The Dawkins Letters

David Robertson, a Free Church of Scotland pastor who lives in Dundee, wanted there to be an intelligent Christian response to Richard Dawkins’ bestselling The God Delusion. To that end he wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins and subsequently posted it on his church’s web site. The letter somehow found its way to Dawkins who posted it on his own website where it generated a response that was massive in scope and in passion. According to the back of The Dawkins Letters, “The ferocity, and shallowness of thinking, of some of the responses spurred David to write further letters, which form the basis of this book. They explain a credible basis for faith that counteracts the ‘atheist myths’ that so much popular discussion is based upon.”

The Dawkins Letters, then, is a series of letters from Robertson to Dawkins—a series of ten letters that call Dawkins to account for the errors and inaccuracies within his book. It also responds to his arguments—both his novel new ones and the tired rehashed ones common to a whole generation of atheists. Generally speaking, Robertson does a superior job of doing this. He says in his Introduction that he will no doubt be criticized by some for being too harsh and by others for being too gentle; some will say that this is an in appropriate forum for attempts at humor and others will simply miss the humor altogether. But, says Robertson, “It will be helpful to remember that these are personal letters, not an academic discourse, not an exercise in English grammar.” In order to make this a personal rebuttal and in order to reach a wide audience, he has decided not to make this an academic treatise, though I’m sure he would have been capable of doing so.

The book does a particularly good job of point out the unending contradictions between what Dawkins wants to believe and what he must actually believe on the basis of his atheistic beliefs. After all, most atheists stop far short of following their beliefs to fair conclusions. Robertson calls them on this time and time again.

I had very few notable concerns with the book. Robertson perhaps cedes a little too much to theistic evolution, intelligent design, or old earth creationism. He does not state his position on the age of the earth and the way life came about, but neither does he deny the validity of any of the possibilities. I was a little disappointed in this. But beyond that I found little that I objected to. I thought he did as good a job of anyone of interacting with atheistic arguments and of challenging atheists to understand the contradictions inherent in their worldview. Anyone who has read The God Delusion would do well to follow it with this intelligent, measured, respectful response.

It is available from Amazon.

Comments (5)

1
Anonymous's picture

Dawkins has sold a lot of books but it is hard to see that he is going to convince anybody but the already convinced. Even some atheists are embarrassed by him (eg the fascinating article on Michael Ruse, atheist philosopher, here.

If David Robertson doesn’t tip his hand on his view of the age of the earth, that is a good thing. It is, after all, an attempt at apologetics on behalf of all Bible-believing Christians, if your review is accurate. If he wants to speak on behalf of old-earth and young-earth creationists then there seems no reason to reveal his view on this matter. He can still point to the flaws in Dawkins’ argument and present the gospel and that, after all, is what good apologetics does.

2
Anonymous's picture

On a related theme: Dinesh D’Souza will debate Christopher Hitchens at The King’s College in New York City tomorrow night (Oct 22nd). D’Souza has just published a book called What’s So Great About Christianity.

3
Anonymous's picture

Dawkins debated John Lennox of Oxford University in Alabama earlier this month. The debate was sponsored by fixedpoint.org and was carried live on radio and streamed on the internet. You can download the audio files here:http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox

I personally think Dawkins got his hat handed to him. Lennox did a superb job of tearing down Dawkins faulty arguments and showed where his arguments inevitably lead. But despite everything Lennox said, Dawkins failed to see his error. As I listened, I was constantly reminded of Paul’s writing in Romans 1:21-23 “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” All the great arguments in the world can never open someone’s eyes to the truth, only the Holy Spirit can do so.

On another note, Tim you really should read The Genesis Debate. It presents three views of Genesis 1:1-2:3. The 24 day view is defended by Ligon Duncan and David W. Hall; the Day-Age view is defended by Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer; and the Framework View is defended by Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline. I don’t know about Ross or Archer, but the other four are definitely Reformed in their theology. Each view presents its thesis, is then critiqued by the other two views, and then presents its rebuttal to the critiques. I found it very informative and helpful in molding how I view God’s recording of His Creation. I highly recommend it. P.S. If you read it, please post a review as I would like to see your take on the views presented and how they are defended.

4
Anonymous's picture

Jamie, did you mean the 24 HOUR view?

5
Anonymous's picture

Eric - yes, 24 HOUR not 24 day… my bad