough - I am not sure humanity has truly solved this mystery.Why are we self aware? Who and what are we?
All this before what is "God"?

Paul Davies 'Goldilocks Enigma' and the 'Mind of God' present an alternative scientific viewpoint - he is a theortical physicist and comologist- the axiomatic basis for his arguments here are different. Why are we who we are and what exactly are we produces deep questions as to existence and in my view more fruitful than the 'prove he doesn't exist' approach of the God Hypothesis which is essentialy based on only one line of argument.

All in all great to see so much God talk like in this book.Its definitely the way forward but this book does not indicate the end of the road.




Scientific method for unscientific hypothesis , 02 Jun 2008
Victor Stenger is explaining in the entire first chapter the scientific method and what a theory is compared to hypothesis, and why/how science is able to test some of the religious hypothesizes.
The next chapter is then focusing on the testing of supernatural claims and highlights that several studies about the usefulness of prayers have been conducted. These studies were funded from religious organizations like Templeton, so not from "bad atheist scientists" who only want to disprove them. Nevertheless despite heavy intercessory praying of whole religious communities for the health of freshly operated patients, no positive effect of prayer could be found.

After this Stenger is demolishing the `fine tuning' Goldilocks argument about the basic constants of the universe, which is so often used from theists as the last deist refuge to house their God of the dwindling gaps. After reading several books mentioning this `fine tuning' and haven't found a strong scientific rebuttal, I was quite surprised that the so miraculous `fine tuning' argument is only valid if a single factor is changed c.p. (all other left unchanged). Stenger claims that several alternative combinations of the 4 fundamental constants are possible and are providing a stable universe where stars can form and burn for billions of years as well.
To give an example of real life: my car is so fine-tuned if the gearbox is just 2 millimeter from the engine block it would not work, if the clutch is just a few millimeter apart it would not close and can't drive, if the crankshaft is just a little shorter ...etc... yes true if just a single parameter is changed, but there are many other brands and models where another combination of all this parts result in a proper working car.

The maximal entropy of the initial universe makes a deity unnecessary and unable to control any future development of the universe especially when quantum effects prevent any deterministic Lamarckian plan. And the universe don't need to be `divinely created' as the universe has a zero balance of energy and mass versus gravity e.g. coming out of nothing.

All claims of creationist and ID are refuted by the usual arguments from evolution, and the millennia old philosophical word games as `proof of God' ala St. Augustine or Aquinas are countered by logical arguments from modern philosophers, who show logical arguments (proof) that God does not exists.

Also the Biblical history is outed as fiction and fairy tales as most stories from Genesis, great flood, Abraham, Exodus, Canaan's conquest, David and Solomon's powerful `golden empire' etc. are falsified from historical and archeological evidence. Ergo the god YHWH from the Bible as basis for Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith who is interacting with the local tribes of bronze-age gout and sheep herders does not exist.

In short Victor Stenger is claiming the absence of evidence on that grand scale plus all the falsifications of theist claims are evidence of absence and falsification of the theist God hypothesis, and is even a strong indicator for the non existence or of a deist God.


Good Science, Bad Theology, 13 May 2008
Stenger brilliantly proves that something he has called "god" does not exist. As any proper theist would agree. He is very learned in the best of Physics but what has he read of the best theologians - Thomas aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth ? Does not understand about double causation ? Has he never read that God being described as "all powerful" means not "can do anything" but "can do what He wills to do"
Physics answers the questions physics asks.
But he could just as easily write an equally learned and fatally flawed book entitled "How Science shows that Love does not exist " or "How Science shows that Beauty does not exist
If a non-scientist wrote a book entitled "How Philopsphy proves Science is wrong" Sterner would be affronted.

God: the eternal underachiever, 18 Jan 2008
One of the many tiresome conversation stoppers people resort to is "But you can't disprove the existence of God!" In this stunning book, Victor Stenger provides convincing arguments that, actually, you can. Stenger writes: "The thesis of this book is that the supernatural hypothesis of [the Judeo-Christian-Islamic] God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science." His strategy is to run with this hypothesis and, with an open mind, to look for any objective evidence that may support it, all the while maintaining the rigour of the best scientific inquiry. If such evidence is not found, if the universe reveals only purely material and mindless processes to our observation, then the likelihood is that there is no such God. The "lack-of-evidence argument" works hard and in the end the hypothesis fails: this is a very powerful "scientific argument against the existence of God".

Atheists since Bertrand Russell have replied to this question of "proof" by saying that you cannot disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit, but this doesn't mean you should believe that such an object exists, much less base your life on this belief. The knockdown argument against this response is, apparently, that belief in orbiting teapots would not inspire the great art that belief in, say, the Virgin Birth does. (The Archbishop of Canterbury recently used this very same argument in conversation with Ricky Gervais, not caring that it has no bearing on the truth of the belief: an atheist has no difficulty in accepting that a false belief can inspire all manner of human activities, from painting the Sistine Chapel to torturing unbelievers.) Of course, if all the teapot did was stew in space, a silent emblem of Englishness, its existence would indeed be hard to disprove. But if shamans engaged in tea dances and then claimed their cups were filled to overflowing with the finest brew poured from the celestial pot, then we ought to be able to check this out.

Stenger asserts that "science is not forbidden from considering supernatural causes" and reminds us that "religions make factual claims that have no special immunity from being examined under the cold light of reason and objective observation." He rejects Stephen Jay Gould's proposition that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria" and laments the fact that too many scientists have been content to leave religion well alone (in part, perhaps, because of concerns over funding and the low status of atheists in public life, as well as having better things to do). Theists, on the other hand, have never been shy to plunder science for whatever might be useful: "the notion that the observation of nature alone provides evidence for the existence of God has a long history". However, that history is coming to an end for some theologians, who "have gradually begun to accept the absence of objective evidence for God and have been forced to conclude if a god exists, he must purposely hide himself from us." Like the problem of evil, the hiddenness of God is an intellectual hoop no bigger than the eye of a needle through which only the most emaciated theological mind can jump. As for ordinary believers, few will even try, especially while they are distracted by the shiny bauble of "intelligent design".

Theists are drawn to design arguments like rap stars to bling, and, while some atheists groan at having to cut yet another head off the hydra of creationism, Stenger relishes the task. Each theistic claim - for the design of the eye, a nonphysical soul or the fine-tuning of the universe - is an opportunity to falsify the hypothesis that there is a God. The new pinups for swivel-eyed creationists are Dembski and Behe, who both make "statements that are provably wrong": Dembski's "information" is related to entropy and is therefore "not a conserved quantity like energy", while Behe seems to be unaware of the literature on "irreducibly complex" systems. Catholics can believe in evolution, just so long as it applies only to the body and not the mind. Although he can provide no evidence for a "disembodied soul", Pope Pius XII cannot imagine "the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter". Too bad for him. As for fine-tuning, the whole argument "ultimately makes no sense... all physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God." There is also the obvious fact of the "uncongenial universe": vast tracts of space and time unfit for life of any kind. Again, no sign of and no need for a designing, intervening, caring god.

The real surprise to many readers, however, will be Stenger's take on that ancient philosophical question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The irresistible suggestion for many is that there must have been a "creator" of some kind. That Lear exclaimed "nothing will come of nothing" is not the reason we think he lost the plot. The laws of physics had to come from somewhere, surely? And what does Stenger say? "They came from nothing!" The state of "nothing" is as simple as it gets and is not very stable. "Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." The laws of physics follow from "the very lack of structure at the earliest moment." It would seem that one of the few remaining mysteries in this universe is why anyone still takes the god hypothesis seriously.

backwards maybe, 15 Sep 2008
This is a thick tomb, not so portable as a set of keys but much more portable than a well stocked library. - what you need to look up the writings of the authors mentioned in this book. This book is a tourist guide to intellectual places you have never considered visiting, or wanted to but didn't know where to start.
I think this book may have been more readable to the non English Lit. graduate had the contents been presented from the most recent to the least. It takes effort to read the early entries and to understand them.
Stick with it nonetheless your brain may ache from the effort but it will be fitter because of it.

Thoughtful selection of Atheist, Agnostic and Rationalist writing from across the ages., 25 May 2008
This book is perhaps slightly undersold by it's title, it's a pretty solid tome, still portable I suppose but it must be a good 2 or 3 inches thick. The second part of the title is also a little misleading, the majority of the authors are indeed atheists, but not limited to the more militant kind one might expect Hitchens to choose. There's a broad spectrum of Humanist, Secularist and Rationalist writing spanning from Lucretius and Spinoza to Ibn Warraq and Sam Harris. The book progresses through these in a roughly chronological order charting the way human thought on the divine (or lack thereof) has changed and progressed.

The readings are well chosen and Hitchens provides a little introduction and context to each section (if I had one minor complaint it would be that these intros could have been even longer, they were fascinating in their own right). He also provides an overall intro to the book as a whole.

If I was to direct someone, atheist or theist, to a single book to explain non-theistic world views to them, it would have to be this.



Nourishment for the mind, 11 Mar 2008
An absolutely dazzling work. As a recovering Christian I am actively seeking out the thoughts of the great secularists down through the ages.
Particular highlights for me were the writings of Mark Twain on the Church's position on slavery, and also a remarkable deconstruction of every Christian argument regarding morality and God by Elizabet Anderson. Its one of those books that I'd love my wife and my Christian friends to read. Sadly, the bubble of false consolation and cognitive bias appears overwhelmingly strong. My experience tells me that the only evidence that Christians can cope with is Christian evidence. A truly impartial assesment of the available evidence from both sides seems a pose a real challenge to them.

A vital purchase, 13 Feb 2008
Here's a book that will expand your mind. And how could it not? Look at the contributors it boasts: Einstein, Darwin, Orwell, Larkin, Twain, McEwan, Rushdie, Hume, Shelley, Russell, Dawkins and many more. Plus you get a main introduction and author introductions from the erudite and savagely witty Hitchens.
A word of warning: the first 100 pages are a bit sticky to wade through. This is because the book's essays are arranged in chronological order so we start with some ancient texts where the English is very heavy and dozens of commas adorn each sentence. There are some wonderful points made of course, but extreme concentration is required to pick them all up.
Things brighten after that and the book becomes highly readable. The majority of the essays are informative, stimulating and beautifully written. Highlights for me included Dawkins (as ever), who once again comes over as the world's best science writer, Larkin's stirring poem Aubade, AC Grayling's succinct essay, Can An Atheist Be A Fundamentalist?, and Ibn Warraq's brilliant dismantling of Islamic beliefs. If only Muslims would read it - but if they did they'd likely just throw it on the nearest fire.
We have much work to do. It may be a thousand years before the awfulness of religion is eradicated from the world, but books like this help: they perpetuate the `drip-down' effect. In the West we were well on the way to eradicating it before several million Muslims came to live here. Personally I doubt that nothing but a devastating clash of civilizations can be the result (we have of course already seen such clashes). Reading this book underlined my belief that this will be the case.
In conclusion, this book is highly recommended. If you only buy one atheist book buy this one (although The God Delusion is also fantastic). In the end you must decide which version of man's evolution and the planet's creation you believe: the views of thousands of the world's greatest ever minds of the past few hundred years; or words written a long, long time ago by people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun went round it, as passed on to them by other people who could not read or write and had not travelled, in their whole lives, more than a few miles from their primitive, parochial townships. I know who I'd prefer to believe.
PS On reflection I'd give this five stars but Amazon don't appear to allow you to edit star ratings.

Excellent, 10 Feb 2008
The choice of writings contained within this anthology is wide and varied, and endlessly fascinating and intellectually stimulating. There is enough ammunition contained within its covers to keep the active atheist on the offensive through many a debate.

An interesting feature for me is just how many times in this volume I have come across paragraphs, just sentences even, that by themselves fatally undermine the entire 'logic' of organised religion. Example: the quote from Mill regarding the monstrous cruelty (and thus laughable improbability) of a supposedly merciful and loving supreme being who plainly (according to the good books, damned in their own words as ever) creates beings by his own hand solely to condemn them to hell fire and damnation. Do what? My other favourite is Ian MacEwan's comments on curiousity being one of the definitions of human freedom of thought, and how organised religions fear almost nothing more - see St Augustine on that one. It's true: the Western religions live in terror of truly free thought, yet without it the human race would still be living in caves. Humanity has advanced to attain astonishing levels of scientific knowledge, yet for centuries it has been a continual fight to achieve it against the squeals of thwarted God-botherers.

Outstanding.

Witty and Friendly, 22 Sep 2008
Darwins Angel pokes the holes in Dawkins arguments easily (it does not take much) and with a great deal of wit. That is the great enjoyment of the book. Cornwell uses the guise of Darwins Angel who becomes Dawkins Angel as he claims to be Darwins heir, of which Darwin I am sure would be horrified although I am sure Professor Dawkins would think it a great mark of respect for Darwin to be associated with him.

Each argument is dealt with and the flaws in the logic appear all too apparent, and there are some laugh out loud moments. An entertainng book with a very serious purpose!



Creepy comeback, 21 Sep 2008
Honestly, this is creepier than Stephen King. It's an attack on Dawkin's book while trying to disguise itself as a friend - the result is a kind of illness of the intellect. Because this is so transparent it's a little bit funny, and certainly a textbook on malicious spin doctoring - but when the writer's motive is more obvious to the reader than the author you know you're dealing with a bit of a nutter. A very stupid book.

Preaching to the converted, 14 Sep 2008
I purchased this book from Amazon marketplace, for less than the cost of the postage, and it was certainly worth the money. I have read several of the books inspired by the God Delusion, and thought this would be a good one largely on the basis of some of the reviews here. Having read it, and then re-read some all of the reviews here, it is hard to believe we are all talking about the same book. I can say with confidence that this one will definately not change anybody's mind, whatever their current stance, and I am fairly confident that the author is not even seriously trying to do this. It is clearly preaching to the converted, which the author argues is exactly what Dawkins is doing. Not that I found it any the less interesting to read as a result of this, particularly as it was cheap to buy, short, and easy to read. However, potential readers should be aware of this, and not buy it hoping to read a well-argued, balanced, response to Dawkins.

I think it is an honest, genuine response to TGD, and I like its honesty. It is not an intellectual or scholarly work, and I do not think the author is trying to pretend that it is (see introductory letter). I do not wish to rehash the comments made by earlier reviewers. My main criticism is that I felt a lot of the time Robertson was just as prone to the kind of things for which he criticises Dawkins, e.g.

-Preaching to the converted is a major one, and the reviews here seem to polarise nicely between Christians, who unsurprisingly like it, and non-Christians, who do not. I particularly liked the review which states that this book shows the flaws in Dawkins arguements, and then follows it up with the statement "I haven't read TGD yet".
- Being inconsistent (other reviews have covered this). In chapter 3, he puts forward the view that atheists are in fact neither rational nor tolerant. He focuses on homophobia (I assume he does not consider himself homophobic), and cites an example on p.38, of the Christian Union in Birmingham, which was suspended for refusing "to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians and those of transgender sexuality". He then follows this by asking what was the logic "for leaving out polygamists, bestialists or paedophiles". With this statement, the clear implication is that he considers homosexuality in some way equivalent to beastiality or paedophilia. I do not see how this question can be seen as anything other than homophobic.
- Being patronising to those who do not share his viewpoint, e.g. p. 42 "So I do pray for you and for all those who have been deluded into thinking that there is only material, and that their Creator does not exist". How are statements like this any less patronising than referring to Christians as deluded?
- Attributing attrocities to atheists, which were in fact carried out by non-atheists. Hitler is probably not a good example, because there is obviously strong disagreement about whether he was atheist or not. However, on p.81, Robertson cites the burning of 77 Norwegian churches by "over-zealous young atheists". Well, those who responsible who voiced a particular stance, claimed to be Satanists. How can self-proclaimed Satanists possibly be atheists?
- Getting his facts wrong, and misrepresenting the literature. He acuses Dawkins, and other atheists, of doing this with the bible, but then does exactly this in chapter 8, when discussing a Darwinian explanation of morality. I am always uncomfortable when I read the words Darwinian and genetics, as genetics was not incorporated into evolutionary theory by Darwin, whose hypothetical mechanism for heredity was pangenesis. However, the serious problem with this chapter is on p.90, where Robertson states criticises evolutionary explanations of altruism as deterministic, to the extent that "There is no concept of free will, choice or responsibility". He says this approach ligitimises any behaviour, by claiming it is all in the genes. This is completely misrepresenting the facts. There is not a single evolutionary biologist, psychologist or behavioural scientist of any profession who argues for this.
- Simply taking something Dawkins has said, and then attempting to simply twist it round and apply it to atheism, e.g. in Chapter 10, he suggests that many atheists do not believe in heaven, hell and an afterlife because they take comfort from that viewpoint. This is clearly just a little fantasy in his head, as he cites no evidence to suggest that a single atheist actually does think in this way.

I will stop there, as this is turning into a far more negative review than I intended. This book has a place, as it does outline a particular form of Christian belief, and I would rather people read it than ignore it. But I cannot help thinking that it inadvertently ends up strengthening Dawkins position, rather than weakening it. I have no doubt that a well-argued, response to TGD, capable of really challenging what is says is possible: but we are not there yet.



enjoyable, reasoned and entertaining response to TGD, 07 Aug 2008
Really enjoyed the book. It was gracious, self deprecating at times, well researched and, well, real fun to read! Thankyou David Robertson as very few books cause me to devour the words as quickly as did yours. Did it need to be as thick as TGD? Nah! Does it cause one to think, both believer and atheist alike, yep! But hey that's my opinion!

Failing to address the lack of evidence, 28 Jul 2008
For Robertson a lack of evidence is unimportant. He still believes. Yet why should I believe without solid evidence for the existence of God? On a critical scale the book falls staggeringly flat. Until the believer community addresses this issue there is no way I will change my outlook on life. I cannot follow what is not supported by evidence, and Robertson should consider that.

More alarming is the arrogance of the author, labelling Muslims as people needing God. So, it's possible that one deity without any supporting evidence can be better than another. Robertson also claims to speak for the Pantheist community, that they should be upset at their belief system being described by Dawkins as little more than 'sexed up' atheism. Well, as a pantheist myself, that is what it essentially is.

God, not alive and well!!, 24 Jul 2008
Another book to help Atheists sleep soundly - and another challenge to Dawkins which fails miserably. All response to Dawkins' scientific arguments seem to stem on believing in something that has no evidence of having ever existed - a bogeyman figure who created everything that in fact physics, science, nature has given us. If this God exists then please get rid of all disease and misery, or is this part of a greater plan - a plan that we should all suffer? What kind of caring God would do that? But then the religious ones would reply, 'God works in mysterious ways'!! So does the Bogeyman!!

Not much of an answer, 10 Jul 2008
A very thin reply to Dawkins. Robertson manages a bit of sniping at odd bits of Dawkins book, which are valid, but not important, and all that is left are two tactics: One - to present atheism as a kind of fundamentalism and therefore one of many Faith approaches, of which others are Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. This nonsense has been comprehensively dealt with elsewhere, but let it be reiterated that atheism is not a faith, but a position reasonably arrived at. Two - to reposition Christianity as a sort of brave, beleaguered beacon of light in the darkness of the secular world, which is exactly a parody of the current situation where it is undeservedly privileged. Alice is through the looking-glass again.

Polemic, 05 Sep 2008
A new addition to the recent new atheist polemics. Stenger has done only marginally useful scientific work. As for his suggestion that Anthropic Fine tuning is a non-problem because of his simplistic program MonkeyGod that purports to simulate universes and "show" that anthropic universes are commonplace, no serious cosmologist who takes this seriously. Martin Rees's "Just Six Numbers" is a good guide to the real science. This book might be useful to those who are making use of the freedom God has given them to reject Him (see Pascal on 'why God hides'), but in reality the case for theism has never been stronger. Evidence of the Big Bang, anthropic coincidences, the fantastic complexity and functionality of biological systems, and the deepening intractability of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and consciousness all support theism.

Not a universally accepted viewpoint by scientists, 02 Jun 2008
"God" is clearly important enough to have generated a vast plethora of literature for and against "Him".

Whilst quite clearly presented and logical, Hitchens axiomatic basis for existence is for physical "obersvability" in some sense. Yet this is the the longest standing argument of asthestic philosophy, not something new.

I would love to see Hitchens expand his axiomatic basis for existence to encompass arguments that were new and more convincing that 'I cannot see(observe)' so 'I dont believe'

Our own existence is confounding enough - I am not sure humanity has truly solved this mystery.Why are we self aware? Who and what are we?
All this before what is "God"?

Paul Davies 'Goldilocks Enigma' and the 'Mind of God' present an alternative scientific viewpoint - he is a theortical physicist and comologist- the axiomatic basis for his arguments here are different. Why are we who we are and what exactly are we produces deep questions as to existence and in my view more fruitful than the 'prove he doesn't exist' approach of the God Hypothesis which is essentialy based on only one line of argument.

All in all great to see so much God talk like in this book.Its definitely the way forward but this book does not indicate the end of the road.




Scientific method for unscientific hypothesis , 02 Jun 2008
Victor Stenger is explaining in the entire first chapter the scientific method and what a theory is compared to hypothesis, and why/how science is able to test some of the religious hypothesizes.
The next chapter is then focusing on the testing of supernatural claims and highlights that several studies about the usefulness of prayers have been conducted. These studies were funded from religious organizations like Templeton, so not from "bad atheist scientists" who only want to disprove them. Nevertheless despite heavy intercessory praying of whole religious communities for the health of freshly operated patients, no positive effect of prayer could be found.

After this Stenger is demolishing the `fine tuning' Goldilocks argument about the basic constants of the universe, which is so often used from theists as the last deist refuge to house their God of the dwindling gaps. After reading several books mentioning this `fine tuning' and haven't found a strong scientific rebuttal, I was quite surprised that the so miraculous `fine tuning' argument is only valid if a single factor is changed c.p. (all other left unchanged). Stenger claims that several alternative combinations of the 4 fundamental constants are possible and are providing a stable universe where stars can form and burn for billions of years as well.
To give an example of real life: my car is so fine-tuned if the gearbox is just 2 millimeter from the engine block it would not work, if the clutch is just a few millimeter apart it would not close and can't drive, if the crankshaft is just a little shorter ...etc... yes true if just a single parameter is changed, but there are many other brands and models where another combination of all this parts result in a proper working car.

The maximal entropy of the initial universe makes a deity unnecessary and unable to control any future development of the universe especially when quantum effects prevent any deterministic Lamarckian plan. And the universe don't need to be `divinely created' as the universe has a zero balance of energy and mass versus gravity e.g. coming out of nothing.

All claims of creationist and ID are refuted by the usual arguments from evolution, and the millennia old philosophical word games as `proof of God' ala St. Augustine or Aquinas are countered by logical arguments from modern philosophers, who show logical arguments (proof) that God does not exists.

Also the Biblical history is outed as fiction and fairy tales as most stories from Genesis, great flood, Abraham, Exodus, Canaan's conquest, David and Solomon's powerful `golden empire' etc. are falsified from historical and archeological evidence. Ergo the god YHWH from the Bible as basis for Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith who is interacting with the local tribes of bronze-age gout and sheep herders does not exist.

In short Victor Stenger is claiming the absence of evidence on that grand scale plus all the falsifications of theist claims are evidence of absence and falsification of the theist God hypothesis, and is even a strong indicator for the non existence or of a deist God.


Good Science, Bad Theology, 13 May 2008
Stenger brilliantly proves that something he has called "god" does not exist. As any proper theist would agree. He is very learned in the best of Physics but what has he read of the best theologians - Thomas aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth ? Does not understand about double causation ? Has he never read that God being described as "all powerful" means not "can do anything" but "can do what He wills to do"
Physics answers the questions physics asks.
But he could just as easily write an equally learned and fatally flawed book entitled "How Science shows that Love does not exist " or "How Science shows that Beauty does not exist
If a non-scientist wrote a book entitled "How Philopsphy proves Science is wrong" Sterner would be affronted.

God: the eternal underachiever, 18 Jan 2008
One of the many tiresome conversation stoppers people resort to is "But you can't disprove the existence of God!" In this stunning book, Victor Stenger provides convincing arguments that, actually, you can. Stenger writes: "The thesis of this book is that the supernatural hypothesis of [the Judeo-Christian-Islamic] God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science." His strategy is to run with this hypothesis and, with an open mind, to look for any objective evidence that may support it, all the while maintaining the rigour of the best scientific inquiry. If such evidence is not found, if the universe reveals only purely material and mindless processes to our observation, then the likelihood is that there is no such God. The "lack-of-evidence argument" works hard and in the end the hypothesis fails: this is a very powerful "scientific argument against the existence of God".

Atheists since Bertrand Russell have replied to this question of "proof" by saying that you cannot disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit, but this doesn't mean you should believe that such an object exists, much less base your life on this belief. The knockdown argument against this response is, apparently, that belief in orbiting teapots would not inspire the great art that belief in, say, the Virgin Birth does. (The Archbishop of Canterbury recently used this very same argument in conversation with Ricky Gervais, not caring that it has no bearing on the truth of the belief: an atheist has no difficulty in accepting that a false belief can inspire all manner of human activities, from painting the Sistine Chapel to torturing unbelievers.) Of course, if all the teapot did was stew in space, a silent emblem of Englishness, its existence would indeed be hard to disprove. But if shamans engaged in tea dances and then claimed their cups were filled to overflowing with the finest brew poured from the celestial pot, then we ought to be able to check this out.

Stenger asserts that "science is not forbidden from considering supernatural causes" and reminds us that "religions make factual claims that have no special immunity from being examined under the cold light of reason and objective observation." He rejects Stephen Jay Gould's proposition that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria" and laments the fact that too many scientists have been content to leave religion well alone (in part, perhaps, because of concerns over funding and the low status of atheists in public life, as well as having better things to do). Theists, on the other hand, have never been shy to plunder science for whatever might be useful: "the notion that the observation of nature alone provides evidence for the existence of God has a long history". However, that history is coming to an end for some theologians, who "have gradually begun to accept the absence of objective evidence for God and have been forced to conclude if a god exists, he must purposely hide himself from us." Like the problem of evil, the hiddenness of God is an intellectual hoop no bigger than the eye of a needle through which only the most emaciated theological mind can jump. As for ordinary believers, few will even try, especially while they are distracted by the shiny bauble of "intelligent design".

Theists are drawn to design arguments like rap stars to bling, and, while some atheists groan at having to cut yet another head off the hydra of creationism, Stenger relishes the task. Each theistic claim - for the design of the eye, a nonphysical soul or the fine-tuning of the universe - is an opportunity to falsify the hypothesis that there is a God. The new pinups for swivel-eyed creationists are Dembski and Behe, who both make "statements that are provably wrong": Dembski's "information" is related to entropy and is therefore "not a conserved quantity like energy", while Behe seems to be unaware of the literature on "irreducibly complex" systems. Catholics can believe in evolution, just so long as it applies only to the body and not the mind. Although he can provide no evidence for a "disembodied soul", Pope Pius XII cannot imagine "the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter". Too bad for him. As for fine-tuning, the whole argument "ultimately makes no sense... all physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God." There is also the obvious fact of the "uncongenial universe": vast tracts of space and time unfit for life of any kind. Again, no sign of and no need for a designing, intervening, caring god.

The real surprise to many readers, however, will be Stenger's take on that ancient philosophical question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The irresistible suggestion for many is that there must have been a "creator" of some kind. That Lear exclaimed "nothing will come of nothing" is not the reason we think he lost the plot. The laws of physics had to come from somewhere, surely? And what does Stenger say? "They came from nothing!" The state of "nothing" is as simple as it gets and is not very stable. "Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." The laws of physics follow from "the very lack of structure at the earliest moment." It would seem that one of the few remaining mysteries in this universe is why anyone still takes the god hypothesis seriously.


Beware, 26 May 2008
Beware of this book - the Christian message of St John of the Cross has been removed in this 'paraphrase' - I will not call it a translation. A great Christian book is turned into a New Age book!

A life review guide , 03 Dec 2006
This book answersed all of the questions i had, in terms of my own spiritual journey. It explains why the dark days are so awful and why the light days are so in abundance with joy. Having read many spiritual guidance books, in religeons across the board, i found this to be the definative guide to understanding my own true existence.
God has to make us endure pain, desolation and deep emotion in order for us to appreciate and fully understand the path we are on. If we had only 'positive' days we would not endlessley search for spiritual fulfillment. This journey is fully explained in this book and its a reflective tool that we can use daily to enchance our understanding of a spiritual journey.
The soul is illuminated by positive experiences, the serenity felt lulls the soul into feeling comfortable. however, each stage of the journey brings a deeper, and more desolate emotion. Through this book, you learn to battle through this, and achieve a sense of calm that enables you to proceed to the next stage.
Its a book that i am able to read again and again, each time gaining a deeper understanding of my own spiritual journey. Well worth a read!.

Read it when the Spirit leads you to, 09 Nov 2006
This is a classic book - richly descriptive of spiritual realities, and providing sound guidance by a Doctor of the Church. It is probably best to have had an introduction to the spiritual life first, try 'The Introduction to the devout life' by St Francis de Sales; for a contremporary and helpful introduction try Fr Thomas Dubay ' Prayer Primer' and his introduction to St John of the Cross ' The Fire within'.

Just a note - St John would have laughed at the idea that the devil is only your own ego! Or that God is a deeper region of yourself! This book takes seriously the idea of growing closer to a real god who is passionately in love with you, expect to be challenged to change and grow.

A book for those further along the spiritual path, 14 Sep 2006
You have to read this book at the right time; if you read it too early into your spiritual contemplations it probably won't make any sense and the wisdom on offer might fail to connect. Ideally you'd read this book only after you've begun to feel the presence of the Spirit alive within you, but then suddenly, or gradually, you find yourself deeply confused and even abandoned by it. That is the perfect time to absorb this very wise, knowing book, written by a man who obviously underwent the entire process of spiritual awakening and union with what the religions call God - which is really, actually a deeper region of your own self that you have the potential to experience directly, although not until you give up the spiritual quest: a daunting, painful period aptly known as the dark night of the soul. What stops this material getting a five star rating is the occasional lack of clarity in the writing style. St. John may have been a true mystic but he was no Hemingway or Shakespeare and at times the text is unnecessarily dense and overly complicated. But this is a trifling criticism, out-weighed by the timelessly valid insights supplied on each page. One final piece of vital advice, wherever you read the word "devil" (mentioned very often) you'd do well to consider this as a reference to the Ego, your own, rather than interpreting the phrase to mean the actual existence of Christianity's arch enemy. A great deal of important understanding falls into place when you do this. In fact, it would help if the Introduction section to all translations stressed that the term "devil" should not be read literally but metaphorically. Overall, though, this book is an invaluable spiritual guide.

Soul food, 01 Jul 2005
This is a book that speaks to me at a very deep level. Reading it has been like listening to beautiful music! Mirabai Starr's translation of this great classic flows and is easy to read and understand. Some of Starr's prose reads like poetry - a pleasure to enjoy over and over again. Here is Light for your journey, especially when the path is dark.

backwards maybe, 15 Sep 2008
This is a thick tomb, not so portable as a set of keys but much more portable than a well stocked library. - what you need to look up the writings of the authors mentioned in this book. This book is a tourist guide to intellectual places you have never considered visiting, or wanted to but didn't know where to start.
I think this book may have been more readable to the non English Lit. graduate had the contents been presented from the most recent to the least. It takes effort to read the early entries and to understand them.
Stick with it nonetheless your brain may ache from the effort but it will be fitter because of it.

Thoughtful selection of Atheist, Agnostic and Rationalist writing from across the ages., 25 May 2008
This book is perhaps slightly undersold by it's title, it's a pretty solid tome, still portable I suppose but it must be a good 2 or 3 inches thick. The second part of the title is also a little misleading, the majority of the authors are indeed atheists, but not limited to the more militant kind one might expect Hitchens to choose. There's a broad spectrum of Humanist, Secularist and Rationalist writing spanning from Lucretius and Spinoza to Ibn Warraq and Sam Harris. The book progresses through these in a roughly chronological order charting the way human thought on the divine (or lack thereof) has changed and progressed.

The readings are well chosen and Hitchens provides a little introduction and context to each section (if I had one minor complaint it would be that these intros could have been even longer, they were fascinating in their own right). He also provides an overall intro to the book as a whole.

If I was to direct someone, atheist or theist, to a single book to explain non-theistic world views to them, it would have to be this.



Nourishment for the mind, 11 Mar 2008
An absolutely dazzling work. As a recovering Christian I am actively seeking out the thoughts of the great secularists down through the ages.
Particular highlights for me were the writings of Mark Twain on the Church's position on slavery, and also a remarkable deconstruction of every Christian argument regarding morality and God by Elizabet Anderson. Its one of those books that I'd love my wife and my Christian friends to read. Sadly, the bubble of false consolation and cognitive bias appears overwhelmingly strong. My experience tells me that the only evidence that Christians can cope with is Christian evidence. A truly impartial assesment of the available evidence from both sides seems a pose a real challenge to them.

A vital purchase, 13 Feb 2008
Here's a book that will expand your mind. And how could it not? Look at the contributors it boasts: Einstein, Darwin, Orwell, Larkin, Twain, McEwan, Rushdie, Hume, Shelley, Russell, Dawkins and many more. Plus you get a main introduction and author introductions from the erudite and savagely witty Hitchens.
A word of warning: the first 100 pages are a bit sticky to wade through. This is because the book's essays are arranged in chronological order so we start with some ancient texts where the English is very heavy and dozens of commas adorn each sentence. There are some wonderful points made of course, but extreme concentration is required to pick them all up.
Things brighten after that and the book becomes highly readable. The majority of the essays are informative, stimulating and beautifully written. Highlights for me included Dawkins (as ever), who once again comes over as the world's best science writer, Larkin's stirring poem Aubade, AC Grayling's succinct essay, Can An Atheist Be A Fundamentalist?, and Ibn Warraq's brilliant dismantling of Islamic beliefs. If only Muslims would read it - but if they did they'd likely just throw it on the nearest fire.
We have much work to do. It may be a thousand years before the awfulness of religion is eradicated from the world, but books like this help: they perpetuate the `drip-down' effect. In the West we were well on the way to eradicating it before several million Muslims came to live here. Personally I doubt that nothing but a devastating clash of civilizations can be the result (we have of course already seen such clashes). Reading this book underlined my belief that this will be the case.
In conclusion, this book is highly recommended. If you only buy one atheist book buy this one (although The God Delusion is also fantastic). In the end you must decide which version of man's evolution and the planet's creation you believe: the views of thousands of the world's greatest ever minds of the past few hundred years; or words written a long, long time ago by people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun went round it, as passed on to them by other people who could not read or write and had not travelled, in their whole lives, more than a few miles from their primitive, parochial townships. I know who I'd prefer to believe.
PS On reflection I'd give this five stars but Amazon don't appear to allow you to edit star ratings.

Excellent, 10 Feb 2008
The choice of writings contained within this anthology is wide and varied, and endlessly fascinating and intellectually stimulating. There is enough ammunition contained within its covers to keep the active atheist on the offensive through many a debate.

An interesting feature for me is just how many times in this volume I have come across paragraphs, just sentences even, that by themselves fatally undermine the entire 'logic' of organised religion. Example: the quote from Mill regarding the monstrous cruelty (and thus laughable improbability) of a supposedly merciful and loving supreme being who plainly (according to the good books, damned in their own words as ever) creates beings by his own hand solely to condemn them to hell fire and damnation. Do what? My other favourite is Ian MacEwan's comments on curiousity being one of the definitions of human freedom of thought, and how organised religions fear almost nothing more - see St Augustine on that one. It's true: the Western religions live in terror of truly free thought, yet without it the human race would still be living in caves. Humanity has advanced to attain astonishing levels of scientific knowledge, yet for centuries it has been a continual fight to achieve it against the squeals of thwarted God-botherers.

Outstanding.

Witty and Friendly, 22 Sep 2008
Darwins Angel pokes the holes in Dawkins arguments easily (it does not take much) and with a great deal of wit. That is the great enjoyment of the book. Cornwell uses the guise of Darwins Angel who becomes Dawkins Angel as he claims to be Darwins heir, of which Darwin I am sure would be horrified although I am sure Professor Dawkins would think it a great mark of respect for Darwin to be associated with him.

Each argument is dealt with and the flaws in the logic appear all too apparent, and there are some laugh out loud moments. An entertainng book with a very serious purpose!



Creepy comeback, 21 Sep 2008
Honestly, this is creepier than Stephen King. It's an attack on Dawkin's book while trying to disguise itself as a friend - the result is a kind of illness of the intellect. Because this is so transparent it's a little bit funny, and certainly a textbook on malicious spin doctoring - but when the writer's motive is more obvious to the reader than the author you know you're dealing with a bit of a nutter. A very stupid book.

Preaching to the converted, 14 Sep 2008
I purchased this book from Amazon marketplace, for less than the cost of the postage, and it was certainly worth the money. I have read several of the books inspired by the God Delusion, and thought this would be a good one largely on the basis of some of the reviews here. Having read it, and then re-read some all of the reviews here, it is hard to believe we are all talking about the same book. I can say with confidence that this one will definately not change anybody's mind, whatever their current stance, and I am fairly confident that the author is not even seriously trying to do this. It is clearly preaching to the converted, which the author argues is exactly what Dawkins is doing. Not that I found it any the less interesting to read as a result of this, particularly as it was cheap to buy, short, and easy to read. However, potential readers should be aware of this, and not buy it hoping to read a well-argued, balanced, response to Dawkins.

I think it is an honest, genuine response to TGD, and I like its honesty. It is not an intellectual or scholarly work, and I do not think the author is trying to pretend that it is (see introductory letter). I do not wish to rehash the comments made by earlier reviewers. My main criticism is that I felt a lot of the time Robertson was just as prone to the kind of things for which he criticises Dawkins, e.g.

-Preaching to the converted is a major one, and the reviews here seem to polarise nicely between Christians, who unsurprisingly like it, and non-Christians, who do not. I particularly liked the review which states that this book shows the flaws in Dawkins arguements, and then follows it up with the statement "I haven't read TGD yet".
- Being inconsistent (other reviews have covered this). In chapter 3, he puts forward the view that atheists are in fact neither rational nor tolerant. He focuses on homophobia (I assume he does not consider himself homophobic), and cites an example on p.38, of the Christian Union in Birmingham, which was suspended for refusing "to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians and those of transgender sexuality". He then follows this by asking what was the logic "for leaving out polygamists, bestialists or paedophiles". With this statement, the clear implication is that he considers homosexuality in some way equivalent to beastiality or paedophilia. I do not see how this question can be seen as anything other than homophobic.
- Being patronising to those who do not share his viewpoint, e.g. p. 42 "So I do pray for you and for all those who have been deluded into thinking that there is only material, and that their Creator does not exist". How are statements like this any less patronising than referring to Christians as deluded?
- Attributing attrocities to atheists, which were in fact carried out by non-atheists. Hitler is probably not a good example, because there is obviously strong disagreement about whether he was atheist or not. However, on p.81, Robertson cites the burning of 77 Norwegian churches by "over-zealous young atheists". Well, those who responsible who voiced a particular stance, claimed to be Satanists. How can self-proclaimed Satanists possibly be atheists?
- Getting his facts wrong, and misrepresenting the literature. He acuses Dawkins, and other atheists, of doing this with the bible, but then does exactly this in chapter 8, when discussing a Darwinian explanation of morality. I am always uncomfortable when I read the words Darwinian and genetics, as genetics was not incorporated into evolutionary theory by Darwin, whose hypothetical mechanism for heredity was pangenesis. However, the serious problem with this chapter is on p.90, where Robertson states criticises evolutionary explanations of altruism as deterministic, to the extent that "There is no concept of free will, choice or responsibility". He says this approach ligitimises any behaviour, by claiming it is all in the genes. This is completely misrepresenting the facts. There is not a single evolutionary biologist, psychologist or behavioural scientist of any profession who argues for this.
- Simply taking something Dawkins has said, and then attempting to simply twist it round and apply it to atheism, e.g. in Chapter 10, he suggests that many atheists do not believe in heaven, hell and an afterlife because they take comfort from that viewpoint. This is clearly just a little fantasy in his head, as he cites no evidence to suggest that a single atheist actually does think in this way.

I will stop there, as this is turning into a far more negative review than I intended. This book has a place, as it does outline a particular form of Christian belief, and I would rather people read it than ignore it. But I cannot help thinking that it inadvertently ends up strengthening Dawkins position, rather than weakening it. I have no doubt that a well-argued, response to TGD, capable of really challenging what