Probably every publisher with a large theology and religion list has at least one book engaging with the new atheism. This has been fertile ground for analysis, history and apologetics. David Fergusson's Gifford Lectures, delivered in Glasgow in 2008, is the book for Oxford University Press.

David Fergusson is a careful scholar. There is an elegance in his writing – a precision that is a delight to read. He has clearly read the primary texts with care and provides a masterful survey which locates, analyses and adjudicates the issues. It is an insightful study.

The book starts by locating the current crop of atheists in the context of the history of atheism. Fergusson demonstrates that atheism is an intrinsically reactive enterprise, responding to a particular religious mood. The so-called new atheism – the atheism of Dennett, Dawkins, Harris – is a reaction against the persistence of religion in the modern period.

On the arguments for and against God, he counsels that there is no ‘knock down’ argument and, anyway, faith is not the balancing of probabilities that is used when one is trying to work out whether the Loch Ness monster exists. He is especially good on the limits of Darwinism: he demonstrates that there is no convincing Darwinian explanation for belief that makes belief intrinsically unlikely. Many of Fergusson's positions take issue with both the atheist and the theist – so, too many theists move too quickly from an objective morality to God (just look at Buddhism) but Dawkins' indignation that morality is easily sustainable within atheism sounds as if he is betraying his own first principle that one must not allow feelings to distract from a careful consideration of the evidence and arguments. And while most arguments for God's existence do not work, the aesthetic sensibility is intelligible within theism whereas it is not for the Darwinian.

When it comes to the impact of religion on our health, Fergusson insists on a proper study of the sociological literature. He concedes much: it looks as if in Northern Ireland religion was a significant factor in the sectarianism. He also contests much: it is nonsense to disregard the side of atheist ideology in communist regimes. And he gets frustrated over much: there is a significant raft of data that shows that religion plays a constructive role in many lives and leads to major participation in volunteer activities. Finally, on scripture, Fergusson draws a parallel between the Protestant fundamentalists and the new atheism. Both ignore the history of interpretation and both ignore contemporary nuanced strategies to interpret the text with care and accuracy. In a concluding chapter, Fergusson insists that the issues are too complex to be reduced to the crude debate or slogan on the side of a London bus. Instead, more attention needs to be given to a careful dissection of the issues that invites the more thoughtful humanists into the discussion.

This is a remarkably good book. Naturally one could quibble with this or that point. He is too sympathetic to Küng's hope that Islam will read the Qur'an in the same way that Christianity reads the Bible. This is to misunderstand the nature of the Qur'an – the Qur'an is the Muslim equivalent to the incarnation – it is the Eternal Word in a text. To ask for a shift here is analogous to Christianity relinquishing the incarnation – something Fergusson concedes he will not do.

Overall, this is one of the better books provoked by the new atheists. However, as I put the book down I was disturbed. Can the irenic disposition of David Fergusson win hearts and minds against the lively fireworks of Richard Dawkins and his fellow travellers? For those of us committed to conversation within the academy, we hope the answer is yes. For those aware of the power of media and propaganda, we fear that the answer may be no.