The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine

When I read The God Delusion a year and a half ago, I gave it 3 stars. I have not reread it since then and I don't remember all that much about it besides the fact that I appreciated his no-nonsense way of writing. While I think it is an important book in bringing the topic of atheism to the masses, I don't hold it as some foundational text. So when I discovered this book, I was expecting it to be obnoxious and bombastic, and on this point I was mistaken. The authors here are respectful, even complimenting Dawkins' scientific work several times. Still, this slim volume does not manage to rebut many of Dawkins' points; instead, most of the book merely consists of tone-policing and accusing Dawkins of not writing a scientific text, which The God Delusion was never intended to be. And right on the first page, this book already doesn't pass the smell test. The author claims that this happened after a conference he had given: "This man was angry—in fact, I would say he was furious. Why? Because, he told me, wagging his finger agitatedly at me, I had "destroyed his faith." His atheism rested on the authority of Richard Dawkins, and I had totally undermined his faith." Of course, this is a personal anecdote with no citation and no name of this supposedly real "angry atheist" who "puts his faith in Richard Dawkins." I think this personal anecdote is either greatly embellished or completely fabricated. I've never heard a single real atheist talk this way, and it sounds exactly like what Christians like to pretend atheists talk like. Simply put, it's one of the fakest stories I've ever heard, and I don't believe it happened for a minute. He states with utter sincerity that "religion possesses internal means and is open to reform and renewal." Perhaps more liberal Christianity, but most churches can back their views up with chapter and verse and woe to any who challenges those beliefs. Ex-communication and shunning still happen in varying levels of severity. If both sides can back up their views with the Bible, who wins? Neither, and this brings up the question of why the Bible can be and is misinterpreted so often and so easily (especially considering it is the most important document from a perfect eternal God.) I think this is the point Dawkins was getting at. No, Christianity is rarely ever open to new revelations and interpretations, which is why it has splintered into thousands of denominations that bicker constantly with each other. Ironically, after emphasizing how supposedly open religion is to new ideas, the author then admits that Jesus' challenge of religious orthodoxy is what got him crucified. This would seem to defeat the point. "The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering." Again, false flag. Atheists do not hold faith in atheism. To think so is to fundamentally misunderstand what words mean. The authors repeatedly emphasize the kind of beliefs that Dawkins criticized in his book as unimportant, as if most modern Christians give any thought or care toward the ivory tower Christian philosophers. Religious fundamentalism is rampant throughout America especially, exerting enormous influence over our supposedly secular political and educational systems. Fundamentalism is the problem that Dawkins was trying to call out, though he took the shotgun approach in trying to tackle the very root of religious fundamentalism - religion itself. By glossing over and ignoring the huge problems that Christian fundamentalism causes, the authors make a mistake. I wouldn't recommend this book because while it isn't abhorrent and doesn't fall into ad hominem attacks, it also doesn't do a great job of what it was trying to achieve.