Philosophy Forums


The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
A book by David Berlinksi

PrintPrint


The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 842
Posted 10/14/09 - 12:29 PM:
Subject: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
quote post
#1
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delus...5BBJ4K&colid=2PV259TU6TV0Y

Have any of you ever read this?

If so, what do you make of it? Is it worth the read or are the arguments more of the same?

About the author. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

At first I thought it would be a nice skeptical account of science, but some comments have left me scratching my head. Why would a skeptic advocate intelligent design?

Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.
rigelrover
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559
Posted 10/14/09 - 01:04 PM:
quote post
#2
Berlinski also co-authored and published Uncommon Descent, a collection of essays that are critical of natural selection as a mean of evolution (in some cases). They also largely argue for intelligent design.

I found it to be a good read, but many find it inconclusive or obtruse.

I think that Berlinski has the best public arguements for ID, but am still not convinced entirely by them. The are a path to fall out of the complacency of accepting no answer (as it were) in the case of the expectancy of scientism in general.

I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation.
If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap
between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself,
then 'true' mystery does exist.
xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 842
Posted 10/14/09 - 01:09 PM:
quote post
#3
rigelrover wrote:

. . .The are a path to fall out of the complacency of accepting no answer (as it were) in the case of the expectancy of scientism in general.


Thanks for the response, RR.

Would you please rephrase/elaborate on this? I am not quite sure what you mean.

Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.
ciceronianus
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/14/09 - 03:28 PM:
quote post
#4
I read it, some time ago. I used to take a kind of perverse pleasure in reading the diatribes theists and atheists alike seem to feel compelled to publish these days. It was worse than some, better than others. But, I think the entire debate is silly, and the same points seem to be made over and over and over.

"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce

"There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey
rigelrover
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559
Posted 10/15/09 - 05:34 AM:
quote post
#5
I agree the debate seems to only be productive, at this point, for those who wish to profit from it.

I hadn't read the wiki-page on Berlinski before, but it is hard to take his arguments seriously if he does not. I rather enjoyed bits of an Uncommon Descent because they were fairly well-written and intelligible, but have not read 'The Devil's Delusion'.

But, in the same way that I do not find Dawkins, nor Hitchens to be convincing public atheists, I have trouble with these leading public ID-er's. I enjoy hearing about new ideas when they are new, and interesting to consider, but after listening to the same accusations, ad hominems, and rhetoric that ignores central issues and presumes much (and too much) in many cases, I would be careful about what I choose to spend time on.

The point I made (xzJoel) above is about this. There are paths that are open outside of the closed debate. The debate revolves around axioms and logic that have been considered definitive on the issues at hand, but do not, fairly, speak about issues outside of it. It chooses to be ignorant of its context, at times (I you allow me to personify the debate), preferring to pick away at the details while pretending to ignore the gestalt reality of its surroundings.

There is not a dichotomy - evolution or intelligent design - it is clear that evolution occurs, but the question of design is fairly open, or perhaps unanswerable.

I would probably read this book if someone gave it to me to read, or recommended it and wanted to talk about it. But I don't think that I would buy it and read it otherwise. If you get it Joel, and want to discuss it here, I would pick up a used copy.

I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation.
If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap
between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself,
then 'true' mystery does exist.
xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 842
Posted 10/15/09 - 06:32 AM:
quote post
#6
rigelrover wrote:
I agree the debate seems to only be productive, at this point, for those who wish to profit from it.

I hadn't read the wiki-page on Berlinski before, but it is hard to take his arguments seriously if he does not. I rather enjoyed bits of an Uncommon Descent because they were fairly well-written and intelligible, but have not read 'The Devil's Delusion'.

But, in the same way that I do not find Dawkins, nor Hitchens to be convincing public atheists, I have trouble with these leading public ID-er's. I enjoy hearing about new ideas when they are new, and interesting to consider, but after listening to the same accusations, ad hominems, and rhetoric that ignores central issues and presumes much (and too much) in many cases, I would be careful about what I choose to spend time on.

The point I made (xzJoel) above is about this. There are paths that are open outside of the closed debate. The debate revolves around axioms and logic that have been considered definitive on the issues at hand, but do not, fairly, speak about issues outside of it. It chooses to be ignorant of its context, at times (I you allow me to personify the debate), preferring to pick away at the details while pretending to ignore the gestalt reality of its surroundings.

There is not a dichotomy - evolution or intelligent design - it is clear that evolution occurs, but the question of design is fairly open, or perhaps unanswerable.

I would probably read this book if someone gave it to me to read, or recommended it and wanted to talk about it. But I don't think that I would buy it and read it otherwise. If you get it Joel, and want to discuss it here, I would pick up a used copy.


No fear of my discussing it here, it would be pleasure reading exclusively. I've still got way too many actual philosophy books to read and try to get discussion partners for to spend my time on PF discussing mass consumer crazy talk.

Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.
Download thread as


Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.