Scan barcode
carrotspi's review against another edition
4.0
As a physicist, I enjoyed the most part related to physics. One take-away message for me appeared early in the book where the author writes: "Whether God exists—that is one question. Whether belief in his existence plays an important role in human life—that is another."
No one talks more about God than atheists, definitely more than any person of faith I know (I use faith instead of religious/religion). So many books are written proofing that God does or does not exist and I think all that is useless. If you are a believer and you do good, feed the poor, take care of orphans, speak for those who are oppressed and silenced, and try to be of use to your community, that is great! If you do all these things without believing there is something above and more powerful than you, good for you! Just live and let those different from you live too.
No one talks more about God than atheists, definitely more than any person of faith I know (I use faith instead of religious/religion). So many books are written proofing that God does or does not exist and I think all that is useless. If you are a believer and you do good, feed the poor, take care of orphans, speak for those who are oppressed and silenced, and try to be of use to your community, that is great! If you do all these things without believing there is something above and more powerful than you, good for you! Just live and let those different from you live too.
nickjonesreadsbooks's review against another edition
4.0
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this witty and insightful book. Berlinski, a Secular Jew, wants readers to know that people with a so-called "religious agenda" are not the only ones who have massive doubts about the fallacious claims of the Atheist-controlled scientific community. Where are the alleged proofs of Darwinian evolution? What about the "facts" that would support String Theory or Quantum Physics? Unfortunately, the scientists are left in a "very awkward position" with few "facts" and more questions. How do they take care of the "awkward situation"? Read the book and find out. I highly recommend it to any thinking person.
rachel_abby_reads's review against another edition
4.0
Why this book? Because atheists have decided that modern science supports their religious/spiritual views. In fact, it doesn't. Science is an attempt to explain and render predictable the physical world (and universe). It isn't capable of proving or disproving the existence of God. That some -or even many- scientists decide that it does is irrelevant.
The point is, believers don't need to yield the field to atheists simply because they claim that science is their natural consort. Berlinski attempts (with varying degrees of clarity) to show their logical fallacies and presumptions.
There are many things that he says that are beautifully said, and there are quite a few things that could be explained more simply. I do find it interesting that he feels the need to state at the outset that he is a secular Jew, that his religious upbringing "didn't take." His intent is to simply demonstrate that science doesn't support atheism as clearly as has been proposed.
I don't imagine this book will change any minds (just as Dawkins' books don't), but I hope that believers can read this book and leave it feeling that they don't need to feel bullied by science, or by those who would use science as a stick to silence objection or as an argument to destroy religion and religious faith.
The point is, believers don't need to yield the field to atheists simply because they claim that science is their natural consort. Berlinski attempts (with varying degrees of clarity) to show their logical fallacies and presumptions.
There are many things that he says that are beautifully said, and there are quite a few things that could be explained more simply. I do find it interesting that he feels the need to state at the outset that he is a secular Jew, that his religious upbringing "didn't take." His intent is to simply demonstrate that science doesn't support atheism as clearly as has been proposed.
I don't imagine this book will change any minds (just as Dawkins' books don't), but I hope that believers can read this book and leave it feeling that they don't need to feel bullied by science, or by those who would use science as a stick to silence objection or as an argument to destroy religion and religious faith.
regorama's review against another edition
2.0
Berlinski's book is, from its title, a rebuttal to [author: Richard Dawkins]' [book: the God Delusion]. It is, however, more often a rebuttal of [author: Sam Harris]' [book: Letter to a Christian Nation] specifically and broadly to all atheist works. Having read neither, I will take as a given that both Dawkins and Harris say what Berlinski says they say. However, given how inconsistent his own internal arguments are, I wonder.
Berlinski starts by assuaging the fear of his atheist readers. He is not a theist! He proclaims, he is rather, "a secular Jew". From that description one might assume that he is of Jewish heritage and descent but does not believe in a (specifically Jewish) deity. However, this quickly is disproved as, through his arguments, Berlinski states that a deity must necessarily exist.
Contrary to most debates in internet fora, Berlinski's arguments start with ad Hitlerum arguments, broken up briefly by ad hominem attacks. Beginning with calling Harris (and his ilk, by association) a terrorist, he continues by calling them anti-Semites.
The first chapter asserts that science is a god, like any other, whose adherents refuse to admit to the existence of other deities. As evidence for this, he sites the fact that Dawkins/Harris are scientists. If this is the case, it is surely news to Harris, a philosopher.
Continuing this argument into the second chapter, Berlinski asserts that science was the cause of the Holocaust. Once again, this must surely be news to many Germans and Historians alike. Citing the fact that the world is still a horrible place (and listing the number of deaths caused by wars in the 20th century), Berlinski concludes that a deity must exist. (The argument goes something like this: since atheism is wrong, &c.) One wonders just what kind of "secular Jew" it is who argues for but does not worship a deity—perhaps there is no hell for him to go to for his lack of faith. We heretics have no such luxury.
In the third chapter, he delves into physics, a subject about which I understand admittedly little, but about which he seems to understand even less. Somewhere in there is a flying horse, but I was left unsure whether its existence was proven or disproven by neutrinos with fingers.
He continues in such baffling manner, creating "atheistic" arguments for him to refute with both theology and physics. By the end, the reader is left wondering if Berlinski believes in anything at all, a failing he notes in atheistic arguments. It seems to me that Berlinski is, in fact, an atheist. He is simply not a militant atheist, an epithet he despises and wishes so much to distance himself from that he talks himself into a theistic/atheistic corner, wanting to have it both ways, and calling all atheists who speak up fundamentalists with no grasp of logic, history, or physics.
All in all, Berlinski comes across as someone I'd love to have to dinner and who really does have some wonderful arguments against the evils of fundamentalism—be it religious or atheistic. However, his disgust of atheistic fundamentalism manifests in bizarre and, yes, entertaining ways. [book: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions] is a great book to hone an atheist's analytical skills.
Berlinski starts by assuaging the fear of his atheist readers. He is not a theist! He proclaims, he is rather, "a secular Jew". From that description one might assume that he is of Jewish heritage and descent but does not believe in a (specifically Jewish) deity. However, this quickly is disproved as, through his arguments, Berlinski states that a deity must necessarily exist.
Contrary to most debates in internet fora, Berlinski's arguments start with ad Hitlerum arguments, broken up briefly by ad hominem attacks. Beginning with calling Harris (and his ilk, by association) a terrorist, he continues by calling them anti-Semites.
The first chapter asserts that science is a god, like any other, whose adherents refuse to admit to the existence of other deities. As evidence for this, he sites the fact that Dawkins/Harris are scientists. If this is the case, it is surely news to Harris, a philosopher.
Continuing this argument into the second chapter, Berlinski asserts that science was the cause of the Holocaust. Once again, this must surely be news to many Germans and Historians alike. Citing the fact that the world is still a horrible place (and listing the number of deaths caused by wars in the 20th century), Berlinski concludes that a deity must exist. (The argument goes something like this: since atheism is wrong, &c.) One wonders just what kind of "secular Jew" it is who argues for but does not worship a deity—perhaps there is no hell for him to go to for his lack of faith. We heretics have no such luxury.
In the third chapter, he delves into physics, a subject about which I understand admittedly little, but about which he seems to understand even less. Somewhere in there is a flying horse, but I was left unsure whether its existence was proven or disproven by neutrinos with fingers.
He continues in such baffling manner, creating "atheistic" arguments for him to refute with both theology and physics. By the end, the reader is left wondering if Berlinski believes in anything at all, a failing he notes in atheistic arguments. It seems to me that Berlinski is, in fact, an atheist. He is simply not a militant atheist, an epithet he despises and wishes so much to distance himself from that he talks himself into a theistic/atheistic corner, wanting to have it both ways, and calling all atheists who speak up fundamentalists with no grasp of logic, history, or physics.
All in all, Berlinski comes across as someone I'd love to have to dinner and who really does have some wonderful arguments against the evils of fundamentalism—be it religious or atheistic. However, his disgust of atheistic fundamentalism manifests in bizarre and, yes, entertaining ways. [book: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions] is a great book to hone an atheist's analytical skills.
mwfrendauthor's review against another edition
5.0
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.
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.
murilo's review against another edition
1.0
I mistakenly bought this book, thinking that I would read some thought-provoking and uncomfortable ideas against some deep-rooted convictions I might have, because, well, we're not always right. I guess the fact that this was a best seller and the author a mathematician and secular jew himself also got me into this initial ilusion.
But what awaited me was a big piece of science denying lunacy, written in an extremely arrogant and condescending manner, full of logical fallacies and completely ignoring the most simple reasoning of scientific thought. Which basically might be enough for its target audience. Only after beginning to read this crap did I research the author (lesson learned here) and understood I was reading a masterpiece written by an "intellectual" of the alt-right, known for his despise of biological evolution and evolutionary psychology, and also for being a climate change denier. In the end, just to make me even happier, there was an acknowledgement to Ann Coulter.
Now I don't know what to do with this piece of trash, I never burned a book before but I might just do that.
But what awaited me was a big piece of science denying lunacy, written in an extremely arrogant and condescending manner, full of logical fallacies and completely ignoring the most simple reasoning of scientific thought. Which basically might be enough for its target audience. Only after beginning to read this crap did I research the author (lesson learned here) and understood I was reading a masterpiece written by an "intellectual" of the alt-right, known for his despise of biological evolution and evolutionary psychology, and also for being a climate change denier. In the end, just to make me even happier, there was an acknowledgement to Ann Coulter.
Now I don't know what to do with this piece of trash, I never burned a book before but I might just do that.
schmidtmark56's review against another edition
4.0
Proof that even agnostics can get pissed off by Ham Sarris' and Dick Dawkins' popular bilge. Although sometimes very indirect and slippery in his prose, his arguments, when he actually gets to them are sharp and deadly. He's very entertaining to read, and although some of his jokes fall flat, some of them make you put down the book to laugh.
To actually get to the content, this book is a good test case as to the efficacy of Jonathan Haidt's heterodox academy approach. Scientists shouldn't be as partisan as the religious because they have by definition something constantly changing/finite and thus petty compared to theology , which if true, is timelessly, placelessly, and otherwise actually true. Ultimately Berlinski points out how scientists are good at science but are abysmally bad (often laughably bad) at philosophy. The sad thing is that you have to make many philosophical assumptions before you can even do science (among which are explicitly Christian ones such as the world being made in such a coherent and consistent way that scientific inquiry is even possible), but Sarris and Dick D never think far back enough to realize this.
Some quotes will fill out my review nicely:
"what lies behind is a doctrinal system, a way of looking at the world, and so an ideology. It is an ideology with no truly distinct center and the fuzziest of boundaries. For purposes of propaganda
it hardly matters. Science as an institution is unified by the lowest common denominator of belief, and that is the conviction that science is a very good thing. Curiously enough, for all that science may be a very good thing, members of the scientific community are often dismayed to discover that, like policemen, they are not better loved. Indeed, they are widely considered self-righteous, vain, politically immature, and arrogant. This last is considered a special injustice. 'Contrary to what many anti-intellectuals maintain,' the biologist Massimo Pigliucci has written, science
is 'a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.'"
"Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? Do people remain good when unpoliced by the police? If Dawkins believes that they do, he must explain the existence of the criminal law, and if he believes that they do not, then he must explain why moral enforcement is not needed at the place where law enforcement ends."
"Hector Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University, and an avowed atheist. 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."
To actually get to the content, this book is a good test case as to the efficacy of Jonathan Haidt's heterodox academy approach. Scientists shouldn't be as partisan as the religious because they have by definition something constantly changing/finite and thus petty compared to theology , which if true, is timelessly, placelessly, and otherwise actually true. Ultimately Berlinski points out how scientists are good at science but are abysmally bad (often laughably bad) at philosophy. The sad thing is that you have to make many philosophical assumptions before you can even do science (among which are explicitly Christian ones such as the world being made in such a coherent and consistent way that scientific inquiry is even possible), but Sarris and Dick D never think far back enough to realize this.
Some quotes will fill out my review nicely:
"what lies behind is a doctrinal system, a way of looking at the world, and so an ideology. It is an ideology with no truly distinct center and the fuzziest of boundaries. For purposes of propaganda
it hardly matters. Science as an institution is unified by the lowest common denominator of belief, and that is the conviction that science is a very good thing. Curiously enough, for all that science may be a very good thing, members of the scientific community are often dismayed to discover that, like policemen, they are not better loved. Indeed, they are widely considered self-righteous, vain, politically immature, and arrogant. This last is considered a special injustice. 'Contrary to what many anti-intellectuals maintain,' the biologist Massimo Pigliucci has written, science
is 'a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.'"
"Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? Do people remain good when unpoliced by the police? If Dawkins believes that they do, he must explain the existence of the criminal law, and if he believes that they do not, then he must explain why moral enforcement is not needed at the place where law enforcement ends."
"Hector Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University, and an avowed atheist. 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."