Customer Reviews

The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As anyone who has read Martin Gardner knows, he is both a compelling writer and possessed of a great mind. He is best known as skeptic and debunker, usually in reviews for NY Review of Books, and in columns in various magazines, most notably Scientific American. Like Stephen Jay Gould, he has a tremendous intellectual range and can make anything interesting, including topics that you believe you could not possibly care about prior to reading Gardner on the subject.

All of Gardner's compilations are worth reading and may represent a better introduction to Gardner's thought than the present volume. Nevertheless, this book has a charm that cannot be denied. The book is unlike anything else I have ever read. It is basically a series of musings about various philosophical issues: free will, evil, economics, politics and the nature of god. Gardner begins by giving a simple, understandable summary of the area, including the arguments of the great thinkers on the subject. Gardner then moves to a thorough analysis of the weight of the arguments, and concludes with his own position on the issue.

In general reading this book has the feel of being included in the private musings of a great intellect. Gardner is careful to develop his arguments thoroughly and simply so that the neophyte philosopher will not be left behind. (Though in fairness, some terms are not defined, an a Dictionary of Philosophy would be useful in getting the casual reader up to speed.)

Gardner's style is charming. He takes up a topic such as determinism versus free will and examines the philosophical arguments that have been raised against the existence of free will. Having admitted the power of the arguments arrayed against free will, Gardner confesses that he believes in free will anyway. And so it goes for arguments against the existence of God, immortality, prayer, etc., in every case confessing that the rational arguments favor positions contrary to his own, and then maintaining them anyway.

Gardner is a "fideist," meaning that he acknowledges the impossibility of demonstrating rationally the existence of God and related issues, but insisting that faith is an appropriate mechanism for getting around these difficulties. Gardner is never heavy-handed or preachy in his positions, and he gives the arguments against him a fair hearing.

The joy of reading this book is that the issues are so clearly presented that the reader can assess his own thoughts on the subject. I personally do not buy fideism as a justification for abandoning reason, but the book presented the alternative views so well that I felt comfortable disagreeing with Gardner in his conclusion.

In the end, fideism is an interesting point of view. It does not require the destruction of arguments against one's belief in God. In fact, the fideist can revel in the irrationality of his position. While the reader may not be convinced to believe as Gardner does, I will bet you will come away with a better grasp of the issues involved.

Gardner starts off with "This is a book of essays about what I believe and why." Gardner has a fantastically clear mind and is able to communicate apparently difficult ideas with great ease. He rejects various philosphical positions in the 1st few chapters, then proceeds to explain his positions on issues. He also explains why some things that can never be proven (including God). He inspires a sense of wonder. But I most recommend this book to those struggling with the issue of God. Gardner is a theist--he believes in a personal God who can be prayed to--and offers arguements as to why that belief is rational in this age of science where many people (properly he says) reject the stories of traditional religion as absurd. Gardner is one of the treasures of the 20th century and it is a shame he is not more widely read.

I'm writing chiefly to defend this book against charges -- made by earlier reviewers -- that this book is pleasant enough reading, but weak in the philosophy department. As someone who spent too much time doing graduate work in philosophy, I find Gardner to be philosophically sophisticated yet thoroughly unpretentious. Sort of like a really good jazz musician with a strong background in music theory, Gardner mastered theory and technique, and then forgot it. Now he uses philosophy to think about the problems that interest him, rather than to write unreadable treatises about trendy issues that will nudge him closer to tenure or full professorship. Would that some of my philosophy profs had taken this approach! Moreover, Gardner's arguments, far from being trite, combine the views of disparate thinkers, such as Carnap and Unamuno (what the heck...?) in original and imaginative ways.

I recommend this book to readers versed in philosophy as well as to those with no background in the subject. As far as his political and economic views, I'm thoroughly sympathetic with Gardner, but have no background in these matters. I leave it others to judge the worth of these portions of the book. But I would suggest that the dated examples don't seriously undermine his arguments.

I read Gardner's "Whys of a Philosphical Scrivener" years ago when I was a freshman in college, and it was perfect reading for that point in my life. It's a rather odd book; basically it's a collection of essays on broad philosphical, religious, and political topics, with many interesting digressions. For me, one of its useful effects was to clue me in to other interesting books, magazines, and ideas, and I'm still benefitting from it. Evem without accepting all of Gardner's opinions, it's probably had, directly and indirectly, the most influence on my thinking of any book I've read. Gardner digresses- often in the extensive and entertaining footnotes collected at the back of the book- into mini-discussions of other writers, contemporary politics, odd historic events, religion, science, etc. It makes a good "what to read" guide. It's almost conversational at times. Read it yorself, especially if you don't know much about philosophy (it will get you interested), and buy it for any curious high school or college kid you know.

Most philosophers nowadays dodge all the really important questions, or if they don't dodge the questions, they write in a terribly obtuse style. Not Gardner. He directly tackles all the philosophical questions that matter to people, thinking and writing with his usual exceptional clarity and vigor. He explains why he holds the political views that he does, why he does not believe in paranormal phenomena, and why he believes in God and the afterlife. The book is a true gem, a pleasure to read, and deserves to be much better known. Just as I would highly recommend Gardner's books on recreational math to kindle someone's interest in mathematics, I would highly recommend this book to kindle someone's interest in philosophy.

Readers who are particularly interested in Gardner's religious views should also read his book "The Flight of Peter Fromm," a novel that describes the transformation of the title character from fundamentalist Christian to philosophical theist. Along the way, Gardner gives many penetrating criticisms of Christianity---whether liberal, neo-orthodox, or orthodox.

"Philosophy is concerned with two matters: soluble questions that are trivial, and crucial questions that are insoluble."-Stefan Kanfer

With that epigraph, Martin Gardner begins his wonderful book, The Whys Of A Philosophical Scrivener--a book that has been, for me, one of those special ones I keep at my bedside so I can repeatedly browse it and scribble notes in its margins.

Gardner is a prolific author of over 70 books on mathematics, puzzles, skepticism, science, and philosophy. He wrote for Scientific American from 1956 to 1981, and has been a key figure in the modern effort to debunk pseudoscientists and paranormalists of all stripes. A founding member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, he wrote a column for their magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, from 1983 to 2002. He has been a loud critic of creationism, and has earned the respect and friendship of the likes of the late Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould, as well as Michael Shermer, James Randi, and Douglas Hofstadter.

In short, he's just the sort of brilliant mind and gifted writer that we freethinkers love to have in our corner. But here is the surprise: Martin Gardner is a theist. And this book, in which he attempts to set out and justify all of his philosophical positions, is mostly about his personal religion, and how he tries to reconcile it with his considerable rational prowess, skepticism, and education.

Before I address the theological topics that comprise the bulk of the book, I'll briefly gloss over some of the other subjects he considers. Each chapter title is of the form "Why I Am Not An ( X )". Gardner is not a Marxist, a Smithian, a solipsist, a pragmatist, or an ethical relativist, and there are chapters devoted to each of these entries and other matters of politics, economics, and philosophy. They are all fine essays, but not nearly as interesting as those devoted to religious topics, so I will not say anything else about them here.

Several chapters that every non-theist will clearly appreciate include: "Why I Am Not A Paranormalist"; "Why I Am Not A Polytheist"; and "Why I Do Not Believe God's Existence Can Be Demonstrated". He dismantles all of the standard arguments, including the always popular Argument from Design (where he employs a quote from William James, of all people: "To the grub under the bark, the exquisite fitness of the woodpecker's organism to extract him would certainly argue a diabolical designer.")

And then, the book makes its sudden u-turn, for directly on the heels of his chapter which dismisses any and all purported demonstrations of God's existence, comes a chapter entitled "Why I Am Not An Atheist"- and this is followed by: "Prayer: Why I Do Not Think It Foolish"; "Evil: Why?"; "Evil: Why We Don't Know Why"; "Immortality: Why I Am Not Resigned"; " Immortality: Why I Do Not Think It Strange"; " Immortality: Why I Do Not Think It Impossible"; and "Surprise: Why I Cannot Take The World For Granted". In these chapters, he puts forth his justification for his own, rather unorthodox religious beliefs. He's not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or anything else that is easily recognizable or simple to categorize. He rejects all revelation, holy books, fundamentalist doctrines, or prophets that claim to have direct contact with the divine.

Gardner is no dummy; he doesn't rely on any of the specious arguments that infest the books of less well-read theists. He never points to DNA or quantum electrodynamics and says "See? Too complicated to arise without God." He doesn't harp about some innate moral sense that we supposedly have and which "could not have arisen naturally." He does not subscribe to what Richard Dawkins has called The Argument From Personality Incredulity. None of those tired arguments are here, since he discredits them all himself. In fact, he makes the admission at several points that all the best arguments belong squarely on the atheist side.

So what, then, is the basis of his belief? You will need to read the book to find out the details. Gardner is a fideist, and accepts the credo consolans: He believes because he finds it consoling. No other reason. As dubious as it may sound in the context of this review, his book builds as compelling a case as anyone would ever be able to do. And while he didn't sway me in the end (I'm still an atheist, after all), this book did far better than any other in terms of presenting a theistic worldview that I could at least partially understand, maybe even sympathize with.

Gardner is the kind of believer that we non-theists wish all believers would emulate. Intelligent, and honest enough to admit his doubts and uncertainties: if the world's religious were like him, our quarrels with them would be mere interesting philosophical asides; not the life-or-death matters that they unfortunately too often become. And we could then take Spinoza's high-minded path: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."

One of the key questions that books like this force me to ask, and I try to ask this of other atheists and agnostics often, is: how should we non-theists deal with the liberal religious? Believers like Gardner, or the Reverend Barry Lynn, who heads up the organization Americans United For The Separation of Church And State. Are Unitarians our friends, or just a less obnoxious and less harmless group that follows slightly less harmful nonsense? In our quest for a more tolerant, more rational, less dogmatic world, should we be expecting that for calls for pure atheism will make many converts? Or should we look to take baby steps? Many people, today, will simply not accept a complete lack of theistic belief--would it behoove us to then encourage them to explore the ideas of theologians like John Shelby Spong, who has written books such as Why Christianity Must Change Or Die?

Personally, I think Spong, Lynn, and Gardner et al. are powerful allies in the battle against the truly dangerous aspects of religion. Without comprising what we (don't) believe, we will get further, faster, with their help.

To summarize, and getting back to topic, I highly recommend Gardner's book. It is a wonderful conversation with a kindly yet precise thinker and gifted writer. The book introduced me to a number of authors and ideas I'd likely otherwise never have heard of. (I was so impressed that wrote to him about it, and received a nice reply back.) His stance is so unlike what most atheists are used to encountering from their interlocutors that it might even come as a bit of a shock to some.

But hey, shock is good.

Gardner is an especially clear and forceful writer. He writes with humor and solid knowledge about an amazing variety of philosophical topics. Like Sun Yat-Sen, Gardner says he is a democratic socialist and a theist. Even when I disagree with Gardner I still find that his arguments are well worth considering carefully.

This is yet another great collection in which Gardner sets about destroying the illogical and psychologically damaging views propounded by new age guru's, pseudo-science and religious fanatics. A great addition for anyone whoenjoys his work in Skeptical Inquiry magazine or is interested in freethinking, atheism and agnosticism. Gardner has made it his life work to expose the dogmatic foundations of illogical thought where ever it may be found and as this collection shows, shoddy logic is alive and well in the Western tradition.

Martin Gardner is one of those people who knows much about many different things. In this work he surveys his own world of knowledge and tells us why he is not a solipsist, a pragmatist,
a paranormalist, an aesthetic relativist, an ethical relativist, a determinist, or haphazardist, an anarchist, a Smithian, a Marxist, a Polytheist, Pantheist,an Atheist. He also tells us why he does not believe God's existence can be dmonstrated, why he does not think prayer is foolish, why we don't know the 'why' of evil, . He also also tells us why he does not think the idea of immortality is strange or impossible. In the end he gives us his own position on faith in God, and on the human future.
So Gardner in this work who is known primarily for his writing on scientific and mathematical problems really focuses on the moral and religious .
This is a strong and respectable work of a man of science, who is also a man of faith of God.

Gardner does what he says. He accounts for the "whys" of his beliefs. As he does this he presents to his readers what is familiar to their own thought evoking insight on their part. It ought to be understood, however, that he writes in broad strokes and ideas are expressed in a manner that, at times, lacks precision. By reflecting on a wide range of philosphers and artists he presents us with material we thought we understood. His efforts amount to an attempt at preserving the integrity of scholastic thinking, or a contemporary derivation of it, in the postmodern world. Gardner presents us with a North American understanding of a European approach to philosophical thinking. There is a lot of breadth to his work but, from my perspective, little depth. I finished the book with the sense that when all was said and done Gardener, as a 'philosophical scrivener', was on the outside looking in. However, I do recommend the book for Gardner's encyclopedic approach to his material. It is worth noting that Gardner views William James as a particularly insighful thinker.