The Devil's Delusion

[shernajwine]

Just started reading this book by David Berlinski.

Side flap reads:

A secular Jew, Berlinski delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be--indeed must be--the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.

Interview with Berlinski
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op67E8Uq03U Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HyOW0CsZuE&feature=related Part 2

I'm not going to go through this book on the thread like I did with Case for a Creator. But I think Berlinski is amusing and insightful and thought this book may interest those who, like me, have been debating these kinds of issues in the forum. 

[Falconer02]

Considering he's attacking skeptics, I thought I'd comment on these questions.

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?

The metaphysical? No. Yahweh? Easily. Proof? Inconsistencies and major logical fallacies-- criteria of a man-made concept.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?

Not yet as far as I know.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory. Both sides of this argument are screwed from the get-go.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it it is not religious thought?

Well obviously. Given religions impact on science throughout the ages, I think we can understand why.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?

That would fall within the purview on the conundrums of your own philosophies!  

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?

Avoid magical thinking and discard the things that can be proven false through experimentation? Seems somewhat suppressed, but justifiable I suppose. Let's pursue knowledge and not be stuck with old mystical ideas from long ago; introducing the impossible and justifying it is like sooooooo 15th century.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

What? Sure it does. We've had dozens of arguments of FC as to why this is the case.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?

The naivety here...it's funny.

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Upside-Irrationality-Dr-Dan-Ariely/?isbn=9780061995033 Another book I'm thinking of checking out soon.

[shernajwine]

Thanks for your input Falconer. I expected those types of answers from the spiritual and religious skeptics but you're appreciated none the less lol. 

You may disagree with some of what Berlinski says but I think you would find his book enjoyable to read. He has a great sense of humor and uses that oh so popular sarcasm that seems to amuse. 

[Falconer02]

Next time I'm at Borders or B+N, I'll check it out if I see it! I need a new book.

[jordandog]

One thing to remember when debating if there is a God or not, is neither side can prove anything.

So that is why I am done with the religious debates...they ran their course..

That also implies you will stop bumping old ones up to the front when they haven't been posted in for months, correct?

[queenofnines]

Just started reading this book by David Berlinski.

Uh-oh.  Heh...j/k.

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.

How many times do we have to go over this?  It is the people making the claim that have the burden of proof...so if you say that there is a god, that means you, Believer.

But like Falconer said: we have blown your personal, defined gods out of the water time and again (ya'll just refuse to come to grips with this).  It is the mushy, "god in general" - a.k.a. NOT Yahweh, NOT Allah - that we can't disprove.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Stephen Hawking can confirm that the conditions existed for the universe to be so WITHOUT GOD just fine.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

This is a fallacy based on the anthropic principle.  "Why" is not a valid question.  There's only reality, and the reality is, the conditions of the universe became conducive to life.  It's really not THAT hard to believe that all of this is possible without some "supreme being" when you have a massive timeframe and trillions of galaxies to work with.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

This is ridiculous and very childlike to say.  Science is not out to get religion...it's only here to IMPROVE your life...but it just so happens a major consequence of science is squashing peoples' defined gods.  It's not like science is TRYING to do that; it's simply discovering how things work and guess what, data points to events being possible without a so-called personal creator.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Religious people are really funny trying to claim the moral card.  Have you read the Old Testament?!  Oh, and it was JESUS who introduced eternal torture...that's New Testament, folks.  Not to mention the Crusades, the Inquisition, burning people at the stake...all thanks to your friendly neighborhood religion.  

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

   Please go live in a cave author-dude if you're going to make such rude, blatantly false statements.  When religion ruled the world it was called The Dark Ages.  Do you really want that again?

How about moving to the Middle East?  No secularism there, folks!  Oh wait...you like your privileged, SECULAR American life, now don't you?

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

What the hell is scientific atheism?!  Quit making phrases up, religious community!  This kind of talk is not characteristic of high intellectual capability.

[shernajwine]

One thing to remember when debating if there is a God or not, is neither side can prove anything.

So that is why I am done with the religious debates...they ran their course..

That also implies you will stop bumping old ones up to the front when they haven't been posted in for months, correct?

HAHA 

[SurveyMack10]

One thing to remember when debating if there is a God or not, is neither side can prove anything.

So that is why I am done with the religious debates...they ran their course..

which is why you just posted a thread titled something about God believers being retards, right.

[SurveyMack10]

sherna-- GREAT post!

[shernajwine]

To queen and falconer:

The statements by the author are further discussed in detail in the book. I think it would be really great if you guys could read the book and discuss it here with me rather than dissect the summary. It's up to you but I can't really effectively debate the book with someone who hasn't read it.

You make good points but, again, it's just the introduction to the book. And being an educated man of science himself, the author is not uninformed about the issues he discusses.  

And

Religious people are really funny trying to claim the moral card.

He isn't religious.

Excerpt from first chapter:
I am a secular Jew. My religious education did not take. I can barely remember a word of Hebrew. I cannot pray. I have spent more years than I care to remember in studying mathematics and writing about the sciences. yet the book that follows is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment. Biblical verses are the least of it.

I have only just started reading the book but since the author is agnostic, his defense of religion seems unbiased. His statements in regard to the pretensions of atheism in the scientific arena are not with an agenda to prove God but only to defend the proponents of ID theory.

[jcribb16]

One thing to remember when debating if there is a God or not, is neither side can prove anything.

So that is why I am done with the religious debates...they ran their course..

That also implies you will stop bumping old ones up to the front when they haven't been posted in for months, correct?

Now that is a fact!!!!