Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - The Devil's Delusion

What a great thinker Mr. Berlinsky is! Though he is neither a Christian nor creationist, he totally destroys the silly arguments of the proponents of evolution with sound science and wit. If you are searching for understanding concerning the creation/evolution debate, this is worth reading.

Berlinski's arguments are forceful and humorous; those committed to neo-Darwinism or modern theoretical physics will not be persuaded for the very reasons he notes. The book is a more general survey of the problems with modern scientific method.

Atheist Michael Ruse lamented that the current crop of atheist books are woefully bad, and that Dawkins, on issues of history and philosophy, is a man "truly out of his depth." But here, a secular Jew (i.e. nonreligious - his religious education "didn't take") skewers Dawkins, Hitchens, Pinker, Harris, and their co-religionists for their general and demonstrable lack of reasoning power. (I don't mean that atheists aren't intelligent; I do mean that, as this book shows with much humor, that they don't really *think* about what they are saying or believing. Present company excepted, of course.)

This book is full of gems. "If rural atheism is familiar, it is also irrelevant. Religious men and women, having long accommodated the village idiot, have long accommodated the village atheist." And after reading Berlinski (or Flew, for that matter), it's easy to see the difference in the quality of thought of these "village atheists". Most atheists today style themselves "skeptics" but are merely religious Darwinists who dare not question their received dogma. There are notable exceptions, such as Stove and Milton, but they are the rarity; and when one encounters their honest skepticism, again the contrast with the "village" variety is shocking.

Or another: "Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate an unexpected ability to play the violin." A complete repudiation of the metanarrative of evolutionism, yet not even on the radar of most junior atheists.

Considering a famous atheist's rosy assessment of modern times, "Here is rather a more accurate assessment of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Anyone persuaded that they represent a "shockingly happy picture" should make the modest imaginative effort to discern the immense weight of human misery conveyed by these statistics ..." followed by a rather long list of horrors of which atheists seem totally unaware, such as ... WW2.

By way of explanation, "What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society."

Berlinski is devastatingly clear-headed when it comes to Darwinism. "A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin's theory of evolution to Hitler's policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races."

He also raises questions for Christians. "If, on the other hand, God chooses the right or the good because it is right or good, then the power of his imperative has its source in the law, and not in his will. "Thou shall not kill," we may imagine God saying to the ancient Hebrews, "because it is wrong. I am here only to convey the message."" I have been pondering this for the last few days. I think the answer has to do with the origins of sentient beings. If they evolved naturalistically, morality is simply an invention that has no meaning apart from some sum of preferred rules of behavior. But if they are created by another sentient being, the picture changes, as they have some other source of worth, and therefore their choices in relation to one another also have real meaning. This may be the nature of moral law itself - dependent on intelligent creation, nonexistent or absurd otherwise.

Like I said, it's only been a few days. I may be wrong.

Anyway, it's always pleasurable to read other gems like these: "in a sense, Hebrews 11.1 ratifies a triviality. We can make no sense either of daily life or the physical sciences in terms of things that are seen. The past has gone to the place where the past goes; the future has not arrived. We remember the one; we count on the other. If this is not faith, what, then, is it?" Again, things most atheists seem not to wonder about, but accept blindly. "It is wrong, the nineteenth-century British mathematician W. K. Clifford affirmed, "always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." I am guessing that Clifford believed what he wrote, but what evidence he had for his belief, he did not say."

With Flew, this book is devastating for atheism, inasmuch as some atheists dare read forbidden literature. Of course there are hard questions for theism, but they recede into the distance compared with the bugbears on display here, many of which cannot be answered - at least not intelligently.

Ok so he's a secular Jew who thinks atheists are deluded? What does that mean exactly? Are we supposed to believe in and like the Old Testament god because Mr. berlinski thinks it's a good thing that OT god is cruel, bloodthirsty etc.? I can't get my mind around where he's supposed to be coming from.

The criticisms of Darwin and the fine tuning arguments are astoundingly illogical from someone of his supposed intellect. Any high school biology and physics students could see through his, um, arguments, assertions, I am not sure what they were. The fine tuning argument continues to amaze me when most of the known universe is not conducive to our type of life. Indeed, most of our planet is not habitable (starting with it being 3/4 ocean).

Anyhow I kept reading, thinking there might be a point in there, but there were only the same tired arguments (prime mover, anti evolution, and fine tuning) that normally Christian apologists use. He's the first "secular Jewish" apologist I've ever heard of. But hey, it's a free country, so rock on with it.

I gave him two stars for entertainment value as his wit is sharp.

Atheists always trust their world view so much because it is supported by most of the scientists

And since most religious scientists are expelled from schools and universities (watch Expelled)

There's no one there to wake them up about the illogicalities of their theories

So,get this book even if you are a religious person

And if you are religious stop making arguments from your scriptures against atheists but start making "agnostically theistic" arguments to them

Thanks

I had hoped for a thoughtful critique of the new atheism, something akin to what Kant did to the pretensions of those who would discover basic reality by thought alone in his 'Critique of Pure Reason', what John Austin did to the notion of 'sense datums' in the posthumously published 'Sense and Sensibilia‎', or Wittgenstein's dismantling of the logical positivists' position in his later writings.
Such a book needs and deserves to be written.

Unfortunately, this is not that book. As other reviews have pointed out, Berlinski answers polemic with polemic, not with reasoned argument. Over and over, he asserts with scorn that the claims of the militant atheists are false, without careful analysis as to why that is so.

Just one example: The most obvious critique of the claim of the new atheists can be phrased as follows.
They believe the following two meta-propositions to be true: (1)If 'P' is a provable proposition, then 'P' is a proposition provable by some branch of science. (2) If 'P' is a proposition not provable by some branch of science, then 'P' is false.

Yet what should be obvious to any student of philosophy beyond the undergraduate level, or indeed anyone who understands the methodologies of the various sciences, is that _both_ P1 and P2 are _not_ themselves propositions provable by any branch of science. They are philosophical propositions of the branch called 'epistemology', and, as such are subject to the criticisms and ongoing debates there about how we can verify whether propositions are true or false. To accept them as true without careful and convincing argument, since their truth seems not obvious, is to make a commitment of - yes -faith.

But I see nowhere in his book where he does this kind of detailed logical - perhaps boring, but necessary nevertheless - treatment of the presuppositions of those whom he criticizes.

With apologies to Simon and Garfunkel: "Where have you gone, Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosophy turns its lonely eyes to you ... "

I give the book two stars rather than one because he is willing to take on the sacred cow of science as the only source of truth.

Review of The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski

The pseudo-religion of atheistic scientism that Berlinski exposes in the Devil's Delusion reflects the tendency of scientists to become what Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset called "barbarians of specialization." Knowing much about one thing gives them confidence to pontificate grandly about other subjects on which their expertise is irrelevant, or to inflate their own little patches of expertise into "grand unified theories." Knowing more and more about less and less, they finally rise into the nation's TV airhead empyrean chattering vacuously about anything and everything like George Clooney or Al Gore, Carl Sagan or James Watson, Richard Dreyfuss or Steven Weinberg--actors, politicians, scientists...in the giddy glow of the tube who can tell them apart in their common babble of moral relativism and anti-capitalist eschatology?

The supreme pontiff of the new religion is Richard Dawkins, an Oxford biologist who rode high on the best-seller lists for months with a book entitled The God Delusion. Venerated by the media for his alleged scientific genius, he can say almost anything and no one seems to laugh or scoff. For example, The New York Times Book Review late last year published Dawkins' shockingly inept essay on Michael Behe's new book on the limits of Darwinism, despite Dawkins' undisguised personal bile and his amazing idea that the case for the Darwinian origin of new species is aided by invoking a "baying chorus" of the many diverse breeds of dogs.

Now Dawkins has met his nemesis in Berlinski, a Princeton PhD, secular Jew, and a former fellow at the Institute des Hautes Scientifique in France. Now with the Discovery Institute, Berlinski commands a range of scientific disciplines and philosophical skills that project him well beyond the camp of Ortega's barbarians. The polymathic author of several formidable books on mathematics and logic, he in recent years has written a series of incandescent essays on biology, physics, psychology, and mathematics in Commentary magazine that have subsequently evoked an overflow of dumbfounded responses in its letters pages (Berlinski's replies are feloniously sharp). The Devil's Delusion makes the compelling argument that the anti-God fetish of modern science has driven many scientists into a mad nihilism that has crippled their scientific work as well.

Detailing the horrendous record of massacres and holocausts committed by aggressive atheists during the 20th century, Berlinski observes "what anyone capable of reading the German sources already knew: A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin's theory of evolution to Hitler's policy of extermination." An implicit syllogism underlies all these horrors--A: "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." B: "If science is true, then God does not exist." C: If science is true, then everything is permitted." As Berlinski shows, these propositions led predictably (Dostoyevski and Nietsche predicted them after all) to the holocaust.

After demonstrating the moral obtuseness of atheist science, The Devil's Delusion goes on to castigate its crippling limitations even as a means of explaining physical reality. Ignoring the hierarchical structure of the universe, with the concept preceding the concrete, the algorithm preceding the computer, the DNA word preceding the flesh, and theory preceding experiment, science has blinded itself to the indispensable role of faith in all forms of knowledge. In Berlinski's view, there is a crucial point of convergence between moral laws and physical laws: "In both cases we do not know why the laws are true but we can sense that the question hides a profound mystery." Science, as Berlinski avers, is "everywhere saturated with faith."

A complacent sciolist atheism, though, distracts science from the reality of its own necessary religious and hierarchical assumptions. Science does not harbor the slightest idea of "how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic, social world in which [we] live could have ever arisen from the seething anarchy of the world of particle physics." The so-called "standard model" seems to supply "as many elementary particles as there is funding to find them" while offering scant support for the reductionist assumption that the world is best understood by atomization into its smallest possible parts.

Beyond reductionism, science offers at least six mostly incompatible theories of reality: Quantum theory focused on subatomic elements, Relativity Theory spanning the universe, String theory seeking a grand unification in multidimensional infinitesimals, Thermodynamics with its arrow of time and slope of entropic decline, Evolution in its grand bottom-up materialist ascent, molecular biology with its top-down DNA codes, and the macro-quantum concept of Entanglement which links quantum entities across the cosmos beyond conventional time and space. Each theory offers stunning insights into some limited domain but fails to fit with the neighboring regimes.

Eroding the coherence of the entire set is the self-defeating character of the underlying materialism: a theory that denies the significance of theories and theorists and ignores the non-material abstractions on which it relies. All the incompatible physical systems of modern science ultimately repose on a foundation of mathematical logic. Finally making a hash of all atheist materialism, therefore, is the paramount mathematical finding of the 20th century: the inexorable Godelian incompleteness of mathematics. As Kurt Godel, Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, and Gregory Chaitin have proven, mathematical logic, whether expressed in computer algorithms or differential equations, finally relies on premises beyond itself. In other words, faith is critical to mathematics and computer logic, which are themselves abstract conceptual schemes not in any way reducible to materialist dogma.

Apparently to distract attention from this baffling paradox of atheism, scientists have clutched at a set of laughable chimeras. Dawkins, for example, accepts the idea of a "megaverse," a stupendous "Landscape" of infinitely parallel universes that explain away the absurd improbabilities of Darwinian materialism by the assumption that our own universe is only one of an infinite array. As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg sums up the argument in a transparent tautology preening as science, "Any scientist must live in a part of the megaverse where physical parameters take values suitable for the appearance of life and its evolution into scientists." Other physical parameters are presumed to hold in other universes that don't harbor life.

This stupendous circularity is called the Anthropic Principle and is touted as an explanation of the universe superior to the idea of God. As Dawkins puts it, "Better many worlds than one god." Berlinski concludes, Dawkins' favored "Landscape and the Anthropic principle represent the moral relativism of physical thought." Since moral relativism is the goal of nearly all academic ethical and political philosophizing, this outcome is entirely predictable despite its devastating impact on the truth claims of science.

Berlinski concludes that "the willingness of physical scientists to explore such strategies in thought might suggest to a perceptive psychoanalyst a desire not so much to discover a new idea as to avoid an old one." But the idea of a God in a hierarchichal universe is essential to coherent thought or uplifting culture of any kind.

A culture that does not aspire to the divine becomes obsessed with the fascination of evil, reveling in the frivolous, the depraved, and the bestial, from the fetishes of pornstars to Hollywood's Hitman of the Month. Without a sense of the transcendent, science ends up pursuing reductionist trivia, from the next particle or dimension of string to ever more abstruse arguments for the animality of man and the pointlessness of the Universe.

The scientific community remains oblivious to its own philosophical inanity chiefly because of its insularity and defensiveness, protected by a trumpery of "peer review" and immunity to outside criticism. The public has tended to go along with the scam because of modern science's alleged relation to engineering and technology. Dawkins and his ally Daniel Dennett both declare, in the spirit of the common claim of "no atheists in foxholes," that there are no devout believers on airplanes. Anyone undertaking a journey by air, they say, is staking his life on the validity and reliability of modern science. Few travelers indeed would find solace if glancing into the cockpit as they boarded their plane they saw the pilot praying, rather than scrutinizing his instruments.

Based on top-down engineering and intelligent design, however, the sciences that enable modern flight have nothing in common with the pastiche of atheist materialism and moral relativism that Dawkins and Dennett uphold. Navier-Stokes flow equations, advanced materials science, solid state physics, molecular chemistry, and computer design, among a host of real scientific disciplines, are expressions not of bottom-up random processes but of hierarchical planning in which the ideas and schematics precede their physical embodiment. Through most of the history of science, from Michael Faraday to Enrico Fermi, its protagonists were masters of the technology of their day. They built the apparatus that tested their concepts and embodied their theories. Science and engineering were cognate disciplines.

Beginning with Einstein, however, scientists reached for a new role as free-floating philosophical gurus and theological prophets. Only Einstein himself and Richard Feynman were capable of fulfilling this mission at all. Seeking grand theories, essentially theologies, that could unify all the conflicting schemes of physical science, even Einstein and Feynman came to recognize the futility of their quest. But their Lilliputian followers continued the search in ever diminishing circles of tautological nonsense, arriving at the end at Darwinian loops of survival of the fittest as an explanation for all that exists.

In the end turning against real science itself, the pages of Scientific American succumbed to what Berlinski terms a "simian gabble of academic life," full of theological speculations, infiniverses, and political campaigns such as "climate change" paranoia that are hostile to the advance of technology and engineering science.

Berlinski's Devil's Delusion is a promethean work that clears away this debris. It is the definitive book of the new millennium, when science is widely learning that the opaque materialist dogmas of the Twentieth Century are irrelevant to true science, where each new discovery opens new horizons of theory and new degrees of freedom and challenges of faith.

George Gilder

Berlinski drives the last nails in the coffin of Darwinian evolution. He could have gone farther with his arguments for Intelligent Design by going into more detail regardimng the anthropic principle.

The basic argument of this book is correct. Berlinski lays out in some detail the reasons why a physical theory (which is what science is capable of producing) is incapable of answering a metaphysical question (whether there is a god who created the world). More than that, his pointed barbs at various cosmological theories that attempt to jump the physical/metaphysical gap are well taken and should be a matter that speculative physicists take seriously.

Unfortunately, they probably will not, and the reason that they will not is because Berlinski is clearly singing for his supper at the discovery institute throughout this book in his rather specious attacks on darwin and evolution. Unlike the origins of existence, the origins of species are well within the realm of physical theory to address, and that biologists are very clear and certain about. His attacks on Darwin are typical of the politically motivated attacks that are regularly made on him and fail for the same reasons, most notably because Darwin (like Lyell and Hutton before him) were the beginning of the story on gradualism, not the end. Moreover, he echoes the worst of "creation scientists" in quoting Stephen Jay Gould out of context to support his thesis that speciation cannot be said occur gradually and therefore is a signifier of the hand of a designer. To quote berlinski "of course it is."

Of course it isn't, because in this Berlinski is making the same mistake as the new atheists that the book supposedly criticizes in leaping from a physical question (How does complexity arise out of randomness) to a metaphysical answer (there is a supernatural designer).

Clearly Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Pinker and the rest of the New Atheists who are so comfortable in their error of assuming science is capable of answering non-scientifica questions (is there a god, what is the meaning of life, why is there something rather than nothing) need taking down a peg. Their arrogance on the subject of religion is repugnant and does thoughtful and compassionate atheism (it does exist, look to Ludwig Wittgenstein or Bertrand Russell for example) a disservice. But for people looking for a thoughtful agnostic refutation of their rather simplistic, dogmatic and incendiary views on a topic that is at best extremely complex, look elsewhere than berlinski who in service of his masters is clearly willing to sacrifice the coherence of his own viewpoint.

I don't know if Berlinski understands that the opposition to intelligent design that he describes as part of the dogma of "new atheism" is founded not in a scientific dogma of evolutionism, but in the resistance to the teaching of a biblical creationist account in American public schools. He lives in paris and he may not be keeping up with that particular debate. If he does understand it, his willful ignorance of it is a blatant hole in the account his book gives. If he does not understand it, unfortunately he can't be taken seriously as a commenter on anything to do with the subject of science education in the public sphere. ANd that, ultimately is what this argument is about.

As much as I want to admire berlinski and as much as I've enjoyed his gleeful pokes in the eye of various received metaphysical wisdoms among the scientists and materialists of the new atheism, this book is more of a stain on that character than a tribute to his curmudgeonly contrarian public image. If he were honest he would take on the ID proponents he's supporting here with the same vigor and joyful insouciance for sacred cows that he directs at Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennet. That he does not do so strikes this reader not so much as even a failure of the text, but a failure of the author's character.

Midway through my first Berlinski book, Newton's Gift, I knew I'd found a brilliant science writer. He has that rare ability to take the foundational discoveries of science, particularly physics, and describe them by painting vivid word pictures and making clever analogies. Then he proceeds to reflect upon the implications of the findings with surprisingly gripping, often entertaining prose. Searching for more of Berlinski, I found The Devil's Delusion. He didn't disappoint.

Berlinski describes himself up front as "a secular Jew," which was my main attraction to this book. Both atheists and theists alike have a lot at stake in their writing, so I was eager to see a more agnostic take on the scientific claims of today's popular atheists, especially from a person such as Berlinski, who's quite at home in philosophy, science and math. (He earned his PhD in philosophy from Princeton and was a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He's written a couple of books on math and his science articles have been included in anthologies of some of the best science writing.)

A couple of complaints. First, he failed to include end notes. Books are much more valuable to me when I can trace down facts or quotes and study them in their original context. Second, I'm a fan of writers who argue a major point in each chapter, laying out the evidence for opposing sides and drawing conclusions by means of precise lines of argument. Instead, perhaps because many of his ideas came from his previous articles, each chapter is laid out more like a series of observations on a particular topic. But once I settled into this approach, I could focus in on his observations, which were gems. If a book's virtue can be measured by the amount of text I've underlined, it's certainly worthy of five stars.

I recommend that readers not try to polish it off in a weekend. For me, it worked much better to read until I came upon a provocative thought, then go about my business, reflecting upon it, since he's addressing some of the deepest problems that philosophy and science have encountered through the ages - mind/body, science versus religion, naturalism versus theism, determinism, intelligent design, fine tuning, etc. So read a section. Set the book down. Whether you agree with his point or not, light up your philosophical pipe, sit serenely in an easy chair, and smoke on it. Often scientific and philosophical reflection must be done at leisure. Berlinski gives one much to reflect upon.

Also, I should say that this isn't a book arguing against atheism. Rather, as the subtitle states, it's written to reveal the pretensions of today's popular atheists, as they try to position themselves as THE truly scientific view. In this, I believe Berlinski succeeds.

I recently read Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality, where the author lays out in very dogmatic terms the naturalistic world as presented to us by modern science. In short, Rosenberg claims that science tells us that free will is an illusion, thus why blame people for doing bad or praise them for doing good? There's neither right nor wrong, no God, no purpose in life. Our brains are advanced biological computers with no distinct minds directing them. Thus, my thoughts aren't "about" anything. How can they be? For Rosenberg, speaking for science, "self" is merely a construct of the brain, fooling me into thinking I'm controlling anything, or that I'm anything special.

After reading both Rosenberg and Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion), I had a good background to understand what Berlinski is railing against. If Rosenberg's world is the world presented to us by science, it seems very much unlike the world in which I live. To this atheistic, naturalistic conception of life, Berlinski notes:

"For almost as long as the physical sciences have made their claims, poets and philosophers have observed that there is something inhuman about the undertaking they represent. They are right. We gain purchase on the physical world first by stripping it to its simplest form, and second by emptying it of its emotional content. Whatever the elementary particles may be doing, they are not forming political alliances, or looking on one another with mute incoherent longing, or casting an anxious eye on the clock, or waking with a start in the early hours of the morning, wondering what it all means, or coming to realize that they are destined to fall like the leaves of the trees leaving not a trace behind."

"These are things we do: It is in our nature to do them. But how do we do them? By what means accessible to the imagination does a sterile and utterly insensate physical world become the garrulous, never-ending, infinitely varied, boisterous human world? The more the physical world is studied, and the richer our grasp of its principles, the greater the gap between what it represents and what we embody." (p. 205)

This is an example of his writing. As to how he justifies such paragraphs, you'd need to read the 204 pages that precede them. I recommend doing just that.

Update -- nice video interview with Berlinski here: [...]

Berlinski is both a critic of Darwinism, and a supporter of Intelligent Design. This book actually speaks little about either topic, instead focussing more generally on many aspects of science.

Berlinski is an agnostic, therefore while he talks a little about God, he is by no means making claims about The God. Rather, he leaves the honest impression that he is in fact sitting on the fence. From the content within the opening of the book, I wonder if his agnosticism is due to his Jewish heritage and the atrocities of the holocaust.

A lot of this book deals with claims of modern science, but places the claims in a more realistic light compared to, say, the average science blog or pop-science book in which science is presented as the savior of the world that will eventually solve all problems and answer all questions. Berlinski presents a rather cynical and I think more realistic picture, and asks whether science will ever solve the big problems that are actually within the realms of science.

The last few pages of the book summarize where we are now inside the 21st century. Berlinski here compares the Middle Ages Catholic Church and its associated structures and priesthoods with the structures and priesthoods of modern science within the universities and greater culture. I think the picture given is strikingly accurate, and also haunting as described thru Berlinski's words.

To me, the priesthood he talks about is evident, even obvious, thus the question naturally arises: "where to from here"? I think that within the biological sciences, Darwinism is on its last legs and rapidly evolving into a new paradigm. I presume Berlinski would agree although this book is certainly not designed to advocate Intelligent Design.

Overall this books is a delight to read. Berlinski is an excellent writer. His language is amazing, beautiful, and satirical and I wished many times as I was reading that I could write as well as him.

An interesting book on the mental gymnastics necessary to maintain an atheistic viewpoint from a secular perspective. Very thought provoking and while it's not everyone's cup of tea, I actually quite enjoy David's snarky tone. :)

David Berlinski is a socratic gadfly immersed in the world of science, and in The Devil’s Delusion he responds to some recent intellectual developments he finds alarming. Both his point of view (which brushes against the academic grain) and his cultivated persona (part intellectual mandarin, part wise-cracking, hard punching contrarian) are bound to elicit a wide array of reactions. I happened to really enjoy the book.

On pg. 10, Berlinski says, when speaking of the militant new atheists, “If nothing else, the attack on traditional religious thought 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.” Although Berlinski could fairly be described as a man of science, he dissents from both the recent attack on religion in the name of science, and the larger ideological consolidation/power grab this attack signifies.

Regarding the teachings of religious traditions, which, unlike science, speak in coherent fashion to life’s great concerns, Berklinski, a secular Jew, says “I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.” (pg. XVI) Accordingly, the book elaborates on and punctures atheism’s scientific pretensions, while also drawing attention to some downsides of the attenuation of traditional religious belief in society. (For Berlinski, the 20th century proved Dostoyevski prophetic for warning that without God, everything is permitted, and Berlinski is also appreciative of the consolation that religious traditions have historically provided for many individuals.) So, Berlinski thinks the recent aggressive anti-theism wrapped in the mantle of science is neither intellectually meritorious nor social beneficial.

Berlinski seeks to defend more than traditional religion from contemporary intellectual/academic trends. He defends a throwback conception of philosophy as well, largely by putting it to good use throughout the text. To be clear, Berlinski does not think much of most contemporary academic philosophers, who generally wish to gain status by being considered scientific, and whom the real scientists never seem to want to grant full access to their clubhouse. Such are the games that are played in a university setting where science’s ideological authority is near hegemonic. Berlinski views honesty as requiring these philosophers face up to a dilemma: “If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.” (pg. 35) I think Berlinski sees himself as offering a way beyond this dilemma/choice. Berlinski implies the roots of philosophy are in an insatiable curiosity that cannot be reliably harnessed in servitude to an intellectual system (whether religious or scientific). For one animated by this curiosity (as Berlinski seems to be), allegiances can be complicated. Berlinski employs philosophic arguments (and his own scientific sophistication) to skewer militant scientific atheism and defend religion, without ever coming across as anti-science. (An admitted possible exception to this is his treatment of Darwinism, a subject to which I will return later.) His book thus demonstrates a way out of the philosophers’ dilemma he poses.

Berlinski's atypical perspective is difficult to pigeonhole. Even so, he well articulates his stance over the course of the book, and as the reader proceeds he is treated to some well written prose by an author who is clearly witty, humorous, pugnacious, and urbane. And the last chapter does a wonderful job artfully conveying to the reader how Berlinksi conceives his role in a passionate drama that he claims is playing itself out again after 400 years.

Here were some of my takeaways:

1. The aggressive ideology of the sciences, the notion that only the sciences are true, is certainly not grounded in scientific evidence. Rather, it is defended by philosophical argument. Such arguments, as Berlinski points out in a discussion of Hume, by their very nature self destruct when self applied.

2. Arguments emerging from the scientific community regarding the non-existence of God are not very impressive, as evidenced by Berlinski’s treatment of Dawkins’s “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” argument.

3. Berlinski’s (admittedly inconclusive) “why is there something rather than nothing” philosophical argument for the existence of God, a revision of the second cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas made compatible with the notion of an uncreated Universe, provides sustenance for opponents of aggressive scientific atheism (many of whom are traditionally religious), yet it does not demand a creator God. (Mortimer Adler called this argument preservative-as opposed to creative-exnihilation.) Accordingly, this argument is compatible with, and loses none of its force when confronted with, quantum cosmology and the multiverse. Of course, Berlinski also plays up the potential creator God implications of Big Bang cosmology and the Fine Tuning argument in this book, and he makes abundantly clear his opinion that quantum cosmology and multiverse thinking are driven in large part by a negative reaction to these implications. Even so, he acknowledges certain things that can be said on behalf of quantum cosmology and the multiverse idea. Ultimately, it seems, he does not think these ideas can simply be dismissed out of hand. If one agrees with this, and if one is made uneasy by militant scientific atheism, then his revision of Aquinas’ second argument comes to light as especially valuable.

4. As quantum cosmology and the multiverse concept well demonstrate, anyone who favors materialism on the notion that it offers a straightforward, “no-nonsense” approach to reality is operating on an uninformed assumption. Relatedly, Berlinksi points to a double standard in the academic world that works against those dissatisfied with materialism, for example ID proponents focused on the origin of life: “…shoveling problems backward until they are out of sight is not only the tactic of common sense but the only tactic in common use. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities-universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields-the shovel is in plain sight, but what has been shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians, Zuckerkandl does not say.” (p. 143)

5. Materialistic science provides no satisfactory explanation for the origin of life, or for the human mind’s emergence, functioning, or staggering capabilities.

6. Of course, the notion that we move beyond materialism in our understanding of these issues is vulnerable to a “God of the gaps” type of objection. Well, sure, attempts at better materialistic explanations need not be abandoned. But should they be the only ones allowed? When Berlinski spoke of the “God of the gaps” objection, I was impressed by his criticism of the notion that “whatever the gaps, they will in the course of scientific research be filled. It is an assumption both intellectually primitive and morally abhorrent-primitive because it reflects a phlegmatic absence of curiosity, and abhorrent because it assigns to our intellectual future a degree of authority alien to human experience. Western science has proceeded by filling gaps, but in filling them it has created gaps all over again. The process is inexhaustible…Understanding has improved, but within the physical sciences, anomalies have grown great, and what is more, anomalies have grown great because understanding has improved.” (pg. 183-4) This of course can be taken as a plea of toleration for the ID movement. (Though Berlinski does not personally affirm ID, he is affiliated with the Discovery Institute.) More broadly though, it is a plea of toleration for non-materialist explanations generally. These explanations cannot be identified exclusively with ID. For instance, the renowned evolutionary biologist Simon Conway Morris, who is quite critical of the ID movement, recently wrote a book seeking to bring together Darwin and Plato in an attempt to explain the mind in a manner that moves beyond materialist reductionism. Is this effort a bold new venture that may or may not bear fruit, or has this respected scientist clearly jumped the shark simply by bringing Plato into the equation? I’m partial to the first option, though the fact that this book by a well respected scientist seeking to revolutionize biology was not published by a university press suggests that his attempt to forge a new path will run afoul of the “worldwide fraternity of academics who are professionally occupied in sniffing the underwear of their colleagues for signs of ideological deviance.” (p.52)
(I just had to fit that quote somewhere in this review!)

7. Berlinski really comes across as wanting to put a dagger in the heart of Darwinism. He is not content, like Alfred Wallace or Conway Morris, to say merely that Darwinism’s great explanatory power has significant limits, as in its inability to account for the mind. (Though this is a crucial point of agreement.) Berlinski clearly is not impressed with darwinian science generally, and is also obviously wary of excursions of this science into the political & social realms, as in the case of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology. Interestingly enough, some older thinkers, who, like Berlinski, are highly critical of both Darwin’s theory and its extension into human affairs, and are similarly solicitous of the health of traditional religion, have accepted the triumph of Darwin’s theory (though not its political extensions) with greater serenity than Berlinski, and have even found reasons to praise Darwinism’s utility, if not its truth. (Gertrude Himmelfarb is one such thinker, whose 1959 book, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, has been endorsed by Berlinski. Though Berlinski’s book is not focused on Darwinism per se, he probably does not devote as much ink as he should have for defending his highly critical outlook on the scientific value of Darwinism. He apparently does this in another book, The Deniable Darwin, which I have yet to read. The Himmelfarb book, which I have read, is well worth the effort for anyone willing to explore such a perspective.) However, new circumstances make questionable old assumptions. Berlinski views the recent new atheism as the schwerpunkt (the place where force is concentrated and applied) for consolidating science’s ideological power grab, and is not surprised that new atheists like Dawkins and Dennett wield Darwinism as their choice weapon against theism. “If Darwin’s theory of evolution has little to contribute to the content of the sciences, it has much to offer their ideology. It serves as the creation myth of our time, assigning properties to nature previously assigned to God. It thus demands an especially ardent form of advocacy.” (pg. 190-91). It is not surprising that Berlinski is less accommodating to Darwinism than was Himmelfarb, for whom militant atheism and scientific intellectual imperialism were not problems of pressing concern. Nor is it terribly surprising that he has become a fellow traveller with the ID movement, which itself has been interpreted in part as a reaction against the new atheism.

8. Berlinksi mentions a couple of theistic evolutionists (Ken Miller, Francis Collins) very briefly in his book. Theistic evolutionists, who view religious belief and darwinism as compatible, have been around almost since the publication of the Origin of Species. Berlinski does not deny that one can be a committed Darwinian and a committed theist, though his book does raise some implicit doubts as to the effectiveness of publicly affirming this fact for staving off the assaults of the aggressive new atheists and the scientific power grab they are spearheading. For most theistic evolutionist types, methodological naturalism in science is embraced as a protective doctrine that not only legitimates but also delimits science’s proper sphere of authority, thereby giving space for other forms of intellectual activity. However, Berlinski's book highlights that science’s “ideology” promotes the idea not only that science is true, but that only science is true. So perhaps it is naive for the theistic evolutionists to believe that demonstrating allegiance to scientific orthodoxy is a strategy sufficient for assuring their own long term survival. And the previously mentioned Conway Morris, a maverick theistic evolutionist who seeks to reform biological science by moving beyond materialism, does not seem to have very promising prospects for accomplishing this task. All this is not to imply that Berlinski has adopted a better strategy than the theistic evolutionists for fighting atheism’s scientific pretensions by aligning with the marginalized and much despised Discovery Institute. However, it does seem to suggest that dissenters from the notion that “only science is true,” whether or not they embrace, seek to reform, or largely repudiate contemporary biological science, are all in the same boat. Perhaps they need to find a way to hang together lest they hang separately.

As advanced as modern science is, and as many answers about the natural world it has given us, the creation and order of the universe is still a mystery. Scientists have theories which can take them only so far, after which, they rely on faith just as much as any religious believer. The Big Bang Theory, for instance, essentially says that there was nothing (except a hot, dense state), enough conditions were right, then there was a gigantic explosion which formed the universe. But if there was no space, matter, or time, how could the universe form out of nothing? Effects have causes. A series of dominoes fall one after the other, but not unless the first domino is pushed by something. The Big Bang Theory implies that the universe was "created," which further implies that it had a "creator."

David Berlinski delves into these types of questions in his book The Devil's Delusion - a truly interesting work of modern philosophy. He takes some of the hard questions we have regarding belief and disbelief in God, and tries to make sense of them. Mostly, his book is a response to the recent trend of popular books and campaigns for atheism. He addresses some of the the pretensions and cockiness of modern writers, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens and pokes holes in their arguments. Overall, he tries to engage the reader in a philosophical argument contrary to atheism.

Berlinski is a self-proclaimed secular Jew and agnostic. He doesn't make an argument for the existence of God, but argues against the scientific pretension that God is impossible based on the evidence we have, that "religion poisons everything," or that people must fully embrace science and relinquish the "fairy tale" of religious faith.

In this fine book, Berlinski shows us how to be skeptical of the skeptics. While not a religious man himself, he understands the arguments for the existence of God better than most of the firm believers. He feels that atheists haven't sufficiently answered these arguments, that there are narrow and oppressive atheistic orthodoxies within the scientific community, and that the New Atheists are failing to acknowledge the harms that could potentially be done to society if religion ceased to exist. He takes swings at each of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett) as well as some others.

Berlinski takes on atheist responses to the cosmological and teleological arguments in particular, pointing out the flaws in the landscape, string theory, and explanations for the Big Bang that don't include a designer. He debunks Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit nicely. He spends some time on the origins of the human mind. He is also a critic of evolution, and he brings up a couple questions evolution doesn't answer. He devotes a chapter to the reason for the universe, analyzing some of Thomas Aquinas's thoughts. All throughout the book, comparisons are made between how atheists think and behave and how dogmatic religious people do. The comparisons are fair and bound to make any true freethinker question his own dogmas.

I love the use of Bible verses and Christian doctrines throughout the book to make points. Sometimes it's nice to see how simple messages in scripture can carry greater depth when pondered on a deeper level. Berlinski understands people's religious beliefs well for a man who isn't religious.

Apparently Berlinski's gotten some grief for not holding any strong beliefs. He doesn't know if there is a God, only acknowledging it as a possibility, and he'll criticize evolution without proposing anything to put in its place. I see no problem with this. This world could use a few people who are willing to de-dogmatize people without adding any new nonsense to the debates.

My only complaint was that there was a chapter devoted to the harms caused by secularism in the 20th century, and I can't help but feel that this was poorly argued. He didn't do enough to address the frequent claims by Dawkins, Hitchens, and other atheists that a) Hitler wasn't an atheist and b) Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot didn't cause all those deaths because they were atheists. It is, indeed, difficult to show that atheism harms by pointing to these figures. I do also believe that many of the arguments for the harms of religion to society don't necessarily show that the religion was the cause. Maybe he could have spent more time defending the poor attacks on religion, rather than attacking atheism with the same poor arguments. For me, the most obvious harm that atheism does to society is take away people's incentives to behave. He does mention this, and he argues this marvelously. There's no way for atheists to respond to this besides spewing out nonsense about how countries with more atheists have lower crime rates, etc.

Overall, though, the book is spectacular. I keep finding myself flipping back through it. You can tell how witty Berlinski is by the way he speaks. He's humorous at times. And he's quotable. In fact, while this wasn't the longest review, it doesn't matter because the quotes below will speak for themselves. Highly recommended.

*******************************************************************************************************

Key Quotes:

"Were smart scientists to report that a strain of yeast supported the invasion of Iraq, Hitchens would, no doubt, conceive an increased respect for yeast." p. 4-5

"There may in fact be a connection between the importance of religious belief in life and the existence of the Deity in reality." p. 12

"[...] and if God did not protect his chosen people precisely as Harris might have wished, He did, in an access of his old accustomed vigor, smite their enemies [...]" (referring to Sam Harris's argument that the Holocaust should have made more Jews stop believing they had God watching out for them) p. 31

"Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? Do people remain good when unpoliced by the police?" p. 34

"But if scientific beliefs are not programmed into our brains, why assume that religious beliefs are? And if they are not, why assume that 'scientific beliefs are special'" p. 59

"Seeing an endless row of dominoes toppling before our eyes, would we without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes toppling?" p. 69

"If the mystification induced by its modest mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would not appear appreciably different in kind from various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial species" p. 108

"Did you imagine that science was a disinterested pursuit of the truth? Well, you were wrong." p. 112

"The best we could say is that God made a world that would be improbable had it been produced by chance." (responding to Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit) p. 144

"The idea that human beings have been endowed with powers and properties not found elsewhere in the animal kingdom [...] arises from a simple imperative: Just look around." p. 155

"The laws of nature neither explain themselves nor predict their success. We have no reason to expect such gifts, and if we have come to expect them, this is only because, as the saints have always warned, we expect far more than we deserve." p. 182

"Western science has proceeded by filling gaps, but in filling them, it has created gaps all over again." p. 184

"If Darwin's theory of evolution has little to contribute to the content of the sciences, it has much to offer their ideology." p. 190

If you like David Berlinski's dry sense of humor, you'll enjoy this book. I doubt anyone will sit down and read this book for fun in one evening; it's not that type of book. The book is humorous but that doesn't mean you'll be so enthralled that you won't be able put it down until your finished. I agree with the reviews that said it would be nice to have bullets for some of the points being made. This book has a lot of information in it!

My bottom line is this: If you like David Berlinski and think he's funny and brilliant, you'll enjoy the book. If you hate his views and don't think he's funny, you'll hate the book but it won't kill you to read it. Regardless, don't be fooled by some of the reviews, a lot of the people who left reviews didn't bother to read the book which is evidenced by their "in depth" a.k.a. long, boring reviews that have nothing to do with the book.

_The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions_ (2009) by David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute is an interesting but flawed examination of the rise of the "New Atheism" and various issues it has raised including the role of science and the existence of God. Apparently Berlinski is an agnostic and a secular Jew; however, he takes on the New Atheists because he feels that they have misappropriated science for their aims. Berlinski maintains that the book is written particularly for those who feel frustrated by the scientific community's hubris and contempt for them. Further, Berlinski seems to advocate a form of ID. The book raises many important philosophical points that have arisen in such areas as physics, cosmology, and the origins of life that may seem to point towards theism. However, I feel that the author does not go into enough depth on these issues and may dismiss certain points too easily.

The book includes the following chapters discussing the issues below:

No Gods Before Me - discusses the rise of the New Atheism and the claim that science has abolished religion. Berlinski maintains that the New Atheism is as fashionable as the old Marxism was among the intellectual elite, but notes the problems with this restricted and militant ideology.

Nights of Doubt - Berlinski considers the important role that belief in God has played in human life, putting aside the question of his actual existence. Berlinski examines the role of naturalism and temperament, mentioning its importance for Arabic philosophy which noted the dangers of such unbridled appetites. Berlinski then explains how atheists keep two sets of books. On the one hand, they are quick to point out many of the horrors that have been done in the name of religion (e.g. allegedly the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.). But they conveniently neglect some of the horrors that have been made possible in the name of science (e.g. the atomic bomb, mass warfare, etc.) or in the name of atheism (e.g. the Soviet experiment, Mao's China, etc.). Berlinski also considers the doubts of the religious concerning such ethical issues as the role of stem cell research, eugenics, and euthanasia and noting how these moral qualms are being ignored. Finally, Berlinski considers the role of Nazism. (Here, is where I feel that his argument becomes weakest. Berlinski is far too quick to engage in the now cliché argumentum ad hitlerum and attribute fascist and anti-semitic tendencies to his opponents or anyone else. Leftists have been using this technique since the end of the Second World War. I feel he would be far better off focusing on the much neglected Soviet or Maoist totalitarianism which was brazenly atheistic and far worse than anything done by Hitler.)

Horses Do Not Fly - discusses the issues raised by faith (the evidence of things not seen), the appropriate role of evidence, naturalism, materialism, the scientific method (which Berlinski maintains is far less clear cut than as it is usually presented), and issues of truth and relativism.

The Cause - discusses the issue of God as the "uncaused cause". Notes the role of the cosmological argument (in the form of the Kalam argument, as well as the several arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas). Berlinski considers the role of an "uncaused cause" in the argument of Aquinas as well as the attempt by Aquinas to prove that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is at this point where Berlinski brings out the issues raised by modern day cosmology and the Big Bang theory and things become really interesting. Berlinski considers early opposition to the Big Bang despite all the evidence in its favor because of the obvious consequence and then examines various attempts to avoid the singularity at the beginning. Berlinski explains how such attempts are made to avoid the obvious theistic implications that follow.

The Reason - discusses a second cosmological argument as to the reason why the universe exists at all. Considers the classic argument of Aquinas that "ex nihilo nihil fit" and that the universe exists necessarily. Then, Berlinski considers some of the attempts of Hawking and others to avoid these conclusions. Berlinski considers such issues as imaginary time and the role of quantum cosmology. Berlinski shows that the notion of the wave function of the universe raised by quantum cosmology is problematic and explains how the classic problems of metaphysics keep on returning despite the apparent arguments of quantum cosmology. (I feel however that Berlinski could have gone into more detail here, or explained how a "sea of probability" and a "wave function of the universe" could be assigned a mystical interpretation.)

A Put-Up Job - considers the possibility of the universe as designed. Berlinski notes the importance of the cosmological constant, explains the role of the Anthropic principle (that the universal constants are just right for life by virtue of our being in it), considers the standard model and string theory, and finally explains the nature of physical law (which he argues must be a result of either God, logic, or nothing). Concerning string theory, Berlinski shows some of the recent problems raised by this theory concerning the nature of science (and the fact that string theory is "not even wrong"). Further, Berlinski examines the role of the postulated "landscape". Here, Berlinski considers such issues as multiple universes (or the possible worlds of philosopher David Lewis) and how they are used by string theorists. Berlinski maintains that such constructs are brought up to avoid theistic implications, but I feel that he could have gone into far more detail on this point.

A Curious Proof that God Does Not Exist - shows the problems raised by Dawkins' so-called proof. Berlinski explains how the notion of an "unlikely deity" makes no sense, and how deductive reasoning is improperly used by Dawkins.

Our Inner Ape, a Darling, and the Human Mind - shows the problems raised by Darwinism and advocates for ID as well as the prime place of man. Berlinski considers the dubious nature of many of the Darwinian claims (which were also rejected by Alfred Wallace) and the attempts of the academy to paper over such issues. Berlinski also considers the role of the human mind.

Miracles in Our Time - explains the role of miracles, the problems with the "God of the gaps" argument (and that those "gaps" are far more yawning than atheists would have us believe), and further issues raised by Darwinism. Berlinski explains how "behind closed doors" many in the academy are willing to admit the problems of Darwinism, but for reason of publicity continue to maintain that the theory is solid.

The Cardinal and His Cathedral - notes the importance of the Galileo affair (as well as the role of the Catholic church) and calls for an open-mindedness concerning the role of science which has created its own inquisition.

This book raises many important and deep philosophical issues concerning the role of science and the existence of God. While I feel that there is much more to be discussed and that some of the points raised by Berlinski may be problematic, I still found this book highly interesting. Certainly for both the theist and the atheist (as well as the agnostic), this book is important in that it details precisely the issues that frame the ongoing debate.

At last a man who understands science and the rudimentary laws of logic has taken the scientific community to task. For too long we have been fed fallacious arguments dressed in the clothes of scientific fact. Dr. Berlinski has shown the wit, wisdom, and courage to declare that the emperor has no clothes! (See also, The Emperor's New Clothes) Hiding behind the modern belief that science is to go unquestioned in its assertions, many scientists have again and again demonstrated their futile thinking in assertions that violate the most basic laws of logic. They seem to assume that no one will question their logic for fear of appearing ignorant. In this handy little book we have the fallacies identified and explained by someone capable of understanding the science and able to apply the laws of logic to see the obvious flaws. Wit and scientific acumen combine in this work to give you the tools you need in order to identify the questionable logic that is so popular in modern understandings of science. Funny and enlightening - well worth the investment.

Berlinski's book is a masterful romp through the pretentions of modern secular atheism and scientism. It is surprising on many levels. First of all, though Berlinski claims no religious affiliation, he is no water-boy for scientific naturalism or Darwinism. Then his broad grasp of the science involved is impressive. Someone who clearly keeps up with the literature (knows several Nobel laureates in the sciences) and who understands it all, Berlinski has a useful perspective as he critiques everything from gradual Darwinian processes to string theory to molecular biology. And on top of it all, his dry and cutting sense of humor adds to instead of detracts from his philosophical acumen.

As I progressed deeper into the book, I was reminded of the boy who famously cried out that the emperor had no clothes. Not only does Berlinski deny the general, and often unsupported, claims of the secular Darwinian project, he skewers it. He deals with the usual suspects - Dawkins, Harris, Dennett (he reserves special distaste for Dennett), and Hitchens - and he deals with the real mathematicians, biologists, physicists and so forth. Sometimes critiques of the New Atheists suffer from the vapidity of their subject matter. If the book you are critiquing is without real substance, what else can be said? But Berlinski has the capacity to discuss and analyze on every level.

As an interested follower of the subjects Berlinski covers, I appreciated his ability to make the complex understandable without making it sound simplistic. His firm grasp of the details enables him to talk of the grand scheme with authority and insight. If you are interested in the issues raised by the New Atheists or the Darwinian project, this is a wonderful and insightful read. If you would like to have a fresh perspective on the place of science in our culture from someone who considers himself "part of the church" of science, Berlinski's book will not disappoint.

I must admit that I had come across this book many times at Barnes & Noble and Borders, and everytime I saw it I became less interested simply for the very cliche name. I had forgotten the old saying of "Don't Judge a Book by its Cover". It wasn't until I read a review of the book on here that I decided to give it a shot, and I was not disappointed. In fact, my only complaint about Berlinski's book is the freaking title!

In 'The Devil's Delusion', Berlinski addresses the hypocrisy that is so prevalent in the New Atheism movement. This hypocrisy is that the New Atheism movement, which promotes intolerance and criticisms of world religion, has in many ways become the very thing it denounces. It has its own founding leaders, like any other religion, in Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. It has its own scripture in science, which they believe is the only truth about the world and reality. They believe that there "scripture" should not be questioned and that those who do question it are "non-intellectual". They claim that their truth is the only rational truth; that theists always commits fallacies and make unsound arguments to defend there religion, even though the leaders of the New Atheism commit just as many, if not more fallacies than theists. They claim that religion causes violence (the crusades) and that life would be better without God, yet they do not like be put into the same category as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao. In short, Berlinski presents a logically sound, rich and enlightening argument discussing how New Atheism and its dependence on science have become an ever-growing, atheist religion that is very much the same as the theistic religions that they denounce.

This is not a book that I claiming that God exists, so do not buy this book thinking this is the case. It is a brilliant work that addresses the absence of logic and prominent self-deception and arrogance that is so prevalent among the many members in the New Atheist movent, headed by the four Atheist apostles: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. This is an argument composed of sound logic and wit, as well as scientific and biblical knowledge, that decisively cuts down the many arguments and claims made by the members of the New Atheist movement, exposing their absence of logic and falacious discussions which they so often use to defend their faith based belief in science, which is at the very foundational core of the New Atheism movement.

David Berlinski's book is neither the knock-out punch his proponents posit nor the illogical ranting of a madman his opponents would have us believe. It is a book that tries and succeeds in demonstrating the limits of science in answering the "God question" as well as its adoption by certain atheists to dismiss the existence of God. Berlinski considers cosmological arguments between Aquinas vis-à-vis Dawkins as a starting point for the discussion on where modern cosmology answers the question of a "beginning" or lack there of. Ultimately, Berlinski's task is to cast doubt on any certain notion that the universe originate spontaneously on its own or has always existed. Here he met his burden, if not actually exceeded it in spades. He further, as an aside, is demonstrating the preposterous cosmological arguments posed by Dawkins. Berlinski does this all with a keen wit.

The greatest strength of his book, I posit, is his writing as to the differences between humankind and the animal kingdom, most notably, primates. I remember reading a long time ago Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors." Sagan and his wife Ann Drunyan write an exciting narrative focusing on the commonalities of humankind with the animal kingdom. Yet, why I liked the book (even though I found it sorely lacking) I was awe struck at the inability of the authors to see that the differences are so profound to regulate the commonalities superficial. Berlinksi does not address that book at all, but he addresses the question and briefly, but surefire, dismantles it with rhetorical flare.

There are, however, some surprising missteps. One of the most glaring is that when addressing God and goodness, Berlinski only offers two options. Either God commands the Good or God does what is good. This is a false dilemma. There is the option that God is good and goodness is an expression of God and who God is. It probably would not have served Berlinski's purpose in the direction of his book, but it should have been identified and at least briefly considered.

I must note that I have been eagerly awaiting to have the time to read this book (I am behind my reading list as it is). The book is popular in tone, but will challenge someone who has never read these ideas before (that is a good thing). I am not surprised to have confirm my suspensions that the majority of negative reviews have not address the tenets in this book.

When I buy books from Basic Books, I've never been disappointed before. This book, however, was not all I thought it would be.

First and most significantly: this book just covered too many areas (Logic, Evolutionary Biology, Physics, Philosophy of Science, Cosmology). This book is not quite "a mile wide and an inch deep," but some value very close to that. Second: I get the distinct impression that the author is only a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

I'll try to go over some of the most pertinent examples, but there is just too much in this book to address here in any reasonable/ readable length.

Specific Examples/ Thoughts:

1. There is a lot of sneering in this tome. A whole lot. I know that academics like to make a point to see who can sneer the most convincingly, but why not just get to some specific examples? And the author gets a bit obnoxious. Everyone seems to be ignorant-- except Berlinski. Dawkins (p. 150). Hitchens (p. 208). Why make these things into a personal attack? Why not just get about the business of demonstrating where the target is wrong?

2. He made quite a few allusions (such as to the French Reign of Terror) in the book and topics that he could have flushed out (but didn't). Not all of us know everything, so why not avoid some of the allusions? Why not just be clear? Even some of the arguments: Why not flush them out and make them clear. On p. 34 (and for several pages before when he talks about the secular religions--Communism/ Maoism/ etc), he hints at the value of God as a symbol of morality. Why not expand on that point? p. 1. he talks about science and religion as "Non-overlapping Magisteria." Why not expand on that?

3. p. 189. It is at this point that we see an example of the author not knowing what he is talking about. In his discussion of evolution, he doesn't seem to realize that the disagreement between Dawkins (on one side) and Gould et. al (on the other) is about punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. The fossil record is extremely sparse, and so with few enough data points you can read evidence to support more than one explanation (the same way some set of symptoms can correspond to more than one disease). This would have been a good time for the author go into a discussion of abductive reasoning. It is at this point that I started to worry: If the author does not know what he is talking about in this case, what about the many other cases in which he made assertions? Does being a mathematician qualify one to speak on Standard Model? (It does say that he holds a PhD from Princeton, but not in what. Paul Krugman holds a PhD in Economics, but he sure does spend a LOT of time writing about partisan politics.) I don't see a single reference to a primary publication that the author did as head of a research group. (Nor do I see links to any other publications or bibliography of suggested reading.)

4. There was a lot of Physics to sort through-- and Physics is highly mathematical. There are very few people who can understand the Standard Model. And so, this polymath saying that the model doesn't explain something is no different to another polymath saying that it does: Both are ipse dixit. Something that shined through in his discussion of String Theory was the complicated mathematical nature of it all. Yes, people do try to shroud rubbish in impenetrable mathematical formulae, but it is just not clear that that means that all they say is false. What if there is some underlying logic to the ruminations of cosmologists that is *obscured* in esoteric mathematics? And yes, we all knew that physical theories for the very small conflict with theories of the very large. So now what? They are workable just the same. I could see where the author was coming from if he had started off saying that religion is to give us answers to normative questions-- and in that case, it might not have been necessary to worry about the gaps in science.

5. p.216. This is where the book gets really weird. A Jewish apologist for the church? Huh? p. 218. A Jew drawing an analogy between the body of scientific knowledge and a church? Huh?

6. p. 55. He makes a rant against the scientific method. And that's fine. But what does he have to offer that is better? Antibiotics and computers exist *somehow*. The scientific method came into play in developing those things *somewhere*. Even with all the holes in the various explanations that the author pointed out, the question remains: So what? If the scientists are wrong, it just follows that they are wrong. No more, no less. There is nothing that says that complete explanations can be found for everything. And nothing else that says just because what the scientists say is incomplete that whatever non-scientists (imams, pontiffs, chief rabbis) say is complete. It seems like we started out with the idea that science and religion occupy two separate spheres, and we ended up there.

7. p. 48. So "sufficient evidence" is a value judgement. We all knew that.

What would have made this book better:

1. A bullet point summary of each chapter at the end would have been nice. He covered so much material, that some of it started to run together.

2. This book might also have worked a bit better if the author found some people who actually had training in the fields that he discussed as co-authors. I suspect that, even though this author is very smart, there were some things that exceeded the scope of his knowledge. The book had 10 chapters, and 9 of them were about different particular subjects. Biology and Mathematics (which is the discipline in which it appears the author is trained) are about as far apart as two disciplines can get. Would a co-author have been even a little helpful in the topics that were far outside of the author's expertise?

3. Some more focused topics. Say, maybe choosing a topic for each chapter and then STICKING WITH IT.

The single best thing that I learned from this book was on p. 145. He gave a good example of the confusion between deductive reasoning and likelihood (again, in the context of blowtorching Richard Dawkins).

The book had a good index. It was also brief and very witty/ funny (even if a bit unfocused).

This book is worth the secondhand purchase price and a second read out of which to glean the ideas that were missed on the first read.

Obviously the author has been irritated beyond measure by cocksure atheists, notably Richard Dawkins, and enjoys himself pulling apart their overreaching assumptions. Nowhere does he present any kind of a defence of religion. He is well versed in physics - he has read and understood Goedel's work on rotating
universes, for instance - but notes the more-or-less dead end that has been reached. In a metaphor powerful for physicists, he likens the four great developments: classical mechanics as per Newton; electromagnetism as per
Clerk-Maxwell; special and general relativity as per Einstein; and quantum mechanics as per Heisenberg, Born, Pauli and Dirac; to four great cathedrals, surrounded by fuzz, with somewhat incompatible teachings.

There is certainly a moral element to this book, but it is skeptical and
pessimistic. Berlinsky does not say, but would probably agree with the statement, that without God we are screwed, but we know nothing of God least of all what or who He is.

Berlinski does not declare a winner in the religious belief in science vs. religious belief of God debate. As he states in the book's opening, he is basically agnostic and if the evidence was overwhelming that God (whom I do believe in) created the universe, then Berlinski would not be an agnostic.

What Berlinski does do is systematically defang those who have made millions selling books claiming that science has shown God does not exist. These authors act as though they are merely dictating from "Science," and not basing their papers on their own various assumptions and biases. As Berlinski demonstrates, scientific endeavors are rarely a disinterested pursuit of truth, but rather generally is an activity which is affected by the tester's preconceived beliefs. The evidence is sufficient to prove what you want it to prove.

What Berlinski rails against is not that argument that science may have cast some doubt on the necessity of God, but rather on the pretentious and logically questionable arguments being made that those with religious beliefs are fools who need an emotional crutch to get through life. Berlinski shows us that the fool may be the person who is adamant that God does not exists because they cannot accept that they are answerable to anyone but themselves.

This book does not declare that God IS, or who He is; it merely points out that the evidence can be reasonably and rationally interpreted to support God's existence or deny it; the choice on how the facts are interpreted lies with the individual. Either one has faith in God who is spirit (i.e. cannot be seen), or in Science which is befuddled as to how the universe came into existence. You either believe in a God which exists without cause, or in a universe which created itself. Either way, faith is required, and faith is faith.

Its not that Berlinski is pro I.D. In The Devil's Delusion, Berlinski simply makes the point, over and over, that the extreme views of atheistic scientist are based in as much faith, if not more, than the theist they are critical of. He does not state that he is favor of ID. He states he is critical of Darwinian evolution. The evidence, to him, is lacking; therefore, the atheist is not afforded this extreme view that they are "without a doubt" correct and any believer in a God is stupid, insane or delusional.

Berlinski is a philospher, a mathmatician, and had a fellowship in molecular biology. He uses science and philosophy to examine the mistakes taken by many overstated scientific atheists. In this book Berlinski clears the noise coming out of the their camp. He follows the links in the chain of their arguments and shows how weak some of those links are. In one chapter he compares Thomas Aquinas's argument about a necessary being against the atheistic worlview that the universe came from nothing. In the atheistic view, quantum cosmology has created the possibility that infinite universes existing in a fictional place called the Landscape. The goal of such a creation is to remove two aspects of Big Bang cosmology. Singularity and the numerous constants of our universe that make our universe seem fine tuned. Like the Aquinas arguement, the Landscape arguement is soley speculative. It can not be observed by any means in science. It is a mathmatical possibility which removes the strong correlation of the Old Testament and Big Bang cosmology. Berlinski shows how the atheist's confidence in this point of persuasion lacks the simplicity of Aquinas's argument. Therefore, in no way does the ranting about infinite, unobservable universes seem any more plausible than a necessary God to create our universe.

The book is a quick read. Berlinski is very humorous. Being a secular Jew, it was interesting to see him reference religions outsided of Judism. He is respectful to them even if he is in disagreement.

It's rare that I can find the time to read a book from cover to cover, but that's exactly what I did with this book. I picked it about noon one day and couldn't put it down until I was finished.

Regardless of your viewpoint, if you appreciate good writing, you'll love Berlinski (or at least be able to acknowledge his deft writing skills). I've been following this entire argument for several years now, and even if you're looking at it as a neutral observer, I would have to give points to Berlinski. Hitchens, Stenger, Dawkins, Harris et. al. have yet to produce an argument that doesn't end by asking us to accept a subjective conclusion. They believe in naturalism simply because they reject the idea that a Creator could exist. I'll be the first to admit that the concept of a super-intelligent agent existing outside of space and time (at least within our four-dimensional world) is difficult to wrap your mind around, but if you put it on the table with naturalism, and simply look for the most logical explanation for the "first cause" behind everything, God makes more sense.

It's generally accepted by those who understand cosmological physics that naturalism can't prove itself in a scientific argument that begins with the Big Bang. Scientific cause of the universe cannot be established, and science itself, which can only analyze a universe that operates in accordance with physical and mathematical laws, is of no use in predicting what resides beyond the boundaries of those physical and mathematical laws. To do so is to engage in speculation, and any position taken on those speculations is a faith position (and a rather dogmatic one at that).

Using this as the root of his case, he proceeds to pick apart, with swift cuts, the opposition that has become known as The New Atheism. He does so with a brilliant grasp of the issues, and a deft and witty style that always entertains.

One of the arguments emerging from this new brand of atheists is their defense (yes, I would call it that) of atheistic mass murderers by claiming that although Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and others were bad men, they certainly never committed their atrocities under the banner of atheism. True enough, says Berlinksi, but they did commit these atrocities because they felt confident that God was not watching and therefore they had no one to answer to. They may not have murdered under the banner of atheism, but their atheism was clearly a major factor in their decision to butcher their fellow human beings without remorse. Berlinski also points out that as the world has grown more secular, it has become a far more violent place, and he supports it with a list of atrocities from the past century. The Inquisition and the Middle Ages are certainly horrible stains upon the mantle of Christianity, but they don't represent the actions of true Christians, who believe and act on the notion that the nature of God is best manifested in our treating others with unconditional love, and treating them as we wish to be treated. Additionally, the sum total of deaths from these events, which covered hundreds of years, still pales in comparison to the 100 million people butchered in the 20th century alone by the thugs mentioned above.

This is an excellent book, and if you've been following the rise of militant atheism and its clash with faith, this is a book you shouldn't miss. I use the term "militant atheism" to describe authors such as Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who claim that they're being reasonable and rational, but the vitriol found in their books suggests otherwise. Berlinski provides a wonderful tonic to counter them.

Now that I've spent quite a bit of time around the "new atheists" or "militant atheists", I can say that they thoroughly annoy me and I find them to be dishonest. I've heard very many of their arguments against theism over the years, and I've honestly considered their arguements. But at this point I always warn them as their "logic & reason" (that they fully believe they've got such a strong grasp on) will be ripped to shreds within the first 10 pages of THIS book by Berlinski. Best part is the author is an agnostic scientist, he has an unbiased viewpoint and no axe to grind. Turns out it's the Truth, as opposed to the axe, that'll set a person free. Recommended if you've got some smarty-pants around you who assumes that you're delusional and brainwashed for considering that life might not possibly end at the grave. At the end of the day religious texts of the world hold the merit of having profound inner-meaning after all is said and done.

I loved this book. Whenever I read anything or listen to anything Dr. Berlinski says, I feel my IQ rising correspondingly. And yet everything he writes is....well, entertaining in the extreme. I would have loved to take a class of his.....

Anyone even remotely interested in the truth will find that Dawkins and his friends are such dogmatic, self-righteous little prigs. A defense against this "new atheist" revolution was very needed, and believers could not have found a better hero than Dr. Berlinski, himself an agnostic, secular Jew. He has a wonderful sense of knowing when he's being jerked around by idiots.

What can be said about this book? First of all, just read it. I was most impressed with the way Berlinski both respects and yet refuses to deify The Western Scientific Tradition. To allow something to be worshipped that is not a god, but a fellow, is more degrading to it than outright insult. Critical camaraderie is the preferred path to improvement. Perhaps that's why Berlinski is so good at intelligent expose' of a Science-become-too-large. So large that sweeping philosophical and religious claims are regularly made without an inkling that something is awry, and without due embarrassment. But there ought to be some embarrassment, as Berlinski helps to bring about. Oddly enough, as an agnostic, he defends the religious tradition on the basis that humanistic knowledge has come up with nothing better than what the greater portion of humankind has always believed: special creation in the image of God. He once stated that his relationship with "Intelligent Design" (and I believe, by inference, religion) is "warm but distant". He is much more willing to explore ID as an astounding fact revealed than as a replacement theory for Darwinism, as Berlinski seems to pessimistically consider the biological mechanics of the ancient past inscrutable. So one may ask, why isn't Berlinski as fond of Evolutionary thought, which may be just as intuitively conceived as Intelligent Design or Religious Thought? Because the claim of Darwinism is that it is anything but revealed or intuitive. Rather we are led to believe it is rooted in an impartial and conclusive empiricism. And this is exactly what Berlinski disproves in The Devil's Delusion, with a great knowledge of his subject, and a great prose style to make it a phenomenal read.

I sympathize with the faithful atheists; this book commits blasphemy against their chosen faith system. I do not sympathize with their "reviews," as it is extremely doubtful any of them have touched the book, let alone read it.

Berlinski is his usual sarcastic self, but done with humor and style -- and always making a point. A worthwhile read on the subject. The best "rebuttals" I've read about the book is that (a) Berlinski is a "fundamentalist Christian" and everyone knows they are very dumb (he's an Ivy League secular Jew, and a postdoctorate fellow in mathematics and molecular biology) and (b) and he has done work for the Discovery Institute, and since they support Intelligent Design Berlinski is obviously very dumb and very, very bad (you see, if you support intelligent design or doubt materialistic, atheistic neo-Darwinism, you are a very bad person -- where that moral law comes from has not really been stated...and even in the unlikely event you aren't "bad" you are by definition dumb because if you were smart you'd accept materialist, atheistic neo-Darwinism...nice and tidy, albeit it is rowing with one oar in the water).

Lies and ad hominem. Substantive and thoughtful rebuttals to his critiques, those I have not yet encountered. Read the book for yourself, enjoy a thoughtful and well written critique of the philosophical system known as neo-Darwinism and be that much better informed on the subject.

Its not that Berlinski is pro I.D. In The Devil's Delusion, Berlinski simply makes the point, over and over, that the extreme views of atheistic scientist are based in as much faith, if not more, than the theist they are critical of. He does not state that he is favor of ID. He states he is critical of Darwinian evolution. The evidence, to him, is lacking; therefore, the atheist is not afforded this extreme view that they are "without a doubt" correct and any believer in a God is stupid, insane or delusional.

Berlinski is a philospher, a mathmatician, and had a fellowship in molecular biology. He uses science and philosophy to examine the mistakes taken by many overstated scientific atheists. In this book Berlinski clears the noise coming out of the their camp. He follows the links in the chain of their arguments and shows how weak some of those links are. In one chapter he compares Thomas Aquinas's argument about a necessary being against the atheistic worlview that the universe came from nothing. In the atheistic view, quantum cosmology has created the possibility that infinite universes existing in a fictional place called the Landscape. The goal of such a creation is to remove two aspects of Big Bang cosmology. Singularity and the numerous constants of our universe that make our universe seem fine tuned. Like the Aquinas arguement, the Landscape arguement is soley speculative. It can not be observed by any means in science. It is a mathmatical possibility which removes the strong correlation of the Old Testament and Big Bang cosmology. Berlinski shows how the atheist's confidence in this point of persuasion lacks the simplicity of Aquinas's argument. Therefore, in no way does the ranting about infinite, unobservable universes seem any more plausible than a necessary God to create our universe.

The book is a quick read. Berlinski is very humorous. Being a secular Jew, it was interesting to see him reference religions outsided of Judism. He is respectful to them even if he is in disagreement.

It's rare that I can find the time to read a book from cover to cover, but that's exactly what I did with this book. I picked it about noon one day and couldn't put it down until I was finished.

Regardless of your viewpoint, if you appreciate good writing, you'll love Berlinski (or at least be able to acknowledge his deft writing skills). I've been following this entire argument for several years now, and even if you're looking at it as a neutral observer, I would have to give points to Berlinski. Hitchens, Stenger, Dawkins, Harris et. al. have yet to produce an argument that doesn't end by asking us to accept a subjective conclusion. They believe in naturalism simply because they reject the idea that a Creator could exist. I'll be the first to admit that the concept of a super-intelligent agent existing outside of space and time (at least within our four-dimensional world) is difficult to wrap your mind around, but if you put it on the table with naturalism, and simply look for the most logical explanation for the "first cause" behind everything, God makes more sense.

It's generally accepted by those who understand cosmological physics that naturalism can't prove itself in a scientific argument that begins with the Big Bang. Scientific cause of the universe cannot be established, and science itself, which can only analyze a universe that operates in accordance with physical and mathematical laws, is of no use in predicting what resides beyond the boundaries of those physical and mathematical laws. To do so is to engage in speculation, and any position taken on those speculations is a faith position (and a rather dogmatic one at that).

Using this as the root of his case, he proceeds to pick apart, with swift cuts, the opposition that has become known as The New Atheism. He does so with a brilliant grasp of the issues, and a deft and witty style that always entertains.

One of the arguments emerging from this new brand of atheists is their defense (yes, I would call it that) of atheistic mass murderers by claiming that although Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and others were bad men, they certainly never committed their atrocities under the banner of atheism. True enough, says Berlinksi, but they did commit these atrocities because they felt confident that God was not watching and therefore they had no one to answer to. They may not have murdered under the banner of atheism, but their atheism was clearly a major factor in their decision to butcher their fellow human beings without remorse. Berlinski also points out that as the world has grown more secular, it has become a far more violent place, and he supports it with a list of atrocities from the past century. The Inquisition and the Middle Ages are certainly horrible stains upon the mantle of Christianity, but they don't represent the actions of true Christians, who believe and act on the notion that the nature of God is best manifested in our treating others with unconditional love, and treating them as we wish to be treated. Additionally, the sum total of deaths from these events, which covered hundreds of years, still pales in comparison to the 100 million people butchered in the 20th century alone by the thugs mentioned above.

This is an excellent book, and if you've been following the rise of militant atheism and its clash with faith, this is a book you shouldn't miss. I use the term "militant atheism" to describe authors such as Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who claim that they're being reasonable and rational, but the vitriol found in their books suggests otherwise. Berlinski provides a wonderful tonic to counter them.

Now that I've spent quite a bit of time around the "new atheists" or "militant atheists", I can say that they thoroughly annoy me and I find them to be dishonest. I've heard very many of their arguments against theism over the years, and I've honestly considered their arguements. But at this point I always warn them as their "logic & reason" (that they fully believe they've got such a strong grasp on) will be ripped to shreds within the first 10 pages of THIS book by Berlinski. Best part is the author is an agnostic scientist, he has an unbiased viewpoint and no axe to grind. Turns out it's the Truth, as opposed to the axe, that'll set a person free. Recommended if you've got some smarty-pants around you who assumes that you're delusional and brainwashed for considering that life might not possibly end at the grave. At the end of the day religious texts of the world hold the merit of having profound inner-meaning after all is said and done.

I loved this book. Whenever I read anything or listen to anything Dr. Berlinski says, I feel my IQ rising correspondingly. And yet everything he writes is....well, entertaining in the extreme. I would have loved to take a class of his.....

Anyone even remotely interested in the truth will find that Dawkins and his friends are such dogmatic, self-righteous little prigs. A defense against this "new atheist" revolution was very needed, and believers could not have found a better hero than Dr. Berlinski, himself an agnostic, secular Jew. He has a wonderful sense of knowing when he's being jerked around by idiots.

What can be said about this book? First of all, just read it. I was most impressed with the way Berlinski both respects and yet refuses to deify The Western Scientific Tradition. To allow something to be worshipped that is not a god, but a fellow, is more degrading to it than outright insult. Critical camaraderie is the preferred path to improvement. Perhaps that's why Berlinski is so good at intelligent expose' of a Science-become-too-large. So large that sweeping philosophical and religious claims are regularly made without an inkling that something is awry, and without due embarrassment. But there ought to be some embarrassment, as Berlinski helps to bring about. Oddly enough, as an agnostic, he defends the religious tradition on the basis that humanistic knowledge has come up with nothing better than what the greater portion of humankind has always believed: special creation in the image of God. He once stated that his relationship with "Intelligent Design" (and I believe, by inference, religion) is "warm but distant". He is much more willing to explore ID as an astounding fact revealed than as a replacement theory for Darwinism, as Berlinski seems to pessimistically consider the biological mechanics of the ancient past inscrutable. So one may ask, why isn't Berlinski as fond of Evolutionary thought, which may be just as intuitively conceived as Intelligent Design or Religious Thought? Because the claim of Darwinism is that it is anything but revealed or intuitive. Rather we are led to believe it is rooted in an impartial and conclusive empiricism. And this is exactly what Berlinski disproves in The Devil's Delusion, with a great knowledge of his subject, and a great prose style to make it a phenomenal read.

I sympathize with the faithful atheists; this book commits blasphemy against their chosen faith system. I do not sympathize with their "reviews," as it is extremely doubtful any of them have touched the book, let alone read it.

Berlinski is his usual sarcastic self, but done with humor and style -- and always making a point. A worthwhile read on the subject. The best "rebuttals" I've read about the book is that (a) Berlinski is a "fundamentalist Christian" and everyone knows they are very dumb (he's an Ivy League secular Jew, and a postdoctorate fellow in mathematics and molecular biology) and (b) and he has done work for the Discovery Institute, and since they support Intelligent Design Berlinski is obviously very dumb and very, very bad (you see, if you support intelligent design or doubt materialistic, atheistic neo-Darwinism, you are a very bad person -- where that moral law comes from has not really been stated...and even in the unlikely event you aren't "bad" you are by definition dumb because if you were smart you'd accept materialist, atheistic neo-Darwinism...nice and tidy, albeit it is rowing with one oar in the water).

Lies and ad hominem. Substantive and thoughtful rebuttals to his critiques, those I have not yet encountered. Read the book for yourself, enjoy a thoughtful and well written critique of the philosophical system known as neo-Darwinism and be that much better informed on the subject.

Dr. Berlinski is extremely well-read in philosophy, physics, mathematics, biology, history, and theology. He does an amazing synthesis in his lines of reasoning, proving if not the existence of God, then certainly the impossibility of proving the non-existence of God. Berlinski takes great delight in showing how scientific atheists have been insisting on an irrational agenda, fabricating any theory imaginable to skirt around the cosmological inconvenience of the Big Bang.
This was as much fun to read as C S Lewis' "Mere Christianity," though Dr Berlinski, as a secular Jew, comes to a few different, though not irreconcilable conclusions.
"We live by love and longing, death and the devastation that time imposes. How did they enter into the world? And why? The world of the physical sciences is not our world, and if our world has things that cannot be explained in their terms, then we must search elsewhere for their explaination.
We may allow ourselves in the twenty-first century to neglect the Red Sea and to regard with unconcern the various loaves and fishes mentioned in the New Testament. We who are heirs to the scientific tradition have been given the priceless gift of a vastly enhanced sense of the miraculous. This is something that the very greatest scientists- Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Gödel- have always known and stressed."

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."

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.

Berlinski is a healthy tonic to the pompous arrogance of the scientific elite who look down their priestly noses and preach to others as if they were without the foibles of prejudice, a priori assumptions, or religious agendas. If literate society is still surviving 200 years from now, the militant atheists will be seen as a high point in the extravagant presumptions of scientism and The Devil's Delusion will be a mitigating point in our favor as a reasonable society.

The book is brilliantly written, if somewhat inaccessible. Berlinski writes in a masterpiece of wit. But the average person must finish the chapter to really understand the metaphors being employed and where the trail of logic is aiming. Then they must go back and read the chapter a second time to see exactly what Berlinski is saying. But it is worth the effort.

the store's invitation to reviewers always elicits some sparkling commentary. Unfortunately, it also gets its share of one sentence denunciations by "readers" who apparently never even cracked the cover, and, the new enthusiasm to tag books (no reading required) gets tags for this book like "dumb as a rock" and "absolute crap". I venture to say those who wrote those tags have never even seen this book. It's merely to the store's shame that it lets such remarks stand in what is supposed to be an area for reviews.

That generally said, what about the book at hand? This is the sort of book that if the editors agreed with it, the New York Times would be raving about. Since they likely don't, they're not. But it's the sort of book I generally avoid. I forced myself through Dawkins' The God Delusion, despite the button-pushing title, and what could be more of a snooze than a-theism-- a topic that defines itself in terms of its opposite? This book, with its stark black and red cover, it's witty title playing off of Dawkin's non-witty title, also put me off. As much as I like reading Berlinski on calculus and other things science, this looked like a book to appeal to impulse buying, issue-of-the-day oriented readers--the sort who probably read Dawkins for the same reason.

However, Kevin Miller, lead writer for Expelled, suggested I read it, and seeing it in a bookstore, I thought I might. I'd also watched The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski, a DVD interview, which was so engaging I wanted more. The book is not at all what I thought it would be. In the back Berlinski says he's written essays on this sort of topic for a decade for Commentary magazine. Books tend to be collections of essays worked into book form, and this book is not at all a knee-jerk reaction to Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al. and their recent writings, although it does benefit in the early chapters by considering them.

The best chapters seem like fully formed essays. "A Put-Up Job" (chapter six) considers a few views of the universe and its beginnings, ideas known as the Landscape and Anthropic Principle. Berlinski has read the same science writers I have (and likely more): Paul Davies, Rene Thom, Steven Weinberg, to name a few. As a mathematician and physicist, he is completely at home in discussing their views, and reveals himself as one of the few literate and readable popular science writers. Rudy Rucker is another (also a mathematician). There's an argument, in the form of a logical proof, called "God, logic, or nothing", which I used for the title of this review, and had I been consulted, would have suggested for the title of the book.

Lucky he discusses these ideas because Dawkins, it turns out, uses them in an argument which, in chapter seven, titled "A Curious Proof That God Does Not Exist", Berlinski, to put it lightly, dismantles. Another engaging chapter follows, (chapter eight), "Our Inner Ape, A Darling, and the Human Mind". Again, this essay stands alone as a thoughtful, delightful bit of writing far above most popular science books.

Next, I note that "Miracles in Our Time" (chapter nine) could have been an essay dropped in whole cloth into the book because it has a misleading title, as essays often do, since they don't get Googled in search engines by subject as do books, and thus can enjoy the indulgence of an allusive moniker. I'd also agree that the intro. chapters are necessary to bring the book up to these other chapters, with the cosmological argument, as an ancient logical proof was known, a discussion of the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, and some bits on the methodology of science.

Well, I hear someone saying, that's all well and good, but some of that calculus book was rough going. And some of this one is too, and at the same points-- when he discusses mathematical proofs. Furthermore, in that calculus book, the vocabulary got rather large at times and the discussion somewhat meandering. And in this book, again, he especially meanders in the last chapter, which looks like a quick closure on a collection of essays. However, if the NY Times did like this book, they'd be saying, read it with a dictionary. Why should the author dumb down the book for "readers" who use tags like "dumb as a rock?" Why indeed?

How sad the NY Times gang may miss this book, which would be just their cup of tea. Also sad that the hardback is out of print and going for scalper's prices (although the paperback is likely forthcoming). For the rest of us, here's the latest page turner from the engrossing, maddening, enlightening, challenging, paradigm-shifting, balloon bursting, devilishly clever, and yes, incorrigible David Berlinski.

David Berlinski is a gifted writer and he is a witty and persuasive writer. That is an interesting and fun combination.

In fact, Berlinski's wit can make his arguments seem even more forceful. Don't get me wrong, I think his arguments are strong anyhow, but you know how it is, the humor helps. Here are some examples of the Berlinski wit:

Speaking of Hector Avalos, atheist professor of religous studies at Iowa State University, "He is a member in good standing of the worldwide fraternity of academics who are professionally occupied in sniffing the underwear of their colleagues for signs of ideological deviance."

Here's another, "The details may be found in Hawking's bestselling A Brief History of Time, a book that was widely considered fascinating by those who did not read it, and incomprehensible by those who did."

Okay, one more, "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."

Suddenly, it occurs to me that those comments may not seem quite as funny when they are not read in context. But they made me laugh when I was reading the book.

I know, humor is subjective.

Berlinski's book, is basically a defense of God and religion against the recent attack of atheism--particularly the haughty form of atheism that pretends to draw all of its ontological stature from a pure and inescapable scientific reason. The Devil's Delusion is even more interesting because Berlinski is a "secular Jew"--his description--with a Ph.D. from Princeton who has spent many years writing about mathematics and science. In other words, this is an apologetic for God and religion coming from a highly educated, secular man who has signficant experience in, and great respect for, science.

One of the interesting ideas that I took from the book has to do with the similarities between the faith in God that existed in the pre-Modern era and the faith in Science--yes, sometimes blind faith--of the Modern and Post-Modern eras.

If you're rolling your eyes, right now, and saying, "Oh, come on, there are no similarities between faith in God and faith in Science" my response would be: Read The Devil's Delusion.

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

We've all been there: friends and family gave the restaurant their highest recommendations, and the name of the establishment alone is a thing of local legend. You finally get around to visiting the place for dinner and order the Chef's special with only the best expectations. Then the food arrives, and...wow, it's awful! Then you begin to notice the water stains on the ceiling and the burnt-out light bulbs that need replacement. The utensils need rinsing, the bathroom floor needs mopping, and the service leaves something to be desired. Why hasn't anyone else noticed the disarray? Why do others continue to praise the place in spite of its lack of quality? We can go ahead and call the restaurant "Darwin's," and you are not alone in your low estimation of the place; David Berlinski, renowned mathematician and wit nonpareil, offers a scathing critique of it in "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions." Heedless of Darwinism's reputation as an "establishment" in the cavalcade of scientific theories, Mr. Berlinski puts its assumptions to the test. What he uncovers is a theory in shambles and in need of serious self-critique and renovation. As Darwinism has become foundational to modern science, this disarray is symptomatic of the field in general.

This book should be an astringent in the festering wound that is modern scientific thought. Too long, Mr. Berlinski points out, has the scientific community been able to capitalize upon unquestioned assumptions to support its insupportable theories and arguments. He, like many, would like to see a renewed vigor in scientific inquiry and, perhaps, a refreshing dose of humility. In the first chapter alone, the author successfully diagnoses what ails the discipline, and it is the purblind insistence on the part of scientists that all of life, matter, and existence can be explained without reference to either Intelligent Design or the Divine. For the uninitiated reader like myself, who may find himself at a loss when it comes to the grand scientific theories of the last four hundred years (thank you public education), Berlinski is all too happy to provide an overview of the current state of things. He describes how the established laws of science cannot account for man's origins and, in fact, cannot coalesce into one coherent view of the universe. But this, he explains, is kept secret, and scientists double down on their wild proclamations as if nothing were the matter. Problem is: bad meat is bad meat, and the patrons are beginning to taste it.

The breadth and depth of knowledge on display in this book is a credit to Berlinski's singular genius; and the lyricism and quip of his prose reminds one of G.K. Chesterton's "Everlasting Man." In fact, the comparison between Berlinski and Chesterton, odd as it may seem, illuminates what makes "The Devil's Delusion" so effective: rather than outlining a treatise in favor of Intelligent Design, Mr. Berlinski poses substantial questions that reveal the enormous assumptions and "leaps of faith" so characteristic of modern science. Like Chesterton, he forces the assumptions out into the light, so that the reader may see for himself what scientists have been hiding away in the proverbial closet. The author has accomplished the thankless job of cleaning house and left scientists with the responsibility of dealing with their skeletons.

For its concision and precision alone, "The Devil's Delusion" deserves praise. For its candor and insight, Berlinski deserves commendation. If this book inspires half the change in the scientific community that it recommends, we may indeed soon see "Darwin's" close its doors for good and re-open under a new name, a new menu, and, hopefully, new management.

After reading Berlinski's book, only one word comes to mind - "WOW". Actually, now that my heartbeat has returned to normal, other phrases are flowing through my cerebral plumbing. Superlative is one that strikes a chord. The thought that this might be the best book I have ever read is hard to dismiss. I have heard David speak a few times, once in person when I bought my copy of this book. It is fun to listen to him, but even the best of us always leave something unsaid or phrase something a little more clumsily than we would like when we don't have the luxury of analyzing and perfecting our thoughts before committing them to our audience. With Berlinski's power through presenting a written word to refine the many threads that pulsate through his obviously hyperactive brain, he is able to produce a masterpiece of eloquence that parallels the universe itself, at the same time complex yet comprised of simplicity. His cheek has to be slightly raw from his tongue rubbing against it as he glibly and, with the precision of a laser beam, penetrates through the veneer of pseudo science and pseudo intellectualism with his hilarious observations. He is the epitome of a scholar, providing much of his own original material, but yet deftly weaving in quotations from preceding scholars to enhance his own verbal illustrations. This book is a jewel which I will read again - with highlighter this time - so I can capture the passages that make me jealous as a writer. I'll use this as a tutorial on how to get an argument across to a target audience. Berlinski could pedantically utilize his extensive vocabulary in a fashion that would force his readers to keep a Funk and Wagnall's nearby, but he normally uses simple words to break complex arguments into a verbal feast that a lesser man can digest with gusto. His analogies use mundane, down-to-earth scenarios and jargon to which common men can relate. His grasp on philosophical and logical discourse is only surpassed by his capacity to compose phrases which break down those ideas with a witty delivery that even Mark Twain would envy.

For example, this one almost had me rolling on the floor. In reference to some contrived computer programs written to demonstrate natural selection at work in the cyber world, Berlinski says, "What these computer experiments do reveal is a principal far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered: There's a sucker born every minute."

What has amazed me since I entered the fray over Darwinian thought two years ago is the absolute lack of any respect from Darwin proponents for meaningful discourse or the people who are unconvinced by Sir Charles and his ambitious theory. Apparently being a doubter is of great honor if God is the target of the skepticism. However, if Darwinian gradualism through mutations is the target of questioning, being a skeptic places a person right between a skunk and a vulture on the social totem pole. The one star reviews on this book are absolutely ludicrous. There is no fairness involved. The agenda of eliminating God as opposed to seeking truth, which Berlinski outlines nicely in his book, is confirmed by the reviews of his detractors. They can't appreciate the genius of this writing because it rips holes in the foundation where they live. It culls their herd of sacred cows leaving a couple of swayback steers dreaming of days when they still bore their reproductive organs. It not only reveals their agenda, but exposes the dearth of common sense, logic, and true science behind it. Berlinski is truly a threat to the Darwinian empire. And the modus operandi of people who can't successfully dual against ideas is to assassinate the character or cast doubts upon the intellect or credentials of the speaker.

There are a lot of wonderful books out there concerning this ongoing controversy. If you are a veritable truth-seeker, you can't go wrong with choosing to dive into the depths of this marvelous work of creation (pun not intended). This book does not include a lot of scientific arguments against evolution. David resorts to tactics used by writers supporting Sir Charles. He makes statements like "there's not enough evidence". You can't judge the accuracy of that statement without more facts. You'll need to read other books to find out why he makes those claims. They are not scarce. His goal is not to shoot down evolution per se, but rather to jerk the carpet out from under those who would sound the atheistic trumpet in Zion based on alleged scientific proof. He succeeds very nicely.

I bought THE DEVIL’S DELUSION (TDD) knowing nothing of its author but hoping to learn something from him: this book is marketed as a response to Richard Dawkins’s THE GOD DILEMMA (which I’d previously read), and I was curious to see what sort of points it might raise. Regrettably, TDD is toxic. I can’t say for certain it kills brain cells, but it’s definitely spiteful, irrational, contradictory—even sickening: pushes my buttons and raises my blood pressure. Reviewers who admire it (they are legion) must not be able to understand it—and, after all, it is hard to understand because, for example, it condemns democracy; it proffers a revisionist and insupportable version of modern history; it endeavors to ridicule science (presumably because the author feels that “Science” is religion); and It contains innumerable examples of every rhetorical sin including vitriol, ad hominem attacks, blithe sophistry, blatant prejudice, all manner of falsehoods and half-truths, contradictions, bombast….

I’m not even sure “David Berlinski” is a real person. Seriously: he could be the pen name for a committee—some groups that is angrily divided against itself and spends all its time arguing. “Berlinski” calls himself “a secular Jew” but is fluent in Catholicism and can come across, also, as an Evangelical. His mood vacillates between a bitter nihilism and a fiery dogmatic faith, both of which the reader, evidently, is expected to regard more as thoughtful, agnostic intellectualism. In other words, “David Berlinski” is also legion. He’s also irresponsible—uses quotations without any footnotes or endnotes, not even a bibliography—and, while I will tolerate such casualness where I’m already familiar with a subject matter, I won’t put much trust in a lot of third- or fourth-party descriptions of, for instance, subatomic particles. I skipped most of TDD’s section on quantum mechanics because, by the time I reached it, I distrusted “David Berlinski” to lead me through it. I did read enough of that section, however, to know that DB doesn’t understand Schrödinger: he calls the cat, before the box is opened, “half dead” and “half alive.” And that’s wrong, of course: Schrödinger’s cat is completely dead, completely alive before the famous box is opened. I’m going to guess DB finds uncertainty impossible. I’m basing my guess on the fact that DB pretends to be omniscient. I think he craves absolutes.

He describes himself, early in the Introduction, as “secular,” apparently meaning to say he’s fair and impartial. Oddly, he later uses the same word—“secular”—to condemn everything besides himself (and God). He explicitly blames “secular society” for every single combat death from World War One until the present day. Seriously: there are page and pages of stats in this book on the deaths entailed by the 20th century’s perpetual warfare—but not one single paragraph that offers any plausible evidence for blaming those deaths on ANYTHING. My point, again, is that DB uses “secular” to mean both “neutral and reliable” and to mean “wrong, perhaps even evil.” It follows logically that DB doesn’t judge himself by the same criteria he uses to judge (and therefore condemn) everything except himself (and God). Rather than looking inward, to view the human condition first-hand, DB turns outward and blames other people for all his faults and human failings. In that sense, this book presents an unrecognized self-loathing, misdirected toward DB’s “enemies,” all the atheists, scholars, scientists, and people who live in democracies. I suspect that DB might not love God quite so much as he hates other people who also don’t love God quite so much.

When he’s in his nihilistic mode, DB asserts that humanity can never, ever have sufficient proof of anything. He treats the very concept of “evidence” as an absurdity. But, that attitude never extends to evidence for the existence of God, because God can be assumed on the basis of faith. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot be taken on faith; moreover it’s wrong to try. That’s sophistry, of course, because it’s a double standard: “bad guys” lack proof because proof can’t be had; “good guys” are excused from the burden of proof, because proof can’t be had. DB treats countless unknowable things as absolutes, doesn’t try to prove much—and after all why should he, if proof is impossible? Plus, it’s so much easier to pretend to be omniscient. Thus, DB preaches nihilism when nihilism suits his purposes, but changes hats on a dime and can speak as an awestruck believer, when that suits his purposes better. I’m saying he’s unreliable, won’t fight fair; he’s slippery as an eel, etc.

DB states and infers (repeatedly, consistently) that Hitler was an atheist; and, likewise (if also contrariwise) he includes Einstein on his short list of scientist-believers. Neither of these labels is reliable: believers and atheists both wish to claim Albert Einstein—which makes his beliefs the brass ring—whereas neither most atheists, nor most Christians, want to claim Hitler as one of their own, so Hitler’s beliefs are a shuttlecock. If we turn to first-hand sources, we learn that Einstein said this, explicitly: “I do not believe in a personal God” and, in addition, he complained that he’d used the word “God” metaphorically, but people assumed, wrongly, that he’d used it literally. None of that is difficult to research, which suggests that DB never looked. On the other hand, we know that Hitler—at least some of the time—claimed he was a Christian. Since we can’t know what was really in his heart or mind (plus, people can change their minds anyway) DB, by pretending Hitler’s brain is transparent, is pretending once more to be omniscient. And Hitler’s beliefs are not trivial, because DB blames World War Two, in its entirely, on Hitler’s (unproved and unprovable) atheism. That enables him to blame the Holocaust on atheism as well, thus lifting the blame off of Christian shoulders and creating a mythology of polarized “good guy” believers and “bad guys” nonbelievers having nothing to do with life. DB cannot of course “prove” a word of any of these allegations, but then again he doesn’t believe in proof. As usual, he simply asserts that his wishes are horses.

I’ll offer a few, more specific examples from the text. Page 139: “A religious instinct is universal: It arises in every human being.” The statement is false and pretends omniscience: DB pretends to know what’s in the hearts and minds of everyone, alive or dead. What he wishes were true, he posits as true. Note that, since “instinct” is a concept from biology, this is also a case where DB tries to exploit science—an “enemy”—in an effort to “prove” that faith trumps reason. He’s inconsistent; he’s exploitative; he’s hyperbolic.

Pages 19-20: “Ivan Karamazov exclaims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” DB uses Karamazov’s outcry as the premise of a syllogism, but the premise is only a reflection of the tortured imaginings of a character from fiction: Ivan Karamazov is an imaginary person and, therefore, not a fair or proper opponent in a serious debate. Since DB allegedly is, or was, a professor of philosophy, why didn’t he choose to quote a widely-known, real-life human philosopher? Why not confront and challenge some known “great thinker” who in fact did (or still does) uphold the notion that “everything is permitted”? Evidently, DB can’t even think of anyone to take out of context on this, from which the reader might discern that “everything is permitted” isn’t in fact anybody’s actual mantra. Either DB is mistaken, or he’s fakin’, but either way, he set up a straw man to take the fall.

Page 39: DB quotes Richard Rorty: “The West has cobbled together… a specifically secularist moral tradition… that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather than the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Rorty’s statement is relatively neutral (Rorty call the tradition “moral”), but DB skews it: “The words ‘the free consensus,’ although sonorous, come to nothing more than the declaration that just so long as there is rough agreement within society, what its leaders say goes.” DB’s remark is false, in part at least, because it relies on a false equivalency: “the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society” is not the same thing, always, as what “its leaders say goes.” If the two aren’t precisely apples and oranges, then at least they’re Granny Smiths and Fujis—but this entire argument is a red herring anyway, since DB is comparing real-world democratic societies to an ideal society to be found only in the imagination: one in which every law is perfect, no exceptions, no loopholes, no doubts. There’s never been a society like that, nor can DB offer his readers an alternative “-ism” or “-ocracy.” It’s far, far easier to toss out the baby with the bath. The alternative to “democratic societies” is, of course, dictatorships and the like, and DB makes a point of condemning, for instance, Hitler and Stalin. So, DB condemns everything: it’s easy but it’s not at all helpful.

Pages 55-56: a cornerstone of DB’s effort to disparage science is an attempt to discredit the scientific method. He offers up for sacrifice a five-step algorithm, of which he then states: “Not a single one of these five sentences makes the slightest sense.” That assertion is false: the five sentences do, in fact, make (at the very, very least) “the slightest sense.” For example, here is one the five (keep in mind it’s an instruction): “Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed.” I submit that this sentence is clear: I can paraphrase it; I can diagram it; I’m confident it can be understood by the majority of English-language speakers; and I can even follow its instructions: pursuant to having observed a phenomenon, I can try to form a hypothesis that explains it. Are there any other significant criteria by which to judge if a proposition makes “the slightest sense”? To my knowledge, there are not. Therefore, DB is bombastically hyperbolizing (“not a single one… [not] the slightest bit…”) in order to try to deceive his readers. This point isn’t trivial, because it shows that DB’s assault on “Science” is built on falsehoods, which…. Well, it’s dishonest.

Page 207, near to the book’s conclusions, BD writes, “We are where human beings have always been …unable to place our confidence completely in anything….” Immediately following this nihilistic summing-up of the human condition, DB attacks author Christopher Hitchens for saying very much the same thing: according to DB, Hitchens’s “definition of an educated person is you [sic] have some idea how ignorant you are.” DB subsequently becomes insulting—but let that slide: the more interesting point is that Hitchens’s (of course not originally his) notion that an educated person is someone aware of his or her own ignorance is not very different from DB’s assertion that “we [human beings] are… unable to place our confidence… in anything.” Yes, the words differ, and yes, DB’s version is more touchy-feely—but the sensibilities agree. It seems that DB’s self-loathing has prevented him from taking to heart the maxim, “It takes one to know one.” And thus he sets a pair of compatible statements side by side but reacts as though Hitchens were an idiot who deserves his insults, whereas he, “David Berlinski,” by saying very much what Hitchens also says, offers wisdom and so deserves praise. Again, DB judges himself by one set of criteria, and everyone else by a another set.

This review is too long but it used to be even longer; I’ve cut out twice as many further examples of how corrupt and tasteless this book is. There’s nothing at all in it worth reading—much less paying for—not even for curiosity’s sake. Not even for a twisted laugh at DB’s expense—and I pray that I’ve now “got it out of my system” permanently.

It is good to see Jewish people speaking up the existence of a Creator. After all, they are His chosen people! There is so much evidence for YHWH/Yahuah, aka God, in intelligent design and other areas of scientific study. There is so much evidence for the Bible's truths, more and more all the time with archaeological and historical findings. There is even scientific evidence of a crucified and resurrected Messiah, through the Shroud of Turin.

The problem isn't with the evidence. It's with the lies that try to cover it up.

I thought this was an extremely witty book. To me it really seems that if you believe in God you are a minority, that somehow you must not "get it". I don't have the intellectual wit to respond to Dawkins or Hitchens, but I do know that in the premise and conclusion of the greatest of scientific theories, there will never be a conclusion to Prove God, or Disprove god. And I am sure to be met by many critical reviews, some that would say that believing in God is like believing in a Unicorn... and so 4th, So be it. Why I found this book extremely beautiful was that it didn't attempt to shove anything down anyone's throat.. The Militant Atheists are just pure annoying imo. So many Atheists live in this beautiful world without attempting to correct people, and plenty of people who believe that the way to God is threw the Heart do not walk around preaching about what one person must believe. The Universe is just one of those things. It is very possible that 700 years after we are all dust, or however long, someone might " Prove " that all of our scientific findings we firmly accept today belong to the Pseudo category.

It is a very well written book by Berlinski. It exposes the real face of New Atheism, which
is an empty philosophy with a new glamorous hypocritic modern package. This philosophy offers
nothing to solve our modern problems, but will only make them worse.

I was asked to read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' "God is not Great" in order to discuss them. I read them. But I like to read opposing views so I picked up David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion" too. My first reaction is that everyone should read these three books, one after the other. It really is exciting to witness the sparring. My second reaction after having read all three was a minor shock: Dawkins' and Hitchens' claims for the non-existence of God are predominantly emotional and pseudo-scientific, whereas Berlinski uses science and math and logic to demonstrate that science cannot prove God's non-existence and really still cannot answer the question of the universe's origin. One would have assumed that Dawkins and Hitchens would have supported their opinions with scientific demonstrations. Another interesting...what to call it?...phenomenon was that reading Dawkins and Hitchens requires no thought; their writing and their "arguments" are so seamless and clear that one begins to feel uneasy: how is it that these two gentlemen have been able, in the space of a few hundred pages, resolve questions that have puzzled millions of people for thousands of years? Berlinski is no less clear, but reading him one feels more like one has been invited into a serious conversation about real life questions that deserve considerable pondering. Berlinski is serious about thinking through the tough questions, and his conclusions are therefore much more convincing, whereas Dawkins and Hitchens come across more as dogmaticians (no discussion allowed). I will say this about all three: they do try to use humor, and while I am persuaded more by Berlinski, I did not find it unpleasant reading all three books. I wonder if these three have ever appeared on a video interview together?

This is a funny book. While I found no other value than its humor and artistic irony; as you can see, many others have read much into it. I am left with a smile and no understanding of the real point of the book. If it was an attempt to refute atheism, it fails. I read it through in one sitting, so I need to go back and review further to discern the author's purpose. Good science is still good science. It's messy and it is a work in progress. No need to throw out the bath with the dirty water. Still, this is a very well written book and an interesting view into the mind of the author.

Daniel

This is a much needed book. It discusses the arrogance and self-righteousness of current scientists who think that science has disproven God. The author, who is a secular Jew, doesn't so much argue for the existence of God as much as he argues against the lame arguments of men like Dawkins and hitchens. Berlinski has a PhD and knows his science very, very well.

One can only marvel at David Berlinski's erudition, flawless writing, and Tabasco-sharp wit.

It's not Berlinski's intention to prove the existence of God (let's leave that to Saint Thomas Aquinas), but to employ the aforementioned gifts to demonstrate that science in general and militant atheists in particular cannot prove, and have not proved, that God doesn't exist -- despite arrogant assertions to the contrary. In this, Berlinski has been brilliantly successful.

Berlinski, who argues the way Joe Louis boxed, lands perfectly executed jabs, hooks, and crosses (oops, did I use the word "cross"?) to the heads and bodies of hapless haters, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. Palookas, bums, their groundless elitism, small-boy viciousness, and intellectual flatulence are no match for The Great Berlinski.

As Western Civilization becomes increasinlgly, well, uncivilized, one can take great solace in reading Berlinski, George Rutler, Theodore Dalrymple, Mark Steyn, and all those who know how to fight the good fight.

In closing, I add my prayers to those of other Catholics that David Berlinski, a secular Jew, will one day become a member of the One True Church. We would be honored and delighted to welcome him. Indeed, he'd feel right at home.

I read the book cover to cover and loved it. Dr. Berlinski's writing style is very concise and a little unique. The resulting concentration of ideas and references had me re-reading portions occasionally to make sure I didn't miss anything. The main topic is to throw very well reasoned arguments back in the face of some prominent atheists to show that their confidence is rather misplaced and to do so with the maximum of wit and humor. Topics covered include the real results of atheistic world views in government, the evidence for and against the possible existence of God, Darwinism, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, the mind, computers, the Standard Model and the big bang.

It's only 225 smaller-sized pages in 10 chapters. It is a quick read in one place but perfect for that nightly chapter that you can think about the next day. If you have an open mind you will like this book. If you are a Christian, you will like this book. If you are a determined atheist you will not like this book (see the one star reviews).

In under 230 pages, Berlinski manages to not only convincingly make the case that God should be put back in the picture of contemporary scientific debate, but also to give a whirlwind tour of the key theories of modern physics (without even any direct use of mathematics!). This title is extremely well-written (Berlinski really knows how to turn a phrase!) and is also a quick read, to boot (dedicated readers will be able to get through it in a day or two).

From what I have seen so far, this is the book to start with if you are are looking for both a scientific and literary response to what has come to be known as the "New Atheism" (that is, views similar to those of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and others).

Highly recommended.

I picked up this book with some apprehension. Unfortunately, it turned out as I had expected. David Berlinski is a master of the strawman fallacy, bringing forth only the least favorable interpretations of the positions he critiques. To be sure, the New Atheists seem prone to saying things open to such attacks. They, like all other ideologues, are certainly open to legitimate criticism, but that is not what Berlinski presents. Worse is the fact that, for a book peppered with quotations of people criticized, Berlinski provides not a single citation-none. In fact, the book entirely lacks a bibliography. There is either deliberate or neglectful lack of research along with this, such as when he attacks Steven Pinker for arguing that violence has declined. He does this by providing a list of 20th century atrocity and war deaths, something Pinker is well aware of as his book deals with them at length. Nowhere is Pinker's voluminous data in support of his thesis (whether right or wrong) even mentioned, to say nothing of addressed. An amusing hypocrisy also occurs at the point when Berlinski criticizes atheist scientists for venturing outside of the areas of their expertise, then proceeds to do just the same where he, a mathematician and philosopher, feels that he is competent to hold forth on biology, cosmology, etc. I have read many reviews of this book saying that since Berlinski identifies himself as a secular Jew who also supports intelligent design, he must therefore be objective and unbiased. The laughter this inspires falters only at the realization this contention is being made seriously. Whether one could find any person who actually meets those qualifications, Berlinski is certainly not that. In short, his work is a book-length screed, recommended only for those so firmly supportive of his thesis as to be willing to ignore the errors of logic riddled within it, which undermine whatever merit it might have-in my opinion, irreparably so.

David Berlinski does an excellent job of dismantling all the "scientific pretensions" of the atheists, especially those who are hung up on the theory of evolution as being explanatory of life. And a usual argument Berlinski makes for a Creator is the moral argument, which is one no atheist has adequately contested: how do you determine what is evil - what is "wrong" - if you have no ultimate standard of good? I highly recommend this book.

It seems to me that two simple points underlie all the disputation and diatribes about Berlinski's subject matter: (1) that no one (scientist, theologian, mystic, psychologist) can be (or ought to be) certain of anything, and (2) ultimately, that what one finds to be plausible and important hinges on one's values, opinions, personality structure. These points ought to be familiar to all, and uncontroversial exept to what Eric Hoffer long ago called "the true believer" (The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classic.). Berlinski's exposition may be entertaining, but it certainly is not new.

Is everything ultimately physical? Will neurobiology/neurophilosophy ultimately explain experience, consciousness? (So far, there's not the slightest hint how that could happen -- nobody has a clue about how physical phenomena, energies, "dead things," could lead to awareness, subjectivity. I myself think that some variant of panpsychism offers the only viable approach -- see Panpsychism in the West (Bradford Books).)

Are miracles possible? Could incredibly intricate organization happen mechanistically, statistically? Can you call what computers do, "thinking?"

Who knows? Choose your poison.

The Devil's Delusion

The title is an allusion to Richard Dawkins' international bestseller, The God Delusion. David Berlinski, a secular Jew and renowned scientist, suggests that Dawkins and the current wave of atheistic manifestoes are diabolical because they have made science into another religion. (And we naively imagined science was a disinterested pursuit of the truth.)

In the first paragraph of the first chapter, Berlinski sets the tone for his "defense of religious thought and sentiment." He is dogmatic and disdainful, trenchant and sometimes comedic. He begins with his premise by quoting Albert Einstein's aphorism that "Science without religion is lame while religion without science is blind." In short, Dawkins' polemic is lame: it does not admit the Socratic paradox that science has made the world MORE mysterious: "We [scientists today] know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped."

Dogmatic:

"After studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, Fred Hoyle, an avowed atheist, grumbled: `it looks like a put-up job.''" Berlinski adds: "The universe looks like a put-up job because it IS a put-up job." (p. 111-2)

Disdainful:

"Considering the cosmological argument, the physicist Victor Stenger scoffs that it is the "last resort of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God from science when he finds all his other arguments fail." Sheer chutzpah, if I may use the Greek for cheek. It is STENGER who is arguing against he existence of God "from science." (p. 95)

Trenchant:

"Physicists have placed their faith in the idea that deep down the universe is coordinated by a great plan, a rational system of organization, a hidden but accessible scheme, one that when finally seen in all its limpid but austere elegance, will flood the soul with gratitude."
(p. 45) Such was Einstein's life-long search.

Comedic:

"When asked what he was in awe of, Christopher (God-is-not-Great) 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." (p. 208)

What is Berlinski's conclusion about scientists who regard religious belief with frivolous contempt? As a secular Jew and agnostic, he affirms:

"If science in the twentieth century has demonstrated anything, it is that there are limits to what we can know: No one has provided proof of God's nonexistence. Quantum cosm-ology has not explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here. A narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion exists within the sciences. Nothing in the sciences justifies the claim that religious belief is irrational. Scientific atheism is itself a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt." (p. 218)

[email protected]

Berlinski's book is a much needed debunking of the "Four Horsemen" (of militant atheism) as well as a much needed call for a return to what science actually can and cannot tell us. Berlinski clearly shows that science is not a god, and it cannot answer metaphysical and philosophical questions for us. Another reason for Berlinski's success in swatting down the arrogant "Brights" is that his Ph.D. and expertise is in Mathematics and Philosophy. Harris has no Ph.D., Dawkins' area of expertise is literally the zoo; (zoology) Dennett's is Cognition/Psychology, and Hitchens is simply a journalist for Vanity Fair. When speaking on matters such as the beginning of the universe, the complexity of life, statistics, the fine-tuning of the universe, etc., all of the new atheists are amateurs posing as professionals, while Berlinski is a pro.

A superb polemic against both the "new" atheism and the myth of scientific neutrality. I read it through twice. Funny. Smart. Entertaining. Provocative. An unconventional defense of theism. Absolutely worth your time, whether or not you're a believer. It is a guarantee that the one-star ratings on this book are largely (if not entirely) from atheists and their ilk smarting under the punishingly hilarious blows of Berlinski's per-turned-rapier. Encore! Encore!

I have read many books by Dawkins and his ilk and I have read many alternative arguments. One should educate oneself on a topic from many perspectives, in this way one gains a better understanding of the complexity of the issue and develops a sounder judgment. In order to undertake this process correctly one must try to be as an OPEN MINDED as possible and eliminate preexisting prejudices or indoctrinations.

Having said this, this is one of the finest arguments I have read to support the BELIEF for a supreme designer or intellect, it need not be supernatural however. Super intelligent ET's could also be an explanation.

However I must note from my readings and from reviews at the store that atheists have a certain arrogance to believers in a supreme being. One cannot escape the conclusion that they hold such believers as dim wits, individuals of low intellect and education, that you have to be dull to believe.

Well lets have a look at some of the great intellectual minds that believe in some type of god they include:

Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish

Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics

Protestant Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic

Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran

Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist

Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)

Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist

William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist

William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican

Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican

Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian

Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish

Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican

Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish

Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim

Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics

Quaker Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish

George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish

Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)

Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)

Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish

Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish

Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?) PART II. Nobel Writers (20-21 Century)

T.S. Eliot Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglo-Catholic (Anglican)

Rudyard Kipling Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican

Alexander Solzhenitsyn Nobel Laureate in Literature Russian Orthodox

François Mauriac Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic

Hermann Hesse Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian; Buddhist?

Winston Churchill Nobel Laureate in Literature

Anglican Jean-Paul Sartre Nobel Laureate in Literature Lutheran; Freudian; Marxist; atheist; Messianic Jew

Sigrid Undset Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic (previously Lutheran)

Rabindranath Tagore Nobel Laureate in Literature Hindu

Rudolf Eucken Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian (denomination?)

Isaac Singer Nobel Laureate in Literature Jewish PART III. Nobel Peace Laureates (20-21 Century)

Albert Schweitzer Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Lutheran

Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize LaureateBaptist (former Southern Baptist)

Theodore Roosevelt Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian

Woodrow Wilson Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Presbyterian

Frederik de Klerk Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed

Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)

Kim Dae-Jung Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Catholic Dag Hammarskjold Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobel Peace Prize

Laureate Baptist Adolfo Perez Esquivel

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic

Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Prize

Laureate Anglican John R. Mott Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Methodist Part IV.

Founders of Modern Science (16-21 Century)

Isaac Newton Founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism; believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)

Galileo Galilei Founder of Experimental Physics Catholic

Nicolaus Copernicus Founder of Heliocentric Cosmology Catholic (priest)

Johannes Kepler Founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics Lutheran

Francis Bacon Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method Anglican

René Descartes Founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy Catholic

Blaise Pascal Founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics,
and the Theory of Probabilities Jansenist

Michael Faraday Founder of Electronics and Electro-Magnetics Sandemanian

James Clerk Maxwell Founder of Statistical Thermodynamics Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist Lord Kelvin Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics Anglican

Robert Boyle Founder of Modern Chemistry Anglican

William Harvey Founder of Modern Medicine Anglican (nominal)

John Ray Founder of Modern Biology and Natural History Calvinist (denomination?)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz German Mathematician and Philosopher,
Founder of Infinitesimal Calculus Lutheran

Charles Darwin Founder of the Theory of Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian

Ernst Haeckel German Biologist, the Most Influential Evolutionist in Continental Europe

Thomas H. Huxley English Biologist and Evolutionist,
Famous As "Darwin's Bulldog"

Joseph J. Thomson Nobel Laureate in Physics, Discoverer of the Electron,
Founder of Atomic Physics Anglican

Louis Pasteur Founder of Microbiology and Immunology Catholic Part V. Great Philosophers (17-

Immanuel Kant the Greatest modern Philosopher
in the History of Western Philosophy Lutheran

Jean-Jacques Rousseau Founder of Modern Deism born Protestant;
converted as a teen to Catholic

Voltaire French Philosopher and Historian,
One of the Most Influential Thinkers of the Enlightenment raised in Jansenism

David Hume Scottish Empiricist Philosopher, Historian, and Economist,
Founder of Modern Skepticism Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)

Spinoza Dutch-Jewish Philosopher,
the Chief Exponent of Modern Rationalism Judaism; later pantheism/deism

Giordano Bruno Italian Philosopher, Astronomer, and Mathematician,
Founder of the Theory of the Infinite Universe Catholic

George Berkeley Irish Philosopher and Mathematician, Founder of Modern Idealism,
Famous as "The Precursor of Mach and Enstein" Anglican

John Stuart Mill English Philosopher and Economist,
the Major Exponent of Utilitarianism agnostic; Utilitarian

Richard Swinburne Oxford Professor of Philosophy,One of the Most Influential Theistic Philosophers

Now Kant's, Hume's, Newton's and Einstein's intellect exceeds Dawkin's by a considerable margin. So much for the "low intellect" argument

Then there is this from the internet:

"Why the mathematicians, more than other scientists, tend to believe there's a God
Of all scientists, mathematicians are most inclined to believe in God. - A finding of Professor Edward Larson of the University of Georgia and Larry Witham of Bartonsville, Maryland, in a survey of 600 scientists, as reported by the London Weekly Telegraph.

In 1916, Professor James Leuba of Bryn Mawr University in Pennsylvania surveyed the religious beliefs of scientists. He found that about 42% believed in God, almost exactly the same percentage did not, and another 16% described themselves as doubtful about God, although not convinced of his non-existence. In short, about 40% could be described as believers and 60% as unbelievers.

The Leuba survey created a sensation. Politicians expressed fears that university science courses would lead young people away from religion. Prof. Leuba himself envisioned a continuing trend away from God, so that by the end of the century few if any scientists would be believers.

Therefore, with the year 2000 close at hand, Prof. Larson and Mr. Witham conducted a matching survey. Had the Leuba prophecy come true? They found it had not. Belief and non-belief among scientists had not significantly changed. The total expressing belief was 39.3%, while 45.3% listed themselves as unbelievers and 14.5% as doubtful. The 60-40 ratio held.

This assumes, of course, that it has remained consistent throughout the century. It may not have. Prof. Leuba may have been right for a time as the number of believing scientists continued to shrink, but the trend may have later reversed.
The Larson-Witham survey did turn up some unexpected changes. Three disciplines were examined: physicists, biologists and mathematicians. In Prof. Leuba's day, the most determined unbelievers were the biologists (69.5%). Today it's the physicists and astronomers, 77.9% of whom list themselves as such. Biologists, meanwhile, seem to have somewhat recovered their faith, though the Telegraph story did not cite a specific percentage.

The relatively improved faith of biologists may well be due to the gradual decline in credibility of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Too many holes have appeared in it, and biologists would be the first to become aware of this. They would know before anyone else, for instance, of the failure to discover the fossil remains of transitional species, of the failure of laboratory experiment to duplicate any evolutionary change and, most recently, of the profound complexities evidenced in the single cell, which Darwin regarded as "the simple cell."

But it seems that faith is strongest today among the mathematicians, 44.6% describing themselves as definitely believing that behind reality there must be some kind of Mind. Wondering about this, we consulted two friends, one a retired physicist, the other a young mathematician. Both are believers. Why, we asked, would mathematicians be more prone to believe?

The physicist's answer went like this: "I suspect it comes from the role mathematics plays in the exploration of the solar system. After all, using nothing more complex than Newtonian mathematics, the mathematician calculates the necessities of sending a rocket from here to Venus where it orbits and gathers thrust from the rotation of that planet, then comes back and circles Earth, gathering further thrust from our planet, then goes to Jupiter and takes up a precisely calculated position around that planet. All on the basis of simple Newtonian maths. The mathematician marvels at this. He begins to see mathematics, not as a mere humanly contrived system, but as a great work of art by a great Creator, and he is awestruck."

The mathematician, Mike Roshko of Edmonton, graduated in pure mathematics from the University of Alberta two years ago, found there were no jobs to be had in this line, and is now a computer programmer in Ottawa. He answered this way:
"For me, it's amazing the way in which the seemingly different areas of mathematics fit together. When you begin studying advanced math, you tend to think of geometry, algebra, analysis and so on as separate entities, each beautiful and elegant on its own.

"But as you go on, you realize that these different areas are connected in the most astonishing yet natural ways. You may discover that what you thought of as purely a part of geometry turns out to be an essential part of algebra. And what we're dealing with is not just something we've made up. It's a reality. It's there.

"And it all intertwines and works so perfectly, so beautifully, that you realize that Somebody or Something must have done this. It simply could not have happened by chance. It's a kind of revelation, I guess. And it's very convincing."

For generations people have rejected religion because of loud-mouthed fundamentalists. Now the tables are turning. Some people - myself being one of them - are returning to religion (or at least a respectful agnosticism) because of loud-mouthed atheists like Dawkins and Co.

Berlinksi - in true agnostic form - is not arguing for the existence of God or Jesus in this book. He is simply pointing out that atheistic, reductionist arguments eventually collapse under the weight of their own overblown claims. He has been accused of appealing to a "God of the gaps", and shows in this wonderful book just how big those gaps really are.

But most of all, this book seems to be a plea for science to stop being skeptical about everything except science. Highly recommended. Satisfies the agnostic - the doubting Thomas - in all of us.

I'm reading this in conjunction with Dawkins, "The God Delusion" as I am trying to compare and contrast two viewpoints. So far I'm not really liking the premise behind this book. Berlinski seems to resort to "Reductio ad Hitlerum", at least in the open chapter, to an extreme degree. Basically, Hitler and Stalin were atheist and they killed a bunch of people... therefore atheism is bad.

It rings hollow.

True, they were atheist. True, they did horrendous evil. But these two are no more related then to say that Catholicism is evil because of the inquisitions... or sexual abuse (The latter being a great example of an instance where Catholics will jump to their feet in defense of religion and say it is not fair to judge the many on the evil of the few).

There are plenty of examples throughout history and lore of the evils of religion as well, but that doesn't make religion evil. The ethnic cleansing of the promised land in the Old Testament. The ethnic cleansing of Armenians by the Muslim Ottomans. The trail of tears and killing of native americans by Christian America. The slavery and exploitation of African peoples by all of the Christian western world. Honestly the list could go on and on. The reality is that man is inherently evil (Surprisingly a point of major contention among philosophers.Yet one that redemptive religions such as the Abrahamic religions agree with).

Overall I am not that impressed yet, but I will update my review once I finish the book. I just hope that the basis for his arguments improves in latter chapters.

I picked up this book after seeing Berlinski in Expelled. I found his arguments against evolution and against the scientific community's resistance to alternative ideas in the film very compelling, But this book was not a good follow-up. He complains that the scientific community is pretentious and close-minded, but makes the same errors when criticizing his own opponents! For example, he cuts into Sam Harris and Letter to a Christian Nation, but if he'd read Harris' first and longer work, End of Faith, he would have seen Harris had already addressed those. He accuses Harris of being a moral relativist, but Harris writes vigorously against moral relativism in End of Faith. Also, Berlinksi spends too much time criticizing his opponents' writing styles instead of criticizing the content of their arguments. Incidentally, his own writing style isn't that hot accessible either. He seems to go out of his way to use erudite language, odd for a book aimed at the mass market.

I can't help but feel that David Berlinski has a contrarian (albeit a rather gilded) axe to grind. It's grinding against the dogmatic and wholly repugnant institution of atheistic pseudo-philosophy, which the book's final analogy illustrates rather well. The secular Jew delves into quantam mechanics, the problematic philosophy of vociferous naturalists, and the facet of most hilarity - the idiocy of the 'Daniel Dennett', no Daniel, a catchy alliterative name won't work. No wonder Dick Dawkins levels objurgations such as 'creationist' at Berlinski; not only does he possess a disposition for cutting through absurdity which the Aldous-Huxley-haired former Oxford professor lacks, yet is an accomplished mathematician, one who pinpoints the singularity of the universe - and the problematic 'multiverse'.

I would recommend this book for its astonishing lexicon (a ferocious compliment from a British writer), as well as Berlinski's engaging prose and one particularly hilarious cynicism of marriage.

Makes the occasional good point Rè scientism. Openly states he likes to heap abuse on some atheists. Comes across as small minded and nasty. A champion of so called intelligent design yet professes to be secular. Janus 2.0 methinks. In terms of arguments- woeful

First off, I am not an atheist writing to vent versus Berlinski here. Quiet the contrary, I am a believer trying to strengthen his creed via support from science. Have read the works of William Dembski, Gerald Schroeder and various others to that end. Each managed to amaze the hell out of me. As an engineer and a quant-savvy business person I was happy to find solid arguments to add to my arsenal.

After reading the great reviews, I thought I was only going to add more to this arsenal by this book. After all, Berlisnki is a mathematician and the reviews said he made great points and put the arguments of the big name atheists to shame. Could not wait, gladly bought it.

Ten pages into the book one thing become clear: this was a book of nested logic statements. No solid practical or working example from hard sciences, no original approach or theory. Instead, the book was full of circular and non-circular logical assertions attempting to refute statements with words and pre-suppositions. Too much philosophy / too little hard science.

There is also the issue of using the most "sophisticated" language possible. Berlinski hand-picked a great many of words that you may only run into in scrabble. If the book was a literature piece, that would have been awesome, but for a book attempting to explain complicated concepts, the added layer of heavy words was of no service. Unless it was for showing off or satisfying self.

Finally I was not at all a fan of his not-funny-at-all predictable humor. Same jabs, over and over and over again.

To recap, I feel like I wasted a significant amount of time that I could have devoted to another book. In a finite life, with a finite number of possible books to read, I think Mr. Berlinski stole one from me...

Never again.

The DOD taught me that "Persuasion" is 90% Delivery and 10% Content -- It's not what you say but...

How you say it -- and I find Berlinski time and again guilty of conspicuously false content

delivered with all the sophistication of a...

Loose Cannon...

Re Academics, Berlinski starts off on page 8 -- "To anyone who has enjoyed the spectacle of

various smarmy insects shuffling along the tenure track at Harvard or Stanford..."

In Berlinski's cheap-shot style I would say that he is obviously suffering from

an... Inferiority Complex in knowing both Harvard and Stanford are

ranked above Princeton. But why is he even wasting the

reader's time with a crack like that?

Re Science, page 15 -- [A quote of a quote, by Berlinksi] ""Science extends and enriches our lives,

expands our imagination and liberates us from the bonds of ignorance and

superstition." [These sentiments] are on display in every high school

textbook. And there is hardly any reason to suppose them true."

This last innuendo is typical, foundationless Berlinski… Or...

Maybe Berlinski would rather fly in an airplane

"Intelligently Designed" by The Bible!!

Re American Scientists, Berlinski, page 43 -- "Despite the immense ideological power that it wields,

the American scientific establishment has never trusted in its victory over organized religion

(or anything else for that matter)." Another typical, foundationless innuendo...

The only intelligent response -- Oh Really?! Or, who knows, maybe

Berlinski actually thinks he has scientists on the run?!

Berlinski continues -- "And for obvious reasons. On crucial matters of faith and morals,

their margin of victory often seems paper-thin. Members of the National Academy of

Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God, men and

women in their millions that there is." (Note: English is a Second Language to Berlinksi)

As a "Philosopher," I can not understand Berlinski not being aware of the well-known logical fallacy of

Argumentum ad Populum (e.g. Most Doctors smoke Camels; You should too!) but, since he brought up

"The Multitudes" of "men" and "women" in America, I'd like to put their "Faith"

(what people think, not what they know; commonly confused) in perspective:

Like it or not it is a fact that 50% of America is below median intelligence, by definition.

While 90% have graduated from High School, only one-third graduate from college.

And the average American college graduate reads one book per year.

If an American male is over 18, he is called a "man" or an "adult;"

if he is wielding an AR-15, then he is a "GunMan."

The average American watches 4 hours of television per day,

6 hours per day on weekends. Yep, FOUR!!!! and SIX!!!!!!

75% of America's TV-educated citizens are... Christians.

One of my favorite questions to "Christians" is --

What is the definition of a Christian?

Over the years, I have yet to hear a single answer worth repeating Berlinski…

So much for the... "Adulthood" of your "millions" of "great … men and women"
that you, in your Preface, "have written this book for"... to save them
from being "hurt... and... oppressed by the sciences"...

Yes... May God spare them from… Having to

take time away from the television*** to...

Take measure of themselves in a mirror...

(See how easy it is to write/

think like Berlinski?!)

***A creation of "the sciences"!!!

Re God, Berlinski, page 44 -- (I almost quit reading here Ern, but I did press on... : )

"Richard Dawkins is less concerned to reject Biblical miracles than to

condemn the Deity for his hurtful insensitivity. "The God of the Old Testament,"

he (Dawkins) writes, "is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction:

jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak;

a vindictive blood thirsty, ethnic cleanser; a mysoginistic,

homophobic, racist, infinticidal, genocidal, felicidal,

pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,

capriciously malevolent bully."

"These are to my way of thinking, striking points in God's favor, but

opinions will, I suppose, vary."

Oh Really?! I could imagine Belinski is just being pointlessly facetious but...

All of the above are befitting characteristics of our

hard-for-me-to-believe but actually-elected

FAKE President of the United States, so

who's to say just what is...

Facetious anymore?

Berlinski continues on page 45 -- "It hardly matters. What is at issue is

not so much the character of the Deity but his [sic] existence."

"And the question I am asking is not whether he [sic] exists but

whether science has shown that he [sic] does not."

Again, PhD or not, Berlinski comes across ignorant of yet another logical fallacy --

Begging the Question***... He assumes Leprechauns exist as a premise of

his "argument," rather than the conclusion of his argument, and then

challenges science to prove they do not exist!!

In Berlinski's own cheap-shot style,

I am left really wondering what is a

"PhD" from Princeton really worth?
***aka Talking in Circles...

I think the above issue (in bold) is one of Berlinski's Key Points in

The Devil's Delusion, so it is all the more... Pathetic that

Berlinski, in effect, has...

NO Point...

Re The Scientific Method, Berlinski, page 55 --

"The scientific method has acquired a certain hold on the public imagination.

Every adult remembers something about the scientific method from

high school classes; it figures prominently in text books …

useful under circumstances when the scientific community

are persuaded they are under attack."

As if The Bible isn't brought up by Christians, for any and every "reason,"

not to mention put forth as "Infallable!!" Has Berlinski not heard of
"Bible Toters"?!

Berlinski continues -- "It is then that the determination is made that

members of the public have failed to understand the

scientific method or properly to revere it."

Again, all this pointless sarcasm far more readily fits the

Christian's abuse of The Bible** than

the scientist's use of methods...

**where the New Testament declares God invented rainbows to remind him never to

flood out the world again; goes on to give guidance about how to treat your... Slaves;

and advises a man to love his wife and a woman to love, honor and obey her husband...

As HL Mencken*** said -- Nobody ever went broke underestimating the

intelligence of the American public (3/4ths Christian)...

***To be remembered long after Berlinski...

Berlinski's tiring sarcasm continues -- "All of this provides a richly satisfying spectacle.

Here is one account, an Internet staple.
To apply the scientific method:

Observe some aspect of the universe.
Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you observe.
Make testable predictions from that hypothesis.
Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions.
Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions.

"Not a single one of these five sentences makes the slightest sense but,
rather than go through the list, let me observe only that it is
portable in its power and applies pretty much to
any human undertaking."

My God! Ern... If you were writing this book instead of Berlinski,
Don't you think you would have some hesitation before
writing anything as patently... Inane as the above?
Not to mention the countless other...
Textbook Absurdities?

And Berlinski's parting, sweeping words of wisdom, because
I quit reading --

"Golf has no method beyond the trivial.
Neither has science."

Berlinski grasps intuitively that God exists from the spirituality of humans, the Big Bang, and the complexity of life. He doesn't understand that the logical proof of God's existence is based on the finitude of finite beings. We are finite beings because we have free will. Free will means we possess a center of action. This means we are unified with respect to ourselves and separated from other beings. In short, finite beings exists. A finite being needs a cause. If every being needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being exists.

I consider the above deductive process a proof, not an argument, because there is no need to make a decision about God's existence. The only decision that has to be made is whether God has communicated himself to mankind.

The other weakness of Berlinski's book is that he swallows the idea that there is some kind of scientific controversy about evolution. As my review of Kennth Miller's book proves, all scientists agree that Darwinian evolution only explains the adaptation of species to the environment.

Berlinski seems to pride himself on being a contrarian. Although he claims no commitment to a theistic faith, he knows bad arguments (and unsupported assertions) when he sees them, and takes many of the "new atheists" to task on their scientific and philosophical assertions. The new atheists such as Richard Dawkins can be poor when it comes to philosophical justification, and Berlinski takes advantage of this weakness.

Berlinski is good at knocking down the "wrong" or "unsupportable" answers, but he does not claim to have any good answers himself. He writes respectfully of theistic religions in general, though he is clearly not convinced that they have the ultimate answers to questions about creation or morality. This is a fun and informative book.

In this book Berlinski seeks out to do two things. First he gives a darn good defense of religion. He doesn't go into issues of young earth creationism or even intelligent design (I think he may mention ID once) but he shows that from a belief in God flows at least some moral convictions grounded in divine necessity. On the opposite extreme he shows atheism offers nothing of this kind. Under atheism people just believe what they wish. While certainly one can be critical of the old and new testament or any religion for that matter- Berlinski sums up the truth which is that "most of what religion stands for is not bad but good." In fact it's better than most people are even capable of living up to. He quips "the 10 commandments are almost impossible for the world to fallow and yet easy for it to forget... in fact, I have forgotten them already."

Here is my favorite quote from the book-

"...after all -- whence the familiar declaration that just as there are no absolute truths, there are no moral absolutes. Of these positions, no one believes the first, and no one is prepared to live with the second."

No truer and insightful words have ever been spoken. No one would deny the absolute truth of things like "you deserve your pay check from work." Or "the nose on your face exists..." Its hard to get around these kinds of things. Certainly people certainly need faith in life and rules for society to follow based upon divine values like "thall shall not murder." Yet, the paradigrms of science and logic are not capable of proving the obvious.

Now the second part of Berlinski's book deals with the concept that science has not disproved God (as many have claimed) and even worse "science isn't even all that great either." However, Berlinski admits that he too is the follower of the church of the enlightenment. He says "I know no where else to go"- but that does not mean the Church of the enlightnment is really that good anyways. Afterall, the Nazis were members of this chruch as well.

The book goes on to deal with concepts like the kalam Cosmological Argument...

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause (BTW the theory of evolution is also totally dependent on this line of reasoning as well)

Premise 2: The universe happened

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This deductive argument is flawless and also used to support a belief in God for several reasons. Ever since the big bang was discovered by the trail of the Doppler effect and red shift, cosmology has shown that the first piece of the kalam argument is in fact... fact. This obviously points to a supreme cause of some identity. Its up to us to try and imagine something capable of causing the entire universe and all of it's beauty, structure and evil. Not exactly comforting to atheism, it sounds more like a problem for theology.

The last three pages of the book square the agnostic diposition of the author perfectly with its thesis. At the end Berlinski talks about a cathedral that has all of the great scientists sculpted into statues and lined up like Gods. The cathedral is falling apart and was never even finished to begin with. There is one great mind not among the great scientists of Einstein, Maxwell, Newton, etc.. and he is Kurt Gödel.

Kurt Gödel is the father of the incompleteness theorem. A logical theorem that proved that arithmetic and logic will always be incomplete. This is both a fact of science and of truth that both Theists and Atheists must agree on. Thus, our scientific understanding of the world will always be incomplete.

The cathedral represents science and its best hopes, and Gödel represents the intuition of religion- which critiques and transcends our scientific senses but is yet excluded at all costs from the broken down and pathetic church of secular science.

Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, worte more on theology than physics or mathematics, yet most people will never read what he wrote on that subject. In fact most people wont even know that he wrote on it at all...

I'll make this really short. I first want to say that I actually read the book, which usually should be necessary before reviewing a book, however on the store it is not. I'm really glad I paid the money for it, I did enjoy it. Berlinski challenges the basic assumptions made by the new atheists. As an agnostic Berlinski has no presuppositions when looking at science and as you read through the pages of his book it becomes clear that dogma isn't something that only theists hold to.

While reading "The Devil's Delusion" I thought of the following quote by Hitchens in his book "God is not Great" Hitchens says on page 282:

"Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important."

I never new magnifying an object said so much about metaphysics.

Granted, not the worst anti-atheist and anti-science book/propaganda piece ever to come out, but lacking in merit(to say the least) never the less. At times it was hard for me to get through this book. One, scientists are only concerned with scientific evidence. They don't look to prove a deity or disprove one. The evidence as stated by about 99% of all scientists in biology, bio-chemistry and assorted related fields is that evolution is indeed, correct. That a deity might or might not exist isn't something that science is concerned with, either way. Now, on the idea that a deity exists or not is still dependent on evidence/arguments for that belief. If those arguments are lacking, there is no reason to believe in such. To take such a position, doesn't make one an "angry" or "militant" atheist. Indeed, militant and angry seem to be terms made up by theists to attack the character of people they disagree with. Most atheists (even those strongly critical of religion) are rather mild in their demeanor and persona. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc do not scream and shout when arguing their case, they lay down their facts and arguments in a very calm manner. This book is full of sarcasm, should I say that Christians or theists are then sarcastic theists/Christians? No, because I don't believe in ad homenium attacks on one's opponents. Atheism doesn't rest on the character of atheists anymore then theism rests on the character of theists. God is true or not based on god being true or not and the only thing that we as human beings can do is follow the evidence.

Sam Harris, atheist writer, writes in a book about Judaism, "Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in it's literaism and at odds with the civiliziaing insights of modernity as any other religion." Strong words indeed and a biting critcism of Judaism. But, did Mr. Harris justify anti-semitism or indeed, the Holocuast through those words? Of course not. But Mr. Berlinski writes that Mr. Harris's passage is a defense, even if not intentional, of the Holocaust and that the wording suggests that the Jews invited the hatred espoused about them. Mr. Berlinski states the God did protect Jews after the war. Well if so, why wait for 6 million of them to die? Why wait for them to be virtually wiped out in Europe? Berlinski throws out various anti-atheist canards, such as atheists believe in nothing, which is of course an absurd statement. None belief in a deity means just that, only non-belief in a deity. It says nothing about nonbelief in causation, human rights, democracy etc. Berlinksi also states that a big bang singularity would be something without a cause, a first cause like a deity. But, the Big Bang is a natural act like no other. Causation might be purely a product of that singularity, before it it wouldn't have been necessary, so no explanation of a cause such as a deity/first mover other then the Big Bang itself, would be necessary. Berlinski states that the human mind is the creation of a God. Ok, what exactly is the mind? Is it something purely outside of the brain? Is it part of the brain, the manifastion of the properties of the brain? I believe it is the latter, that the mind is just a function of the workings of the brain. Without the brain what we perceive as the mind does not in fact exist. If theists cannot explain the mind, its' properties and how a deity would create this entity then there is no reason to take the mind in this regard, seriously. Now, does science fully understand the workings of the brain? Of course not, but the God of the gaps-since something cannot at this moment be fully explained so God did it-has always failed in the end. What I find most frustrating about David Berlinski and other theist apologists is while they criticize atheism or evolution they put up a shield around the question of their deity. Now, by all means nothing should be above criticism. As a humanist I do not state that humanism is above criticism. That would basically violate basic humanist principles of free exchange of ideas and free speech. But a deity is protected by the veil of faith. My suggestion for those who want to learn about atheism and/or science? Get a better book.

Dr. Berlinski's book arrived in yesterday's mail, and I opened the package, removed its content, and began idly skimming its pages. Before I knew it, a couple of hours had passed and I'd turned the last page! The book is lovely - beautifully written, smart, provocative, and certainly edifying. The Devil's Delusion is a book I look forward to re-reading - again and again!

Any book by David Berlinski is bound to be fun. He is simply one of the most erudite writers in popular science and mathematics today. Those who particularly like seeing sacred cows treated with a hint of sarcasm and irreverance will enjoy his writing on almost any subject, but this book, attacking the "new atheism" as it does, is especially delightful if for no other reason than for how pompous writers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchins are in their approach to this subject.

In brief, Berlinski's argument boils down to three main points: there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion (a point that used to be widely recognized and even extolled by writers like SJ Gould), most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent, and finally that much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a new religion. I think Berlinski does an excellent job addressing all three of these points, the first of which should be more or less self evident. Claims, for example, that one "should" only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims. Indeed, I have friends who resolutely insist that materialism is "all there is" while remaining blissfully unaware of the fact that such a statement could not arise from strictly empirical observation.

Regarding the new atheist approach to Aquinas, Berlinski correctly notes that the critics of St. Thomas really do not understand his arguments. Take for example the famous cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas. In its simplest form, this argument takes the form of a syllogism. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point. Therefore the universe has a cause. Agnostic that he is, Berlinski correctly notes that this is not actually an argument for God. It is an argument that the universe began to exist, meaning it required a cause. Aquinas, of course, argued this cause was "God" and very specifically the God of the New Testament and Catholic Church. But one need not arrive at this conclusion. It is possible that the universe simply goes on forever. One event causes another and so on back to infinity. (This was the position of David Hume and it has been popular among the atheist set ever since.) Still, Berlinski askes, if we saw a row of dominoes falling, "would we, without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes toppling. Really?"[p. 69] Of course not. We fall back upon such reasoning only when discussing God. But of course Hume's argument has been rendered pointless by the fact that 20th century cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning, and much of cosmology since then has been an effort to try to explain away the obvious implications of this. (One should also consult on this matter God and the Astronomers by another thoughtful agnostic, Robert Jastrow.) Scientists too, it seems, for all their vaunted objectivity, often find their research agendas driven by their theological concerns.

But how does a "scientist" who also publicly promotes atheism respond to Aquinas and the rather stunning vindication of his argument by 20th century science. Well, Dawkins for one simply asserts that Aquinas failed to consider the possibility that God was subject to infinite regress. Amazing. As one reviewer put it, to call this argument sophomoric is an insult to sophomores, though he did not specify whether he was refering to high school or college sophomores. Aquinas did not "assume" God was not subject to infinite regress. It was the conclusion of his argument that infinite regress was not possible and Dawkins, should he want to refute such an argument, needs to address it directly, which of course he does not.

And so it goes. Berlinski examines one argument for atheism after another and finds each wanting. The authors of these arguments are logically inconsistent. They appeal to multiple universes and diminsions, a weak anthropic principle, physical laws that change from place to place coupled with as yet undiscovered universal laws, and then accuse theists of violating the law of parsimony, Occam's Razor. They publicly stand by Darwin, especially on origin of life issues (about which Darwin had little to say) while privately expressing their doubts about the explanatory value of his theory in many respects. Perhaps the highlight of the book for me was Berlinski's decision to quote the prominent biologist Shi V. Liu who noted that Darwinism "misled science into a dead end" but "we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists .. in fighting against the creationists."[p.197] Indeed. Any theory is better than an alternative that might imply God or some other non material cause.

But what would motivate a supposed scientist to make such outlandish claims? And it is here that Berlinski is at his dead level best. For some scientists, and many more non-scientist, science has itself become a religion. And it is a religion with a very jealous God, who can have no other Gods before Him. Like other religions, of course, this one has much to offer its followers, both in material benefits and spiritual solace. But all good agnostics still recognize it for what it is, the zeal of its adherents notwithstanding.

The book is an excellent collection of little published facts and truths. A fine writer with an exceptional grasp of the truth. Reading this book with a truly open mind will help you stand for what is real and true.

Berlinski is angry. Those members of the human race who are particularly drawn to "facts" and "discovery" have hurt him in some way. Your guess is as good as mine to how, but he ain't pleased with the scientists of the ages.

To read this book, you'd think that all scientists are of moderate to low intelligence and spend most of their time rubbing their hands together and figuring out how to stick it to the religious community. Dawkins? An idiot. Schrodinger? An imbecile. Hawking? Darwin? Galileo? With these minds being the best we could come up with, it's amazing that we have fire and wheels. He likes Newton, but is iffy on Einstein and don't even get him started on String Theory and Quantum Mechanics.

Heavy on sarcasm and short on facts, it's no surprise that Berlinski failed to include sources or a notes section.

I have read many "anti-atheist" books and none have convinced me not to be an atheist. It is still more than obvious that no matter how much you want there to be, no evidence exists to suggest the existence any of the hundreds of gods people have come up with through the millennia. So do yourself a favor and save a few dollars if you want to agree with this book. Just write "Scientists are stupid" on a piece of paper and read it out loud pompously and you'll receive the same experience.

Berlinski's honesty and precision of thought is remarkable!

But this sort of book requires more than intellectual rigor. Its author must have a moral backbone to see what others can't see and be willing to have a resolved will to - how dare he! - unmask pretensions molded, guarded, and fixated by an alleged scientifically based perspective.

Berlinski's book, whether he knows it or not, is nothing short of a declaration of liberation for all those that are deluded by their own infatuation and neediness to want atheism to be right.

For further work in this area, written mostly for a theistic or a Christian readership in mind, I also recommend philosophers William Lane Craig and JP Moreland's co-edited volume, Naturalism, the infamous debate between William Lane Craig (and now former) atheist Antony Flew (Does God Exist?) and then JP Moreland's Kingdom Triangle, which places a critique of naturalism as a worldview in light of historic and contemporary issues facing evangelical Christianity today.

I was fortunate witness to a live performance of David Berlinski talking about his book, The Devil's Delusion, in Seattle. His wit and intellect in person was also vibrant on ink and paper. Berlinski has a clear understanding of science and science history that blends well to the reader to understand the current militant atheists attack. Many times he outright skewers his opponents with his pen. "The pen is mightier than the sword"- Edward Bulwer-Lytton I found this book both educational as well as entertaining. I would pay good money to see him debate Dawkins. He would have Dawkins shaking with frustration as he did in Seattle by a lone Dawkins wannabe in the question and answer section of his talk.

Darwinist Atheist, we are watching you and not taking everything you say as "truth" anymore.

Berlinsky is a clever writer who claims he is a "secular Jew" and pro-science. But after scanning the book, I have concluded he is simply a stealth theist who believes in "God" but pretends to be objectively a neutral observer. He obviously disdains all atheist arguments and has a known history of supporting intelligent design proponents (see You Tube for previous debates showing which side he is on). In other words, he ain't foolin' me.

Since he is a good writer who uses diatribe and sarcasm effectively, traits which I admire and wish to emulate, I will buy the book and submit a more comprehensive review later.

By the way, what exactly is this "God" that secular Jews among others are in thrall with? An old man with a beard in the sky? If not, what?

As an atheist/agnostic (depends on the week) who is an anti-Darwinian, and who leans to Intelligent Design without positing the God of the bible, I was hoping for a strong rebuttal to Dawkins' "The God Delusion", from a "philosopher"...ie an intellectual/philosophical demolition of the New Atheism's vain pretensions about being the sole holders of the "Truth". What a disappointment. Read all the one star reviews, most of them are bang-on. A backsliding creationist could have done a better job! Berlinski is pompous and arrogant, and thin on logic and substance, just like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. This is an embarrassment to the fine work of the Discovery Institute - forget this book and read Dembski, Denton, Meyer and Behe instead.

This book is just pernicious nonsense. Anybody who denies evolution IMHO is barely worth the time of day. Evolution is not a theory anymore. It's a proven fact with definite empirical evidence. Science is not a religion.
It's retarded and borderline psychopathic.

I found this book very disappointing with its combination of ad hominem arguments and misstatements of current scientific theory. Clearly a believer in the "god of the gaps", the author likes to point out incompleteness of scientific theories which encroach upon superstition (usual suspects). One could imagine his using the same rhetoric to reject Copernican theory or continental drift if he lived in an earlier time.

What this book misses is the real dogma of scientific thought - with our without atheism. Scientists "believe" that we humans can observe the world and figure it out. Theists explain the world through authority. The difference is that science produces theories of predictive value, which religion does not. An analysis of this devil's delusion would have made a much better book.

This book is so well written that superlatives seem inadequate. Berlinski begins by stating that he is not religious and has no particular religious axe to grind. He is a mathematician and scientist. Yet he skewers science in general, and Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris in particular with well-reasoned argument, simple yet cogent analysis, and more humor than I would have thought possible for this subject.

Berlinksi makes it clear that he in no way means to disparage or belittle Science. He is only trying to show how Science has been twisted by The Four Horsemen in an attempt to prove an anti-religious point of view, and how that twisting promises so much and delivers so little.

I have read Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris (I could not force myself through Dennett's doorstop of a book), and I thoroughly enjoyed each one as I read it. Yet, reading David Berlinski's book made me honestly question what I found so thought-provoking or convincing about any of them.

This book is well worth reading if for no other reason than raising some unexpectely challenging questions, and providing you with some innovative and fascinating insights into ideas you might not have considered. I really liked this book !!!

I read the Devil's Delusion in part because I thought it might provide a thoughtful and relevant criticism of scientific materialism. But instead of the expected objective criticism I found more of an attack on science and its apparent "pretensions".

The first indication that the author was less than objective was when I came across his first (of many) references to the Old Testament. I concede that Mr. Berlinski perhaps used his first biblical reference for certain stylistic or aesthetic purposes; however, his repeated invocation of Scripture caused me to wonder whether the author was the right man for so important a job as to help further the philosophy of science.

Another issue I had with the author was his over-use of the exclamation mark. I admit this is such a petty thing to point out; and I acknowledge a writer needs to be free to make use of whatever tools at hand--be them rhetorical or grammatical--to do the job. Yet, from a reader's point-of-view I found the abundance of exclamations distracting. In fact, I left many a chapter sensing that the author was simply trying to out-shout his opponents; whereas any educated/literate person would agree that the validity of one's arguments does not depend upon the volume spoken so much as an appeal to truth through a combination of evidence, logic and reason.

Thirdly, I often found the author's tone unprofessional. His disdain for scientific materialism (and Dawkins in particular) was absolutely palpable; and I think it safe to say that the author's choice of title is indicative of his particular fixation with Mr. Dawkins. In short, I'd be surprised to find the Devil's Delusion in print if in fact the God Delusion had not been published first. There simply would be no reason to publish Berlinski's book otherwise. If an author is intent on providing an objective account of "things" you would expect that he/she might acknowledge that the object of criticism (scientific materialism in this case) might have at least a modicum of validity. Berlinski did not concede any point to science that did not further his own particular agenda.

However, despite the weaknesses I perceived in his style I was grateful for one thing: he did provide in my opinion an excellent overview of the history of the scientific world-view. Albeit his account is broken up over several chapters I found it informative, balanced, and well-written.

In conclusion, if you are looking for a book that provides reasonable, well-constructed, objective counter-arguments to those posed by Richard Dawkins this is not the book for you. And if you are looking for a book that furthers (covers new territory) the dialogue on the philosophy of science...well, this book isn't for you either. However, if you are interested in the history of 21st Century religion-based polemics then perhaps this book is for you.

"The bull is still there, snorting through velvet nostrils. He does not seem the least bit fatigued." - p. 116

This very strange and nonsensical quote is just one of many in Berlinski's book "The Devil's Delusion." Make sense of it at your peril. And while you are doing that, I will tell you one thing that I know for certain: after reading Berlinski's book, I can attest that, in fact, the bull is still there. It is there in all but a few pages.

This was a very hard book to get through. Of course, I am myself a nonbeliever, but the type of nonbeliever equally dissatisfied with the "new atheism" that makes science into a religion and intolerance into a virtue. In that, I was hoping to find a like mind in Berlinski. I am against the "scientific pretensions" of atheism - just as it says in his subtitle - so I didn't expect to be so pissed off at Berlinski's babblings.

He had me when he told us all in the preface that he himself was an agnostic. That is comforting because it indicates to me that he has no vested interest to prove or disprove god. This was an odd confession for him to make, as it were, because in the very next chapter, Berlinski begins talking about how immorality will invariably ensue if there is no creator to give us objective moral fiats. He makes much of the famous "quote" from Ivan Kerimozov: "If god does not exist, then everything is permitted." So where, asks Berlinski, shall we get our morals from if not from a creator? An odd question for him to ask if he is agnostic, isn't it?! My question to him would be, "For someone who is not sure whether god exists, where do you get your morals from?" I trust that Berlinski is not the kind that steasl money on a regular basis, or kills for pleasure. (Surely we don't need a fiat from god to know that killing others is wrong!)

Berlinski goes through the obigatory theistic spiel about how atheism has been a force for evil, rather than for good. What I wish he would have done with equal rhetorical grandiosity (and grandiose he is!) is explain how Christianity has been responsible for infinitely more death and destruction than nonbelievers ever have EVEN THOUGH christianity comes ready made with a moral code, and claims at every turn the moral highground. (Maybe he wrote such a section only for it to be taken out by the good-folks at the Discovery Institute. Who knows?)

Where Berlinski shows his lack of ability, though, is in the "meat and potatoes" sections dealing with various arguments against god. Now, I DO agree with Berlinski that some of these arguments are not iron clad. But Berlinski is quite embarassing (especially as a past philosophy professor!).

He argues virulently against the idea that the universe does not necessarily need a first cause. It could be eternal, or there could be an infinite regress. Theists say that these two options have been ruled out, but rarely give any argument as to why. (An infinite regress of causes might be unpalatable, but that does not mean it is impossible.)

But do you want to hear Berlinski's big argument as to why a first cause m ust exist? Don't say I didn't warn you:

"Seeing an endless row of dominoes toppling before our eyes, would we without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes to toppling?
Really?" (p. 69)

Behold the mighty philosopher Berlinski at work! Absolutely devestating argument! (I'm suprised no one ever thought of that one!)

Berlinski also argues - tries to argue, that is - against the very common question as to assertions that only god could make something so grande and designed as the universe. The question begged is, "If that is so, then something had to have made god, as the creator god must have been as complex as his creation."

Berlinski argues out of this one by - get this - asserting that god is in need of no explanation and need not have a cause. He does this by suggesting that just as science cna argue that the universe may be eternal, so can religious folk argue that god can be eternal.

One problem that Berlinksi doesn't notice: the whole reason for theists' assertion that god must have created the universe is BECAUSE one of their premises is that "everyhing has a cause." If your conclusion in favor of god follows directly from that premise, than you can't claim that god is immune from the premise that is responsible for supposing his existence! (If Berlinski knew or cared about philosophy, I'm sure he would have realized that.)

Lastly, Berlinksi argues that as humans and apes are qualitatively different - and by a large amount - then evolution could not explain this leap. Never mind the scores of scientists who have shown us transitonal forms between our ape-like ancestors and modern humans. And never mind that it has been shown that the closer our living cousins are to our behavior, the more genetically similar they have shown to be (and vice versa).

Now, let's turn to Berlinksi's argument against this (particularly the idea that there are more simliarities than differences between us an ape-like ancestors)."

"I suppose that if a fish were thoughtfully to considerthe matter, she might have a hard time determining the difference between Al Gore and a sperm whale. Both of them are large and one of them is streamlined."

This is truly a book worthy of every thoughful scholar's time. It is likely to revoluitonize the world!

As the above quotes illustrate, Berlinski's arguments are purely rhetorical; not much reason behind them. (This makes it no suprise that the Discovery Institute is proud to claim him as one after their hearts.) Possibly so as to match wits with Dawkins and Hitchens, Berlinski is often merciless, juvenile and mean-spirited in his never-ending rhetorical barbs. They are, most certainly, designed to cut and maim.

In fact, the reason I dislike the books by Dawkins and Hitchens (Harris is a little bit better) is the same reason I cannot stand "the Devil's Delusion." it is a mixture of intellectually light-weight and rhetorically acerbic.

At root, I was hoping for a book that would talk about why atheism is wrong to suggest that science leads to this PHILOSOPHICAL conclusion. What I found instead was an author that simply reposits a 'god of the gaps' strategy, suggesting that as science cannot explain x, god is a better explanation (without realizing that god is as much of an explanation as creator fairies, in that both are limited only in our creativity, and both are as testable as chi.)

There have got to be better books out there.

The author began as though he recognized that Atheism, Evolution Theories and other Scientific Pretensions were "The Devil's Delusion" but then he became, to my mind at least, ambiguous and then seemed to support these "Pretensions". I burned the book!

Complete foolishness. It can be shown that no information can be derived about any god, including whether or not one even exists.
As for evolution, it is conclusively demonstrated that evolution occurs, and the theory which explains how it occurs is provably correct. The proof can be stated in eleven words:
- Heritable mutations occur.
- Some mutations are beneficial for survival and reproduction.
These are existential statements, and both are demonstrably true -- and these comprise the entirety of the theory of evolution. Since these statements are true, the theory of evolution -- which is based on these two statements and on nothing else -- is necessarily true also.

I read this, hoping to truly understand the arguments against atheism, in a true research endeavor I've undertaken on theism. The arguments were weak at best, and based on many false assumptions on the author's part. It actually showed his own tremendous bias rather than creating a fact-based neutral argument. Ironically, many of the arguments he made against the atheist view actually could be used as the same argument against his own religious belief. The glib style of writing was just another mark against it.

I sometimes find Berlinski fun to lisren to or read but he really takes a long time to make a simple point. He does not seem to include very many facts but he will supply you with a barrage of new words His ad-hominems are fun and colorful. One of my favorites in the term village atheist. He proceeds to launch elementary obje tions at his opponents as if those opponents have not dealt with these before; his book does not really represent his opponents very accurately. He seems to allude to some actual scientific theories eceventually but to misrepresnt their significance. He alludes to string theory, the neutrini mass problem and the neutral diveristy throry. He misrepresents the fact that scientists are trying to determine whether or not these theories are true. In terms of the neutral biodivisity theory, he claims incorrectly that this contradicts evilution but it does not really. Rather, if this theory is true, it offers deeper insight to how evolution often works. The theory is bssed on papers published being tested and debsted. At least one rival theory existd.

He adds an idea of faith where it does not exist.

Berlinsmi will expand your vocabulary and your ability to be arrogant. I dont think he will help you find the God he doesnt know.

He covers the question about whether religion can be good. The suggestiin that we need it is offered and yet we know he does not actually believe himself. At the end of the dsy, he believes sttrocities like tge halocaust are wrong without a God to tell him so.

This just goes to show you that even scientists can sometimes go astray. Lamark thought giraffes ended up with long necks because they stretched all the time; Carl Sagan was wrong about the atmospheric effects of a nuclear strike; the Oxford atheist philosopher who became a theist (can't remember the name). Even Descartes took the sacrament on his deathbed, reasoning that it can't hurt, and who knows?

This is of a piece with that. Berlinski is well known as a math evangelist, but here he's taking on some very very difficult physics. I suppose that because he's very confident with mathematics he thought he'd be able to resurrect the uncaused cause. The problem is that he simply has no evidence, and we've learned by now that logic alone will not serve you when you're dealing with quantum mechanics. We evolved in a macroscopic world, so we can't help expecting that all phenomena will behave like that we've seen. But -- it doesn't. On the quantum scale, nothing can be well predicted by our naive expectations -- it's simply too different, so different that we can't really understand it.

But -- the only way we've even gotten this far, to be contemplating a "before" the Big Bang is by scientific research, following the scientific method. At any point in the past hundred years we could have said "well, that's all we can comprehend, we're done, we'll have to posit a god to explain it."

Berlinski seems to have forgotten that there's no evidence for god. Not one bit, in all these millennia, during which time the scientic method has brought us out of darkness and fear and ignorance into being explorers of space and time. Why then should we posit the existence of a being, for which there is no evidence, as a solution to a contemporary scientific riddle? Why do people take it by default that there should be a god?

Finally, suppose there is one, but he's really just the first cause. He dropped a glass somewhere beyond all there is, and one of those shards became our universe. But he doesn't concern himself with it; perhaps he's even completely unaware of our existence. Because there is no evidence whatever that any of us have communicated with a divine being. Prayer was even shown, by a rigorous clinical trial, to be completely un-efficacious.

So this is not news. Thomas Nagel just recently announced that god must exist because he thinks he's demonstrated to himself that god must exist. Great -- now create a theory which can be tested. Make some predictions, and we'll see if they occur. Because otherwise, face it, you're simply deluded.

Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician, is a "secular Jew" whose "religious education did not take." So he's an atheist. Yet he is terrrribly offended that a few scientists have had the audacity to criticize religion and write publicly about atheism, most notably Richard Dawkins, whose book "The God Delusion" this bit of crankery is supposed to rebut.

Throughout the book, Berlinski attacks what he calls "scientific atheism," something he says is woefully unequipped to deal with the great mysteries of life and the universe. Only the ennobling power and majesty of religion can do that, he says. But, the attentive reader over the age of five may ask, if the author believes that, why isn't he a religious believer himself? This, of course, is never addressed. No explanation for Berlinski's rejection of religious faith and God is forthcoming, but he endlessly asserts how good a thing faith is, in-between his hypocritical attacks on science and the scientific method. Why is faith so important? It makes people feel good, and feeling good about ourselves is more important than the truth. Faith is above criticism by anyone, but most especially scientists. That is the message of this book.

Professors at Harvard or Stanford are "smarmy insects" (pg. 8). Does that insult carry to all college professors, like the ones that taught Berlinski at Princeton? Or just the ones who dare question the God he doesn't believe in? Since he teaches at universities, does it make him a smarmy insect, too? Again, no answer. No attempt to justify this double-standard.

Scientific atheists are just like the Nazis (pg. 39), the author asserts, because both believe in nothing. Hitler himself, inspired by Darwinian evolution, did not believe God was watching over his actions (pg.27).

Does this mean that Berlinski is a potential Nazi because he, like Hitler, also doesn't believe in God? If not, does that mean that his slur against "scientific atheists" was completely unjustified? It does, but of course Berlinski doesn't respect the intelligence of his readership enough to believe they would actually hold him to the same standards that he holds others throughout this hypocritical, careless screed.

Facts are stubborn things. Hitler, of course, was *not* an atheist. He absolutely thought God was watching over his actions and approving of them and frequently quoted the Bible as support of those actions. No liberal moral relativist he! The Nazis were also almost unanimously approved and endorsed by the Christian churches in Germany. Hitler was also a creationist, like Berlinski's buddies at the Discovery Institute, but this is never mentioned, because the author assumes you are too stupid to be able to research this yourself. Hitler, in line with the Discovery Institute and the creationists whom Berlinski defends, actually banned Darwin's books, yet another inconvenient fact passed over silently. That happens a lot in this book.

Berlinski spends a lot of time quoting theologians from 900 years ago, presumably because these are the only ones a pretentious philosophy student like himself will be exposed to as an undergraduate. Theology has moved on since then, but the author is a secularist who doesn't have time for such frivolous matters.

Guess what? The Big Bang proves Genesis is correct! (pg. 70-80) Once again, the reader may ask, if "the hypothesis of God's existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent" (pg. 80), then why doesn't the author believe in God? Berlinski then compares a theory he doesn't like because he doesn't understand it, the multiverse, to the Incarnation of Jesus, as if to say the latter theory is just as foolish as the multiverse theory.

Later we learn that evolutionary psychology, unlike the Bible, is just like a fairy tale. The 50 years of research that have gone into studying this subject are meaningless. What matters is God, or the concept of God, or feeling good about a Deity. Other people (not the author) need those things, and emotions are more important than research, objectivity, etc.

In a book that ostensibly answers Dawkins, Berlinski in fact barely engages with Dawkins or "The God Delusion." Perhaps we can take that to mean that he, a secularist, largely agrees with most of Dawkins' criticisms of Christianity and the Bible? I think we can. His main criticism is Dawkins' defense of Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. Berlinski cannot stand this. It's a horribly flawed theory, he says. It doesn't explain the Cambrian Explosion! It doesn't explain the complexity of the eye! And so forth. Which implies that God must have somehow been tinkering with the mechanism over eternity. Is this the God that Berlinski doesn't believe in? Or perhaps some other God? Again ... silence.

Need I go on? This is not one of the dumbest books I've ever read, but it certainly is among the most incoherent and hypocritical. There are no logical arguments here at all, just screeds about atheism and very foolish attacks on science. I'm sorry that Berlinski holds the intellectual world in such contempt. I look forward to the day he backs up his convictions by returning his degrees from Princeton and joining a monastery.

Mr Berlinski is obviously passionate but his passion often gets in the way of what he is trying to say. For an ordinary reader he is difficult to follow, he is often unclear for example, mixing different levels of reality such as the material we live in with the particle reality of physics. He overdoes the simile and metaphor which are often unnecessary and occasionally border on crude.

His use of hyperbole is distracting and leads one to think that, although knowledgeable he is unable to make an unbiased assessment. When he discussed the scientific method (p55) he quotes one account he obtained from the internet. The first two steps briefly say; 1. Make some observations and 2. Form a hypothesis. But Mr Berlinski says that none of the "sentences makes the slightest sense" but later says they are applicable to any human undertaking. His use of 'sense' is obviously different to mine and I wonder if any of his of what he is saying means what I think he is saying.

On p53 he makes the comment "This is a matter of faith" if he had left it at that it may have been worth reading.

There is nothing achieved by arguing the minutae of religion...Did God part the Red Sea or did they walk across in the mud? Arguing over historical anecdotes from Centuries ago will never produce consensus.

There are 2 simple questions that should be capable of modern scientific enquiry.
1) Does prayer show ANY evidence that Anyone Else is listening and 2) Is there ANY evidence that the individual 'soul' survives death ? If either or both of these answers is NO, I really dont see why we should care about answers to the gazillion other questions.

There are atheists who might be described as anti-theists because they hate, mainly, the implication of belief in God on the character of the believer and the society. Hitchens is one of them.

Then there are atheists who are anti-theists because they are pushing back mainly against empirical claims that are based on traditional religious stories, to the extent these stories are granted a virtual veto on what can be pictured in the sciences and science education (e.g., creationism). Dawkins is one of them.

Then there are atheists who mainly think that theological claims are as philosophically superfluous or at times nonsensical as so many religious stories can be absurd when treated as empirical accounts. Dennett is one of them.

These three categories of atheists emphasize different things and should be treated differently. One could find a very light attempt at doing that, here, on Berlinski's part.

But the MAIN effect I sense in his enterprise is just the recycling of very old arguments about whether or not atheists instead of theists should bear the burden of proof on this or that general issue (existence versus nonexistence of God and Universe, application of Occam's razor, and so on...), and whether atheism has "unclean hands" on account of the modern "religions" and political evil it can accommodate. And I fail to find much clarification on such strangely resilient misunderstandings as what "the emergence [or beginning] of the universe" means and does not mean to philosophers of cosmology as opposed to cosmologists. A convenient misunderstanding I might add!

To me, the reason traditional religious thought is on the defensive today (in the world of intellectual criticism, at least) is not that people like these atheists have directly targeted it (although they have). It is rather the incidental facts (both related to the development of science) that:

1/ much of modern science has been seen to displace theories that were directly influenced by theology (e.g., geocentrism). This naturally teaches that relying explicitly on theological pictures to describe nature scientifically tends to be a bad idea.

2/ Better science and technology has not only diminished the need to refer to divine intervention to explain certain wonders, but it has diminished the need to call on God's intervention for (at least) short-term material security and prosperity.

This does not show that God does not exist, but simply that reference to God has become less relevant in important respects. And it certainly begins to explain why the burden of proof has shifted to traditional religious thought when it intervenes in certain areas of contemporary scientific and (little by little) political discourse. Simply disputing this burden whenever religious thought is rebuked (by Hitchens and others) will probably not reverse this trend, even if it may help reassert the reasonable freedom of believers to keep their beliefs to themselves.

I, for instance, could believe that the Greek Gods are real, but not the Hebrew God. My belief could not be disproven and could be adjusted to challenge the atheists on every point Berlinski mentions. (Of course the followers of Abraham would be the first to disapprove of my belief.) It would be quite another thing, however, to expect scientists to consider my Gods in their theories.

So, perhaps I should sum up the basic point, which is that if you're already very familiar with the underlying philosophical debates that Berlinski really means to address here, and "objective," meaning that you're not merely looking for support or reassurance (as some people from the Discovery Institute might--which makes sense, since they're on the defensive), I doubt that you will find anything new or impressive here--aside from the convenience of having some of the issues catalogued together and revisited from the clever perspective of Mr Berlinski (which has its value).

I will also add this: Mr Berlinski's main reason for being an agnostic seems to me to be his discomfort with adopting the moral nihilism apparently suggested by sentences such as, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." (Dawkins) It is not primarily that the arguments for theism have remained at least as powerful (logically and epistemologically speaking) as those for atheism, which this book might be seen as attempting to suggest. I think this explains why he still "hangs on" to the possibility of God. (As he suggested on CSPAN, his basic problem is that the atheist conclusion is "premature.") I think this is very telling--both of what he is trying to do here (to re-actualize certain arguments which, again, I find no longer compelling enough to shift the burden of proof back to the atheists where it matters) and of the real power (or, rather, lack thereof) of those arguments.

i found this book to be too philosophical and very convoluted in its stlye of writing - the work of an overeducated contemplative lost person. As an example this is the opening sentence "Upon just yesterday it was fashionable for scientists carefully to cast their bread upon various ecclesiastical waters". If you can be bothered to decipher what he is saying then good luck to you - why can't people speak in simple English without the need to sound pompous? I am a creationist, an engineer but not a Berlinski fan.

The writers ideas are philosophical at best. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and let him off on the possibility that he may have been dropped on his head as a child or that he is being deliberately deceptive. It should have rung alarm bells in his head that he had to create a workbook in order for people to read it and understand it from his position. Real evidence stands on it's own merits.
If you're going to write a book about something you might want to start by having the slightest idea of the topic you write.

FIrst of all, there is nothing "new" about atheism. It has always been with us. As a matter of fact, millions of Christians are atheists about the Hindu gods, the Muslim god, and thousands of others gods believed in sincerely by other humans. As an atheist, I have never harmed anyone physically, I don't steal, and I treat women as equals. There is no devil to tell me what to do or not do. I live my life with moral values developed over centuries by believers and non-believers. It's so easy to blame god and devil for our failures and our successes as human beings. It's time to grow up and take responsibility for our own actions. The rewards and the punishments are here and now in this life and not in some made up future world run by angels and demons.

The Author sets up a silly strawman then knocks him down.

Can the Bible stand up to this type of Logic?

Where does the Bible explain how new animals are created and others go extinct?

Does the Bible explain how the Stars in the Sky are other Suns like our own??

Does the Bible Explain Disease caused by Bacteria and Viruses?

Does the Bible Explain that Leprosy can be cured by anti-biotics?

Does the Bible explain the Periodic table of Elements?

Did the Bible foretell the abolition of slavery and the equality of women?

How much of Biblical Law is legal today?

We have separation of Church and state, likewise we need separation of Religion and Science. Many Christian Universities teach Modern Science on their campuses. They could have been `science free' zones. They decided that for their students to compete in our modern society, they need all knowledge - religious and secular.

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.

It is often said, by Ministers in fact, one has to set aside the intellect in order to be a Christian.
This book feeds the dumb that agrees to that sacrifice, in the name of faith that an invisible malevolent creature of myth supersedes theoretical Science.
If this author thinks this text is a valid argument to refute Atheism, they're even dumber than the average Christian. Don't waste your money on this book if you respect science, theoretical Physics, or yourself.

Here are the worthwhile parts of this book (page numbers are from the 2nd edition paperback):

1. (p. 66) A fascinating anecdote about St. Thomas Aquinas. A couple years before he died, he went into a "mystical state" for a bit, after which he refused to continue his writing, saying "Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value." Sounds to me like Aquinas realized his writing was full of crap. That is not Berlinski's interpretation. Berlinski finds Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God quite persuasive, and spends some time defending them.

That's probably a good litmus test for whether you should read this book: if you find the Aquinas "proofs" convincing, you might find Berlinski convincing too.

2. (p. 142) A valid criticism of Dawkins! Yes, really! Dawkins wrote something to the effect that a simple/probable God couldn't create a complex/improbable universe. I think this might be true, but it needed further justification, and I can easily see how a religious reader might not accept it. It's one of the more obvious flaws in "The God Delusion", though not a fatal one.

3. Sprinkled throughout, a few good observations about the limits of science and reason. If this sounds like a novel idea to you, skim the Wikipedia article on epistemology.

There, now you don't have to read the book.

The rest of it is pretty much as described in the other 1- and 2-star reviews. Bad reasoning, misrepresentation of opposing arguments, factual errors (and some irrelevant facts that are probably true), and frequently total incoherance. Sometimes it's unclear whether he's stating his own arguments or the arguments he's arguing against. And, of course, there's some anti-Darwin ranting. Berlinski claims to be a "contrarian" within the Discovery Institute, but what he writes here sounds to me like standard Intelligent Design dogma.

My favorite factual error: (p. 173) "... an idealized abacus has precisely the power of a Turing machine..." By "idealized abacus," I don't think he means "abacus plus its operator," because he's trying to argue that it's absurd to compare a human with a computer.

The style is ok; sometimes clever, sometimes awkward. Really it's very well-written when you consider that English wasn't his first language. He could stand to tone down the allusions and metaphors a bit; sometimes they serve to cover up a lack of clarity. Occasionally he sounds really angry for no apparent reason.

There is one explanation that, if true, would raise my opinion of this book: it's meant as a parody. The reviewers who gave it 5 stars get the joke and are playing along. It's brilliant, but just a little too subtle for me. I don't think so, but it's possible. Maybe I'm ruining it by stating it openly. If so, I'm sorry.

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. How about this: You be nice to me and I'll try to be nice to you. And I won't even charge you %10 of your income.

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.

If this guy is so bright, why doesn't he get that science never asserts itself as perfect or infallible; individual scientists are certainly dogmatic and stubborn with their own beliefs, but the beauty of the community is that the truth eventually wins out (unless a better truth comes along later.) Yes, some scientists have come up with ideas that might appear wacky, but there is always the hope that they might be able to prove them empirically -- like the theory of black holes which was considered science fiction when first proposed.

It also isn't a deficit to atheists that science doesn't provide great moral answers because in truth, it really isn't supposed to. Atheists are also great admirers of the philosophers who in fact do quite well with morality.

I also dislike the form of arguing employed in this book: construct a straw man and then knock it down with a series of contrived arguments which s-t-r-e-t-c-h the facts to their limits (ie. calling the explosion of life forms which occurred during the Cambrian Period as happening 'at once' -- it actually occurred over tens of millions of years.)

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!

The intellectual dishonesty of this book is absolutely astounding. One doesn't need to go past the jacket to get a glimpse of the ridiculous arguments therein. But I went ahead and and read it anyway. There really aren't any real arguments made in the book other than saying that science isn't perfect and that until science is perfect, let's all happily continue to medicate ourselves with superstition and mythology. Throw in some unintelligible gibberish in the vein of the Sphinx from the movie 'Mystery Men' and you got yourself a book that would have been more useful as toilet paper.

For the sake of fairness, lets examine just one of the "fake" arguments in the book. The author posits that science has yet failed to explain why the universe is uniquely "fine-tuned" to support life. There are some rather glaring flaws with this proposition.

First the proposiion is intellectually dishonest. The universe is NOT "fine-tuned" to support life. In fact, most of the known universe is not just inhospitable but categorically lethal to organic life as we know it.

Second, the question is logically dishonest in presupposing that any environment that does support life is 'fine-tuned' to do so. The author has it backwards. The desert does not adapt itself to the needs of the animals that live in it. Those animals adapt to survive in the desert. Thus, what little part of the universe is actually supportive of life was not the result of that part being "finely-tuned". Life evolved, adapted and "finely-tuned" itself to live in those parts of the universe where such life was possible.

One of the fundamental arguments of the author's position has just been dismantled in two paragraphs. Much of the rest of the book can be treated in the same manner. If you are a believer, this book will simply make you more comfortable with your delusion. If you are a logical thinking human being, you will be absolutely appalled at the miserably low standards required to get a PhD these days.

Berlinski's writing is like that of any amature blogger. Just start with one idea &prattel on & on, jumping from one topic to the next.
However, the reason I will NEVER read another book is because of one sentence in this book. He mocks Dawkins, when he says, " the God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character of all fiction: jealous & proud of it; a petty unjust, unforgiving control freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,megalomania sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
To which, Berlenski writes," These are, to my way of thinking, striking points in God's favor, but opinions will vary.

Yes thank you. I started reading this and could not get through the sarcasm, bad similes, and gems like this "A triviality having been affirmed, what follows frequently topples over into the badlands, in which, like cut asparagus, assertions remain unsupported by argumentative stalks."

I had to ask, "what is he arguing against that has so many folks giving it a 5-star rating?"

So I bought "The God Delusion". Yes, thank you Mr. Berlinski for leading me there.

Best read I've had in years. Highly recommended. If you haven't read it, go ahead, no body parts will fall off. You'll be surprised how calm and collected he is. And rational too, in my opinion.

I bought this book out of curiosity as I've read several books by the so-called "new atheists" and wanted a different point of view. I was very disappointed. I found his argument, if you can call it that, rambling and unconvincing. There's plenty of glib humor, which seems to be his style, but little else. A complete waste of my time.

Berlinski's radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy--he's more concerned with what we don't know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn't there and seeks out the things that can't be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia--a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He's merely its most methodical practitioner.

- Quoted from Daniel Engber, A Crank's Progress, Slate Magazine

This book is complete and utter sophistry. The author has a promising future as an insurance defense lawyer, used car salesman, or lobbyist. While I would not normally stoop to ad hominem, given the author's predilection for the same, it is warranted. What's good for the goose... Berlinkski's recurrent theme/argument, that if science cannot explain something it must have been caused by a god, certainly has no successful track record historically.
God's existence is a given for Berlinski, and it is up to science to disprove it. Which god exists, we are never precisely informed, though the implication is the god of the old testament. In response to Dawkins' assessment of that particular god as "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully", Berlinski comments "These are, to my way of thinking, striking points in God's favor, but opinions, I suppose, will vary."
That about sums up the book. Except - oh yeah - he rejects evolution and Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, thinks that the Big Bang is proof of the Genesis account of creation, defends Intelligent Design, relies proudly on Thomas Aquinas from the thirteenth century to support his arguments, and is "grateful to Ann Coulter" for coming up with the idea for his book. If this is your cup of Kool-Aid, drink up. But make no mistake, it is not a serious scientific work. It's pandering palaver at its worst.

I just finished this book, and was thoroughly unimpressed.

1. It's far too long-winded -- my God does he ramble, and it was very irritating to have to wade through all the basic physics and theological info he threw in just to increase the book size. I understand why he did it, because the book would only be 40 pages otherwise, but I'd much rather have read just the forty pages than slog through this mess.

2. Several of his arguments against atheism were silly and childish (ie. well the 20th century wasn't a happy place and it was filled with atheists...) Come on..... I paid $9.99 for this. You can do better.

3. He's often intellectually lazy. No, the Big Bang doesn't support a hypothesis for God anymore than it supports a hypothesis for me creating the universe with a giant belch 15 billion years ago. And yes, everything must have a cause I suppose, but that doesn't mean this supports a theist position. Stop being so damn lazy. All of his arguments seem to consume no more than three sentences, then he writes 'filler' for the next five pages that resembles plagiarism from some high school textbook. I could do better than that. In short, I've seen much more convincing and though-out propositions for supporting a theist position from cosmology than the ones advanced in this book (ie. De Souza). The author really just blows it here, and I really question his academic credentials after seeing such lazy arguments.

4. He just makes stuff up. For example, he states that "quantum cosmology ...provides no cause for the emergence of the universe" -- yes it has, there are about 4 or 5 current mathematically consistent theories that deal with this.

5. He engages in the most tedious relativism -- "what remains of quantum cosmology would not appear appreciably different in kind from various creation myths" Honestly, so he is comparing string theory and all of it's mathematical complexity to tribal creation myths? Is this a joke? In short, he states that since these mathematical theories cannot be substantiated completely (even though they are being refined and are evolving into more and more predictive power) they are no more valuable than the simplest myths.

6. He repeatedly confuses the roles of science and philosophy. For example, a prime criticism of atheists is that they rely too much on science and science is devoid of answers to the great moral questions -- ie. what keeps man good? what is our place in the universe? etc. He doesn't quite 'get' that this is what philosophy is for. Science is about discovering the truth behind the workings of the universe. He also takes a Hobbes position on mankind and asserts that atheists have it wrong because man is basically bad and we need God to police him and keep order; otherwise "everything is permitted.' He faults atheists for relying on blind science which allows moral chaos. Again, confusing science and philosophy.

7. The book is just a tedious read. He criticizes Dawkins quite a bit, but at least Dawkins wrote books that are focused and logically consistent without resorting to grievous errors and tortured lazy arguments.

8. I was expecting to read a book that undermined, or at least raised some novel questions, on the atheist reasoning. He accomplished a little of that in the beginning, but it was purely superficial. He made a convincing case for arrogance in the scientific community, but I already knew that and didn't need to pay $9.99 to have this guy tell it to me again. Other than that, the book was mainly vapid.

In short, De Souza is a far better opponent of the atheist position than this guy will ever be. What a dreary stupid tedious read.

Save your money.

Disappointing book that could perhaps have been much better done.

Occasionally Berlinski finds a logical flaw in the writings of scientific athiests. They aren't philosophers or logicians, and occasionally they show it, and moreso when they stray away from science and toward philosophy. Mostly, however, Berlinski only managest to prove that he's a much worse philosopher still.

His arguments are seldom even clear, much less persuasive. I imagine the folks whose beliefs the scientific athiests trash might get some kicks from Berlinski's puerile sarcasm and overdone irony, but all other readers, I'd suggest you pass on this one.

This book joins the fray in the ubiquitous use of a particular argument in defense of religion. It goes something like this: While doctrinal religion may be outmoded, science is every bit as unable to disprove the existence of a spiritual realm as it is unable to tell us absolutely everything about the universe.

In The Devil's Delusion: Athiesm and Its Scientific Pretensions, Berlinski's sole strategy consists of repeatedly setting up straw men and then taking target practice on them. He begins with the title of his book, which paints all atheists into the same corner, ignoring the vast majority of us who don't require science to prove the unprovable in order to justify our failure to choose from a smorgasbord of puerile fairy tales within which to immerse our identities.

Berlinksi starts by demeaning all efforts at progress: "Like democracy or justice, science is a word exhausted by its examples." This, of course, leads to the conclusion that we should consider an immediate return to tyrannical monarchy (which undoubtedly had its advantages and none of the unfortunate failings of systems which strive to achieve better results). "Since the great scientific revolution...we have been vouchsafed four powerful and profound scientific theories--Newtonian mechanics, James Clerk Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics. These are isolated miracles, great mountain peaks surrounded by a range of low, furry foothills." It appears that Berlinski means to disparage those low, furry foothills, and to hold them up as proof that science isn't nearly as cool as geeky scientists think it is. He deems it irrelevant that those four powerful and profound "miracles" were built upon the low, furry foothills that came before them, and that new, powerful and profound "miracles" will likely be built upon today's low, furry foothills--all of them increasing our knowledge in incremental but important ways.

"These splendid artifacts of the human imagination have made the world more mysterious than it ever was. We know now better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is here...We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial doctrine about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial we have no other doctrines. We can say nothing of interest about the human soul."

Berlinski's attempt at patronization would be offensive it it weren't so embarrassingly transparent. He gives compulsory praise to the accomplishments of "the human imagination," careful to couch the language in ethereal tones, so as to appropriate them into his mystical worldview, while writing them off as artifacts. "We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial doctrine about the manner in which the brain functions," careful to portray science as the same sort of doctrinal enterprise that prevents Catholics from eating meat (except for fish) on Fridays...during Lent, (or maybe the kind that leads some Pilipino Christians to have themselves crucified each year on Good Friday). These are the first signs that rhetoric is the only weapon in his arsenal. He can bring no evidence to the table, but he can talk in circles.

"On these and many other points as well, the great scientific theories have lapsed. The more sophisticated the theories, the more inadequate they are. This is a reason to cherish them. They have enlarged and not diminished our sense of the sublime." Well...the great scientific theories have lapsed only insofar as they have failed to address themselves specifically to Berlinski's questions, all of which are grounded in a perspective that takes the paranormal for granted. "We can say nothing of interest about the human soul," because many of us do not presupposes the existence of a mystical entity called the soul.

Knowing that the accomplishments of science cannot be ignored, he strives to reduce it to a loveable little bugger, working its poor butt off to answer the great mysteries of life while he and his esteemed colleagues watch with compassionate pity, knowing that it'll never get there without some sort of stopgap belief system involving a watchmaker. What Berlinski either doesn't understand or wishes to confuse his audience about is the fact that Science is not trying to answer his questions. Science is trying to answer the next question. Science takes what we know and tries to reach the next plateau. Science takes what we think we know and deliberately tries to disprove it, hoping to either confirm or invalidate its hypotheses before moving on to the next stage. Science is too busy dealing with reality to give a fig about Berlinski's silly questions.

"If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories. They do not mention a word about God." Nor, Mr. Berlinski, do they mention a word about the existence of albino leprechauns in my underwear drawer, but I daresay that science stands tacitly and comfortably opposed to the veracity of that rumor. "They do not treat of any faith beyond the one that they themselves demand. They compel no ritual beyond the usual rituals of academic life, and these involve nothing more than the worship of what is widely worshipped." Again, rhetorical efforts to bring science down to the level of religion--by conflating acceptance of scientific theories with faith; by equating religious rituals with scientific method; by likening respect for empirical evidence with the worship of invisible beings--bespeak either a profound ignorance about the actual work and intentions of science or a deliberate attempt to mislead the masses.

"Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God's existence." I challenge the author to find me a single reputable scientist who claims to have proved that God does not exist. He may find a handful, like Richard Dawkins, who go perhaps a bit too far in making the case that the probability of God's existence is very low, (which strikes me as comparably futile to proving that God does exist), but that is a very different proposition from the one Berlinski is attempting to link all atheists to. Besides that, it takes more than a little intellectual dishonesty to pretend that he doesn't understand the conceptual approach that Dawkins and his colleagues have taken. Their work can be read both as a response to and a satirization of the pseudoscientific drivel of Behe, Dembski, and Berlinski--the Intelligent Design crowd.

Berlinski uses W.K. Clifford's injunction that "It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence," to illustrate his interpretation of science's position on God. "If God exists," he imagines the atheist to argue, "then His existence is a scientific claim, no different in kind from the claim that there is tungsten to be found in Bermuda. We cannot have one set of standards for tungsten and another for the Deity. If after scouring Bermuda for tungsten we cannot find any of the stuff, then we give up on the claim." While I couldn't agree more that we should have uniform standards for the validation of knowledge, Berlinski's analogy has a fatal flaw. We know of a substance called tungsten. We know of a place called Bermuda. We know nothing of this (or any) Deity. He is conjured out of thin air and cannot be evaluated in any context, using any standard, by any rational person.

"While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching question of life, death, love, and meaning, the religious traditions of mankind have a good deal to say, and what they do say forms a coherent body of thought." Really? I must admit that I am so dumbfounded by the straight-faced assertion that the religious traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, et al form a coherent body of thought, that I have nothing of value to say in response. If, however, you think that science has nothing of value to say on "the great and aching questions," you've not been paying attention to the people who actually do science. Game theory is used to study the motives of people in myriad interactions; Brain mapping and neuroimaging give us a glimpse into the physiological side of human emotions; Economics can help us understand the way we respond to psychological incentives; Evolutionary biology helps us to understand the genetic basis for many of our baser predilections, in the context of human (and pre-human) history. Drugs--legal and illegal, natural and manmade--can chemically trigger, enhance, diminish, and/or abolish the full range of feelings that are often attributed to the existence of a soul. (We can actually watch this happen with the help of high-tech equipment--undoubtedly assisted by more than one of the four powerful and profound miracles.) Any man who has ever experienced profound sadness while moving his bowels, or any woman who has ever broken down in tears immediately after an orgasm, have experienced the depth of our understanding about the neurological basis of our emotions, (thanks to the nerves in his prostate and her clitoris, respectively).

Here's the sad part. Berlinski trots out his academic credentials by explaining "The universe in its largest aspect is the expression of curved space and time. Four fundamental forces hold sway. There are black holes and various infernal singularities. Particles pop out of quantum fields. Elementary particles appear either as bosons or fermions. The fermions are divided into quarks and leptons. Quarks come in six varieties, but are never seen, confined as they are within hadrons by a force that perversely grows weaker at short distances and stronger at distances that are long. There are six leptons in four varieties." This would be impressive if he didn't immediately make himself a martyred apostate of his own mind.

"This is not an ontology that puts one in mind of a longshoreman's view of the world. It is remarkably baroque, and it is promiscuously catholic. For the atheist persuaded that materialism offers him a no-nonsense doctrinal affiliation, materialism in this sense comes to the declaration of a barroom drinker who says, I'll have whatever he's having, no matter who he is or what he is having. What he is having is what he always takes, and that is any concept, mathematical structure, or vagrant idea needed to get on with it."

So why did you waste all that time at Princeton and Columbia, Dr. Berlinski? Shall we assume that you are a recovering barroom drinker?

We know so much more than Berlinski wants to acknowledge. He is so desperate to establish an intellectually coherent context for his own need to believe that he has no choice but to sacrifice knowledge at the altar of faith. His attempt to cast all science as pseudoscience is a dangerously reckless conflation--one that helps explain why more Americans believe in a virgin birth than in the theory of evolution. It makes people more susceptible to deceptions of all kinds and then invites them to participate in the charade with spiritual impunity.

His argument is not designed to defend Christianity and hold it up as the correct belief system. (Even the good doctor realizes that it is impossible to construct such a defense.) His only option is to put forth a case that is ultimately (and desperately) designed to protect Christianity by defending anything which science cannot disprove. Perhaps he justifies this equivocation by telling himself that his book is primarily geared toward the current American conversation about belief. Regardless, he seems not to realize that his argument is ripe for exploitation by extremists of all stripes.

I've spent this much time with Berlinski because, while his argument is not new--in fact it was first made popular in America in the late 1800's by Herbert Spencer, a British critic and contemporary of Charles Darwin--he embodies the most current incarnation of this mentality. It has become effective across the religious spectrum, from the devout evangelical who believes, ironically, that it forms a scientific basis for his belief, to the passive agnostic who does not wish to impose her skepticism upon believers. It says, in its simplest form, "Hey...until you can explain exactly how and why the universe began, what's the harm in letting people believe what they want to believe?" How about genocide, jihad, ethnic bigotry, slavery, oppression, discrimination against homosexuals and women, the spread of AIDS (via the discouragement of contraceptive use), the sexual abuse of children (in cultish Mormon sects, and in the safe haven for closeted homosexuals and pedophiles known as the Catholic priesthood), the manual retardation of schoolchildren achieved by creating confusion about the validity of evolutionary theory? Show me a way to avoid those catastrophic consequences and even I might be willing to let people believe what they want to believe.

The catch-all argument proffered by Intelligent Designists, like Berlinski, offers believers a cafeteria-style selection of defensive plays, all of which are rooted in a perversion of science, philosophy, and epistemology. They cannot be consistently or rationally executed. If a traditional approach to the validation of knowledge is not sufficient, many bad outcomes must be expected. If people are encouraged to search for whatever greater truths most appeal to them, with no regard for the ludicrousness of the source material, the motives of its past or present protagonists, or the consequences of implementing their prescriptions, then one must be willing to sustain the kinds of unpleasantries listed above, all of which can be justified by any number of interpretations of religious texts and sermons.

The current debate about religious belief is ultimately about the value we place on knowledge. Yes, knowledge can be used for good or for bad, but it is inherently neither good nor bad. Knowledge simply is. (Serious epistemological discussions address the question of what, exactly, knowledge is, while detracting nothing from the fact that, for practical purposes, a duck is a duck, or that the [round] earth rotates around the sun.) The best way to encourage and ensure its use for good is to place a high value on it. The best way to promote or sanction its use for bad is to undermine its worth. Berlinski is working to devalue it for his He may have the best of intentions. Others do not.

If you were hoping to read a book in defense of Intelligent Design, this is not it. This is a book that bashes the scientific pursuit of the answers to the origin of the universe, but only beyond the Big Bang. It is also a lashing out at scientific Atheists and their claim that religion teaches us nothing about morality. Berlinski's purpose in writing the book is to rebut Dawkin's The God Delusion.

Berlinski is relentless in his criticism of science, particularly the physicists, except for their theory of the Big Bang and the singularity preceding it. The fact that physicists are trying to get past this singularity and solve its riddle infuriates the author. It's as if he wants science to stop there, accept that this singularity is proof of god's existence, and cease further research. Never mind the fact that this singularity proves the existence of god as much as it does unicorns; but such logic escapes Berlinski.

Does the author realize how foolish he comes across in so absolutely cherishing the Big Bang theory, brought to light by scientists, yet simultaneously lambasting scientists? He actually writes, "Religious believers had emerged from their [Big Bang] seminars well satisfied with what they could understand; the physicists themselves could understand nothing very well." So, the physicists were conducting seminars on something they did not understand enough to understand it themselves, but understood it enough to make it clear to the religious believers? The author takes some getting used to.

Berlinski is even deceptively lacking in his presentation of traditional sectarian proofs of god's existence, such as the Cosmological Argument, of which he initially gives us only a convenient part of it, and does not then address the more obvious refutations to its whole. Instead, he twists this argument into his own version as an attack on science. Such tactics: taking his frustration at the weakness of religious logic out on science, his necessary whipping boy. He eventually comes back to it in a later chapter, but still does not address the most basic challenge. The argument goes: If everything must have a creator, then the universe must, too, and that creator is god. The challenge: If everything must have a creator, then who created god? He calls this question childish at first, nearly stating that it doesn't even warrant a response, yet dances around a reply by mixing it up with the question of god's probability and the analogy of the 747 gambit. It is clear he is counting on his target readers' being uninformed and easily confused. Nice try.

Nor does the author care to tell us why we should assume that god has the corner on morality, if only because science does not. The reader may as well conclude that goblins have all the moral answers humanity needs, or any other mythical being one cares to recall or imagine. Nor does Berlinski go into which moral standard of god's we should choose - Leviticus, that of Jesus, that of Muslim extremists - and to which entity of the pantheon we are to give credit when we make such a choice, since he clearly does not believe humans capable of doing so on their own. E.g., "What makes men good? Nothing." And, "Men are not by nature good." Is the stoning to death of adulterers a bit of god's morality we are to glean from his texts? No. But whence comes my ability to make this moral choice, if not from god? Is god telling me in effect that the moral choice in this example is to ignore his own morality?

The last half of the book bored me. Its premises were so obviously flawed and biased. It became clear Berlinski is in this for naught but personal gain and I'm sorry to have contributed to his nest egg, although not too sorry if I help to hasten his retirement and therefore an end to his further contributions to ignorance. But I digress. He spends much time on a basic ID tenet, "...many physical properties of the universe appeared fine-tuned to permit the appearance of living systems." The universe is fine-tuned for us? Mr. Berlinski, we occupy the merest speck of it! The universe that we see is not teeming with life. Can I surf on a comet, fly like Superman in the vacuum of space, move to Mercury? The Earth may be fine-tuned for life within the universe and its physical properties, but even then... Do we see the greatest mass of life evenly distributed upon Earth's face, or unevenly based on regional climate and natural resources? The logical, and unfortunately for the faithful, non-anthropocentric, conclusion to reach when viewing living systems' tenuous grasp on existence is that it is the living systems that are fine-tuned via evolution to exist according to the universe's physical properties.

Berlinski cites law after law, stating that to change but one parameter in each, even the slightest bit would be disastrous for life, therefore these laws must have been intelligently designed with life in mind. If I were to engineer a car that could only drive on asphalt, not concrete; whose engine could only start when the ambient temperature was between 70 - 75 degrees Fahrenheit; that could handle grades no greater than 2 degrees; that could not be outside in the rain; who would say that my design is better than a Jeep Wrangler for the mere fact that mine is the design with more limitations, with less flexibility? If I were to engineer a mousetrap with 1,000 moving parts that didn't catch a mouse any better than one with only 2 moving parts, who would say that my design was the better merely for its higher complexity? The "intelligent" design for life would be the least complex and the most forgiving. Instead, we have possibly unfathomable complexity and a precarious, orbiting, grain of sand upon which we labor to survive.

Berlinski's Delusion goes into obvious pandering to the faithful when he decries our ancestry with the ape in this hackneyed appeal to human arrogance. The author snubs our similarities with other primates and fashions an impassable gulf of dissimilitude. He even attempts to deny our own social evolution. "To look at Paleolithic cave drawings is to understand that the graphic arts have not in twelve thousand years changed radically." So, we may assume Adam and Eve, as the first homo sapiens, were capable of understanding the concept of a 747 and its construction? How many humans alive today can? To go from admiring the complexity of the physical properties of our universe to this cookie cutter outlook of humans is disingenuous. Berlinski tells the reader to "just look around" to know that we've not descended from apes. I advise him to look around, to look at the vast differences within humanity, to understand just allergies alone and their implications of humans' intricate connection with finite locales, let alone the universe. We are not a homogenous idea molded from clay in god's hands. We move around, we change colors, we grow taller, shorter, lighter, stockier...WE EVOLVE!!!

For all this, however, Berlinski is honest on one point, nearly from the outset of his Delusion, in stating that the book does not attempt to explain of god "whether he exists but whether science has shown he does not." The reader would appreciate more honesty regarding his agenda, however, when we are only given hints as to the book's leanings toward Evangelical Christianity: he slips (either mistakenly or as a wink to the book's intended audience) in making digs at feminism and certain sexual orientations.

I find a sick pleasure in knowing someone as intelligent and accomplished as David Berlinski cannot disprove my belief that when the good professor gets to the heavenly gates, St. Peter will smack him over the head with his own book.

Berlinski’s dry humor, witty analogies, and insightful commentary make easy reading of an otherwise difficult (for a layman like me) topic....If you are not shy about using Google to research some the lesser known references, you can’t help but learn and will enjoy the process!

I was impressed by an interview of David Berlinski and admire his stand against the almost delusional attack on faith by some scientists. I want the book to succeed, but it has too much ego displayed. He is very touchy about anyone who disagrees and seems to be showing off his vocabulary. He uses complex wording which often takes a second reading to grasp. My profession is communications so I admire clarity and impact. This ain't it. I'm reading just a few pages at a sitting, otherwise my brain hurts.

This is a stunning and enjoyable book, stunning because the author combines a knowledge of philosophy, science, theology and history to make his points. This is rare. It is especially rare to see the leveraging of evidence from medieval Arabic thought, scholastic thought, Greek thought and the most up-to-date scientific thought.

The book is enjoyable because it is written in an accessible, lucid style by an individual who does not hesitate to skewer his opponents in comic, sarcastic fashion. He enjoys putting his fingers in the eyes of the pretentious and self-satisfied. What will further annoy them is that he is not a troglodyte or an oaf. He is a skilled, erudite and trenchant debater.

If there is a single identifiable thesis it is that for all of its accomplishments and for all of its heuristic value, science knows very, very little. At the same time it is heavily institutionalized and is at pains to demonstrate that it knows nearly everything, certainly that its models and shibboleths represent ‘settled science’.

In the course of the book the author challenges our cosmology, our neuroscience, our materialism, our Darwinianism and the speculative ‘conclusions’ of evolutionary psychology. He approaches Christian apologetics and arguments for the existence of God from a position of strength. He is an agnostic Jew, but one with an unforgiving knowledge of logic and epistemology as well as mathematics and the probabilism that accompanies it.

The book is a wonderful read, regardless of your own assumptions. It reminds us that after billions of dollars of investment and the proliferation of scientists across the planet, we are still at a very early point in our efforts to understand our universe. The book is an exercise in humility and we can never have too much of that. The blowhards who have too little of it are his very special targets.

Berlinski is a presence on the internet. I recommend his appearances on Uncommon Knowledge, the program that originates from the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

This book joins the fray in the ubiquitous use of a particular argument in defense of religion. It goes something like this: While doctrinal religion may be outmoded, science is every bit as unable to disprove the existence of a spiritual realm as it is unable to tell us absolutely everything about the universe.

In The Devil's Delusion: Athiesm and Its Scientific Pretensions, Berlinski's sole strategy consists of repeatedly setting up straw men and then taking target practice on them. He begins with the title of his book, which paints all atheists into the same corner, ignoring the vast majority of us who don't require science to prove the unprovable in order to justify our failure to choose from a smorgasbord of puerile fairy tales within which to immerse our identities.

Berlinksi starts by demeaning all efforts at progress: "Like democracy or justice, science is a word exhausted by its examples." This, of course, leads to the conclusion that we should consider an immediate return to tyrannical monarchy (which undoubtedly had its advantages and none of the unfortunate failings of systems which strive to achieve better results). "Since the great scientific revolution...we have been vouchsafed four powerful and profound scientific theories--Newtonian mechanics, James Clerk Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics. These are isolated miracles, great mountain peaks surrounded by a range of low, furry foothills." It appears that Berlinski means to disparage those low, furry foothills, and to hold them up as proof that science isn't nearly as cool as geeky scientists think it is. He deems it irrelevant that those four powerful and profound "miracles" were built upon the low, furry foothills that came before them, and that new, powerful and profound "miracles" will likely be built upon today's low, furry foothills--all of them increasing our knowledge in incremental but important ways.

"These splendid artifacts of the human imagination have made the world more mysterious than it ever was. We know now better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is here...We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial doctrine about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial we have no other doctrines. We can say nothing of interest about the human soul."

Berlinski's attempt at patronization would be offensive it it weren't so embarrassingly transparent. He gives compulsory praise to the accomplishments of "the human imagination," careful to couch the language in ethereal tones, so as to appropriate them into his mystical worldview, while writing them off as artifacts. "We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial doctrine about the manner in which the brain functions," careful to portray science as the same sort of doctrinal enterprise that prevents Catholics from eating meat (except for fish) on Fridays...during Lent, (or maybe the kind that leads some Pilipino Christians to have themselves crucified each year on Good Friday). These are the first signs that rhetoric is the only weapon in his arsenal. He can bring no evidence to the table, but he can talk in circles.

"On these and many other points as well, the great scientific theories have lapsed. The more sophisticated the theories, the more inadequate they are. This is a reason to cherish them. They have enlarged and not diminished our sense of the sublime." Well...the great scientific theories have lapsed only insofar as they have failed to address themselves specifically to Berlinski's questions, all of which are grounded in a perspective that takes the paranormal for granted. "We can say nothing of interest about the human soul," because many of us do not presupposes the existence of a mystical entity called the soul.

Knowing that the accomplishments of science cannot be ignored, he strives to reduce it to a loveable little bugger, working its poor butt off to answer the great mysteries of life while he and his esteemed colleagues watch with compassionate pity, knowing that it'll never get there without some sort of stopgap belief system involving a watchmaker. What Berlinski either doesn't understand or wishes to confuse his audience about is the fact that Science is not trying to answer his questions. Science is trying to answer the next question. Science takes what we know and tries to reach the next plateau. Science takes what we think we know and deliberately tries to disprove it, hoping to either confirm or invalidate its hypotheses before moving on to the next stage. Science is too busy dealing with reality to give a fig about Berlinski's silly questions.

"If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories. They do not mention a word about God." Nor, Mr. Berlinski, do they mention a word about the existence of albino leprechauns in my underwear drawer, but I daresay that science stands tacitly and comfortably opposed to the veracity of that rumor. "They do not treat of any faith beyond the one that they themselves demand. They compel no ritual beyond the usual rituals of academic life, and these involve nothing more than the worship of what is widely worshipped." Again, rhetorical efforts to bring science down to the level of religion--by conflating acceptance of scientific theories with faith; by equating religious rituals with scientific method; by likening respect for empirical evidence with the worship of invisible beings--bespeak either a profound ignorance about the actual work and intentions of science or a deliberate attempt to mislead the masses.

"Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God's existence." I challenge the author to find me a single reputable scientist who claims to have proved that God does not exist. He may find a handful, like Richard Dawkins, who go perhaps a bit too far in making the case that the probability of God's existence is very low, (which strikes me as comparably futile to proving that God does exist), but that is a very different proposition from the one Berlinski is attempting to link all atheists to. Besides that, it takes more than a little intellectual dishonesty to pretend that he doesn't understand the conceptual approach that Dawkins and his colleagues have taken. Their work can be read both as a response to and a satirization of the pseudoscientific drivel of Behe, Dembski, and Berlinski--the Intelligent Design crowd.

Berlinski uses W.K. Clifford's injunction that "It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence," to illustrate his interpretation of science's position on God. "If God exists," he imagines the atheist to argue, "then His existence is a scientific claim, no different in kind from the claim that there is tungsten to be found in Bermuda. We cannot have one set of standards for tungsten and another for the Deity. If after scouring Bermuda for tungsten we cannot find any of the stuff, then we give up on the claim." While I couldn't agree more that we should have uniform standards for the validation of knowledge, Berlinski's analogy has a fatal flaw. We know of a substance called tungsten. We know of a place called Bermuda. We know nothing of this (or any) Deity. He is conjured out of thin air and cannot be evaluated in any context, using any standard, by any rational person.

"While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching question of life, death, love, and meaning, the religious traditions of mankind have a good deal to say, and what they do say forms a coherent body of thought." Really? I must admit that I am so dumbfounded by the straight-faced assertion that the religious traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, et al form a coherent body of thought, that I have nothing of value to say in response. If, however, you think that science has nothing of value to say on "the great and aching questions," you've not been paying attention to the people who actually do science. Game theory is used to study the motives of people in myriad interactions; Brain mapping and neuroimaging give us a glimpse into the physiological side of human emotions; Economics can help us understand the way we respond to psychological incentives; Evolutionary biology helps us to understand the genetic basis for many of our baser predilections, in the context of human (and pre-human) history. Drugs--legal and illegal, natural and manmade--can chemically trigger, enhance, diminish, and/or abolish the full range of feelings that are often attributed to the existence of a soul. (We can actually watch this happen with the help of high-tech equipment--undoubtedly assisted by more than one of the four powerful and profound miracles.) Any man who has ever experienced profound sadness while moving his bowels, or any woman who has ever broken down in tears immediately after an orgasm, have experienced the depth of our understanding about the neurological basis of our emotions, (thanks to the nerves in his prostate and her clitoris, respectively).

Here's the sad part. Berlinski trots out his academic credentials by explaining "The universe in its largest aspect is the expression of curved space and time. Four fundamental forces hold sway. There are black holes and various infernal singularities. Particles pop out of quantum fields. Elementary particles appear either as bosons or fermions. The fermions are divided into quarks and leptons. Quarks come in six varieties, but are never seen, confined as they are within hadrons by a force that perversely grows weaker at short distances and stronger at distances that are long. There are six leptons in four varieties." This would be impressive if he didn't immediately make himself a martyred apostate of his own mind.

"This is not an ontology that puts one in mind of a longshoreman's view of the world. It is remarkably baroque, and it is promiscuously catholic. For the atheist persuaded that materialism offers him a no-nonsense doctrinal affiliation, materialism in this sense comes to the declaration of a barroom drinker who says, I'll have whatever he's having, no matter who he is or what he is having. What he is having is what he always takes, and that is any concept, mathematical structure, or vagrant idea needed to get on with it."

So why did you waste all that time at Princeton and Columbia, Dr. Berlinski? Shall we assume that you are a recovering barroom drinker?

We know so much more than Berlinski wants to acknowledge. He is so desperate to establish an intellectually coherent context for his own need to believe that he has no choice but to sacrifice knowledge at the altar of faith. His attempt to cast all science as pseudoscience is a dangerously reckless conflation--one that helps explain why more Americans believe in a virgin birth than in the theory of evolution. It makes people more susceptible to deceptions of all kinds and then invites them to participate in the charade with spiritual impunity.

His argument is not designed to defend Christianity and hold it up as the correct belief system. (Even the good doctor realizes that it is impossible to construct such a defense.) His only option is to put forth a case that is ultimately (and desperately) designed to protect Christianity by defending anything which science cannot disprove. Perhaps he justifies this equivocation by telling himself that his book is primarily geared toward the current American conversation about belief. Regardless, he seems not to realize that his argument is ripe for exploitation by extremists of all stripes.

I've spent this much time with Berlinski because, while his argument is not new--in fact it was first made popular in America in the late 1800's by Herbert Spencer, a British critic and contemporary of Charles Darwin--he embodies the most current incarnation of this mentality. It has become effective across the religious spectrum, from the devout evangelical who believes, ironically, that it forms a scientific basis for his belief, to the passive agnostic who does not wish to impose her skepticism upon believers. It says, in its simplest form, "Hey...until you can explain exactly how and why the universe began, what's the harm in letting people believe what they want to believe?" How about genocide, jihad, ethnic bigotry, slavery, oppression, discrimination against homosexuals and women, the spread of AIDS (via the discouragement of contraceptive use), the sexual abuse of children (in cultish Mormon sects, and in the safe haven for closeted homosexuals and pedophiles known as the Catholic priesthood), the manual retardation of schoolchildren achieved by creating confusion about the validity of evolutionary theory? Show me a way to avoid those catastrophic consequences and even I might be willing to let people believe what they want to believe.

The catch-all argument proffered by Intelligent Designists, like Berlinski, offers believers a cafeteria-style selection of defensive plays, all of which are rooted in a perversion of science, philosophy, and epistemology. They cannot be consistently or rationally executed. If a traditional approach to the validation of knowledge is not sufficient, many bad outcomes must be expected. If people are encouraged to search for whatever greater truths most appeal to them, with no regard for the ludicrousness of the source material, the motives of its past or present protagonists, or the consequences of implementing their prescriptions, then one must be willing to sustain the kinds of unpleasantries listed above, all of which can be justified by any number of interpretations of religious texts and sermons.

The current debate about religious belief is ultimately about the value we place on knowledge. Yes, knowledge can be used for good or for bad, but it is inherently neither good nor bad. Knowledge simply is. (Serious epistemological discussions address the question of what, exactly, knowledge is, while detracting nothing from the fact that, for practical purposes, a duck is a duck, or that the [round] earth rotates around the sun.) The best way to encourage and ensure its use for good is to place a high value on it. The best way to promote or sanction its use for bad is to undermine its worth. Berlinski is working to devalue it for his He may have the best of intentions. Others do not.

If you were hoping to read a book in defense of Intelligent Design, this is not it. This is a book that bashes the scientific pursuit of the answers to the origin of the universe, but only beyond the Big Bang. It is also a lashing out at scientific Atheists and their claim that religion teaches us nothing about morality. Berlinski's purpose in writing the book is to rebut Dawkin's The God Delusion.

Berlinski is relentless in his criticism of science, particularly the physicists, except for their theory of the Big Bang and the singularity preceding it. The fact that physicists are trying to get past this singularity and solve its riddle infuriates the author. It's as if he wants science to stop there, accept that this singularity is proof of god's existence, and cease further research. Never mind the fact that this singularity proves the existence of god as much as it does unicorns; but such logic escapes Berlinski.

Does the author realize how foolish he comes across in so absolutely cherishing the Big Bang theory, brought to light by scientists, yet simultaneously lambasting scientists? He actually writes, "Religious believers had emerged from their [Big Bang] seminars well satisfied with what they could understand; the physicists themselves could understand nothing very well." So, the physicists were conducting seminars on something they did not understand enough to understand it themselves, but understood it enough to make it clear to the religious believers? The author takes some getting used to.

Berlinski is even deceptively lacking in his presentation of traditional sectarian proofs of god's existence, such as the Cosmological Argument, of which he initially gives us only a convenient part of it, and does not then address the more obvious refutations to its whole. Instead, he twists this argument into his own version as an attack on science. Such tactics: taking his frustration at the weakness of religious logic out on science, his necessary whipping boy. He eventually comes back to it in a later chapter, but still does not address the most basic challenge. The argument goes: If everything must have a creator, then the universe must, too, and that creator is god. The challenge: If everything must have a creator, then who created god? He calls this question childish at first, nearly stating that it doesn't even warrant a response, yet dances around a reply by mixing it up with the question of god's probability and the analogy of the 747 gambit. It is clear he is counting on his target readers' being uninformed and easily confused. Nice try.

Nor does the author care to tell us why we should assume that god has the corner on morality, if only because science does not. The reader may as well conclude that goblins have all the moral answers humanity needs, or any other mythical being one cares to recall or imagine. Nor does Berlinski go into which moral standard of god's we should choose - Leviticus, that of Jesus, that of Muslim extremists - and to which entity of the pantheon we are to give credit when we make such a choice, since he clearly does not believe humans capable of doing so on their own. E.g., "What makes men good? Nothing." And, "Men are not by nature good." Is the stoning to death of adulterers a bit of god's morality we are to glean from his texts? No. But whence comes my ability to make this moral choice, if not from god? Is god telling me in effect that the moral choice in this example is to ignore his own morality?

The last half of the book bored me. Its premises were so obviously flawed and biased. It became clear Berlinski is in this for naught but personal gain and I'm sorry to have contributed to his nest egg, although not too sorry if I help to hasten his retirement and therefore an end to his further contributions to ignorance. But I digress. He spends much time on a basic ID tenet, "...many physical properties of the universe appeared fine-tuned to permit the appearance of living systems." The universe is fine-tuned for us? Mr. Berlinski, we occupy the merest speck of it! The universe that we see is not teeming with life. Can I surf on a comet, fly like Superman in the vacuum of space, move to Mercury? The Earth may be fine-tuned for life within the universe and its physical properties, but even then... Do we see the greatest mass of life evenly distributed upon Earth's face, or unevenly based on regional climate and natural resources? The logical, and unfortunately for the faithful, non-anthropocentric, conclusion to reach when viewing living systems' tenuous grasp on existence is that it is the living systems that are fine-tuned via evolution to exist according to the universe's physical properties.

Berlinski cites law after law, stating that to change but one parameter in each, even the slightest bit would be disastrous for life, therefore these laws must have been intelligently designed with life in mind. If I were to engineer a car that could only drive on asphalt, not concrete; whose engine could only start when the ambient temperature was between 70 - 75 degrees Fahrenheit; that could handle grades no greater than 2 degrees; that could not be outside in the rain; who would say that my design is better than a Jeep Wrangler for the mere fact that mine is the design with more limitations, with less flexibility? If I were to engineer a mousetrap with 1,000 moving parts that didn't catch a mouse any better than one with only 2 moving parts, who would say that my design was the better merely for its higher complexity? The "intelligent" design for life would be the least complex and the most forgiving. Instead, we have possibly unfathomable complexity and a precarious, orbiting, grain of sand upon which we labor to survive.

Berlinski's Delusion goes into obvious pandering to the faithful when he decries our ancestry with the ape in this hackneyed appeal to human arrogance. The author snubs our similarities with other primates and fashions an impassable gulf of dissimilitude. He even attempts to deny our own social evolution. "To look at Paleolithic cave drawings is to understand that the graphic arts have not in twelve thousand years changed radically." So, we may assume Adam and Eve, as the first homo sapiens, were capable of understanding the concept of a 747 and its construction? How many humans alive today can? To go from admiring the complexity of the physical properties of our universe to this cookie cutter outlook of humans is disingenuous. Berlinski tells the reader to "just look around" to know that we've not descended from apes. I advise him to look around, to look at the vast differences within humanity, to understand just allergies alone and their implications of humans' intricate connection with finite locales, let alone the universe. We are not a homogenous idea molded from clay in god's hands. We move around, we change colors, we grow taller, shorter, lighter, stockier...WE EVOLVE!!!

For all this, however, Berlinski is honest on one point, nearly from the outset of his Delusion, in stating that the book does not attempt to explain of god "whether he exists but whether science has shown he does not." The reader would appreciate more honesty regarding his agenda, however, when we are only given hints as to the book's leanings toward Evangelical Christianity: he slips (either mistakenly or as a wink to the book's intended audience) in making digs at feminism and certain sexual orientations.