The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions | 
 enlarge | Author: David Berlinski
Publisher: Crown Forum
Category: Book
List Price: $23.95
Buy New: $13.82
You Save: $10.13 (42%)
New (38) Used (8) from $13.82
Avg. Customer Rating:  53 reviews
Sales Rank: 7784
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
|
| 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 48 more reviews...
When Atheists look in the Mirror... August 16, 2008
2 out of 2 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
2 out of 4 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.
absolute garbage with no real argument, this books' publishers have sinned in releasing it! August 11, 2008
1 out of 5 found this review helpful
this book was such a waste of time, i can't really begin to describe it. i read both books. the god delusion and the the devil's delusion. i like to think of myself as not biased and see both sides of an argument. this is not to say the book wasn't a waste of time/money! the main problem is that there is NO argument in this book. save yourselves, and refrain!
Agnostic vs. Atheism July 31, 2008
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
First of all, this is what agnostic view should be. For some strange reason, today's agnostics are indeed atheists in disguise. This author being far more honest than most 'agnostic' writers are. If you visit many [I can't speak for all, since I never visited all] 'agnostic', 'free thought', 'skeptic' websites you will get reaffirmed in Dawkins' type atheism. I don't know why this is so, but Dawkins seems far from being agnostic. Berlinski presents somewhat balanced scale of reality [with slight favor in religion, I might confess], and there is NO other SOLID reasons he didn't cover why one should favor Dawkins-type mythology full of logical fallacies. Berlinski is far more honest about scientific affairs than other 'skeptic' authors.
Berlinski's writing is harsh sometimes, but why not? Arrogance is bet treated in exactly his style! If today's atheist authors can put any nonsense on the paper [such that Christianity causes evil, despite the missionary clinics, schools, food distribution, etc], with any type of offense [calling Christians delusional, etc], why can't he do the same?
Couple rather funny quotes follows:
"If Richard Dawkins has not yet proposed renaming various English banknotes to Darwin's favor, this is only because of late he has been too busy counting them" (186)
"It is only human beings who can rotate their thumb and ring finger in what is called ulnar opposition in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied any of the great apes. No other item in Wallace's list has been ticked off against real understanding in evolutionary thought. What remains is fantasy of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savanna grasses." (158)
There are more, but I don't want to spoil the book.
I think there is a room for improvement. This book could have been written in more detail, twice as thick. But, on the other hand, the issue is not in details, but in the weight of arguments.
It's worth reading for those interested in various views [in this case non-atheistic] surrounding "new atheism", and familiar with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and the rest of their money making crew.
Nothing new July 31, 2008
7 out of 15 found this review helpful
Same thing I"ve heard from agnostics before.
Why not ask about the existence of Ba'al or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Prove they don't or do exist. Then consider what is more likely.
Science will explain the origin of the universe when we find the answer, after we've put in the resources and work into it, after we have uncovered what ever is covering our solution. Why should I think this? Because science has given us a great deal of results so far and HAS answered a lot of previously unfathomable difficult questions. How would I go about this with religion? Consider how many dinosaurs could fit on the Ark? How many people are going to hell? The weight of a human soul by measuring the mass of cadavers?
"Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?" Life as we know it? By whose definition. Perhaps life is inevitable. Who knows. This is something a person might defensibly have a reason to be agnostic about.
"Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?" Trick question. What does he mean by "believe"? A scientist has to have at least a reason -- a real reason, an artifact, some data, SOME evidence. A "believer" just needs a certainty, a fleeting feeling or sensation, no matter how crazy or absurd or where it came from.
"Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?"? Religion doesn't do a good job of it either. After all, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I could go on, but there is nothing new in this book or these arguments regarding this debate.
It's time to put the damn holy books down. We have nuclear weapons now, and we've killed enough of each other over our respective imaginary friends and what we think they are telling us to do; we've been latching onto those damn books like it was our first Golden book from infancy.
This is grown up talk. Put your shoes on, get up, and look around. Humanity is starting to mature and it is time we start acting like it.
Do yourself a favor: hit the back button up there and move on with your life.
|
|
|
