Book Notes: Dawkins' God, Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath

Alister McGrath's response to the various writings of Richard Dawkins is now a little out-of-date, having been published prior to Dawkins God Delusion (2006), in which Dawkins pushed his ideas even further. McGrath, it should be noted also responded to that book in The Dawkins Delusion? (2007) and updated this one. This volume from 2005, is however fascinating, and insightful, and gives some useful and sober background to the debates which became rather shrill after Dawkins somewhat ill-tempered subsequent diatribe.

McGrath began his academic career as a molecular biologist, which he pursued to PhD and research levels at Oxford. His subsequent career involved theology and the history of ideas, and a later PhD in that; leading to gaining the Andreas Idreos professor of science and religion at the University of. Oxford. The history of ideas is littered with people who are highly competent in one field, and as such do not appreciate their limitations in others. A recent notorious case involved a renowned theologian making foolish statements about science, simply failing to recognise the limits of his competence. McGrath is on the other hand a competent commentator here; and this is part of his complaint against Dawkins, that his scientific brilliance does not make him a good philosopher or guide to the meaning or purpose of life; in fact Dawkins very assertion that science is competent to do this, is the basis of the problem.

McGrath begins with a very useful guide to Dawkins main publications up until 2005. In good science/faith books, I often find that as someone with a very limited background in science (but having studied the history of ideas at some length), I learn more about science, than anything else. The admiration McGrath has for Dawkins academic work, especially his contribution to genetics (The Selfish Gene), is apparent, and his explanation of Dawkins work, is especially good, as his appreciation for Dawkins ability to communicate science to the public.

The conflict arises however when Dawkins moves from raw science, into the world of ideas, starting with The Blind Watchmaker. McGrath here, rather forcefully demonstrates that Dawkins repeatedly hammers one particular view of faith, which is actually a grotesque parody of what Christians (in particular) view it as. Furthermore, Dawkins expends great energy comparing what he sees as the Christian view of science, and demolishing it with science. McGrath's view is that this is the classic straw-man argument; because what he actually demolishes is William Paley's English 19th Century view of science, which was only ever a theological cul-de-sac, totally unrepresentative of Christianity as a whole, either historically, or today. McGrath's view is that Dawkins misleads his readers, as to the nature of faith, either by ignorance or deception, in order to maintain the 'warfare' model of science versus faith; which is at least a century and a half out of date. (!) The fact that McGrath provides several examples of places in which Dawkins misquotes, misreads or misunderstands faith positions and writers, only adds weight to his argument. That Dawkins re-cycles popular misquotations from church-history to score points suggests that he hasn't engaged with the things he wishes to dismiss, as carefully as his academic credentials would suggest that he might.

If McGrath is highly respectful of Dawkins work in biology, he is bordering on scathing about his attempts to use Darwinism as a tool for explaining how ideas work, Before it became social-media slang for a funny, satirical joke, picture or video shared across the internet; Dawkins proposed the "Meme", as the equivalent of the gene, in the realm of ideas. McGrath assesses the evidence for Dawkins view of the meme, and is withering in his dismissal of the concept, as unscientific. Dawkins end-point, of course, is to view any form of theism as a mental virus, an illness or form of insanity - rather than a reasonable response to the evidence we have. McGrath is deeply unconvinced, and explains why.

The book ends on what should have been a hopeful note; a plea for faith and science to actually engage with each other in an open, honest and respectful examination of evidence, search for truth and exploration of our humanity. Deploring closed minds on either side of the debate, McGrath hoped for a better standard of discussion. Looking back over the intervening years since McGrath wrote those words, it now seems rather sad, that despite such reasoned voices, there were those such as certain religious fundamentalists, and The New Atheists, who actually took this discussion to new lows.

It seems to me that while there are vast numbers of academics, pursuing research and adding to the sum of knowledge within their respective fields: human progress is held back by our failure to integrate the key insights of different disciplines. McGrath has at least done the hard work of reaching the heights of academia in two distinct arenas; and as such should at least be given a hearing when he critiques those who stand on one hill, dismissing out of hand, things they know little about on another. In this regard, the original edition of Dawkins' God (Genes, Memes and The Meaning of Life), is an excellent, if now slightly dated, place to start.