Industrial Deals Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning _baw _baw _baw  Introducing Echo Show Limited-time offer: All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Review

158 of 241 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars An appropriate title for a book that is complete nonsense itself, February 27, 2011
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist (Kindle Edition)
Some books give you an embarrassment of riches, some are just embarrassments. This book is the latter. Rabbi Moshe Averick's response to the recent spate of "New Atheist" books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and all is an unfortunate collection of poor critical thinking and straw man arguments. The first chapter sets the tone for the rest of the book, when Averick plucks a few lines from various atheist authors, puts them together into an argument no reasonable person would make, and then criticizes the argument.

Averick puts his straw man argument in the first chapter under the heading "Reality Check Please." First, Averick claims that atheists believe that "objective reality life has no meaning, purpose or value" and uses as his example Freud, Stephen Weinberg and William Provine. Of course, non of these men ever said that life has no purpose. Averick finds that conclusion to be "implicit in [their] worldview."

Averick's next claim is that atheists "find inspiration for humanity in the fact that we are all related to ground worms." For this rather odd claim he uses Christopher Hitchens, who was ruminating on the idea that Darwinian evolution provides a means by which to consider all life on Earth as being related, including us mammals and "ground worms and other creatures."

These are the first two steps in a five point argument that Averick is making, and we can see quite clearly how dishonest this approach is. The first line rewrites and freely interprets three different atheists to produce a statement that none of them said, or would admit to believing. (If a quote were available from any of them, why not use it?) The second line grabs a metaphorical rumination from a completely different person, and uses that as line two of an argument.

This is a straw man argument. I know that Rabbi Averick understands the concept of a straw man argument, and I know that he realizes that using such tactics is both dishonest and intellectually valueless. But unfortunately, he continues this for three more points.

Avericak claims that an "inescapable implication of [an atheist's] worldview is that" racism and democracy... are equally insignificant, [and] 'stupid'..." This he also takes from Hitchens, falsely, and applies it to all atheists.

This is the way the entire book goes. Poor thinking piled upon poor thinking. It's not only his thinking that is confused. He has trouble with simple facts. He uses the long debunked story about the 34 witnesses who did nothing as they watched Kitty Genovese stabbed to death in 1964 to make a completely unrelated point about cognitive dissonance. (A term Averick should take the time to learn.) A quick look at Wikipedia would have told him that the Genovese story has been debunked, and major sociology texts have removed or modified their accounts in the light of new evidence.

In Chapter 2 Averick lays out the ground rules for arguing his case for a creator God. Of course the rules are set to favor his personal theological views, and have little to do with critical thinking. For instance, he asks this question "Do you trust your senses, your mind, and your brain, to give you accurate data with which to interface with reality? Please answer yeas or no. There are no other options."

This is a tactic that wouldn't pass muster on a grade school playground, never mind in a free debate on the nature of reality. Averick wants you to choose yes, that you do trust your senses, and to an extent, I agree with him. But it is not a simple yes or no question, is it? There are plenty of times our senses can be fooled. We see faces in rock formations and clouds, even when we are sober. When drunk, the reasonable person does not drive a car, because he realizes that he can't trust all his senses. Optical illusions trick our eyes, and we need instruments to fly airplanes through clouds. In fact, humans are not very good at discerning reality at all, at least not on a macro or micro scale. No human can observe electrons or black holes directly.

To simply force someone into a "yes or no" answer on this question is nonsense. Cognitive neuroscience is beginning to show us hundreds of ways in which our senses and our minds can be fooled. Perhaps Rabbi Averick's fervent belief in God is an example of his mind being fooled. Yes? or No?

Moving on to the core of the book, three chapters on the Origin of Life, and how, since it is impossible for life to come from non-life without a creator, there therefore must be a creator, we get more of the tortured logic, straw men and ad hominem attacks Averick seems to favor. His favorite victim in this section seems to be Richard Dawkins, who Averick admits has never claimed to be an expert in "origin of life" science. Averick is also not an expert in this area, by his own admission, so we are presented with an unusual case of a non-expert criticizing a non-expert or his views. Dawkins has claimed that even though science cannot yet show how life came into being on a lifeless planet Earth, he's sure that science will one day provide some answers. This somehow angers Averick, who insists that science have all the answers right now, or give up and admit that God did it.

This gets at one difference between Religion and Science. Science can comfortably say "We don't know the answer, we're still trying to figure it out" whereas religion always has an answer at the ready: God did it.

Chapter four begin with a wholesale attack on scientists. Not on "science" as a means of answering questions of a scientific nature, but on scientists. Averick seems to feel that scientists need to be taken down a peg, because of their confident, cocksure ways. He goes on for quite some time, pointing out that scientists are no better or worse than the rest of humanity, and that they have all the same faults as any other humans. While this may true, it is hardly relevant to anything. Critiquing scientists says nothing about science, in the same way that critiquing Jews says nothing about the core beliefs of Judaism.

Again, I have to assume that Averick knows that all this verbiage is just wasted effort. It adds nothing to his point, it simply attacks, ad hominem, the character of scientists, and says nothing at all about the nature of science. If I don't assume intellectual dishonesty on his part, I have to assume that he's intellectually lacking, and I'd rather believe he's being deceitful rather than stupid.

Not understanding the limitations of science seems to be Averick's biggest error. He believes that science should at some point abandon science and jump to supernatural explanation when, in his opinion, there is no scientific explanation possible. Rabbi Averick loves to tell stories to illustrate his points. Let me try one.

Imagine a man who wants to be a great painter. He decides to paint his masterpiece, but despite his skill, he can't quite produce a work of art that completely gets his point across. In frustration, he gives up, and hires a man to stand in the gallery next to his painting and explain what he was trying to say to anyone who looks at his failed masterpiece. In this way the man gets his point across, but he is not a painter anymore. He has abandoned his brushes and canvas, and forsaken the point of the exercise. Not only is he a poor painter, he has given up being a painter at all.

When Averick asks scientists to abandon science in favor of supernatural explanations, he is asking them to do the same thing. Just because science does not have an answer, does not mean it will not one day have one. 1000 years ago man could not fly. It was impossible, and no one could imagine the science that would make it so. But a man would not have been wrong to say that one day science might find a way to let us fly.

I am running long here, but to adequately do justice to this mess of confusion and ignorance that Averick has passed off as a book would take a book in itself, and it would not be a book worth writing, because I think Averick's work is obviously the work of someone who, by his own admission, was "experiencing [a] slightly manic and frenetic state of mind... as [he] wrote this book."

His final chapters deal with morality in an atheistic world (dealt with in the works of Dan Barker and Greg Epstein) and the problem of evil in a universe in which God exists. His philosophical acumen is again found wanting, as he recycles arguments that were tired in the ancient world. In discussing the atheist view of a non-created, purposeless universe, Averick writes, "I don't think I would be going out on a limb by opining that the universe described... is not a universe that would inspire the average person to jump for joy (it might however, inspire him to jump off a tall building.)"

This, I believe, gets at the heart of Averick's mental disconnect. He has a lot invested in the idea of God's existence, and cannot stand the idea of a Godless universe. As a result, he will use any argument or tactic to convince himself and as many people as he can that there is a God, no mater how dishonest, illogical or plain silly his arguments have to be. I really wish I had not bought this book. It adds nothing to the debate, and the arguments it advances have been better made by more worthy theologians.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the guidelines and FAQs here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 5 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 61 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 3, 2011, 8:34:34 AM PST
Normally, people who comment (especially atheists, which I'm assuming you are) on these sorts of books do so only after skimming through the first chapter if at all, just a virulent diatribe against their general inchoate feelings about Theism.
It seems you haven't fallen into that trap. While so, you have fallen into others, including ad hominem, the very crux of your rail against the author.
The point of the matter is rather simple: science doesn't "say" anything, but scientists do and many, including Dawkins, do so based entirely on the shaky foundations of incomplete knowledge. This is, the last I checked, faith. Cocksure scientists, no longer relying on the strictures of science, do indeed need to be taken down a few notches.
Throughout your lengthy review, which I just imagine you wrote with a grimace, you miss out on basic information that may have led you to see the truth without error instead of working from certain philosophical presuppositions. For example, I'm a pilot myself and when I fly through clouds, even though my senses may not be enough to give me the ability to fly without the aid of instrumentation, the fact that I *still* have to use my senses to interpret what those instruments show me invalidates your assertions.
You assert the Rabbi doesn't doesn't advance the debate; he assert his mental disconnect; you call his philosophical acumen wanting, you assert his silliness and dishonesty. Yet you do a very light, throwaway job of telling us why. The one argument you attempted to make is spoiled by your basic agreement with the Rabbi's argument!
Finally, I wonder who, exactly, you would deem to be "more worthy theologians" and what their "more worthy" arguments would be that could cause you to suddenly drop your obvious atheism. I doubt there would be any, but still.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2011, 6:32:17 PM PST
I must say, I have a lot more respect for Will Provine, who is honest in admitting that he believes life has no meaning and that we have no free will, than I do for the author of this review who tries to disguise this basic fact. A more honest review would note that "some" atheists agree with Provine, but not all. And while true, this response would still beg the question, who is more consistent with the materialist philosophy of atheism? Provine wins hands down. I would encourage readers to read what Provine actually says. Averick was right to focus on his work because he is by far the most serious atheist writer of our age.

Posted on Mar 6, 2011, 11:43:41 PM PST
Dear Atomic Steve,
Dr. Sigmund Freud wrote the following in a letter: (footnoted and documented in the book) : "When a man thinks about the meaning and value of life he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence."
It's hard to get more explicit than that, and yet you say in your review that "none of these men said that life has no purpose." Freud states that objectively (meaning in truth, in reality) life has no meaning and value. I did spend an entire chapter (chapter 5) that atheists are very skillful at constructing comforting fictions so they can get through life without being "sick" (or jumping off a tall building).If you would take the trouble to watch Hitchens' lecture on YOuTube you would see that his entire attack on racism is based on the fact that "we are all related to ground worms." He, in fact, does find this inspiring for some bizarre reason. Perhaps you should read the book again carefully. I think the rest of your analysis is about as accurate as the point above. Perhaps you are the one who is unable to accept the "confused and illusory world" of atheist idealogues.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2011, 9:13:58 AM PST
The book is based entirely on the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Abrahamic theists incessantly presume a battle between Belief and atheism. Using logical fallacies leads to building a foundation of sand. There are many metaphorical doors to enlightenment, friend.

Posted on Mar 7, 2011, 9:14:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 7, 2011, 9:15:35 AM PST
I feel like you made some good points here; I haven't read the book yet and I reaped some value from your review, so thanks. That said, I couldn't finish it...made it halfway through and got tired of, well, the cognitivie dissonance, ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments, strangely enough! As another commenter pointed out, you seem to have no qualms utilizing the same tactics you decry. I got to this point of your review and stopped:

"This gets at one difference between Religion and Science. Science can comfortably say "We don't know the answer, we're still trying to figure it out" whereas religion always has an answer at the ready: God did it."

Right, that's what we all believe - we are all comfortable with that simple and straightforward answer. Thanks for grouping us together like that, makes it easier to frame an argument, doesn't it? It's cognitively lazy and disappointing, and it got to be a bit much. Still, thanks for the perspective; it definitely helps to hear from both sides when determining if a book is worth reading. If this is the best your side can do, though, I think I'll go ahead and check it out.

Posted on Mar 7, 2011, 2:23:15 PM PST
Mr. C. Doyle says:
Excellent review, thanks for doing the work. You seem to have covered most major points. I did not read the book, but a precis of the main points on Huffington Post made it clear the author has no idea about science, and hardly seems to realize there is a wealth of research going on about "abeognesis".

Posted on Mar 8, 2011, 1:55:24 AM PST
bobbycow says:
Exellent review. Clear assessment and logical rebuttal with flaws and fallacies clearly demarcated.
Thank you you you have saved me the trouble of buying what is obviously an unsatisfafactory book saving me both time and money! Your review was crystal clear and provided both sides of the case before providing the flaw before dismissal.
This was not a hatchet job but a serious critique done with root and branch dispatch.
It is unfortunate that seriously religious men should be inspired to compile such tomes from what you seem to describe as insecurity.
Many thanks

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2011, 11:11:15 AM PST
As a pilot, you know that instrument flying is based on knowing which senses to trust. In the middle of clouds with no visible horizon, your sense of balance is completely untrustworthy and may, in fact, lead you astray. Your sense of sight is used to read the instruments, but it is your mind that must make the decision to trust your eyes and not your inner ear. If you trust your eyes, you will be able to fly and navigate, but if you trust your inner ear, you will not be able to fly well and may die.

These instruments are designed on scientific principles that have been tested and verified repeatedly. You place your "faith" in the information they give you (through your eyes) - not because of your feelings, but because of repeatable scientific principles and their application to the design of these instruments. If someone were to present you with instruments designed only on faith, you wouldn't use them.

So which senses are you going to use to verify or deny the existence of God? Pilots know which senses are reliable "in the soup" and which are not. Even the eyes are only reliable when looking at the instruments - they are not useful when looking for the horizon at night in the clouds. To use one's senses to prove (or disprove) the existence of God is not a very good way to go about it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2011, 11:15:52 AM PST
Free Thinker says:
@Frederic: I agree. This "review" appears to be nothing more than a smear job. The writer cherry pics sections of the book that he thinks are vulnerable to critique and then rambles on and on about them. In the process he makes generous use of name calling and generalizations.

Consider this section of his comments:

"Chapter four begin with a wholesale attack on scientists. Not on "science" as a means of answering questions of a scientific nature, but on scientists. Averick seems to feel that scientists need to be taken down a peg, because of their confident, cocksure ways. He goes on for quite some time, pointing out that scientists are no better or worse than the rest of humanity, and that they have all the same faults as any other humans. While this may true, it is hardly relevant to anything. Critiquing scientists says nothing about science, in the same way that critiquing Jews says nothing about the core beliefs of Judaism.

Again, I have to assume that Averick knows that all this verbiage is just wasted effort. It adds nothing to his point, it simply attacks, ad hominem, the character of scientists, and says nothing at all about the nature of science. If I don't assume intellectual dishonesty on his part, I have to assume that he's intellectually lacking, and I'd rather believe he's being deceitful rather than stupid."

This is a fallacious form of argument known as a red herring, since Averick isn't attempting to make any comments about science at this point in the book, but rather about the many cognitive biases in the scientific community. Hence his remarks are anything but "wasted verbiage."

AtomicSteve is the one either being stupid or deceitful in this instance.

It's likely he simply spotted the section he refers to while skimming the pages at his local bookstore and thought "okay, there's something I can use to pretend I actually read this thing." Like any insecure believer, he saw something that threatened his faith in a godless universe and attacked it in a reactive manner. Sad, but typical.

Posted on Mar 9, 2011, 1:08:41 PM PST
The good rabbi happened upon the Dawkins web site to try to argue his case. After a multitude of posts it seems that his argument for the existence of an intelligent and involved creator god is simply the old (as in very old and very tired) "God of the Gaps."
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›

Review Details