Customer Reviews
Preaching to the converted - By: S. Gerhand, 14 Sep 2008 
I purchased this book from Amazon marketplace, for less than the cost of the postage, & it was certainly worth the money. I have read several of the books inspired by the God Delusion, & thought this would be a good one largely on the basis of some of the reviews here. Having read it, & 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, & 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, & easy to read. However, potential readers should be aware of this, & not buy it hoping to read a well-argued, balanced, response to Dawkins.
I think it is an honest, genuine response to TGD, & I like its honesty. It is not an intellectual or scholarly work, & 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, & the reviews here seem to polarise nicely between Christians, who unsurprisingly like it, & non-Christians, who do not. I particularly liked the review which states that this book shows the flawsin Dawkins arguements, & 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 arein fact neither rational nor tolerant. He focuses on homophobia (I assume he does not consider himself homophobic), & cites an example on p.38, of the Christian Unionin Birmingham, which was suspended for refusing "to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians & 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 homosexualityin 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 & for all those who have been deluded into thinking that there is only material, & 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 werein 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, & misrepresenting the literature. He acuses Dawkins, & other atheists, of doing this with the bible, but then does exactly thisin chapter 8, when discussing a Darwinian explanation of morality. I am always uncomfortable when I read the words Darwinian & 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 allin 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, & then attempting to simply twist it round & apply it to atheism, e.g.in Chapter 10, he suggests that many atheists do not believein heaven, hell & an afterlife because they take comfort from that viewpoint. This is clearly just a little fantasyin his head, as he cites no evidence to suggest that a single atheist actually does thinkin 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, & 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 - By: gracewarrior, 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 & atheist alike, yep! But hey that's my opinion!
Failing to address the lack of evidence - By: Trystan Swale, 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, & 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!! - By: Royale, 24 Jul 2008 Another book to help Atheists sleep soundly - & another challenge to Dawkins which fails miserably. All response to Dawkins' scientific arguments seem to stem on believingin something that has no evidence of having ever existed - a bogeyman figure who created everything thatin fact physics, science, nature has given us. If this God exists then please get rid of all disease & 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 worksin mysterious ways'!! So does the Bogeyman!!
Not much of an answer - By: Timothy J. Haigh, 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, & all that is left are two tactics: One - to present atheism as a kind of fundamentalism & 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 lightin 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.
