MacGrath might have tried to take advantage of those critique-grounds that are used to criticise christianity by all reasonable people, including free thinkers, scientists, and ordinary people with common sense -but to no avail. His trial came to nothing -a great fiasco. So, the author realized that to give good impact on the public, he should depend on sophistic strategy rather than reasonable argumentation. In his new book, MacGrath is going to every length, depending on his poorest rhetoric, to reveal or disclose that Dawkins also may be or must be a fundamentalist; so he has rolled out a magic word -atheist fundamentalist. Actually he earnestly and eagerly wishes Dawkins to be a sort of fundamentalist and belong to a circle of those people of his own kind, that is, a fundamentalist group. With his new misleading rhetoric and such a mean play of words lacking even the slightest bit of reasonable argumentation, MacGrath was just struggling to impose the evil stigma of fundamentalism on Dawkins, for the only purpose of demolishing the honest scientist, not of finding truth through rational criticism or cogent refutation based on evidence and reason, because he could never understand or get at the heart of the question.

In fact, the strategy frenetically loved by the author is this : making the essence of the problem obscure by merely using several key expressions which were borrowed from other critical thinkers and rational scientists, without providing any rational ground for his assertive insistence. He just faked rationality. Throughout his book, his mouth is to be found, but no brain. The author has taken the stand as rhetorician, not as thinker, because he has no understanding. In MacGrath, you can see just several empty expressions, but no rational thinking itself. He can't never match or rival Dawkins in thinking, reasoning, scientific argumentation, and even aesthetical elegance. While reading this book, you can easily find out that he didn't really have any other choice but to take the strategy of sophistic word-play. This is not an honest behaviour. It can be rightly said that with his mouth of fooling around, the author has successfully indicated how groundless and thoughtless a religious person could be!