The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

I was hoping for better arguments from an ID proponent who claims to be a secular Jew but to no avail. The author picks up all the old clichés; with their flawed logic and all. He infused god-speak throughout the book and that came off as disingenuous to me. If you claim that you yourself don't

Show More

believe in god(s), why arte you writing a book attempting to refute Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion?

I suspect that Berlinski lacks the personal integrity to write a book based on his real views and just whored himself out to The Discovery Institute (whether it was for money or just to be a dick, I couldn't really say; maybe both). At any rate, it's a feather in the cap of the creationists (er, I mean ID proponents) of The Discovery Institute because they can claim they arguments are note religiously motivated. After all, David Berlinski is admittedly secular and he agrees with them. They make the same case with avowed atheist (and asshat), Bradley Monton.

Show Less

This is one of the most important books I've read in scientific literature "for the layman". Written by a secular Jewish scientist and mathematician, this book explores what science really does know and what it does not know. It's an examination of the facts without the philosophical BS that tends

Show More

to subjectively dilute what little we know. Among the topics are the existence of God and the theory of evolution.

The reason I love this book is because it is incredibly and thoroughly logical. And if it is biased to anything, it is biased to logic itself. Not only does this book discuss the facts in black in white, but you find yourself thinking afterwards of what those facts could mean - without the sticky, oppressive film of an author's opinions.

Militant atheistic views are discussed in detail and weighed against themselves to show that there isn't a lot of sense - if any - to them. It's amazing how similar atheism and radial religious thought are so similar: both require a tremendous amount of faith. Though I very rarely re-read books, this will certainly be a book I read several times. There just isn't any way to soak in all of what the author has to say in just one reading.

Show Less

Excellent expose of the dishonest and sloppy logic used by the leading atheists who would like us to believe that science provides unassailable evidence that natural processes are entirely adequate to explain the universe and life. He often identifies the flaws in atheist philosophy using amusing

Show More

sarcasm and a rapier fine wit. Delightful read.

Show Less

Berlinski totally redeems himself

To post a review of a book on a controversial topic is to invite abuse from one side or the other, so on one level I would have preferred to keep silent, but in fairness to the author I felt I needed to review this book since I gave a (deservedly) negative review to

Show More

his last book.

I've bought most of the books responding to the "New Atheists", and I've read about half of them so far. In my opinion, while John F. Haught's _God and the New Atheism_ is the most professional of the lot, _The Devil's Delusion_ is the most impressive rhetorically. Someone at National Review Online said that Christopher Hitchens is like the little girl with the curl, in that when he is bad he is horrid, but when he is good, he is very, very good; perhaps the same is true of Berlinski. This is not to say that their styles are similar: Hitchens seems quite careful to say exactly what he means (even if what he means to say is wrong), while Berlinski seems willing to sacrifice precision in order to bring a point home, but both can be quite talented polemicists when their hearts are in it and when they can manage to stay focused. Here, Berlinski's armchair-philosopher approach seems effective to me, and it makes this book much more interesting and thought-provoking than some of the other books by like-minded authors.

Oh, there's plenty to criticize about _The Devil's Delusion_, and I'm not saying that he's won the debate (as if it were even possible for this debate to have a winner), but I'm glad I bought and read this book, and I think many of you who can give it a sympathetic reading may also find it worth your time and money.

Show Less

Berlinski is a very good writer, I am well aware of arguments from both sides. I think, he doesn't add anything new in the debate, but lucidly writes about how little we know.

I would say, "Scientists are the New Priests." To question them is to be labelled as, foolish. To not believe in such and

Show More

such, is to be labelled as fool. Because x is a scientific fact, every one must believe in it. From Popes, Priests, Politicians, Scientists are also fallible.

I'd rather let people decide what they need to believe, they have freedom to believe in, whatever they find persuasive, includes results of methods in inquiry under naturalism.

--Deus Vult
Gottfried.

Show Less

A major conversation point over the course of my life has ended up being the proposition of the existence of deities of one form or another. This is probably to the annoyance of my atheist friends, and I can definitely see that a world where you wouldn't really have to defend a position in which

Show More

there is no god would not be a bad one. But still, there you have it, and it's a topic of debate still. The point in this book is that the atheist side has been getting a lot of play of late, claiming the mantle of science in having proved there is no god. Berlinski's take at first seems to be to say, look, we just can't know for sure, let's be agnostic about the whole deal, but in the end, it's a straight-up argument for the existence of god. In that, I was sort of disappointed, because I did want a different take on this affair, but you get the book people will buy, I suppose.

So, here we are again. There were essentially only two points that I think Berlinski carried off well. First, that scientists dismissing arguments for the divine for reasons that are evident in their own theories, as well; Berlinski's comparisons for the scientific and the theological points on the creation of the universe and dealing with the Big Bang were pretty well advanced. There's more faith in the solutions of science than seems to be generally held to be there. Second, the conclusions of there not being a god based on the data tend to be overstated. There's a real feel that you want any explanation before a divine one, and from a scientific perspective, I can understand that, but authors of these papers take a much stronger position than is warranted by the current state of the data. That's not to say you should thus believe in a god, and certainly no more than the Jeffersonian, deist-style "God as the Watchmaker" position, but there's not much ruling that out based on current theory.

Much of the rest of the book, though, is unconvincing, particularly the section on evolution and the arguing against well-known atheists... it gets very polemical and shrill, and while I know that such is the style advanced by the current batch of popular atheists (certainly, Berlinski's got that going, too), I find it very annoying to read smug, overwritten attacks on other writers. Civility isn't a bad thing, people, but I suppose it doesn't cover up your weaker points in your argument as well as bluster does.

Anyway, this book was very uneven, it doesn't always try to make the same points, leaving the argumentation across the sections feeling scattershot, and I didn't really find it as too much of a big sell... can't say I'd recommend this one much. They can't all be good, yeah?

Show Less

Berlinski is a very good writer, I am well aware of arguments from both sides. I think, he doesn't add anything new in the debate, but lucidly writes about how little we know.

I would say, "Scientists are the New Priests." To question them is to be labelled as, foolish. To not believe in such and

Show More

such, is to be labelled as fool. Because x is a scientific fact, every one must believe in it. From Popes, Priests, Politicians, Scientists are also fallible.

I'd rather let people decide what they need to believe, they have freedom to believe in, whatever they find persuasive, includes results of methods in inquiry under naturalism.

--Deus Vult
Gottfried.

Show Less

In recent centuries humanity has undergone a fundamental change in attitude toward existential matters. Science has become increasingly attractive as the only requirement for understanding our universe. The human spirit has become increasingly irrelevant as humanity hurtles toward a materialist

Show More

view of its existence. Science hasn’t proven the existence of the soul, so why should we need to be aware of it?
To deny the existence of a human spirit is to deny oneself an afterlife. I have a genuine concern for the sanity of those who believe that our current minuscule lifespan will be the sum total of our individual existence.
If humans possess an intangible soul, why is the concept of a benevolent and non-interfering God not possible? A God that did not create the universe, but plays an immutable role in the intelligent design of life?
The Devil’s Delusion is a defense against the militant atheism encroaching upon modern human society. Berlinsky is not a creationist as some scientists accuse him of being. He writes as an impartial expert witness, citing copious examples of science’s limitations with precise and withering logic, and an entertaining sense of humor. I am thankful that he has written this book.

Show Less