Customer Reviews

From the Wandering Jew to William F. Buckley, Jr. : On Science, Literature, and Religion

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Martin Gardner, creator of the "Mathematical Games" column in Scientific American, and the author of more books than he or I can remember, takes on some of his pet peeves here in his usual readable and understated style.

There are ten short essays on such subjects as psychic surgery in the Philippines, "Oral Roberts on Jim Bakker," "Life Magazine and Astrology," etc., and a number of book reviews, including Searching for Bobby Fischer (1988) by Fred Waitzkin, a life of Lewis Carroll and Lewis Carroll as a photographer, both by Morton Cohen, Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (1995), and What is Mathematics, Really? (1997) by Reuben Hersh. In the latter, Gardner strongly disagrees with Hersh's thesis, insisting that mathematics does indeed exist outside the human mind, and that, for example, two plus two equals four anywhere in the galaxy. (Notice my reluctance to write "anywhere in the universe.") Perhaps the most incisive essay is Gardner's debunking of the phony psychic surgeons, which he does in a style that would please both Carl Sagan and James Randi, and does indeed please this reviewer. Notable in the review of Reflections in a Looking Glass (1998) by Morton Cohen about Lewis Carroll are two photos taken by the author of Alice in Wonderland, one of them of the real-life Alice herself. Also included are introductions to new releases of three books by H.G. Wells.

I was particularly entertained by Gardner's deflation of William F. Buckley Jr. in his review of Buckley's Nearer, My God (1997). It seems that Buckley believes whole heartedly in such fundamental Catholic doctrines as incarnation, virgin birth, atonement, the resurrection of Jesus, papal infallibility, hell, and hell fire. Literally. Gardner wonders if Buckley thinks that Eve was fabricated "from one of Adam's ribs, or does he accept the evolution of human bodies?" (p. 343). Buckley replies to Gardner's review but does not respond to the question about evolution. Gardner concludes that, in spite of his admirable faith, "Buckley is guilty of what has been called the sin of willful ignorance."

I also liked Gardner's devaluation of the so-called science of memetics in his review of psychologist Susan Jane Blackmore's recent book, The Meme Machine. Gardner sees the "memes-eye view" as "little more than a peculiar terminology for saying the obvious" (p. 214), and he agrees with Stephen Jay Gould, who called memes "meaningless metaphors" (p. 215).

I have only one question of Mr. Gardner: how can you justify the time spent on reading works from the likes of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye or about such charlatans as the Seventh Day Adventist fraud, Margaret Rowen? I suspect Gardner would reply that he is doing a public service by flailing against the ever-present tide of pseudoscience and fake religiosity. He undoubtedly feels as Carl Sagan did, that "the rising flood of superstition and pseudoscience is too damaging to society to be ignored" (p. 125). I agree, and in fact, his is a noble cause. May he long persist.

Martin Gardner, in this,his latest essay collection,once again does yeoman service in the interest of science,rationality, and truth. Taking on such diverse views as those of Jim and Tammy Bakker,Mary Baker Eddy, and Wm. F. Buckley Jr.,he analyzes and all but demolishes the absurdities that these people so abundantly display. Buckley, who normally applies the most searching intelligence to his scrutiny of society and politics, is here shown to be lacking in the most rudimentary skepticism when it comes to his Catholic faith, and one comes away from the essay on him disappointed and disillusioned. As an antidote to the credulity seen so widely in our supposedly advanced society, whether it be fundamentalism, creationism, astrology,or "psychic surgery", Gardner should be assigned reading. He has a sure nose for humbug.

If you haven't read anything by Martin Gardner, I'm not sure this is the best book to start with. Gardner's been doing this for a long time now, and his earlier works are more fresh. There's a sense of retreading familliar ground here. I would propose either one of his Mathematical Recreations collections (if you are interested in that side of Gardner's work) or the essay collection _The Night is Large_ as a starting point. That said, this covers varied ground, occasionally overdoing the skewering of an idea that is, to anyone likely to read Gardner, going to be fairly easily dismissed, and occasionally showing naivete (a la Carl Sagan) in its manner of demolishing pseudoscience. Gardner is no born again Scientific Materialist, like Sagan, but he can sometimes display the same flaws.

Which brings me to the last essay in the book, the review of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s _Nearer, My God_. Gardner respects Buckley, despite strong disagreements with him on varied topics, and the review, as such, is certainly positive: "I put down 'Nearer, My God' with unbounded admiration for Buckley's courage and honesty and the depth of his piety." However, the bulk of the article is a rambling account of time-worn criticisms of Christianity that Gardner suggests Buckley has answered with willful ignorance. The problem isn't that the criticisms are uninteresting (one of them is the problem of evil, another the difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God that so moved the Gnostics). It's hard to imagine that Buckley could have written a book that answered all of them, and presumably Buckley is as aware of them as the next highly educated and supremely literate Catholic--I suspect (he hints as much in his reply to Gardner, included here) that Buckley would refer Martin Gardner to some of the thinkers Gardner and Buckley mention--Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

The chief problem with the essay is that when it comes to religious matters, Gardner, despite a great admiration for Chesterton and a good deal of knowledge, has a strangely Protestant approach to matters, and tends to judge Catholic thought as if sola scriptura had been the cry not of Luther but of the Church. In particular, although it is hard for me to imagine that the widely read Martin Gardner isn't aware of Newman's ideas on the development of doctrine and the Church's position that tradition, rather than simply the texts of the canon and the Church Fathers, serves a role in this development. Gardner seems to think that the writings of Aquinas are all formally proclaimed doctrine and that doctrines historically present but not written by the earliest fathers are inventions. This overly text-based approach might be a legitimate weapon to use against a Protestant Church proclaiming itself to be based purely on early texts, but it is not very useful in discussing a Church that claims to develop (not invent) doctrine under the continued guidance of an acting Spirit.

This point aside, the book is certainly worth reading if you've enjoyed Martin Gardner's writings in the past.

I treasure nearly all of Martin Gardner's writings and this is no exception. Although limited in its range due to the collection's small size, alot of ground is covered.

Gardner's views are almost always well thought out as he is one of the great scholarly researchers the 20th century has seen, he considers all viewpoints, even sympathizes with his opponents but remains true to his ideas. An small yet enjoyable collection of reviews, essays, and book introductions that makes an excellent little read

Gardner is amazing! Each of his collections of essays is a marvel. This volume consists of ten essays and nineteen book reviews or introductions on a stunning variety of topics.

Gardner is known as a mathematical puzzler and a sceptic and debunker of pseudo-science. He is also a philosopher and literary scholar of impressive breadth and depth. This book exhibits depth of analysis on a stunning array of topics, from Christian Science to The Wizard of Oz.

Highly recommended, but if you are new to Gardner anthologies, his collection, The Night is Large, is a better introduction to his breadth of thought.

Gardner provides scholarly essays on science, literature and religion which present both essays and book reviews covering Gardner's many, often interrelated interests. Fans of the essays format in general and Gardner in particular will relish the diversity of topic and the lively, witty reflections.

Martin Gardner has done it again: Another fabulous jewel in his crown of critical and thought-provoking works.

I have been a fan of Gardner's since "Fads and Fallacies (In the Name of Science)". His strength is in taking an unflinching look at the foibles and farces that most people would prefer to pretend don't exist in our civilized world... But they do, and they're ugly, and they need to be looked at -- acknowledged -- as a first step to fixing them, much as an alcoholic or drug addict first needs to admit they have a problem.

Sure, Gardner packs a modicum of vitriol -- but in that, he merely mirrors what the masses actually feel when confronted by the nonsense that Gardner takes on. He's a brave, bold and straight-shooting warrior in the war for common sense, reason and rationality, and I wish him long life and many more books.

Interestingly the "reader from Pasadena", the only negative reviewer, gives himself (or herself) away by the list of books quoted as being "thoughtful, brilliant volumes one could profitably spend time with": This person obviously suffers from the Religion-is-the-only-correct-viewpoint syndrome. I find it even more interesting that this reviewer states that Gardner's "attacks are directed only at people who challenge human-based authority". "Human-based" as opposed to what? God-based? Yes, we certainly wouldn't ever want to question Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, now, would we? Or any other God-based authority, would we? I can only guess the reader from Pasadena means that religious-minded people should be allowed to "challenge" secular viewpoints, but never the reverse. How sad... and how eloquent a reminder that the world needs Martin Gardner, now more than ever.

Here's a tip: Whenever you're feeling like the world is a crazy, hopeless place, pick up a Martin Gardner book and start reading. It's always a nice feeling to know that there's at least one other sane person out there.

Long Live Martin Gardner!

I came to this book with the wrong idea. I had expected variations on a theme, but this turned out to be a bewildering hodge-podge. (I had hoped for a running dissection of the strange things people believe and why they believe them -- alas, not here. Much of this book is just 'inside baseball' for dedicated sci-fi fans.) Gardner's breadth is undeniable, as is his passion for the diverse topics he addresses here, but I found myself uncaptivated by his enthusiasm. If you are not a sci-fi fan and if you're not looking for detailed debunkings of obvious absurdities like 7th Day Adventism and astrology, then caveat emptor.

The first third of the book contains articles & biographies relating to children and science-fiction book authors, along with 3 chapters on the history of a religious group/cult (7th Day Adventist).

The first chapter ("Wandering Jew") was promising, once one makes peace with it being a history of the consequences of poor scholarship without actually correcting the scholarship. However, it was spoiled in the end by vitriol.

The last two-thirds contain book reviews; two chapters on the Wizard of Oz (more than most would care to know), the "Christian Science" cult, a look at social constructivist claims about mathematics, etc.

The book tends to undermine itself; gratuitous phrases like "moronic" and "tin brains" suddenly pop up. It seems like the author just can't get over the existence of human fallibility: the compulsion to instruct people on proper right-thinking seems irrepressible.

The common thread is that the attacks are directed only at people who challenge human-based authority. The modus operandi is to seek deviant examples for caricature and hope it carries over as a generalization in the reader's mind. Thus the extensive coverage of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, bizarre religious cults, and so on. The innocent reader would never guess brilliant modern religious thinkers and writers like Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Gary Habermas or Kelly James Clarke exist -- not even a whisper about their work. Someone might find out thoguhtful and powerful answers exist to humanist charges. Analysis of Augustine or Aquinas or Calvin? No. Any serious knowledge of church history? No. Just a spotlight for the deviant.

For all the overt and covert attacks on religion, the book seems mostly informed on the subject by "60 minutes" or "20/20" segments and the garish cast of characters who show up there. The goal seems to be how long a sneer can be sustained.

There seems dissatisfaction that individuals cannot be prevented from wrestling with issues of God and existence. However, the topic can't be controlled like mathematics: restricted to an elite 1 out of a 100000. People with of all sorts of intellects and cognitive skills and sinful natures are drawn to these issues. I would think a person who claims an intellectual life would seek out the best thought, not dwell on the weakest. One can't help but think of the junior high-school student who likes to pick on the 3rd graders. Trying someone at his own level or higher means the risk of getting creamed.

There are dozens of thoughtful, brilliant volumes one could profitably spend time with. Why the author avoids them is an open question:

"6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization" (Sampson). "Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry" (Carroll),"Inventing the Flat Earth" (Russell), "How Now Shall We Live" (Colson), "Church History in Plain Language" (Shelley), "Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom" (Morey), "Reasonable Faith" (Craig), "Christian Apologetics" (Geisler),"New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" (McDowell).

With all that is happening in the world, "The Wandering Jew" could leave one thinking the biggest problem out there is that someone somewhere might be taking an herb not approved by the FDA/AMA and "who-knows-what-might-happen-if-he-thinks-it-works?". Trivial stuff and a waste of the author's (and reader's) time.