Christian response to The God Delusion?

I'm currently working my way through The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, mainly because I wanted to be familiar with its arguments. I'm curious, though, has anyone come across a good rebuttal to the book? I'm not really looking for something that attacks every point he makes and insists on Biblical literalism and creationism. Rather, I'd like an approach that takes serious the scientific claims on our universe and world, but challenges the basis for Dawkin's rejection of God.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lee Webb

A good collection of responses on varying topics addressed in The God Delusion is "God is Great, God is Good" edited by William Lane Craig and Chad Meister. The review of The God Delusion by Alvin Plantinga is particularly good. You might also find "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath and "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God" by John Lennox (who has debated Dawkins on several occasions - see YouTube) to be helpful.

Rev Chris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/376881#Comment_376881

Thanks! "God's Undertaker" looks promising - I think I'll start with it.

Darcy S. Van Horn

You might also want to look at Douglas Wilson's little (but effective) book, "The Deluded Atheist" (86 pages) which does a good job of showing the bankruptcy of the atheist worldview. I've really enjoyed several of Wilson's little books responding to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

Blessings,

Darcy

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/376914#Comment_376914

You could also try Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors, with essays from 18 scholars, including Ben Witherington and William Lane Craig. It is broken up into three sections:

The Existence of God/The Jesus of History/The Coherence of Christian Doctrine

Rev Chris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/376938#Comment_376938

Thanks for the suggestions!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/377006#Comment_377006

There's also Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case against God on prepub. Haven't read that particular book, but the author is generally good.

Kent Hendricks

Check out Marilynne Robinson's review in Harpers a few years back.

Mike Childs

These recommendations are helpful to me, too. I am interested in this, and I will read some of the suggested books. Thanks.

I understand how someone can logically believe in the "Big Bang", but I have yet to grasp how one leaves out the "Big Banger". To my rather simple mind, without God you have big problem explaining the existence of that original super-compacted mass of matter that banged. Of course, I did take of my science at MIssissippi State University, which might explain my problem.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/377198#Comment_377198

I understand how someone can logically believe in the "Big Bang", but I have yet to grasp how one leaves out the "Big Banger".

You know, don't you, that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest and scientist, and rejected by the secular scientific community as a Christian attempt to prove that the world was created? (Most scientists of that time thought the world was eternal and had no beginning in time.)

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/377186#Comment_377186

There's also Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case against God on prepub. Haven't read that particular book, but the author is generally good.

Wow, Anthony Flew, noted athiest turned agnostic, gives it high regards for the arguments made. This seems interesting. Unfortunately, it is in a collection, and even though $40 is not much, the single book is less than $10 at Amazon, so again, we are being forced to buy a set in order to get one book that we actually want.

Bill Coley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/377198#Comment_377198

Of course, I did take of my science at MIssissippi State University, which might explain my problem.

I don't know whether you intended for this kind of reaction to your post, but [:D][:D][:D]