Both Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker use their own brand of "reason" based on faith thinking they have soundly dismantled Dawkins' arguments. Who is delusional here? One hundred and fifty-two pages and they fail to demonstrate how atheism is a faith. What they offer is only rhetoric. What their argument in the end boils down to is based on faith and "evidence" from an invisible world. How convenient. These low caliber shake-down artists enforce the truth of the fundamentals of evolutionary science and the points Dawkins makes in The God Delusion. I only gave it one star because I had to.

As a Jew, one thing in this book that makes me uneasy is its intimation that Christianity is the sole theistic answer to atheism. The authors can't of course rationally substantiate this view, as may be seen when considering their rather mystical excursion (pp.66-7) into Christian doctrine. They make, however, an excellent effort to rationally counter the "new atheism".

They make one of the best arguments I have seen regarding the statistically enormous improbability (by them "impossibility") of chance for the multitude of organic components assembling as they do (ca.pp.27-31).

They also offer a good argument (ca.pp.62-3) against "one of Dawkins' favorite 'proofs' for the non-existence of God". He claims: "Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining", and that, the authors observe, "things that are complex enough to be intelligent, must themselves be the products of evolution". Dawkins proceeds that the reasoning requires yet a more complex intelligence as cause and so on ad infinitum, making the existence of God "very very improbable indeed".

The authors justifiably argue that Dawkins wrongly thinks that, like himself, "all possible intelligent beings, including God, must be the result of material evolutionary processes". They mix in the idea of God as "a purely spiritual, omniscient Being", but this isn't necessary. Without their characterizing the nature of a Creator, the Dawkins assumption that "evolution [really the structure of organisms]...is always a matter of chance material mutation" is itself question begging. It needn't be assumed that a Creator, or for that matter organisms, result from "blind" natural processes. In fact, be the existence of God settled or not, the cause if any needn't also be settled.

The authors further, as noted elsewhere in these reviews, make a good case against the moral claims of Darwinian atheists. Since Darwinism is amoral, bestowing moral advantages only for survival of groups but not for inter-rivalry among them, its defenders are unjustified in injecting universal morality, precluded by Darwinism.

Also essayed by the authors is a proof of God's existence, saying boldly "Yes, there is a proof" (p.75), though offering quite a strained one that "depends on a significant amount of evidence from the latest findings in nearly all the sciences" etc., and is named "argument from intelligibility" (p.84). The argument contains odd statements like "mathematical intelligibility is written into nature itself, and we abstract the 'laws' from nature" (p.89), although it is long understood that deductive truths, as in mathematics, hold "in all possible worlds", i.e. are valid conceptually. And as proof of God they say (p.88) "Here is the inference: in our experience, deep, multi-layered, and integrated intelligibility is always the result of a requisite intelligence" (?), and then "The existence of science would seem [hesitation] to demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator".

This appears unlikely to convince someone as proof. A logical proof must clearly enunciate acceptable premises, and by valid rules deduce the conclusion. One can also question whether God if possessing a proof would wait for the many sciences, some perhaps dubious, to reveal it, instead of having a simpler one, accessible to humanity at large.

At the cost of sounding equally bold, I offer a discussion of the same in my On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries. The above probabilities highlighted by the reviewed authors, as well as the complexities spoken of in the intelligent design movement, are plausible factors supporting the existence of a supreme being. But there are common factors overlooked, that when seen in their appropriate relationship lead to the insights desired.

A wise man once said, Say in five words what most men say in many. After reading the first chapter, I threw the book away.

Hahn and Wiker expose the irrational and poor logic of Dawkins, even providing several quotes by prominent atheists to demonstrate that Dawkins is philosophically uneducated and that his book is not taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about the debate. Of course, the average American does not fall into that category and has been duped into thinking the New Atheism has something intelligent to say. Hahn shows Dawkins blind faith in the god chance, and the absurd lengths Dawkins will go to avoid admitting God's existence. People treat Dawkins like some sort of god of atheism and the man REALLY doesn't know what he is talking about. David Ramsey Steele and John Loftus have MUCH better books on atheism with actual arguments using sound philosophy (though still flawed). Hahn shows how Dawkins believes in an evolutionary understanding of morals, yet is himself a moral absolutist. One can not have it both ways. It's unfortunate that many of us have put our faith in the arguments of a biologist.

This is a very solid reply to amateur philosopher - Dawkins. I have to admit this is a quite thin, but very substantive book. Of three replies to Dawkins, I think this is the best so far. If you are to buy one book as a reply to "God Delusion" - buy this one. It strips Dawkins of all amateurish 'arguments' he helplessly throws in. Dick left to be naked and angry... :)

I have to say - there is a good thing about Dawkins writing his "God Delusion". Because of his amateurish arguments, many good thinkers came into light with great publications. This book is no exception. You see, if not Dick, this great book would not be published. Due to Dawkins I came to know about John Lennox, Alister McGrath, and authors of this book. You see, out of dummies, some good things may actually happen. :D

Anyways, this book is written interestingly and divided in logical sections. It shows Dawkins complete ignorance when it comes to various aspects of science, and philosophy especially. For example, anthropic principle is completely misunderstood by Dick. :D His faith in chance is awe aspiring. What's more ironic, is Dawkins' failure to understand the difference between something being 'impossible' and 'improbable'. ...

All the way reading this nice book I was impressed that someone actually noticed what I noticed about Dawkins arguments, it was like continuing 'deja vu'. Again and again I was impressed that someone finally pointed out for the dummy Dawkins why his philosophy is amateurish. I have read Berlinski's "Devil Delusion", and McGrath's "Dawkins' Delusion", but they did not took approach authors of this book took. This book is more oriented on details. For instance, on p. 40 it states: "There is a second reason why the chance rise of life is impossible and not merely extremely improbable. If the parts must come before the whole, why would the parts be there at all? Chance doesn't plan anything, but the parts of cell, as the parts of a car, are themselves complex entities built up of smaller, well-calibrated parts."

Another good quote comes from p. 57, as a reply to Dawkins' 'examining the effectiveness of prayer': "The error if the double-blinded prayer experiment is that it treats God like some kind of natural cause, rather than a personal, rational Being. In doing so, God is being unjustly subjected to a humiliating attempt to manipulate Him by an experiment. In short, the experiment is an insult, and any rational being, superhuman or not, would treat it as such. That does not, of course, mean that praying for healing itself is an insult; we are speaking only of framing such prayer in the context of a manipulative experiment."

One suggestion for the authors I would give is concerning the content of page 73. They say: "We agree that a religious person's personal account of some mystical experience is not an argument for the existance of God."
I think, however, that the argument from religious experience is somewhat interesting. I would recommend reading Norman Geisler about it. I like his account of religious experience, and possibility to transcend inward, outward, upward, downward, forward, backward, etc. According to Geisler even atheists like Nietzsche have religious experience by transcending themselves one way or the other, without realizing it. I found this idea to be interesting and worth introducing into dialogue.

If you want to read as many replies to Dawkins as possible, you'll find this book to be worth checking out, and adding to your collection. If you only want to buy one book to balance "God Delusion", and thinking which one to buy, - buy this one.

Much of this book bears the distinctive and impressive mark of co-author Ben Wiker, who has a more than adequate scientific and philosophical background to deconstruct the almost puerile arguments of Dawkins. Some of the Wiker-Hahn work is deep enough to require a discussion or backup sourcebook, but since when is discussion with one's peers or research a bad thing. All in all, a very good book to give to a senior high school class or beginning philosophy course.

I felt like large portions of this book were based on a few misunderstandings on the part of Hahn and Wiker. For instance, the authors wrote page after page explaining how exceedingly unlikely it is that a modern living cell could randomly jostle into place and come to life. Dawkins would agree with them on this point; even the simplest modern cells are extremely complex. But in The Blind Watchmaker (a book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker in Answering the New Atheism) Dawkins devoted an entire chapter to the subject of the origins of life. Dawkins even wrote "the only machinery of replication that we know [DNA] seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection" [p. 200]. He went on to explain how simple pre-DNA replicators could have provided the scaffolding necessary to evolve modern DNA replication. Hahn and Wiker quoted Dawkins from this very same chapter but omitted his explanation of the origins of life and instead erected a straw man argument to knock down. It's hard to believe that they were unaware of Dawkins' explanation, especially seeing as how Dawkins also devoted another chapter on the origins of life in Climbing Mount Improbable, another book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker. From Climbing Mount Improbable: "the original replicator probably was not DNA...unlike DNA, the original replicating molecules cannot have relied upon complicated machinery to duplicate them" [p. 285]. The (intentional?) omission of these arguments was disappointing.

The authors explicitly do not deny "that evolution is in very important ways a partial cause of human intelligence" [p 82]. However, they argue, there is "an enormous discrepancy between what is needed to survive, and the intellectual ability we've actually got" [p 50]. Human brains can figure out "what's going on inside atoms or inside black holes" which is "not at all necessary for Darwinian survival" [p. 50]. But various theories explain humans' intellectual capacities: for example, the use of language provided a significant benefit for those best able to use it, which led to more capable brains, which led to more complex language, which fueled a rapid self-sustaining upward spiral in mental capacity and language complexity. And there is no shortage of examples of evolved traits later being put to uses far different than those that provided the original benefits. There is little mystery here. Plus, human minds have great difficulty understanding and imagining quantum mechanics, for instance, because the concepts are very different than the familiar ones that we need to survive. This makes perfect sense in light of evolution.

Dawkins' main argument in The God Delusion is that "a designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right" [p. 136]. Hahn and Wiker assert that "it is only in Dawkins' treating God as having an evolved, material intelligence that allowed him the dubious luxury of discounting His existence as very, very improbable...since God is by definition purely spiritual, then the contingency of material atom-shuffling is inapplicable" [p. 65]. But if not atom-shuffling, then what? However God came to be still needs an explanation which is entirely side-stepped by the authors. Why would non-physical intelligence need any less explanation than physical intelligence? I can understand it would be a different kind of explanation, but the authors offer none at all and utterly fail to counter Dawkins' main argument. It's like answering "why is the sky blue?" with "it's not blue, it's light blue" and then failing to offer an explanation of why the sky is light blue.

Most of the authors' discussion of atheist morality is based on a simple assumption that is just false: that whatever is best for our selfish genes is by definition "moral". "Does it promote survival? If it does, it is `good'" [p. 118]. Thus, they question how Dawkins can condemn the brutal practices in the Old Testament as immoral since natural selection is equally brutal. Even granting their premise for the moment, they do not make any attempt to defend the atrocities described in the Old Testament as moral according to their own God-given standard of morality. They criticize morality based on natural selection as no better than that of the Old Testament, then go on to upbraid morality based on natural selection as repugnant. Does that mean the morality taught in the Old Testament is also repugnant? Because that was what Dawkins argued and all the authors effectively responded with was "oh yeah? Well your morality is repugnant, too!" But in doing so they assumed that what is good for our selfish genes is by definition "moral" according to the atheist. This leads to all kinds of wild conclusions that sound more like a caricature of imaginary outrageous "evil people" rather than real life atheists. Dawkins explicitly states in The Selfish Gene "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution" [p. 2].

Either Dawkins is right and there is no personal God, or he is wrong and there is one. If he is right, then all the moral principles of Christianity espoused by the authors must come from the very same sources as Dawkins' morality. That is, they are invented by humans who are the product of evolution. Evolved human beings are perfectly capable of inventing their own systems of morality. Those systems aren't right or wrong in an absolute sense, but they can be better or worse at attaining such goals as minimizing suffering and pain.

The final chapter is a truly ridiculous "warning" to all the faithful of the awful perversions of society that would surely befall any country who allowed an atheist any kind of political power. It is reminiscent of the ludicrous 1930's anti-marijuana propaganda film "Reefer Madness" which depicted mild mannered citizens transforming into raving lunatics, killing each other and jumping out of windows after smoking marijuana. The atheists will take your children away! They'll shut down the churches! They'll mandate abortions and euthanasia! The authors described Hitler, not Dawkins, and not atheists in general.

It would take another entire book to counter all the authors' arguments, so I have offered only a few here. But despite this books shortfalls, it is an interesting read which provides insights into Catholic philosophy and views of atheists.

I felt like large portions of this book were based on a few misunderstandings on the part of Hahn and Wiker. For instance, the authors wrote page after page explaining how exceedingly unlikely it is that a modern living cell could randomly jostle into place and come to life. Dawkins would agree with them on this point; even the simplest modern cells are extremely complex. But in The Blind Watchmaker (a book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker in Answering the New Atheism) Dawkins devoted an entire chapter to the subject of the origins of life. Dawkins even wrote "the only machinery of replication that we know [DNA] seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection" [p. 200]. He went on to explain how simple pre-DNA replicators could have provided the scaffolding necessary to evolve modern DNA replication. Hahn and Wiker quoted Dawkins from this very same chapter but omitted his explanation of the origins of life and instead erected a straw man argument to knock down. It's hard to believe that they were unaware of Dawkins' explanation, especially seeing as how Dawkins also devoted another chapter on the origins of life in Climbing Mount Improbable, another book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker. From Climbing Mount Improbable: "the original replicator probably was not DNA...unlike DNA, the original replicating molecules cannot have relied upon complicated machinery to duplicate them" [p. 285]. The (intentional?) omission of these arguments was disappointing.

The authors explicitly do not deny "that evolution is in very important ways a partial cause of human intelligence" [p 82]. However, they argue, there is "an enormous discrepancy between what is needed to survive, and the intellectual ability we've actually got" [p 50]. Human brains can figure out "what's going on inside atoms or inside black holes" which is "not at all necessary for Darwinian survival" [p. 50]. But various theories explain humans' intellectual capacities: for example, the use of language provided a significant benefit for those best able to use it, which led to more capable brains, which led to more complex language, which fueled a rapid self-sustaining upward spiral in mental capacity and language complexity. And there is no shortage of examples of evolved traits later being put to uses far different than those that provided the original benefits. There is little mystery here. Plus, human minds have great difficulty understanding and imagining quantum mechanics, for instance, because the concepts are very different than the familiar ones that we need to survive. This makes perfect sense in light of evolution.

Dawkins' main argument in The God Delusion is that "a designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right" [p. 136]. Hahn and Wiker assert that "it is only in Dawkins' treating God as having an evolved, material intelligence that allowed him the dubious luxury of discounting His existence as very, very improbable...since God is by definition purely spiritual, then the contingency of material atom-shuffling is inapplicable" [p. 65]. But if not atom-shuffling, then what? However God came to be still needs an explanation which is entirely side-stepped by the authors. Why would non-physical intelligence need any less explanation than physical intelligence? I can understand it would be a different kind of explanation, but the authors offer none at all and utterly fail to counter Dawkins' main argument. It's like answering "why is the sky blue?" with "it's not blue, it's light blue" and then failing to offer an explanation of why the sky is light blue.

It would take another entire book to counter all the authors' arguments, so I have offered only a few here. But despite this books shortfalls, it is an interesting read which provides insights into Catholic philosophy and views of atheists.

Dawkins and his like-minded associates have written what many consider to be polemics rather than sound, scientific arguments against the existence of God. Dawkins, in particular, seems to write more out of anger and frustration than on the basis of sound critical thinking and detailed factual analysis. That is not to say that he fails to ask key questions and to point out weaknesses and fallacies in much of Christian thinking. Alas, his snide, condescending, and pretentious style so puts off many of his readers that they fail to consider the possible worth of his arguments. Thereby, he does himself and other proponents of reasoned atheism a great disservice.

Into the frey marches then Scott Hahn, a prolific and pablumesque purveyor of conventional Roman Catholic doctrine. (Forgive the disgusting alliteration.) Dr. Hahn is a popularizer of the Roman Church who attempts to subject Dr. Dawkins to a thrashing based on the basis of old Roman arguments in not-quite-so-acid tones of dismissal.

Neither author is especially successful. Dawkins because he picks the low-hanging fruit of doctrinaire Christianity and assumes that by poking holes in some of its more simple-minded assertions he has destroyed theism in toto. Hahn because, like Aquinas, his reasoned deconstructions of Dawkins' thought begin with a number of basic assumptions that he puts forward with little or no effort at proof.

If only philosophers and theologians would recall that their disciplines are invariably retrospective and reductionist, it would be easier to focus on the underlying question of whether or not there is a sentient generative force in the creation. Lacking the tools to research that ultimate question very effectively,we use the tools that we have, often without realizing just how frail and flawed they are.

The strongest argument that human beings have for appreciating the reality and presence of God is experience of the divine. So long as Dawkins considers that he can vitiate such experience by declaring it irrational and delusional, and so long as Hahn can parlay that experience into the glories of the Roman Church, neither will be of great help to the seeker. They will only serve as cheerleaders and propagandists for their respective followers.

I must admit that I am rather excited to finally be reviewing this book since it's taken me some time to actually find it. I searched everywhere at my local book stores in hopes to get a glimpse and I finally had to resort to buying it here on Amazon. Needless to say, it was worth the wait and the hassle.


In the short sum of 151 pages, "Answering the New Atheism" lives up to its title. As a Philosophy major, I was impressed with the contents of this book as well as how well reasoned the arguments were. This came as a relief to me seeing as most of the other books trying to refute Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett failed miserably and missed the mark. While I was especially entertained by such books like the "Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day, I didn't find a formal philosophical argument worth mentioning if I were to engage one of the New Atheists in person. It was good for some ammo, at least.

The authors of "Answering The New Atheism" start off with the motivation of disproving the claims of the New Atheists for the sake of those who know little about Philosophy and are put into a trance by the power of the rhetoric displayed in books like the "God Delusion". What the authors attempt to do is uncover the rhetoric for what it really is: shallow rhetoric and nothing more. There is no good argument within the New Atheist literature today. Not one, and I feel that this book shows why.

Chapter I starts off by explaining Dawkins belief in chance vs. the idea of an intelligent creator. It goes into detail regarding his unwavering faith in materialism and his inability, by virtue of this faith, to accept anything else.

Chapter II points out many scientific and statistical errors that Dawkins makes in favor of his faith and shows why his faith is irrational.

Chapter III shows how Dawkins Philosophical views regarding the "Chance God" are irrational as well as his views against ancient proofs of Gods existence. This chapter is especially helpful for the lay person and explains why Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about as well as how he is not justified in critiquing things he knows little about.

Chapter IV is actually a brief chapter in regards to some proof for the existence of God in nature, but tells the reader that a much deeper analysis can be explored in other books mentioned.

Chapters V-VI are especially enlightening showing the hypocrisy of Dawkins moral position as well as his lack of foundation. It also goes on to show how Dawkins has no right to blame religion for anything since his own beliefs in Evolutionary Ethics are actually to blame and justify the sort of things that he himself opposes. Noting this, it also explains that Dawkins does not actually want to follow evolutionary ethics, however he has no foundation for supposing anything else. At the heart of it all, without the moral argument on the side of Dawkins he has no justification for blaming religion for anything.

Chatpers VII-VIII are the final ones and calmly and convincingly show that the only thing distinguishing the religious fanatics from Dawkins himself is power. Many may disagree, but it seems apparent to a person with common sense that Dawkins anti-intellectualism, intolerance, and lack of concern for reason would likewise leave him in the same position as any terrorists or tyrant if he were to be placed in power. The only thing that is missing is power. Just because the New Atheists have yet to do something doesn't mean they are immune to doing something horrible. Their views eerily reflect the same views as the Soviets and the Red Terror revolutionaries.



In other words...buy this book. Promote this book. Give it to your friends. Give it to all the Atheists out there that seem to think that Dawkins etc. are posing intelligent arguments for the masses. The plain truth is that they are not. They are simply playing to the open ears of the ignorant and those who would prefer to suit their prejudices rather than motivate themselves to think deeply about these issues.

I was amazed at the loose argument put together by the authors. Everybody should just fast-forward to the last chapter and have a good laugh at the backwards thinking associated with these religious supporters.

Stem cell research is actually equated to an evolved form of cannibalism. Smart a@@ remarks are made about Dawkins. A hyperthetical King Dawkins is dragged through the mud and for some reason they bring his wife into the discussion in an attempt to irritate Dawkins. Clearly nothing is sacred to the writers.

Yes, that last chapter really shows the true colors of our religious authors. It is clear that by the end of their book they must have realized, as I did, that they had better throw some sticks and stones because the words used surely did nothing to dent Dawkins' argument.

For me they actually reinforced Dawkins argument. Pity they couldn't just turn the other cheek. Instead they apparently are going to take it on the nose.

I read Dawkins' God Delusion and found it to be just a whole lot of rhetoric, no substance, and a veritable compendium of logical fallacies. Hahn and Wiker do a great job demonstrating the inconsistencies, double-standards, and absurdities in Dawkins arguments. And I really appreciated the fact that they addressed Dawkins alarming social agenda--and with great force. I did dock the book one star because it seemed that in a couple of instances the book lost momentum in the course of one or two of its arguments--either by being unclear, or repeating a point to often, or just failing to seize the opportunity and drive a very pivotal point home (such as Dawkins' illogic surrounding the Cosmological Argument.) Nevertheless, I read this book with great relish and have yet to find a better, more readable one of its kind.

It's a sad spectacle when men whose careers depend on their belief in an ever-discredited, if popular, fairy tale set out to convince us that they are right.
What, I wonder, would become of Hahn and company if they were to conclude that Richard Dawkins was correct? Do you think they would be kept on as resident talespinners at their present colleges? Or perhaps they have signed a statement swearing to uphold the magisterium of the Catholic Church..in which case whatever intellectual honesty they may have had has been subordinated to a few old men who dress up in skirts.
The great error of this book lies in reducing Dawkin's arguments to what this duo of writers call his "faith" (at least they implicitly concede that this is a bad thing by their very usage) in "chance." As anyone familiar with Dawkin's book will attest, that is for the most part the very opposite of what he is writing about.
The exception of course lies in the category of "miracles," in which we are asked by our intrepid authors to believe.
There is, of course, one huge problem that they have to address, and do not to any degree of satisfaction:
WHY DOESN'T GOD HEAL AMPUTEES? If a miracle is a miracle, and as such can land even such a paternalistic fascist as Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer y Albas (the founder of the Opus Dei cult, who loved to flaunt his million-peso name) on the altar of sainthood (albeit with the help of the deeply-lined pockets of the groupies he once led), one must assume that healing an amputee would be nothing at all. And if the alledged miracle is to demonstrate a supernatural truth, one would expect that the more unambiguous the miracle the better.
But religion and unambiguity in the area of reason do not mix well; and so we have an army of devout idiots lining up to reassure the rest that they can reassuredly continue supporting a church that hid child rapists, indirectly murdered thousands (at minimum) through its obscurantist tactics against the anti-AIDS distribution of condoms in Africa, ruined countless marriages through its ridiculous rules against family planning, kept untold numbers of women and men in a state of emotional immaturity through something perversly called "vocations," sponsored dictator after dictator in the name of faith, and made perhaps the greatest fraud of the twentieth century, one Teresa of Calcutta, into its poster girl for poverty and suffering.
It is almost as if they deserve one another.

I know we should never judge a book by its cover, but in this case the cover is particularly good. It depicts a caricature of Dawkins, cast as Adam in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam. But in contrast with the original painting, in which Adam submissively holds his finger out to receive life from the finger of God, Dawkins arrogantly holds his finger up, refusing to acknowledge God's existence. A painting represents a moment of time frozen in eternity, and thus, the finger of God continues to point, offering life to Dawkins, but he continues to refuse it. Also unlike the original, in which Adam in his innocence is completely naked, Dawkins at least has a copy of The God Delusion to cover him - but the book is rather small and serves to emphasize his nakedness as much as to cover it. And that is the message: this excellent book leaves him looking very naked indeed.

I have seen several attempts, both long and short, to unravel the errors of The God Delusion (and I have even made one myself), but as far as I can see, this book far surpasses all of them. Its great strength is that the authors do not attempt to knock down Dawkins' assertions point by point but tease out the illogicalities and inconsistencies underpinning his whole argument.

The first four chapters deal with the question of God's existence. Here the authors demonstrate admirably how Dawkins fudges the concepts of probability and the anthropic principle to manufacture arguments which have the illusion of substance but in reality are utterly invalid. They then explain how his failure to grasp the basic principles of philosophy and theology lead him to misinterpret completely the demonstrations of the existence of God, most significantly Thomas Aquinas' five proofs. Since these arguments are central to Dawkins' thesis, discrediting them destroys his whole case.

Along the way, they make some other interesting points: for example, that the human intellect and the development of science cannot be explained on evolutionary principles, since the intellect goes far beyond what is necessary for survival and reproduction, and science, at least in its early stages, was a purely intellectual pursuit with no relevance to survival or reproduction. They also demolish the "prayer experiment" quoted by Dawkins. Most importantly, perhaps, they show how his refusal to understand the nature of God makes most of his arguments irrelevant.

Chapters 5 and 6 deal with moral principles and show that both Darwin and Dawkins are inconsistent in their application of morality. Darwin stated that morality should be based on evolutionary principles, but then contradicted this by exalting the value of sympathy over everything else. Dawkins, claiming that our moral values have all been derived from natural selection and that there is no such thing as absolute good or evil, goes on to propose that we should support good and oppose evil by upholding moral norms which are directly opposed to natural selection. Tellingly, neither of them could give any good reason why this does not invalidate their principles.

Chapter 5 is very well argued but probably a bit long-winded and heavy for the average reader, but chapter 6 is the climax of the book, a brilliant tour de force, which does not so much demolish Dawkins' arguments on morality as allow him to demolish them himself by showing that his ideas are completely self-contradictory. Essentially, Dawkins believes that our understanding of the universe should be based on evolutionary principles, yet all his complaints against the morality of the Bible are really directed against the application of these principles. The Jews of the Old Testament were the perfect exemplars of a world ruled by natural selection, and thus should be most worthy of an evolutionist's praise.

However, it is chapters 7 & 8 which are the most important. They show that Dawkins' atheist rhetoric is not merely an academic exercise but a manifesto designed to be put into practice, like The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf. Their glimpse of a world based on Dawkinsist principles is truly frightening, and perhaps closer than we think.

Everyone who has read Dawkins, and even those who have not, should read this book. The tragedy is that relatively few will.

P.S. I must admit, however, that there is one respect in which The God Delusion is far superior to Answering the New Atheism: Dawkins provides an excellent index, while Hahn and Wiker have none.

Simply put, this slim volume packs a wallop through the use of head-on logic and critique. Hahn doesn't dash around Dawkins arguments and create strawmen to attack. He goes toe-to-toe, giving Dawkins his "props" and due when his own arguments are strong...and recognizing when his other points are weak and hackneyed. I was impressed how Hahn finds the logical fallacies in Dawkins' own arguments--the same fallacies Dawkins criticizes in various theistic arguments for the existence of God. In the end, there is little "new" in the "new atheism" of thinkers such Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, except for the passion of their critiques and the world stage they are given for their viewpoints. Their perspectives are understandable to some degree in the light of religious extremism and violence, but the evil behavior of people around the world--religiously or secularly motivated--is only an emotional argument against the existence of God, not a rational one. Hahn keeps it at the rational level.

I have never written a review before, but I felt so strongly about this book not because it is a defense of religion (it does not directly advocate any form of theism), but because it is a fully rational response to Dawkins and set out according to the very terms he has laid forth in his arguments against God.

This book is written in a calm, collective, and fully rational way. It does so not by citing the Bible, but by playing on the same field as Dawkins and according to his own terms of evolutionary biology. This book demonstrates very effectively how Dawkins's unsound (but apparently sound for him) argumentation for the non-existence of a supernatural Being amounts to little more than soaring and highly influential rhetoric and oftentimes just plain bad science. It does all of this in a respectful and relaxed way, unlike the hostility, sneering tone, and sharp ridicule found in "The God Delusion".

If you have read parts or all of "The God Delusion", or if you have heard about the book and are somewhat unsure exactly what Dawkins is all about, I very highly recommend this book. This book is NOT another "religious" book frantically written to help readers save their respective religion out of fear of atheism. It is a book of cool reason, the very reason that Dawkins himself, I imagine, would advocate but evidently doesn't practice.

After reading some of the reviews on "The God Delusion" on this website, I noticed that there is a short video clip of Dawkins speaking about his book. In it he says, "I give in the book the argument, I think it is a rather strong argument, that there is no supernatural, supreme Being." And further, "The existence of God is a scientific question." If you have not seen this clip, I would highly recommend viewing it after reading "Answering the New Atheism".

I very kindly urge reading "Answering the New Atheism" in order not to instantly become a devout believer, but in order to think and to reason logically. Please do not let Dawkins's rhetorical masterpiece undermine your intelligence.

When Scott Hahn had heard that there were students at Franciscan University of Steubenville losing their faith after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion he decided to write a book that specifically addressed Richard Dawkins' arguments. Even though the arguments that Dawkins' uses don't hold up to much rigor he writes in such a way that many people will be convinced by them. Even some of his fellow atheists after reading his book had said much the same thing about some of his arguments. Fr. Benedict Groeschel is fond of saying that he could write a better book defending atheism than Richard Dawkins' did. That being said many people just don't have the background to see the logical and philosophical errors made and this book provides and excellent counterpoint to Dawkins' contentions. While this book specifically addresses the arguments personally made by Richard Dawkins' it pretty much applies to many of the arguments used by all of the "new atheists."

I have never read any of Dawkins' books myself. When I was an atheist I didn't read any atheist apologetics until I started to lose my atheist faith and wanted to save it. This book though quotes extensively from the arguments used in "The God Delusion" and some of his other books to fairly state them. You also get a good idea how polemical Dawkins' book is from some of the statements quoted. This book though in contrary is not polemical towards Dawkins'. As is proper the arguments used by the authors stick to the realm of reason it does not rely on revelation at all. The focus of the book is not an apologetics work specifically towards Christianity or even atheism, but a direct response to Dawkins' reasoning for atheism.

Since one of Dawkins' main thrusts is to equate what is impossible as just highly improbable this book takes those arguments head on by showing how at times Dawkins' minimizes the numeric improbabilities of things happening purely by chance. Though this isn't done as Intelligent Design versus Darwinian evolution, but to answer certain claims that Dawkins' uses as proofs. This section of the book uses the type of information that was influential in bringing influential ex-atheist Anthony Flew from atheism to theism. Anthony Flew has even praised this book by saying "Rarely, if ever in my many years as a procfvessor of philosophy did I hever have the opportunity to read such a compelling argument."

The latter sections of the book deal to a large part with Dawkins' philosophy and his grounds for morality. This is really where Dawkins' case is weakest since he has such a poor grasp of real theological arguments and philosophy. In Dawkins' world straw men evolve quite quickly. He never seems to realize how the arguments he uses to bash religion, especially Christianity in many cases could be more aptly used against his view of how evolution works. It is quite evident that his own worldview departs from his chance-based evolutionary scheme when he feels it necessary to do so and will not quite go along with the conclusions of what he preaches. He is obviously trying to prove at times that atheists can be good people - something I would totally agree with. My own experience was that when I did something morally good when I was an atheist it was not because of my atheistic faith, but often despite it.

Richard Dawkins' also tries to show that religious believers have nothing to worry about from atheists such as himself while at the same time calling religion a "mind virus" and teaching religion to children as "child abuse." The last chapter of the book is an interesting theoretical exercise in the consequences of what a society that had a King Dawkins at its helm and followed what he has said would be like. Not a pretty picture if you take seriously that teaching religious belief is "child abuse" and that euthanasia, bestiality, and infanticide are "moral" choices.

I found this to be an excellent book and Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker have really done their homework in answering Dawkins' arguments in a very accessible way. Many of the arguments of the new atheists are not as strong as they appear and this book serves as a good inoculation to those arguments.

I have always felt a strange, nagging sensation of being taken advantage of whenever I encounter the writings of "New Atheism", as though I were subject to the efforts of an inept confidence man clumsily attempting to prey upon my intellectual honesty; I knew something was wrong, but I lacked the skill to articulate what that was. Fortunately, the authors do possess that skill, and expose Dawkins' efforts for what they are with skill and far more charity than I would be able to muster. The explanation of the importance of Hume's Maxim, the multiplication of probabilities, and the importance of worldview make this a must-have for anyone interested in the conflict between theism and anti-theism.

I have spent some time reading Dawkin's God Delusion, Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis, and numerous other works by the "four horsemen" in recent years. I have come to respect intellectual couragousness by the authors; but, not the tone many of their criticisms have taken.

I and many like me who may not possess degrees in the natural sciences (or philosophical logic, for that matter!) are often misled by seemingly powerful rhetoric in these books. These ideas, left uncontested, may result in eternal consequences for atheists should the precepts of Christianity prove true.

'The Reason for God', Keller was failed to meet Dr. Dawkins' face to face as necessary on many of his arguments. It specifically managed to avoid many of scientific speak that would have given it more credibility and convincing.

For this reason we should be grateful for Dr. Hahn's commitment to balancing the argument. He succeeds in providing a systematic, logical dismantling of many of Dawkins' errors, whilst giving credit where due.

I predict this book will engross curious minds until the last page and you will walk away having a renewed "faith" in the logic of the Church's positions.

As far as cons are concerned:

No good news for some Protestants who do not admit the possibility of macroevolution (including homosapeins). The arguments are written by a Catholic theologian who has absorbed some well established laws and theories as tentative fact. If your beliefs stand to be threatened by the ever growing realization of macroevolution, then Dawkins has you pinned on many points, I'm afraid.

Also, While Dr. Hahn truly attempts to keep his composure and professionalism throughout the book when refuting "absurdities", he does trip sometimes into condescending undertones against those who may have been persuaded by Dawkins' works.

As a final note, I should like to add that the final part on imagining a "King Richard" governmental policy is a fascinating parody and also frightening when compared with similar Marxist governmental experiments.

Overall, this is just the kind of rebuttal that is required to match the quality of Dawkins' persuasion. I am on edge to see what he should pen next. For similar theologian heavyweight issues, see Ratzinger (Benedict XVI).

Using sound, sober logic; and with wit and wisdom, Hahn and Wiker implode Dawkins house of cards. These two scholars (whose PhD.'s are not in Zoology, but in areas that give them expertise in matters of faith and reasoning, philosophy and theology...)deliver a K.O. to Dawkins and his fellow 'horsemen.' It is not just a point by point refutation of the fallicious reasoning of the "Four Horsemen," but rather a fun and faith-building read.

This book is out this week, despite Amazon's seeming lack of knowledge, so buy this and find out why Richard Dawkins is swimming in a sea of his own crapulence.

Scott Hahn is a superb writer and knows of what he speaks. This book is essential for all those who wish to know the TRUTH.

About time indeed...