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

This review is written with a GPL 4.0 license and the rights contained therein shall supersede all TOS by any and all websites in regards to copying and sharing without proper authorization and permissions. Crossposted at WordPress, Blogspot & Librarything by Bookstooge’s Exalted Permission

Title: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
Series: ----------
Author: David Berlinski
Rating: 4 of 5 Stars
Genre: Non-Fiction
Pages: 258
Format: Digital Edition

Synopsis:

The title really does sum this up. Written as a foil to Dawkin's The God Delusion, Berlinski, a non-practicing Jew, shows just how shaky the ground is, philosophically AND scientifically, that many out-spoken atheists stand on.

Using humor, sarcasm and other rather ham handed approaches, Berlinski pokes the High Priests of Scyenze and lets the hot air out of them, much like a balloon. He doesn't approach things form an angle of “They are wrong and I'm right” but more of a “their attitude is untenable given their arrogant, boasting statements about Faith and Religion”.

My Thoughts:

I had a hard time with this. Even while I agreed with much of what Berlinski wrote, I am not a fan of the style he uses, ie, poking the bear with a stick. The problem is, people like Hawkings, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc, NEED to be poked. They are arrogant, proud, boastful and self-centered and all of their might and effort is put forth proving that God doesn't exist just so that they don't have to kneel before Him. Reading this was like getting a splinter removed with a needle. It was necessary and good but you don't like the process.
I was high lighting sentences left and right on my kindle but I don't care enough to type them all out. Honestly, I don't know if I was the target audience for this or not. Berlinski is an Evolutionist but realizes that the pat “We Have All the Answers” attitude put out by the scientific community as a whole is a bunch of bologna. He pokes and pokes and shows that no, they don't have all the answers. In fact, some of the contortions they must go through make the planetary epicycles of Ptolemy look positively straight!

The biggest thing I got was that most of the people he mentions by name are arrogant blowhards and that Pride shapes how they think and how they approach existence itself. Pride is what led to Satan's fall from grace and Berlinski shows how Pride is still blinding people today, even people of great intellect.

Recommended as a Counter Cultural Argument against the monolithic religion of our day, Scyenze.

★★★★☆ ( )

I don't know what I wanted or expected from this book. From the title and cover, one can see that the author relates Dawkins' God Delusion and instead covers atheism. I suppose being an atheist myself, I would be drawn to the title. "What scientific pretensions?" I thought to myself. So I took it out of the library and well, I hated this book. Although the author makes valid points, I can't help but think he is sneering as he says them. That's just the vibe I get. I suppose it is bias.

The main argument is that science itself relies on faith in some cases, especially when it comes to things that can't be directly observed. This is quite true. We can say that the sky is blue or that protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, but we don't know why things are as they are. This point I concede. When you get deep enough into the why of something, it almost becomes metaphysics. Why is everything? Why is the universe the universe? Why isn't it like this? Why is the Earth the perfect distance from the Sun? Why does life exist at all?

Now I don't know the answers to these questions, and neither do many scientists, but I don't need to bring God(Magic Sky Man) into the equation to explain it all away so that I can sleep at night. I just hope that eventually a scientific reason will pop up. I suppose that could be considered faith, in many ways.

The author also speaks of morals and morality, pointing out that it wasn't the Vatican that ordered the Final Solution or created the Atomic Bomb. Now, although I am an atheist I do actually agree with the Golden Rule. I didn't automatically turn to bawdy deviancy and hedonism to get my kicks. Why is that? I don't know. I never felt the need to do so. I certainly haven't felt the influence of Magic Sky Man in any of these times, prodding me to do the right thing.

In any case, the author demonstrates a good deal of knowledge in the subject of physics. As to the Big Bang, he knows the problems inherent in it with the combination of the very large with the incredibly small. This is a very weak point in physics and is considered the "Holy Grail" if I may use the term. Many a physicist would love to find the Grand Unifying theory. However, the Big Bang can be inferred. There is evidence of it all around us. There is the Cosmic Background Radiation, the Red Shift of the Stars and Galaxies and tons of other stuff. I mean, I guess if Magic Sky Man floats your boat, the entirety of creation could be evidence for his existence, but that would require a great deal of proof.

All in all, though he makes many good points, this book didn't really sit well with me. All I got out of it was Cognitive Dissonance. ( )

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

I would say, "Scientists are the New Priests." To question them is to be labelled as, foolish. To not believe in such and such, is to be labelled as fool. Because x is a scientific fact, every one must believe in it. From Popes, Priests, Politicians, Scientists are also fallible.

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

--Deus Vult
Gottfried. ( )

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

I would say, "Scientists are the New Priests." To question them is to be labelled as, foolish. To not believe in such and such, is to be labelled as fool. Because x is a scientific fact, every one must believe in it. From Popes, Priests, Politicians, Scientists are also fallible.

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

--Deus Vult
Gottfried. ( )