Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi,
i started reading the book last night....excellent book so far...
i loved "The God Delusion" and although the purpose of this book is different, it is (so far) equally impressive.
I am almost done with The God Delusion. Only 1 more chapter to go. I have to say, it's a very good book, because he covers topics that other atheists simply havent' covered in their books, such as religion being child abuse, moral zeitgeists, and a lot on evolution. This is my 4th atheist book so far, but I think I'm going to take a break on reading atheist books for a while. The next book I am about to read, however is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, published in 2009. It is a counter to Richard Dawkin's and Christopher Hitchen's books. So, I'm curious to see what he has to say.
I am almost done with The God Delusion. Only 1 more chapter to go. I have to say, it's a very good book, because he covers topics that other atheists simply havent' covered in their books, such as religion being child abuse, moral zeitgeists, and a lot on evolution. This is my 4th atheist book so far, but I think I'm going to take a break on reading atheist books for a while. The next book I am about to read, however is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, published in 2009. It is a counter to Richard Dawkin's and Christopher Hitchen's books. So, I'm curious to see what he has to say.
So was I. It is always a good thing to read the other side.
"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."
The above points will be seen clearly by anyone who has paid attention to the discussions here as being logically flawed, unfair to skeptic (or at least rational) thought and to science and Berlinski clearly has something to learn. For a start, the rules of logical thought and their application to science and atheism's grounding in that.
So was I. It is always a good thing to read the other side.
"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:
Shibumi; following are the non-scientists review of each of Berlinski's ideas:
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.
I think the absence of any corroborating physical evidence is pretty good evidence. I can't see a new Corvette in my driveway, no matter how hard or how long I try to have faith it should be there. On top of that personal realization, there's apparently never been one there, a statement which my more rational neighbors and friends will concur (more than one set of eyes and mind). Therefore, I'm pretty sure I can conclude (and prove) there is no Shibumi Corvette.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Is that it's job? Might it explain things in the future?
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Sh: the numbers fit our existence because we evolved into them. Had those critical numbers been different (warmer, colder, nearer, further away, etc.) a different creature, but perfectly adapted to those numbers, would have developed. This uncovers again the deep misunderstanding in the simple logic of adaption and evolution.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Sh: if there's a clear differentiation between logical, step-wise thought, considered and reviewed by more than one person to try to eliminate false biases, and illogical, random faith-based "fit the sitch" thinking, then perhaps this is a correct statement, yes.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Sh: agreed. But hardly an effective condemnation of rationalism in toto. So we should abandon rationalism?
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Sh: Partially and demonstrably, in millions of cases, since it does provide the basis for scientific reasoning, the results of which are then grabbed by not only the wholesome of mind, but also those with purely evil intent. Knowledge is, after all, power. Just ask the church!
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Sh: their style of thinking may have become partially institutionalized, but only because, in the main, that consistency provides the most reliable results. Some new-age scientists do think outside the box, and for that they may be initially vilified, but they have also produced some intriguing new finds.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.
Sh: this one I disagree with. The entire Creationism/Genesis story is demonstrably irrational. Prayer is irrational. The concepts of Heaven and Hell are irrational.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on."
Sh: one does eventually become contemptuous of the irrational, and of those who do not think things through but rather parrot established lines and talking points. We have ample evidence of that right here in City-Data.
Such a contemptuous response is hardly misplaced when confronted by institutionalized ignorance (aka religion).
__________________________________
AREQUIPA's comments: The above points will be seen clearly by anyone who has paid attention to the discussions here as being logically flawed, unfair to skeptic (or at least rational) thought and to science and Berlinski clearly has something to learn. For a start, the rules of logical thought and their application to science and atheism's grounding in that.
Agreed, AREQUIPA! Since religion cannot ever be successfully defended with rational, step-wise thinking, it is forever doomed to stagger along, each point being made eventually grounding on that one sharp immovable rock of rationality, that stalwart stoneworks of truth that punctures faith's frail hull.
"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:"
Which are easily turned back on berlinski himself, showing his argument to be yet more illogical, irrational and dishonest theist apologetics.
"Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close."
The burden of proof is on the believers to give some good evidence of 'God's' (sortagod) existence. However, the evidence for the non -existence of Biblegod is another matter.
"Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close."
Why does there have to be a reason? Also cosmology has produced better answers to cosmic origins than have the mythologies of religion,
"Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close."
But Goddunnit is just too easy. It also ignores the point that life fine -tunes itself to the conditions. Moreover there is some evidence that some of the circumstances (arrival of water, extinction of dinosaurs) do indicate unplanned accidents.
"Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough."
They are willing to believe anything with a decent amount of evidence. religion has provided nowhere near 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."
The morality thing has been hi -jacked rather by religion simply because human moral codes must of course be endorsed by religion. It is only now that we are coming to realise that morality owes more to evolved behaviour plus intellectual reasoning than it does to any God - given codes.
"Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close."
This is his best point and I don't deny that the Marxist regimes were atheist and an embarrassment.
It is too easy to assign all the bad to secularism and the good to religion. I don't deny that the communist regimes were very oppressive but some theist regimes (including Hitler's) have not been so good either, for example the Fascist regimes of Japan and Spain and the Juntas of South America and Africa, not to mention the theist regimes of the muslim world. There were also the evils of empire and let's not forget the horrors of Vietnam, where it was the Marxist regime which turned out to have the moral high ground as well as the victory. But here, the great atrocity count becomes
a bit pointless. And somehow anyone pointing to North Korea and looking at me "That's atheist, like you." would seem to have gone wrong somewhere.
I reckon that it it irrational political dogma that is to blame for this stuff, not secularism, though the theists dearly love to claim that it is atheism which is to blame, just as 'secularism' gets al the blame for anything bad in theist comunities. It is a clever political ploy.
"Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough."
If one calls the requirement to comply with scientific method, the rules of logic and verified evidence 'a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy' one could call that 'close enough'.
"Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark."
Spot on, I'd say. Evey point made above is shown to be irrational.
"Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on."
Dead wrong. Science is the most reliable way of discovering anything. Religion tells us nothing but speculation and which has pretty much all turned out to be wrong.
Atheism comes out of science. It is religion which (as we have seen above) regards intellect with contept.
Agreed, AREQUIPA! Since religion cannot ever be successfully defended with rational, step-wise thinking, it is forever doomed to stagger along, each point being made eventually grounding on that one sharp immovable rock of rationality, that stalwart stoneworks of truth that punctures faith's frail hull.
I'm sorry but i will have to disagree.
As long as there are uneducated, gullible, and naiive people in this world, religion will have a warm nest to rest; and based on my calculations, the world is full of those types of people and unfortunately, there's no reason to believe this behavior will ever change.
You may be right, but the fact is that a huge number of atheists were formerly Christians who began to question their faith. Very often they did it themselves - in fact, they HAVE to do it themselves: they will not listen to us. But the very process of questioning began by being asked the questions.
We must ask the questions.
The other side is the threat of creationism. It is more worrisome than Dainiken's Gods from outer space (and we have seen how that still has a powerful faith - base here in the religion forum) but that never went to court to have it shoehorned into education as an equally good explanation. Nor was it pushed on evangelical sites and Tv shows nor preached from pulpit and Mimbar.
Science just cannot sit back and let them have a clear field. It has to make the evidence accessible and understandable. Kids love space and dinosaurs. They have a predisposition to take it on board in a sense other than 'See that galaxy? God dunnit' or 'These dinosaurs were all crammed on the Ark.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
