review of "The Devil's Delusion"
|
|
I've not read anything by David Berlinsky before, although I was aware of his association with the Discovery Institute. I found this book immensely enjoyable, both the scholastic excellence and logical argument, and the nice put-downs of Hitchens and Dennett in particular (which I'm sure they both deserve). I'll begin reading his other books now...
|
|
|
Exposing unreason in the Church of Atheism
|
In this entertaining & thought-provoking work, Berlinski exposes the limitations of science and the pretensions of those who insist that it must be the ultimate basis for understanding the universe. As a secular scientist, he argues from a scientific perspective. Being intellectually honest, he admits ignorance as to the big questions but he does reach conclusions from the available information. With acuity and acerbic wit, he reveals flaws in the scientific theories from the scientific point of view.
The author considers the onslaught on religious belief as an attempt to establish science as the single secular religion in which rational people ought to place their faith. Science has made the world more mysterious than ever before, argues Berlinski, since we now know more about what we do not know & have never understood. As science progressed, so did the mysteries that it cannot explain. To mention a few, the following questions have no naturalistic answers: (a) Where existence came from; (b) The origin of life, consciousness & morality; (c) The fine-tuning of the universe that makes human life possible. No convincing answers exist among the plethora of speculation.
Berlinski values the great physical theories as treasures of knowledge while emphasizing that they cannot answer the questions raised by theology and do not offer a coherent view of the universe. By raising apposite issues, he turns the scientific community's skepticism on itself. Does a rigid and oppressive orthodoxy of thought dominate the sciences? Are scientists prepared to believe in anything as long as religious thought is avoided? Did the secular ideologies of the terrible 20th century have an overall beneficial or evil effect? The religion of atheism and its detrimental influence in the scientific community are thoroughly dissected.
The scientist must be open-minded and receptive. Doctrinaire atheists with their closed minds do not necessarily make the best scientists since their preconceptions limit all those ideas not fitting their worldview. Their arguments are often contradictory and hypocritical. For example, they would impetuously demand to know who created God while at the same time insisting that the cosmos manifested itself - never mind their belief in a chain of cause & effect. It is therefore intellectually dishonest of them to ridicule believers for viewing God as existing outside of time. Berlinski succeeds spectacularly in mocking the mockers.
He observes that the common denominator of the most murderous regimes in history was the belief that no Higher Power existed that would hold them to account. Claiming that the oppression & mass murders of the 20th century were overwhelmingly committed by atheists, he carefully connects the dots from Darwin to the Shoah/Holocaust. In this regard, I highly recommend Alain Besançon's A Century of Horrors and Chantal Delsol's Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World.
Being an expert in one field gives certain people the notion that they're qualified to hold forth about subjects far removed from their expertise or to try to extend their own little dung-heaps into all kinds of "unified theories." They know much about little and aspire to become "spokespersons" in the media where they babble fatuously and are treated with deference by the equally vacuous media morons. That is how the Reverend Al Gore's First Church of the Boiling Globe achieved such undeserved prominence.
The author convincingly demonstrates the limitations of science as a method of describing physical reality; when theory goes before experiment, science blinds itself to the important role of faith in all fields of knowledge. An excellent book that investigates this matter in great detail is Science, Faith, and Society by Michael Polanyi. Universally accepted theories have often been proved wrong and there is no divorcing science from society.
Science currently holds the following incompatible doctrines: Quantum theory on the micro level, Relativity theory on the macro, String theory that attempts unification through multidimensionality, Thermodynamics with its process of entropy, Evolution, Molecular Biology & its DNA codes plus the concept of Entanglement that connects quantum entities beyond time and space throughout the universe. Each one offers some insight into some limited area but they do not gel with one another.
A circular argument like the "Anthropic Principle" is proclaimed as an idea superior to that of the Eternal Divine. As explained with admirably empathy & understanding by Delsol in The Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century, cultures that do not aspire to the divine become seduced by the banal, the depraved & the frivolous, ultimately submitting to the attraction of evil. When lacking a sense of the eternal, science gravitates towards the pursuit of reductionist drivel.
The Devil's Delusion is not always the easiest of reads but Berlinski's sense of humor, his directness and the many appropriate bons mots make it accessible to those with no background in the natural sciences. The book is a most welcome addition to an argument mostly waged by the disciples of atheism on the one hand and the apostles of traditional religion on the other. As such, this work offers a refreshing perspective with arguments firmly rooted in science.
|
|
A very useful contribution
|
I suspect that Berlinsky will get short shrift from diehard atheists, and this will be partly due to the challenges he lays down, and partly because of the way he constructs his arguments. After all, committed readers of Dawkins et al will not be particularly used to a consistently argued rationale. One of the previous Amazon reviewers appeared to write the book off simply because his conclusions agree with known theists - this does appear a somewhat restrictive perspective on how we interact with truth. Good arguments may apparently be no longer good simply because they allow for the "foot of God in the door". By such a light device we eliminate an entire avenue of insight.
I found this a useful, even a helpful book. Berlinsky's use of satire in sending up some of the more ridiculous atheistic arguments is quite refreshing, although sometimes I did wonder if it got slightly in the way of the logic. Notwithstanding, there was much to enjoy here - although I did wish sometimes that he would fully follow his reasoning through to its conclusion.
And, for those who do still espouse the way of faith, Berlinsky offers us another slant on the reality of much that masquerades as 'scientific' writing (you know, the type that is so keen to write off the concept of God). The belief systems currently being erected to explain God out of the picture require a leap of faith which makes my own Christian belief look positively pedestrian by way of comparison.
|
|
|
A defence of belief - from a non-believer
|
There were certain lecturers at university - Hans Kornberg springs to mind - whose lectures nobody would miss. It wasn't because they were necessarily the crucially important courses. It was because there was something about the style of the lecturer - his or her humour, perhaps, or delivery - which captivated the undergraduate audience and held it until the end of the course.
Reading this book by Berlinski reminded me of some of those lecturers. Various things about it were captivating. The layers of meaning that can be found in so many of the sentences; the deft way in which opposing opinions are dismantled; the shocking mild political incorrectnesses; the carefully-measured putdowns; the rhetorical interaction with opponents and readers.
Berlinski is writing a book in defence of belief in a god. Nothing unusual about that - Dawkins' book "The God Delusion", and similar ones, have sparked a whole publishing industry in response, many of which I've already reviewed on Amazon. What is most unusual about this book is that Berlinski is not a religious believer - and yet he is quite adamant that belief in God is not unreasonable. Furthermore, he is substantially better informed - biblically, philosophically, scientifically - than Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris.
He makes his case persuasively. For example, in response to the insistence that "miracles don't happen" by anti-theists, he points out that whilst we can understand the chemical process by which the eye "sees" something, we don't have a clue about what perception really is, and just because it is part of our everyday experience doesn't mean that it is inappropriate to describe it as a miracle. In response to the dogmatic insistence that we are no more than animals, he points out the fact that if that is what we are in biological terms, then it simply demonstrates that biology is telling us nothing useful about what it means to be human at all. He demonstrates that the theories that supposedly prove that God isn't necessary rarely do what they set out to, and say more about the presuppositions of the proponent than about the nature of the universe.
As I read the book, I found myself increasingly puzzled as to why, given his dissatisfaction with arguments against the existence of God, he should not believe in God himself. The dedication - to his father, who was lost in Auschwitz - perhaps provides one clue, and another big clue is provided in the last chapter - "The Cardinal and his Cathedral." Here he writes movingly of his life in science, and his hope - perhaps a little forlorn now - that despite its failures, science will one day provide a coherent means of understanding the world.
Two quibbles. The first is that the book could really have done with footnotes or endnotes for the many references. The second is that the odd provocative piece of political incorrectness could have been avoided - not because it does any harm in itself, but because it provides his opponents with a red herring card to play against him (to mix metaphors). But the bottom line is that this is an excellent, highly quotable book, which I intend to pass on to many other thoughtful people.
|
|
|
Brilliant conterblast to modern scientism
|
David Berlinski is a distinguished 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.'
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada