Your Garage Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Lacuna Coil Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Father's Day Gifts Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Shop Now

Format: Paperback|Change
Price:$11.08+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on November 8, 2009
I suppose most people like to at least appear to be open-minded, but sometimes I wonder how often (say) a conservative Republican sits down to read Noam Chomsky's political screeds, or a dedicated leftist sits down to enjoy Adam Smith. I picked up "The Devil's Delusion" in just that spirit, fully expecting to find a book which would argue against most of my own beliefs.

I wasn't really expecting something as brilliant, challenging, and engaging as this. If you think that the only people who don't believe in evolution are Fundamentalist knuckle-dragging Georgia swamp-dwellers, you're in for a big surprise. Berlinski himself is an agnostic of Jewish descent, an astonishingly erudite man and a brilliant thinker. He also writes frightfully well. And it is often hard to disagree with him. As he notes in the opening pages of this book --- concerning religion, God, and the rest: "I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false."

You might want to read those two sentences again, because they form the logical heart and soul of this book. Berlinski is not on a mission to preach religion; his task is to make plain just how little we actually know about the universe, and to try and re-awaken our sense of wonder. In this, he succeeds brilliantly.

The book cannot really be summarized in a brief review, but let me try to show you at least his thoughts about cosmology and the Big Bang. First, he makes it clear that the atheist camp has always had a hankering for an eternal universe (funny, that describes me, too) and a huge dislike for a universe which had an actual beginning, and then he demonstrates that all of current cosmological theory and knowledge points to the Big Bang as a singularity --- and not a universe which is constantly expanding and then contracting. So it comes Scarily Close to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." He then amuses himself (and us) by skewering all of the "objective scientists" who are trying to wiggle out of this "difficulty." It really does sound like "objective scientists" accept the "scientific facts" which suit their own biases.

"We have no idea how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic and social world in which we live could ever have arisen from the seething anarchy of the elementary particles." One thing I can add is that, the last time I checked, we don't even know how genes and RNA manage to control the color of the eyes. We may be able to draw the hereditary chart and point to the right place in the DNA, but we have no idea at all how the genotype turns into the phenotype.

Berlinski is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is a place devoted to the idea of Intelligent Design, but, as an agnostic, he's something of a maverick even there. You can find him in Wikipedia and on YouTube as well.
3838 comments|231 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon April 3, 2008
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.
253253 comments|996 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 3, 2008
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 !!!
2828 comments|417 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 30, 2008
In the documentary movie Expelled by Ben Stein, one of those interviewed was David Berlinski, author of the book under review, for his assessment of evolution, intelligent design, and the dogmatic opposition to any criticism of Darwinism by the scientific establishment. As far as I know, this book is Berlinski's first book-length criticism of Darwinism and especially of what has come to be known as scientism (the atheistic religion that pretends that it is based on science). The interesting title of Berlinski's book comes from an amalgamation of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, McGrath's response The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, and another book by Dawkins titled A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love. Berlinski describes himself as a "secular Jew," and says that his "religious education did not take. I can barely remember a word of Hebrew. I cannot pray." Although he does not, to my knowledge, say he is an agnostic, it seems that that must be what he is. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton University and has taught mathematics and philosophy at universities in the United States and in France. He has written math and science books such as A Tour of the Calculus,The Advent of the Algorithm: The 300-Year Journey from an Idea to the Computer, and Newton's Gift: How Sir Isaac Newton Unlocked the System of the World. In approaching what may well be the most controversial and defining topic of our time, I suppose that one of two approaches can be taken. One would be a serious presentation of the scientific facts and attempting to reason with those who are opposed to your point of view. The other approach may well be to ridicule your opponents, call them stupid, and make sport of the issue. Berlinski has chosen the latter approach. However, after calling them stupid, he gives detailed rationale as to why the charge is appropriate. In a sense I suppose he combines the two approaches. His dry humor is throughout the book that could not be pulled off by anyone of lesser brilliance, but shines more brightly in some sections. Here and there his humor evokes out-loud laughter from the reader, although no doubt that depends somewhat on the reader's worldview. Berlinski takes them all on by name and pulls no punches. He seems to take great delight in pointing out their errors of logic, their incorrect scientific facts, their gross extrapolations, their superficial understanding of science, the absurdities of what they actually profess to believe, and their lack of humility before the mysteries of life. For an agnostic, if that is what he is, he seems to have admiration for theologians and others who struggle to make sense of life, and surprisingly, and delightfully to me, he quotes Scripture to make some of his points. A strange prophet he, but then God can obtain praise from the rocks if it please Him to do so.

The book has ten chapters. The chapter titles are as follows: Chapter 1. No Gods Before Me, 2. Nights of Doubt, 3. Horses Do Not Fly, 4. The Cause, 5. The Reason, 6. A Put-up Job, 7. A Curious Proof That God Does Not Exist, 8. Our Inner Ape, a Darling, and the Human Mind, 9. Miracles in Our Time, and 10. The Cardinal and His Cathedral.

The first major area that Berlinski addresses is the criticism that is often made of religious people. When Sam Harris and others point out the human suffering that has occurred at the hands of religious leaders, Berlinski agrees fully. However, to leave it there as though something significant has been said raises more questions than it answers. He describes Harris' book Letter to a Christian Nation (Vintage) as "devoid of any intellectual substance whatsoever." Berlinski elaborates: "A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. If the Inquisition no longer has the power to compel our indignation, the Moslem world often seems quite prepared to carry the burden of exuberant depravity in its place. Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The twentieth century was not an age of faith, and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot will never be counted among the religious leaders of mankind." He then lists for us 63 wars that took place during the 20th century with the number of those killed in each. The numbers are staggering: 15 million in WWI, 55 million in WWII, 20 million under Stalin, 40 million under Mao, etc. This sort of information, of course, does not justify religious intolerance of any kind, but it certainly does help to put things into perspective, and completely counters any suggestion that the world would be safe and secure if we could just get rid of religion, as at least implied by, if not actually stated, by the likes of Harris, Dawkins, etc. Not only in terms of wars, but other writers such as Steven Pinker make claims about how much better the world is now as a result of modernity. Berlinski exclaims "The good news is unrelenting . . . In considering Pinker's assessment of the times in which we live, the only conclusion one can profitably draw is that such an excess of stupidity is not often to be found in nature." "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."

Another area that Berlinski addresses is the way philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God are dismissed by atheists. He has a great deal of admiration for Aquinas, and summarizes his cosmological argument (not "proof") for the existence of God. Before dismissing someone who wrote so long ago, consider Berlinski's words: "His life coincided with a period of great brilliance in European art, architecture, law, poetry, philosophy, and theology. Commentators who today talk of the dark ages, when faith instead of reason was said ruthlessly to rule, have for their animadversions only the excuse of perfect ignorance." The cosmological argument is simply that the universe has a cause. Many, apparently, think it has no cause or purpose. That flies in the face of common sense, even the common sense of a child, but nonetheless it is held. But then Berlinski goes on to argue how the philosophical cosmological argument has been greatly bolstered from the "very place one might least expect it to appear: contemporary physical cosmology." Berlinski reviews the findings of the "Big Bang" theory and other modern discoveries that Aquinas knew nothing of but strongly supports the cosmological argument for the existence of God. "If nothing else, the facts of Big Bang cosmology indicate that one objection to the argument that Thomas Aquinas offered is empirically unfounded: Causes in nature do come to an end. If science has shown that God does not exist, it has not been by appealing to Big Bang cosmology. The hypothesis of God's existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent." He then delightfully quotes from modern scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, who have not overlooked the religious significance of these modern scientific discoveries. For example, "`So long as the universe had a beginning,' Stephen Hawking has written, `we could suppose it had a creator.'" For another example, "`The best data we have concerning the big bang,' the Nobel laureate Arno Penzias remarked, `are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.'" If some atheists want to dismiss such things, it is only because they have no real response to give. Berlinski presents the best arguments from philosophy and from science for the existence of God that I have read.

Berlinski's criticism of Darwinian evolution of humans is brutal: "It is rather more difficult to take what no one doubts and fashion it into an effective defense of the thesis that human beings are nothing but the living record of an extended evolutionary process. That requires a disciplined commitment to a point of view that owes nothing to the sciences, however loosely construed, and astonishingly little to the evidence." Of course, there are many who may require some convincing, so just saying that evolution has little evidence in its support won't do the job. But arguments there are a plenty. "Darwinian biologists are very often persuaded that there is a conspiracy afoot to make them look foolish. In this they are correct." "Suspicions about Darwin's theory arise for two reasons. The first: the theory makes little sense. The second: it is supported by little evidence." Okay, no argument presented here. You'll have to read this book, as well as perhaps some others, if you want the details.

Putting words in God's mouth and sounding like a passage from Job, Berlinski writes "You have no idea whatsoever how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic, and social world in which you live could have ever arisen from the seething anarchy of the elementary particles." This is a delightful book to read, especially so since it comes from a somewhat unexpected source.
22 comments|68 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 14, 2008
I have read several of Berlinski's books, and this is the best and the most fun read. He takes down by several notches some of the better-known and more arrogant atheists--Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett (one of the "brights")--with clever barbs and clear reasoning.

One of the one-star reviewers, in an otherwise rather thoughtful review, made this baffling statement: "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." Berlinski, a self-described "secular Jew," is surely doing no such thing, and he makes this clear in his preface: speaking of religious traditions, he 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."

His book is written as a caution to the over-reach of certain people in the scientific community who have attempted to draw conclusions about religion and God from facts or hypotheses in science. In this he does an admirable job.
99 comments|275 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 17, 2010
This is the best philosophy of science book I have ever read. It is extremely well written and is the first book that I have read that seeks to curtail what has become the wholesale worship of science in western culture. Science is a wonderful tool and has given us a standard of living that is likely the best this world has seen, however it has its limits and these limits are under assault in the modern age by those who should know better. It stands in stark contrast to books that have become popular of late that make large, sweeping statements generally based on a set of assumptions with little evidence to back up their claims. In reading Dawkins in particular (as a mathematician) it is a constant frustration to read the "proofs" that are continually offered up by someone who clearly does not know what a proof is. We are directed to have our "imagination" inspired by Darwin in order to come up with outlandish schemes about how things might have happened. Quite frankly it is hard to believe that anyone can put any stock in this kind of reasoning. Speculation is fine and imagination is a wonderful thing but it is not science and claims such as those that are too frequently made need to be backed up with something other than "imagination". This is what has been typically known in the past as science fiction and that seems to be what Dawkins is best at.
Berlinski makes this argument better than I can as he is clearly better read and has been immersed in the fields of mathematics and philosophy for some time. Dawkins and the rest are intellectual lightweights compared to Berlinski and this is evident even in a casual reading of the book, though most of Dawkins arguments can be picked apart even by myself. The most refreshing part about this book is that Berlinski clearly understands the limits of science and is willing to talk about them where most seem to not be willing to go there. I have had several conversations, particularly with biologists, that when pressed on many issues dealing with evolutionary evidence, or the lack thereof, they put up a fight for a few minutes then state in the end "well, that isn't really my field of focus". It is a constant frustration that there seems to be no interest in solving any of these issues within the scientific field. While Dawkins complains that ID supporters run to God for cover...anytime anything hard comes up they just say "God did it", Dawkins has reversed this to say that "Darwin did it". In the end we have exchanged God for Darwin and it seems to me that we have got the worst end of the deal.
The book is very refreshing in that it seems to honestly be seeking to reveal where we are now, what science has accomplished, what it has not accomplished, and what it cannot accomplish. Unlike the popular writings that it is critical of, it is not condescending or arrogant but clearly reveals where these other authors have overstepped their bounds often in a way that is quite witty and piercing in it's critique.
It is a truth that we each approach science with our own pre-conceived notions that larely shape what we are looking for, where we look, and in the end what we see. Berlinski has the advantage of being agnostic and so quite possibly is approaching the issue with the most objective mind. In reading the book it seems that he is coming to the defense of God and, though He doesn't need it, it is nice for those of us on this temporal globe to see someone this deep in the field bring forth a book that at least makes the attempt to be objective. If he seems to come to the defense of God it is only because God's attackers have become somewhat rabid in their attack and in using "science" to do so have undermined all of science by using it in a manner that it was never intended to be used. It is more to the point that Berlinski is coming to the defense of science because he understands that if this hijacking of our universities and centers of academic thought continues then scientists will soon have no more influence than our mainstream modern "journalists".
11 comment|31 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 26, 2009
_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.
1414 comments|32 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 16, 2016
First off, Berlinski is NOT a Christian or according to him, even a good JEW. But he does a fantastic job at pointing out the atheistic and scientific pretensions happening and the outright attack on anyone who does not hold to the evolutionary theory.
Berlinski's writing style is just as he speaks. He's very articulate, thoughtful, and even witty.
A great read, and nice to see a non-Christian sticking up for people of other beliefs and theories.
11 comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 9, 2013
The author, who says he is a secular Jew, makes fools of atheists like Richard Dawkins, and he does it with outstanding scholarship and a delightful sense of humor. He is not defending God or advocating a Designer, but his conclusions leave no other reasonable options.
11 comment|9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 5, 2016
Brilliant. Sure to make atheists write bad reviews and lie through their teeth. David Berlinksi uses logic and common sense gleaned from his decades of studying and teaching mathematics. Although he admits he is not religious, he finds it absurd that so many think the universe made itself from nothing. To back up their nonsense, these atheists create fairy tales, such as the "multiverse," virtually an infinite number of universes,each with different physical constants. Ours just "happens" (wink, wink) to be the "right" one.
0Comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse