The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions | 
 enlarge | Author: David Berlinski
Publisher: Crown Forum
Category: Book
List Price: $23.95
Buy New: $8.43
You Save: $15.52 (65%)
New (40) from $8.43
Avg. Customer Rating:  55 reviews
Sales Rank: 3603
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 256
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8.2 x 5.8 x 1.1
ISBN: 0307396266
Dewey Decimal Number: 215
EAN: 9780307396266
ASIN: 0307396266
Publication Date: April 1, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand New. Delivery is usually 5 - 8 working days from order, International is by Royal Mail Airmail
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.
“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”
A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.
Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.
This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be–indeed must be–the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 50 more reviews...
Good Book August 28, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Not a perfect book, but enjoyable. Offers plenty of arguments challenging the scientific atheists claim that God cannot exist. Don't listen to the bloated one star reviews that misrepresent him, he offers an intelligent discussion on the topic.
 Brilliant counterblast to modern scientism August 28, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
David Berlinski is a distinguished author, an academic mathematician and philosopher, who was also a post-doctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia University. A secular Jew, he is also a fellow of the Discovery Institute [which for some biased individuals might immediately rule him out of court - a pity, because it is just such persons who most need to hear what he has to say]. His mind and his writing are rapier-sharp, and his logical skills reveal the usual suspects as patently incompetent in significant areas.
Who are his targets? Well, they include Stephen Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Emile Zukerkandel, Victor Stegner, Massimo Piglucci, Sam Harris, Stephen Weinberg, Christopher Hitchens and Eugenie Scott. Their continuing vehement support of a Darwinian closed-shop in Academia, and their scientistic view of man and the universe are revealed as both crass and dehumanizing.
Far from being behind the times in matters of biology, Berlinski praises the work of biological scientists like Eugene Koonin, Motoo Kimura, Michael Lynch and others who are frank about the fatal shortcomings of Darwinian theory. The closely argued logical case is relieved by some shrewd observations about his principal targets, and I particularly liked his parting shot at Christopher Hitchens:
'When asked what he was in awe of, Christopher Hitchens responded that his definition of an educated person is that you have some idea how ignorant you are. This seems very much as if Hitchens were in awe of his own ignorance, in which case he has surely found an object worthy of his veneration.'
 David, me and the devil August 21, 2008
4 out of 9 found this review helpful
The author of this book, David Berlinski, is a secular Jew and agnostic who co-operates with Christian fundamentalists. Indeed, he is a member of the "Discovery Institute", the notorious Intelligent Design creationist think-tank in Seattle. The book comes with positive blurbs written by Michael Behe and William Buckley (!), and inside the book, Berlinski thanks Ann Coulter for inspiration.
I suppose I could have ended my review right there, don't you think? William Buckley? WILLIAM BUCKLEY???!!!
Still, one wonders why a secular Jew who apparently doesn't believe in God, would ally himself with Christian fundamentalists, and work for a think-tank financed by a Christian reconstructionist (who would presumably stone Jews for blasphemy, in the belief that the Torah is really Christian). Perhaps Berlinski is a "Straussian" cynic who believes that religion, although probably false, is nevertheless necessary, otherwise the common people might get into their heads that anything goes, and moral break-down (read: revolution) follows. He certainly suggests this at one point in the book, where he says that brute force is necessary to tame the evil impulses in man, but since brute force cannot reach everyone everywhere, people need to control themselves with a bit of divine morality. Why Berlinski or Buckley don't need to be restrained in this way, he doesn't say.
So the talented Mr. Berlinski might be a cynic. However, another part of me (my motherly side?) actually feels sorry for him. His book is so confused, delusional, and quite simply *bad*, that I felt difficult hating the guy after reading it. Berlinski has crucified his reason, and in return gotten...well, what? The blond bombshell Ann Coulter? A bizarre mixture of anti-realism, al-Ghazali and Intelligent Design creationism? Sounds like a bad trade-off to me. Frankly, the guy would be more honest if he simply converted, say to Conservative Judaism. Perhaps that would finally satisfy his longing for God, if indeed he has any.
Responding to the arguments of the book is, of course, pointless. What struck me most, however, were the constant contradictions. Berlinski seems to take the anti-realist position towards scientific theories. Except sometimes. When it suits his purposes, he switches to a de facto realist position. Thus, he treats the Big Bang theory as proven, beyond reproach and quite true. Why? Because it suggests that the universe had a beginning, and therefore... (Clue: God may have done it after all.)
He also loves the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, which is perhaps understandable from an anti-realist standpoint, but Berlinski seems to love it for very different reasons. Since the Copenhagen interpretation is ontologically weird, the Trinity and Incarnation might be true as well! David, you were saying...?
In one chapter, Berlinski points out (quite correctly, by the way) that there is a qualitative difference between humans and animals. But if there is, why does he want a totalitarian bureaucracy to win the Cold War...pardon, I mean why does he want the police to treat their fellow humans as irrational cattle? Strangely, he even admits that Stephen Hawking's explanation about why the universe doesn't have a real "beginning" might actually be true, but brushes it aside by asking "OK, but *why* is it here? And no, you can't ask that question about God. A necessary being is simply necessary. Period". Or amen?
Curiously, there seems to be a symmetrical relationship between the author and my own humble self. I'm not a materialist, and on a really good day, I'm not an "atheist" either. Does God exist? No idea. Maybe. Maybe not. Does some kind of spiritual or mental realm exist? Probably yes. Do we need to postulate a transcendental realm to arrive at absolute morality? Of course. Can "orthodox" Darwinism explain the gap between humans and animals? The question isn't easy, but on balance, I don't think so either. Yet, I seem to have drawn the very opposite political conclusions from those of Berlinski. For starters, I don't mingle with Ann or Billy!
Why? Good question. Maybe I just don't like blonde bombshells and Latin Mass Catholics. But here's a more serious speculation. Perhaps the difference between Ashtar and Berlinski is that my agnosticism is provisional, while his is methodological. I'm still waiting for the jury to come in. Berlinski doesn't even think there is a jury. If scientific theories are strongly anti-realist, if the universe is irrational and incomprehensible, then there is nothing left for us to do, except to survive, and keep law and order in the meantime. Hence the need for pretending that God exists. If, on the other hand, realism is true, and if our brains can formulate even a "theory of everything", we are at bottom rational creatures, and might one day really start to understand even the things beyond Hawking's complex numbers...
Ironically, the difference between me and the author of "The Devil's Delusion" might ultimately be, that he's closer to the Devil.
When Atheists look in the Mirror... August 16, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
They fear a supernatural reflection will utter demanding and accusatory questions using Berlinski's voice.
Berlinski`s an agnostic, secular scientist with a classical education, a quick mind and a quicker tongue. Using arguments from common sense, classical philosophy and a deep scientific understanding, Berlinski severs some threadbare arguments emanating from the prophets of modern atheism, and reminds scientists, philosophers and theologians of their proper place in the natural order. The author reminds us that these paths are well worn and in an age of specialization, the internet, and emoting, relativistic experts" perhaps some should study a little harder, work out their arguments a little better, before they speak. And If their ideas "are no good. Why champion them? And they are no good. So why champion them?"
This is not just the perspective of a secular agnostic; this is the perspective from a truly scientific mind. As Berlinski writes what every humble scientist knows, "The more the physical world is studied, and the richer our grasps of its principles, the greater the gap between what it represents and what we embody." The more we know, the more we know how much we don't know. Science is to be revered for its reflection of human imagination and as a tool with incredible, explanatory power.
The author possesses the uncommon ability to generate a single question that dismantles a tortuous argument. Most often he dissects these arguments with linguistic aplomb, but he can exhibit spells of extended mutilation. This mutilation most often occurs when he attempts to translate complex scientific concepts or classic philosophical arguments to the common man. Even the mutilations are bearable because of the liberal dose of cutting wit found throughout.
As other reviewers have noted, this is not a tome outlining arguments of Intelligent Design, and the author never claims it to be. The book was penned to address the "shallow", "inconsistent" arguments of the arrogant Science Priests preaching in the Church of Militant Atheism whose believers accept a worldview based on fanciful imagination-that bears no relation to the Truth, the Good, and The Beautiful- because it hasn't been tested in nature and "there isn't the slightest bit of scientific reason to think it is so."
Embarrassing ignorance August 12, 2008
4 out of 9 found this review helpful
All you need to do to evaluate Berlinski's book is to look up "Darwin" in the index, then flip to the indicated pages.
There, you'll find that evolution by natural selection, a.k.a. Darwinism, has "little evidence" to support it. This, Berlinski knows because he read an article in "Science Daily" that he has no reason to doubt.
Man.
It's a bit like writing a book about how mathematicians are pretentiously deluded, and citing as evidence the idea of negative integers: "where's the evidence for negative numbers? Ever *seen* minus-one cookies? Neither have I!"
The evidence for evolution by natural selection fills library shelves. It's as well-demonstrated as any such theory could hope to be. Berlinski should stick to dumbing-down math, rather than venturing so far outside his field of competence.
|
|
|
