Agnostics vs. Atheists: Devil’s Delusion now available at Amazon
| April 2, 2008 | Posted by scordova under Atheism, Culture |
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.
Dr. Berlinski’s agnosticism and willingness to say, “I don’t know”, has a great appeal to someone like me. Anyone working in the hard sciences or engineering is accustomed to being made aware of his own fallibility on an hourly basis, and out of necessity one learns to become skeptical of many things. To hear someone as brilliant as Berlinski say, “I don’t know”, makes him more credible in my eyes. Dr. Berlinski echoes the skepticism and agnosticism that is at the heart of science, a skepticism which says, “I don’t know, but I want to learn more”.
What do we know for sure? Perhaps not much. I know for sure there is no hope or salvation in Charles Darwin. I know for sure Darwin found math repugnant and admitted he couldn’t even perform the early steps of high school algebra after considerable effort.
In contrast, Berlinski loves mathematics and physics, and in his book, Devil’s Delusion, he expresses much of his love of math and physics as he critiques the scientific pretensions of the atheists.
Berlinski defends his ideas by exploring the works of Maxwell, Einstein, Godel, Turing, Chomsky and other great minds. Dawkins in contrast appeals to Darwin. I would take Maxwell, Turing, and Godel over Darwin any day.
Here are some excerpts from Berlinski’s book:
the great German mathematician David Hilbert affirmed in an address given in 1930, “We must know, we will know.”
…
Shortly after Hilbert delivered his address, Kurt Godel demonstrated that mathematics was inherently incomplete. If science in the twentieth century has demonstrated anything, it is that there are limits to what we can know.
….
Darwin’s theory of evolution…may be grasped by anyone in an afternoon, and often is. A week suffices to make a man a specialist.
…
historian Richard Weikart, who in his admirable treatise, From Darwin to Hitler makes clear what anyone capable of reading the German sources already knew: A sinister current of influence ran form Darwin’s theory of evolution to Hitler’s policy of extermination.
….
Darwinian biologists are very often persuaded that there is a conspiracy to make them look foolish. In this they are correct.
….
Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not….What these computer experiment do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered: There is a sucker born every minute.
After reading the book, one is forced to conclude, “scientific” atheism is The Devil’s Delusion.
103 Responses to Agnostics vs. Atheists: Devil’s Delusion now available at Amazon
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
frost at 86:
I am an atheist, but I don’t really agree with either of the premises of Berlinski’s syllogism, as you describe it. Or perhaps I just don’t agree with their import.
If God does not exist everything is permitted. What does it mean to be permitted? If we have free will, isn’t everything permitted? If the posited God is omnipotent and omniscient he has permitted everything that has happened.
And as to science being true eliminating the possibility of God’s existence, I think that it is generally understood that science cannot eliminate the possibility of a god or gods. What it does do is make the currently proposed gods look pretty unlikely.
I just watched the Berlinski presentation. The best I can say is “Mush.” ID doesn’t need spokesmen like this. His anti Darwinism was soft at best. There were a lot of places he could have gone but didn’t. He left the impression that the anti Darwinian (general theory) was not proven but so what, a lot of science isn’t.
My wife heard part of it and said it sounded like Bill Clinton asking what do you mean by the word “is.”
Remember Berlinsi is a skeptic and an agnostic. He is not an advoacte of ID. His book states that science has no basis or declaring atheism because it has not disproven God.
When i was at the event it was kinda dull and slow but after I wached it a few times I fallowed Brlinski better and appreciated it more. Like a wine I had never tasted before, it grew on me.
I saw someone who said “it could be this, it could be that, who knows.”
Somebody who agrees completely with Jason Rosenhouse is not someone who is going to do our side any good. My guess is that he has been gotten to by the chattering class and wants to get along with everyone. He took no stand on anything of consequence and left the impression, believe what you want, there is nothing to invalidate it. Hey, atheism isn’t proven but nothing else is either.
His book arrived in the mail the same time I was watching his presentation. It is on the list to read.
The book is MUCH better than the presentation. If you arent happy with this fine elegant and deep read then I think nothing from an agnostic perspective could make you happy no matter how intelligent it is.
With due respect to some of these later comments….Berlinskis book IS excellent in virtually every regard, and IS a great help to the Intelligent Design movement.
I hope that anyone who doubts this will find time to read the book.
“My guess is that he has been gotten to by the chattering class and wants to get along with everyone.”
I agree that Dr. Berlinski seemed less anti-Darwin then in the classic THE INCORRIGABLE DR. BERLINSKI. Which I first saw when I was 13 years old.
I agree that time and new evidence may have softened his opinions. Who knows.
Though when he makes comments like “there is no evidence that language evolves” I feel better. Maybe Dr. Berlinski is on our side.
Wish he contributed here.
Someone suggested to me that the only reason that he wrote this book was because he needed the money.
Not sure if this slander.
Its not slander he said something like that at the conference. He said as his opening remark “Everyone has been cashing in on this debate writing books such as the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens etc.. so I though I’d cash in too.” It was honest and kind of funny. I think that David like anyone is motivated by money. This is no reason to question the value of his work. His work stands on its own merit and that alone. No one in this whole world sneezes at money. It is a god thing and makes the word go round if it is earned honestly. Is David’s book honest. I’m not done it yet, but of course it is. He’s simply saying that no one “knows” in the sense, “can prove” what this life is all about. He is now weighing in for various reasons – money included- and has come down for the side of the believers in that they have a right to believe even if morality alone is the defining reason. He has also more forcefully come down against the militant atheists in that they have no right to proclaim their side has won or is right. And he’s right on both accounts and the book is a fantastic read.
He doesn’t need the money he has written 4 other very popular and good books. David is genuinely interested is the science atheism/religion debate. I am so hapy that I have had the pleasure of reading his writing. His other books that I own, his writings at the discovery institute- and now this one.
This link might work better.
http://www.booktv.org/program......yMedia=Yes
For those that have seen this, below is the article I believe Logan is referring to on Natural Selection in the wild. Dr. Berlinski headed some kind of research group to study it.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2531
The problem with the first link appears to be related to the script which parses the text input through the comment box. The link should begin with ‘rtsp’ instead of ‘http’ – and did when I pasted it into the tag.
rtsp://video.c-span.org:554/archive/arc_btv/btv040508_david.rm
Congregate,
All the syllogism implies is that if their is no divin spirit – no heaven or hell- nothing to be worried about or hoped for after this life, then why no do anyhting you want and can get away with?
You see this everywhere intodays society such as in poltics where various polticians get caught doing all kinds of bad things. If they beleived in God and the significance of the judgemnt they “may” have thought twice about what they were doing. IN a society where the concept of God is discounted there is no room for this moral guidence mechinism. Its obvious. And dont go applying to determinism because we know that some people take God seriously and concepts of warning that are similar such as speeding and its corrolation to death- or drunk driving- or unprotected sex- playing the stock market…. all of these may very well not hurt you if you do them- but the possbility remains that you will get badly hurt and it is in the beleif in this possiblity, this education that lowers the incidence of those actions. Less people smoke today percapita then before the lung cancer corrolation was dicovered. Education does work.
now as far as the sceince behind gods existence I agree there is little or none- atheism as a person chioce of beleife is fine- but a society that has no beelivers if it was comprised of the poeple we have today- would be in my prediction alot worse off.