وهم الشيطان: الإلحاد ومزاعمه العلمية

by David Berlinski, عبدالله الشهري (ترجمة وتعليق)

في هذا الكتاب تم اختيار أشهر أعمال المفكر الأمريكي ديفيد بيرلنسكي في نقد مزاعم الإلحاد العلمية، وهو الذي جمع بين تخصصات الفلسفة والرياضيات والبيولوجيا الجزيئية، ليصبح بذلك كاتباً ومؤلفاً له وزنه في الخارج، وخصوصاً مع انتقاداته الحادة العلمية والفكرية لكتابات وأقوال أشهر الملحدين الجدد بغير مواربة، لاسيما وهو علماني يهودي الأصل ولا يُصنِف نفسه كمؤمن أو متدين كما سنرى، مما جعل لانتقاداته وقعاً خاصاً في المجتمع الغربي وحوارات الإيمان والإلحاد، وقد تولى الترجمة والتعليق أ. عبد الله الشهري والذي جمع بين التمكن اللغوي والخبرة المعرفية في هذا المجال.

Genres: Science, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Atheism, Christian, Christianity

277 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

David Berlinski is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Recent articles by Berlinski have been prominently featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, “On the Origins of the Mind” (November 2004) and “What Brings a World into Being” (March 2001), have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005, edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Criticizing books on Intelligent Design is usually as interesting as shooting fish in a barrel, but there are exceptions to every rule. Given its title and cover, one would be forgiven for expecting The Devil's Delusion to be a collection of trivial fallacies, unified by a complete ignorance of modern science and a general inability to write. I was surprised to find that it is no such thing. I do not agree with many of the arguments that Berlinski proposes, but it is obvious, after just a few pages, that he is a well-read, highly intelligent person who knows how to produce excellent prose. He is also very funny.

I am not quite sure why Berlinski has chosen to defend ID. I think part of his reason is sincere; my impression is that he genuinely does believe in a personal God who, among other things, created the universe and in some way has steered evolution. I also think he is angry with what he sees as the slackness, complacency and hypocrisy of modern science and the New Atheist movement. Having just read Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis and its ridiculous foreword by Christopher Hitchens (one of Berlinski's main targets), I can sympathize. I love good science. The most significant chapter of Stenger's book seems to be rather poor science, and it is distasteful seeing Hitchens, who doesn't even understand the argument, picking it up and attempting to use it as a weapon in his fight against religion.

Berlinski doesn't convince me either when he tries to show that modern cosmology's account of the beginning of the universe is incoherent, but his version is more interesting and carefully thought-out than Stenger's, and raises sensible concerns. He is also much better when he talks about theodicy and the problem of evil. Stenger wheels out the usual nonsense about how a loving God could not have allowed the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps; one would think he had never read Job. Berlinski, a European Jew whose grandfather died at Auschwitz, is both moving and insightful when he writes about this difficult subject. The parts of the book which impressed me least are those where he discusses evolution, but even here he manages to come up with ideas which are not entirely silly.

What a pity that more ID people aren't like this! A vocal, well-informed opposition is essential to any functioning democracy, and it would force mainstream scientists working in speculative areas like cosmology and evolutionary psychology to raise their game; right now, they evidently feel they can get away with anything. Maybe Berlinski's real purpose in writing the book was to remind the ID crowd that they don't have to be a laughingstock, and that people might actually take them seriously if they were prepared to do the necessary work. Most likely impossible, but it's a noble goal.

[WarpDrive · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was tricked into reading this book by:
- my interest in exploring the rationale behind the so-called “Intelligent Design” philosophy
- by the book's overall positive reviews
- by the exposure of the author to mathematics and the sciences.
- I was also encouraged by the self-definition of the author as a “secular” Jew, and as an agnostic.

I had therefore expectations that I would be met with balanced, sophisticated arguments, supported by a nuanced and multi-perspectival analysis. I loved the idea of a secular point of view stating a defense for a balanced view on religious thought, attacking the hijacking of science perpetrated by the intolerant priesthood of the New Atheism.

For the most part of the book, I must regretfully say that I was wildly optimistic in my expectations. I should have been warned by the hyperbolic title, but I elected to ignore it, assuming that the title had been designed by the publisher for commercial reasons.

Anyway, let me highlight some of the book's features and perspectives:
- the style of the book is strongly polemical, occasionally vitriolic, and aimed at scoring cheap points against all forms of non-theistic belief. It occasionally degenerates into emotional tirades. The author does not clearly distinguish between the most militant currents of New Atheism (which he rightly attacks), and more nuanced forms of skepticism, deism and agnosticism. There is also an underlying arrogance: for example, he defines Hume's thought as "arrogant and not interesting" - quite an extraordinary claim if we consider that it took significant effort, by an intellectual giant such as Kant, to properly address some of the points raised by this important philosopher
- the author often likes to use witty remarks to support his views, rather than advancing solid scientific and/or philosophical arguments, thus substituting cheap humor for critical argumentation (with the exception of chapter 6, by far the best of the whole book, which contains some well argued, supported and interesting points).
- the views and perspectives presented to the reader are unbalanced and the available arguments and evidence are disingenuously selected and filtered, so to support the author's views
- logical fallacies (such as the argument from silence, where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence rather than the existence of evidence, and the straw man fallacy, where the argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position) abound throughout the book.
- the author thinly disguises a thorough attack on science, purposely (and very disingenuously), confusing the positions and personal opinions held by few scientists with the approach held by the scientific community in general. And, as a typical creationist (because, at the end of the day, this is what the author fundamentally is), the necessarily provisional character of the outcomes of science is abused in order to attack the epistemological value of science itself
- the author attacks secularism in general by highlighting the violence, social unrest and wars characterising periods were “lack of faith” was predominant. His implicit link is: lack of faith ↔ ethical degeneration ↔ violence and war. In doing so, he responds to attacks by Atheists who claim, with equally preposterous oversimplification, that religious thought by itself has been one of the main drivers of historical violence.
In my opinion, both views are over-simplifications: while there is a strong link between ethical and religious thought, and many religious have deeply ethical roots and underpinnings, in my opinion the secular or religious character of any given period or State have little to do with the level of violence and its propensity to military aggression: any such example such Stalinism, Nazism or the Jacobin Terror can be counterbalanced by examples such as the crusades, or Muslim Integralism and terrorism. The view by the author that moral values can only prosper under religious underpinnings has been historically questioned by many philosophical systems in the field of ethics: in my opinion, it is only when the concept of “Man” is constrained by the ideological shackles of an abstract, idealized, all-encompassing monolithic system (be it secular or religious), that the real trouble starts. Any ethical system should be put of service to mankind, not the other way round – when this is ignored, dangers arise.
In any case, there is a whole spectrum of views about how religion and ethics are related, and the author does not bother to explore it, not in the least. The author conveniently forgets (or maybe he does not know) that, although much moral philosophy is rooted in religious belief, secular ethics have a tradition going back to the ancient times. You do not need religious belief at all to develop a complex ethical system.
- on issues such as euthanasia and stem-cell research, the author is again very selective and disingenuous in his approach: all he can do is to bring up the excess of the Dutch legislation example, forgetting the more balanced legislation existing in other countries, and in some States in USA such as Vermont, Oregon, California and Washington. His only justification for his opposition is the “slippery slope” argument. His ideological urgings force him again to put ideology before the empirical reality of human needs and lives. In this, he is nothing but a fundamentalist.
- the author highlights that science is not able to make statements about right or wrong. This is a needless tautology. Science by itself is not normative, by definition, and it is orthogonal to both ethics and metaphysics. I can't see any scientists trying to expand the scope of science to any of these realms. It is true that some scientists make claims of personal character in these areas, but this has nothing to do with the methodology and scope of science as such. Only some extreme atheists claim that science is in opposition to metaphysics and religion, and abuse the scope of science in order to “prove” that God does not exist. Science is not anti-religion, it is simply a-religious and a-metaphysical. Science is concerned about the natural world. It is also true though that there is a deep tension between the approach of science and any form of religious belief.
- the author also accuses scientists of collectively "conspiring" against any metaphysical/religious solutions to the most basic questions about the origin of the Universe, of life and of consciousness – scientists are ready to invent/support anything in order to escape from the need to posit super-natural causes, the author repeatedly suggests.
In my opinion, this shows an utter misunderstanding of what science is about. By definition, science is about identifying physical patterns and cause, not metaphysical causes. BY DEFINITION, metaphysical causes are not even taken into consideration
- the author also claims that the main underlying assumptions behind any scientific endeavor (that the natural world has patterns, that a unified and ultimately simple sets of laws can be identified, etc.) amount to principles of faith. This may well be so, but the author conveniently forgets that, at the end of the day, there is a big methodological gap between statements of faith and assumptions in science: experimental confirmation. Epistemologically speaking, it is simply incorrect to put at the same level science and metaphysics, including religion. Nature has been always quite wicked in debunking so many of our apriori, beautiful intellectual cathedrals, and in surprising us with results challenging the very roots of our current conceptual understanding of the world. And, most importantly: science WORKS.
- the author also states that, in science, "Theory" (with its supposedly “aprioristic” character) determines the "evidence", and moreover that science is essentially deductive. The author very partial view of what science is about clearly transpires again. Science is in reality a quite “messy” process made of a mixture of deductive and inductive steps, with frequent loops and corrections, and where the relationship between theory, hypotheses and experimental evidence (and to previous and other overlapping theories and subject fields) is very complex. I also have the gut feeling that author's knowledge of the main themes of modern philosophy of science is lacking at best
- when the author deals with modern scientific theories such as quantum mechanics, he gets into an area where his understanding is approximate at best: for example when he describes that, in a double slit experiment “the particle enjoys a doubling of its position in space”, or that “having impossibly divided itself between two slits, a single photon undergoes further demotion to appear in quantum mechanics as the ghost of its position” (?). The author is no Feynman, clearly.
- the only chapter of any significant intellectual value is chapter 6, where a few interesting and well argued points are discussed by the author:
a) The arbitrary and highly speculative character of Multiverse hypotheses. I agree with the author in his distaste for such highly speculative interpretations: they seem contrived and esoteric, they sound like an elegant exercise in sophisticated sophistry, they blatantly breach any form of Occam razor's principle, they currently fail any verifiability requirement, and they simply evade the main big questions open to current cosmology, and: why are the current physical constants they way they are? Why does the universe present the characteristics that it actually has? Well, if all possible Universes with all possible combinations of physical constants values do exist, then there is no need to explain anything. End of story – problem avoided by definition.
My personal opinion is however different to the author's: I am ready to follow science regardless of where it brings us, independently of how "inconvenient" its outcomes are - if experimental confirmation happens to prove Multiverse Theories in the future, I would be more than ready to accept it. I am not sure at all the the author would do the same.
b) The fact that religious belief is not always and necessarily "irrational". I would tend to agree with this position, but the author fails to properly qualify it: I personally see a high level of irrationality in any literal readings of the sacred texts (whatever religion they belong to), whenever they clash with widely accepted scientific theories by the mainstream scientific community. As an example, creationism is utterly, fundamentally irrational (delusional, I would say) in insisting on the primacy of literal readings of the sacred texts over and above the results of rigorous scientific investigation – some forms of creationism (such as Young Earth creationism) are actually more than irrational, they are plain stupid.
c) that there are important questions that demand to be addressed:
1) why there is something rather than nothing
2)the so called “fine tuning” of the Universe, both in terms of physical constants, laws (which, by the way, do not seem to be self-necessary logical truths) and the initial low-entropy state of the Universe. And (I would like to personally add) the apparent “disposition” of the Universe, through the instantiation of its laws, to inexorably increase in complexity whenever possible, all the way from individual atoms up to the great mystery of complex self-organised collectives of atoms responsible for the phenomenon of human consciousness
3) the apparent “overshoot” that nature accomplished when it came to the spectrum of human mental capabilities: what is the direct evolutionary value of our capacity for higher mathematics, for our aesthetic and artistic sense, for higher philosophical thought ? The author is also correct in highlighting the inadequacy of many simplistic models of the human mind, and the peculiar phenomenon of “intentionality” - even the most recent scientific and philosophical development are very far from even beginning to really understand, even at just conceptual level, the incredible complexity of human consciousness
4) the problems associated with an extreme reductionist view of nature – there are emergent phenomena at different levels of organisation and complexity that do not appear explicable in terms of very few basic elements at the most elementary level

I am not saying at all that a religious answer is the most convincing way to address such question; I am stating here though that such questions do exist and do deserve proper consideration, and they are not so simple as to be explained away with little effort.

- After chapter 6, unfortunately the author mostly reverts back to his own theologically-driven biases, and to my dismay he embarks into an old-fashioned attack on evolutionary theory. The level of selective evidence misrepresentation, logical fallacies, over-simplifications and unjustified generalizations in this section of the book is quite painful. I am not going to embark here on a defense of evolutionary theory. It is not worth it - many scientists, much more knowledgeable than me in this area, have already done it – repeatedly. By the way, the author appears to be “forgetting”, in his attack, that evolutionary theory has evolved quite a bit since Darwin. He descends into the outright bizarre when he claims the alleged popularity of intelligent design views, and "freedom of thought", to support his view that creationism should be taught at school - sorry mate, but Nature is not democratic, it does not decide through poll results what fundamental laws to follow.

But I can only really say here that it is quite disappointing to still find people, with a reasonable level of education and in year AD2016, who still feel the need to attack evolutionary theory in order to defend specific religious views. The two things do not need to be in conflict at all - in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it "pretends to be science." And the Pope Francis has himself very recently declared: “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.
Moreover, “evolutionary biology is included in the high-school curricula of most Muslim countries. Science foundations of 14 Muslim countries recently signed a statement by the Interacademy Panel (IAP, a global network of science academies), in support of the teaching of evolution, including human evolution” (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic...). Very notable the example of Iran (http://www.academia.edu/870957/Evolut...) which runs completely contrary to the narrative pushed by some circles in some Western countries of a culturally backward and obscurantist country. It appears to me that evolutionary theory is only systematically attacked in some Muslim countries and in some parts of the USA – I rest my case.
The author also clearly hints at some sort of divine intervention in relation to the Cambrian explosion – how cartoonish and caricatural is the image of a divinity that has to frequently meddle with his own creation in order to get it right – it seems not much better than an Olympian divinity – and so different to the majestic and awesome entity as depicted by Plotinus Neoplatonism (the One), which greatly influenced early Christianity, and so different to the necessary being and the God outside Time as represented by the likes of Thomas Aquinas! We may well disagree with such views, but at least they are not so ridiculously dumb and cartoonish as the ones proposed by the author and his American Creationist friends.

- When I finally finished reading this book, I came to the “acknowledgment” page and, surprise surprise!, guess who appears here (I know, guilt by association is wrong and unfair, but I thought that it still can cast some light on the ideological backgrounds of an author - especially when a book is intellectually dishonest) :
- Ann Coulter (who hardly is a towering intellect of the 21st century – she is the intellectually under-gifted author of books such as “Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole”)
- The Discovery Institute (best known for its advocacy of the intelligent design and for its infamous “Teach the Controversy” campaign aiming at forcing teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in USA public high school science courses)

Disclaimer: intellectually speaking, I define myself fundamentally agnostic, with some deistic tendencies. Emotionally speaking, I feel relatively close to my Christian heritage (with which I am perfectly comfortable, even if I do not define myself as a theist, and quite a few of my opinions can hardly be defined orthodox). I respect all religious beliefs, but I think that the epistemological primacy lies with science and mathematics. I am strongly against all forms of religious integralism.

[Donald · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Berlinski is one of the most intellectually honest writers I have ever read. His dissent of neo-Darwinism is argued in the realm of physics, biology, chemistry, and philosophy. I will read this book more than once. Himself a secular, unbelieving Jew, finds the great conundrum of nature and grace difficult, but somehow an essential component of human existence.

There are no cliches in this book. His disagreements with Weinberg, Pinker, and Stencker are respectful. He is even respectful to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. But he is no less argumentative and articulate with his criticism.

As I have noted in previous posts, atheism is a fascinating subject. Berlinski's agnosticism is an honest one; after all, no thinking person knows anything absolutely. He is more tolerant of religion because, I think, he believes there is something important in that realm.

As I said, Berlinski is honest, he acknowledges that he doesn't know, but not unwilling to seek. My admiration for him and his work is significant. I hope he continues writing on the subject.

[Bill · Rating 1 out of 5]

My take on the book is similar to these one-star reviews on Amazon:

[1] http://www.amazon.com/review/R32THN89...
[2] http://www.amazon.com/review/R1F862GT...
[3] http://www.amazon.com/review/R210ZCGA...

A few things that stood out to me were (in no particular order):

1. It's noteworthy that the author claims, in the book, to be agnostic, yet the whole book is a case for some sort of creator-god and intelligent design. By claiming to be agnostic, Berlinski panders to the skeptical reader in an attempt to appear objective, while not going all-out atheist, which would turn off is more credulous readers. The review [2] points out an example of the kind of contradiction that ensues:

He had me when he told us all in the preface that he himself was an agnostic. That is comforting because it indicates to me that he has no vested interest to prove or disprove god. This was an odd confession for him to make, as it were, because in the very next chapter, Berlinski begins talking about how immorality will invariably ensue if there is no creator to give us objective moral fiats. He makes much of the famous "quote" from Ivan Kerimozov: "If god does not exist, then everything is permitted." So where, asks Berlinski, shall we get our morals from if not from a creator? An odd question for him to ask if he is agnostic, isn't it?! My question to him would be, "For someone who is not sure whether god exists, where do you get your morals from?" I trust that Berlinski is not the kind that steasl money on a regular basis, or kills for pleasure. (Surely we don't need a fiat from god to know that killing others is wrong!)

Agnosticism, on the part of the author would have no bearing at all on his arguments, if he hadn't made his agnosticism part of his argument.

2. Very early in the book, the broad position is put forth, that it is not possible to disprove a god's existence (certainly that science has not disproven all gods' existence) pp xiv-xvii. I expected a subsequent refutation or Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell&...) but none was forthcoming. For a book that claims that atheist authors have failed to read deeply, the great works of philosophy, I am left to assume that the author believes Russell does not fall into that category. Or, more likely, the Teapot was omitted because there is no good refutation of it. The burden remains upon the one asserting gods existence, to prove that existence. Word games like Aquinas' argument from first cause are fun for rhetoricians, but they don't carry any water in the real world. Berlinski's "domino" rebuttal of Dawkins on p. 68-69 doesn't help. Similarly, definitional games, like William Lane Craig's (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video...) witness of the holy spirit as indubitability and belief in god as basic belief and intrinsic defeater-defeater (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video...) don't provide the heavy lifting either.

3. I must admit I mostly skimmed the cosmology part in the second half pp 83-108. I saw some of the stuff on relativistic time and how the author tried to connect some of those ideas to bolster the plausibility of the Genesis account of the universe's creation in 6 days. So the book uses some pieces of science to try to support the biblical account. And then it turns around and points out that science doesn't know everything (e.g. string theory is just crazy!) and employs a God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_t...) argument at that point pp 109-136. More god of the gaps: 183-185, 197-199.

4. The book derides as "childish" pp. 140-141 the question of "God's" existence (when posed by skeptics) but then of course waves it's hands without any answer to that very question. I find this tactic particularly bankrupt. I just watched the excellent debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXK...) between William Lane Craig (mentioned above) and Sam Harris and then listened to Craig and friends' analysis of the debate (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video...) in which they deride Harris' position as consisting of "a litany of red herrings…as if Sam went to a junior high campus…gathered up all the objections to Christianity and then read them out". This rebuttal would be stronger if theists had viable answers to these "trivial" questions, like theodicy for instance.

5. The book sets up a false choice between god (the god of Abraham?) on the one hand and moral relativism on the other (pp 39). This is a common slander against liberal intellectual "elites". Anything goes. In fact, I don't think Dawkins ever argues for moral relativism. And I can tell you for sure that Sam Harris is no moral relativist. Nor does Harris sweep anything under the rug—his latest book, The Moral Landscape, is all about (the opposite of moral relativism). One of the big complaints, in fact, leveled against the New Atheists is that they argue against moral relativism.

6. The book raises the spectre of fascism and socialism (pp 25-32, 38), claiming that because supposedly the Nazi and Soviet platforms were godless that somehow atheism leads to Naziism and Socialism. One could as easily claim that the real common threat was populism leveraged to produce anti-intellectualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-int...) and a failure (by the masses) to question authority. Furthermore, to suggest that the Nazi's ability (or desire) to exterminate 6MM Jews was more the result of Nazi's godlessness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hi...) than of centuries-old religious prejudices, is to fail to understand history. One of the best reasons to exterminate people has always been because of their (different) religious views (examples too numerous to require citation here.)

Point (3) and (1) are connected. When I said "some sort of" creator-god I wasn't being arbitrary. The book fails to actually characterize the god or gods it is actually arguing for. The impression I get is that it is either the god of Judaism or the god of Evangelical Christianity (but not the god of Muhammad). But that's only a guess. And that's the key problem with the God of the Gaps: you can stick whatever god you want in there. And it's no fair picking Yahweh unless you have other arguments in His favor. But the book doesn't really present any. It's just assumed that Yahweh's the right one. If the author had been born in India he'd be arguing for Vishnu instead I suppose. But then he wouldn't be employable by the Discovery Institute alas (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...).

I realize of course that to even suggest that someone could present a coherent argument for either the god of Judaism or the god of Evangelical Christianity is not realistic because there are as many definitions of those as there are believers in them. Is the author arguing for a barbarous (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?..., http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...), Old Testament god. Or is the author arguing for a more enlightened god, say of the New Testament (never mind that the case for Jesus as christ (in the New Testament) is made, albeit inconsistently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Se..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealog...), by his supposed fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies)? Perhaps the author is arguing for the full Deepak Chopra: god as quantum entanglement or something — who knows.

On the whole, the work did not strike me as intellectually honest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellec...). It certainly did not incline me to see gods in gaps. I had hoped for a methodical tearing apart of Dawkins' arguments but instead got more of a rhetorical shotgun blast. David Berlinski strikes me as a mercenary apologist. In The Devil's Delusion he is writing in service of anti-intellectualism and the Wedge Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_st...). But the agnostic author doesn't actually believe any of it. He is equally at home writing in the service of astrology The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction (http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Vaulted...). My general feeling toward Devil's Delusion has many parallels in the Publishers Weekly review of Secrets:

Spanning the development of astrology from Sumerian origins to Nazi court astrologers, Berlinski's ruminative but shallow history seeks to rescue it from what he sees as the misconceived derision of modern science. The author of A Tour of the Calculus remains coyly agnostic about astrology's validity. He calls it a "finely geared tool for the resolution of practical problems" and cites many successful predictions and a statistical study supposedly verifying the "Mars effect" on athletic talent, but when faced with the incoherent, metaphorical techniques by which astrologers interpret their charts, he can only shrug that since smart people used to listen to astrologers, there must be something to it. If not rational, Berlinski argues that astrology is at least "rationalistic," in that "the peculiar nature of astrological thought has returned in all the sciences, in disguised form." Unfortunately, this provocative point is made through facile comparisons-medieval notions of heavenly "influences" anticipate Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism and sociobiology, for example, while 15th-century medical astrological charts are "the forerunner of such diagnostic devices as CAT scans"-that illuminate neither ancient nor modern thought. Physicists will object to Berlinski's contention that they account for "action at a distance" no better than astrologers do, while philosophers will blanch at his superficial take on the conundrums of causality and determinism. No more edifying are the self-consciously literary vignettes (the dying Copernicus "took his breath in long, slow, wet, ragged gasps, a bubble of pale phlegm forming on his lips") with which Berlinski "humanizes" this intellectual history. Readers looking for real intellectual meat behind the author's ostentatious erudition and metaphysical pseudo-profundities will go hungry.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

With a title like that, you’d expect this book to appear straight out of a Christian publishing house located in the basement of a fundamentalist church. The cover does nothing to dissuade you – it’s black with big red letters with a couple of devil horns sticking out of the title. Frankly, add a couple of cartoons & a paranoid suspicion of the Vatican and the outside would look like it came from of the pen of Jack Chick. (If you’re curious, I don’t think that is a good thing!)

But once you open the book, you find that the author, [David Berlinski:], is a secular Jew with a PhD from Princeton & a scathing wit… and absolutely no tolerance for philosophical or scientific nonsense. Published by Crown Forum (not a Christian publishing house), this is a surprisingly erudite & weighty text on the foibles & failures of scientific atheism.

Do I agree with the author? Well, it’s no surprise that I find atheism lacking as an adequate belief system to explain the universe. (To my atheist friends: sorry about using the words “belief system” to describe what you, well, believe. I just can’t come up with a better way of saying it.) At the same time, I’m not sure I ever want to be as snarky as Berlinski, who’s given to making statements like:

“He is a member in good standing of the worldwide fraternity of academics who are professionally involved in sniffing the underwear of their colleagues for signs of ideological deviance.”

Funny stuff… if not entirely constructive.

Berlinski is more impressive in his examination of the philosophical underpinnings of scientific atheism, particularly the more militant strain that has become popular in the last few years. He engages the subject not on the basis of religious belief (which he claims not to have) but on the actual intellectual merits of their claims & assertions. It’s pretty heavy reading sometimes… but very interesting & thought provoking.

He does not come to a "Christian" conclusion - this is not an attempt to write a work of apologetics or to defend creationism. Berlinski is attempting (and, to my very limited knowledge of the issues being discussed, succeeds) in showing that the certainity of science about naturalistic explanations for a wide variety of things (the Big Bang, string theory, evolutionary biology) is misplaced.

I don't pretend to understand everything I'm reading in this book - I was an English Lit major in college who dabbles in scientific reading from time to time. Still, what convinces me of Berlinski's critique is not my own status as a pastor & a follower of Christ but the painful admissions from various scientists that their research doesn't necessarily support the theories... and where they go from there.

Whatever the degree to which Darwin may have "misled science into a dead end," the biologist Shi V. observed in commenting on Koonin's paper, "we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists [win an:] upper hand in fighting against the creationists.”

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most important books I've read in scientific literature "for the layman". Written by a secular Jewish scientist and mathematician, this book explores what science really does know and what it does not know. It's an examination of the facts without the philosophical BS that tends to subjectively dilute what little we know. Among the topics are the existence of God and the theory of evolution.

The reason I love this book is because it is incredibly and thoroughly logical. And if it is biased to anything, it is biased to logic itself. Not only does this book discuss the facts in black in white, but you find yourself thinking afterwards of what those facts could mean - without the sticky, oppressive film of an author's opinions.

Militant atheistic views are discussed in detail and weighed against themselves to show that there isn't a lot of sense - if any - to them. It's amazing how similar atheism and radial religious thought are: both require a tremendous amount of faith. Though I very rarely re-read books, this will certainly be a book I read several times. There just isn't any way to soak in all of what the author has to say in just one reading.

[Jason , etc. · Rating 4 out of 5]

As both a scientist and a believer, there are few things that make me squirm with more gusto than hearing other scientists spout dogmatic baloney for one side of an argument and against another. There is no room for dogma in either science or religion, and one would hope that people buried up to their knees in either discipline would be the first to acknowledge such a fact. Sadly, no. As a result, every single page of this book made me want to squeal with glee, but since I'm not a little girl, I suppressed the urge and instead just had another beer.

The idea for this book was born from Mr. Berlinski's listening to the rantings of scientists and atheists and scientific atheists, all declaring in one way or another that science had proven the non-existence of God. The book picks apart these absurd declarations piece by piece and exposes the lack of foundation for each of them. The overall message is that it's fine to be an atheist, but asks them to please not soil science's good name by using it to justify that decision.

There's a lot of science speak in the book, which is necessary and serves to strengthen every argument. Having said that, Berlinski explains the science in ways that would allow anyone to sort of 'get' quantum mechanics. The writer is a mathematician and a philosopher, a lethal combination in every regard, but he's also an excellent writer who's gifted with an ability to combine irony and humor for effect. If you're even slightly interested in the odd relationship between science and religion or just think Christopher Hitchens is a self-righteous windbag, read this book.

[Jeanette · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't let the length fool you, this was a pithy, long, deep read.

Others have said it better in their reviews. It's more than excellent as an answer to the Dawkins etc. groups. Those of such high, superior and often nasty retort to the condition of the "faith holders".

Suffice to say this- he approaches a logical and definitive that I have over 6 or 7 decades of loving science decided myself at least 5 of those decades ago.

He said it best in some of the latter chapter summations too. As "God's Words, and God's Works" being entities that are just NOT opposing elements. As all the atheists consider them.

Can I add my own 2 cents? People of faith that I have known, read, observed at work etc.- they do hold Faith without denying science whatsoever or in any sense of measure. Majority by far of all God believers do not deny science as is so nearly universally assumed by the most highly educated "know betters".

[Candleflame23 · Rating 5 out of 5]

.
.

هناك نوع من الكتب يكتسب أهميته من صفة الكاتب لا
من محتواه، وهناك العكس تجد الكاتب مغمور ومحتوى
الكتاب الذي يقدمه ذو قيمة عالية .


كتابنا اليوم ( وهم الشيطان ) مهم من عدة نواحي :


أولًا : أن الكاتب هو العالم (ديفيد بيرلينسكي )- عالم
الفلسفة والرياضيات والبيولوجيا الجزيئية - أي أننا نتحدث
عن رجل وصل إلى أعلى مراتب العلوم واشتهر بها وله
مكانته في الأوساط العلمية .


ثانيا : أن الكتاب يتولى مهمة الرد على كتاب ( وهم الإله )
لعالم الأحياء البريطاني ريتشارد دوكنز -وهو كتاب
بالمناسبة لم أقرأه ولا رغبة لي في ذلك -.


ثالثاً : ديفيد بيرلينسكي علماني (وان كان يهودي الأصل )
فهو بالتالي لا يخضع لأي ( أجندة دينية ) كما يقال .

يبدأ بيرلينسكي الكتاب بمقدمة عن العلم وكيف تم تحويله
إلى أيديولوجيا وبات كمصنع مقدس يعطي القداسة بدوره
لكل ما ينتج عنه . وبعدها تحدث عن عجز العلم عن تفسير
الذات الإنسانية وقضايا وجود الله وإثباتها علمياً ! ليسخر
بعد ذلك من مدعي عدم وجود خالق ( الله ) والذي أسند
رأيه للعلم ويعني هو بالحديث العالم ( ستينجر) ، وذكر
بيرلينسكي الدور الذي لعبه الدين بالتشجيع على العلم
والعلوم مستشهدًا بتاريخ الحضارة الإسلامية. ويستمر نقد
بيرلينسكي لأشهر النظريات العلمية التي يستند عليها
الملاحدة حتى يصل إلى نظرية التطور مسند (ريتشارد دوكنز) وينتهي الكتاب بنقدها .

الجميل في الكتاب على الرغم من أنه خصص للرد على كتاب
معين إلى أن الكاتب استطرد في الردود ليغطي أشهر وأهم ما
يثار في قضايا علاقة العلم بالدين .


في هذا المعنى يقول إروين: «الـصورة التي يقـدمها العلـم
عن الواقع من حولي صورة ناقصة جدا...إنه (أي العلم
الطبيعي) لا يتكلم ببنت شفة عن الأحمر والأزرق، المر
والحلو، الألم واللذة، إنه لا يعرف شيئا عن الجميل والقبيح،
الحسن والسيء، الله والخلود؛ يتظاهر العلـم أحيانا بأنه
يجيـب علـى أسئلة في هـذه المجالات، ولكن غالبا ما تكون
إجاباته سخيفة للغاية إلى درجة أننا لا نميـل إلى أخذها على
محمل الجد»


كتاب مهم للمهتمين .


ماذا بعد القراءة ؟

في ذهنهم أن كل الحلول مقبولة مادامت لا تشير إلى الله ولكن
الحلول شاؤوا أم أبوا تنتهي دائما إلى الله .

#أبجدية_فرح 5/5 🌸📚
كتاب #وهم_الشيطان للكاتب #ديفيد_بيرلنسكي
صادر عن #مركز_دلائل
‏#candleflame23bookreviews
#غرد_بإقتباس
#حي_على_القراءة
#ماذا_تقرأ #ماذا_تقتبس #القراءة_حياة
#القراءة #القراءة_حياة_أخرى_نعيشها

[Stupac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished this one. Mostly I got this book because I have read quotations of Berlinski's other works and found them witty and fascinating. This book did not disappoint. This book has received some criticism because of its elaborate language, which I personally very much appreciated, but I can understand that it is not for everyone. It would appeal most to those who appreciate a little philosophical humor, and being well read also helps (he lost me at a few of his allusions, but for the most part he had me chuckling at the many clever metaphors). But, for all of Berlinksi's wit he builds a powerful case and has no shortage of scientific, historical, and philosophical ammunition (discussing mainly physics). Certainly this book is short, and hardly exhaustive, but I think it should give those who would so quickly dismiss theists as mere illogical nut-jobs time to pause, and reflect upon their own beliefs, particularly if they believe them to be supported by the scientific paradigm. Rather than try to defeat atheism, Berlinski's goal would appear to be to encourage dialog among atheists and theists, which can't occur when there is no mutual respect of each others' sanity.

[أحمد دعدوش · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب متميز يدل على ثقافة المؤلف العميقة، ليس فقط في تخصصه العلمي كأستاذ للرياضيات، بل هو مطلع على أطروحات اللاهوتيين في القرون الوسطى وعلماء الكلام المسلمين، وأسلوبه في النقد اللاذع يعري داوكنز وهتشنز وبقية عصابة الإلحاد الجديد ببراعة.

[Matt Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perspicuous and perspicacious, intelligible and wise, the Devil's Delusion is mandatory reading for anyone with "the vague sense of being treated contemptuously by scientists and biologists." Berlinski masterfully takes matters of theology and atheism from the laboratory and puts them back in the chapel of faith, where they belong. Simply put, science is the faithful practice of physical observation, religion the faithful practice of spiritual observation. But conflate them public figures like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Ricky Gervais do. And thus the necessity of this book. Berlinski, it should be noted, isn't a believer, but he is intellectually honest and fair. And funny and entertaining. This makes him worth reading.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the aspects of writers like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etal. is that they are fairly good writers and can be pretty witty in skewering Christians. Christians usually argue from strong philosophical positions and reasonable evidence, but most try to be respectful of the opposition while attacking the argument.

Berlinski enters the debate challenging the scientfic claims used by New Athesists. He is not bound by religious restraints on comments, so his rebuttals are much more scathing. Many times, I have heard the arguements of science, but doubted that so call established facts were not exactly facts. Berlinski confirms my skeptisism with his own credible arguments on the limits of science. I especially enjoyed The Quantum Cathechism.

I am a follower of Christ, but instead of reading my usual favorite authors for a response, Berlinski was a breath of fresh air in the debate, coming in at a secular angle, and calling out those who believe in scientism to defend their position. He is a very witty writer as well.

A very worthwhile read.

[Sawsan · Rating 4 out of 5]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم



الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على خير خلق الله،،،

تقرير عن كتاب "وهم الشيطان؛ الإلحاد ومزاعمه العلمية"
لـ ديفيد بيرلنسكي
ترجمة وتعليق: عبد الله الشهري
الرياض: مركز دلائل، ط٢، ١٤٣٧هـ
الصفحات: ٢٦٧

ما قبل الكتاب:
الكتاب بالنسبة لي خفيف لطيف، ساهم مزاج مؤلّفه المتهكم الساخر في مواصلة القراءة بلا استثقال بل باستمتاع. لكن قد لا يكون كذلك لمن لم يألف القراءة عن "ميتافيزيقيا العلم"، وقد ذكرنا من قبل عدة تقارير كتبناها عن هذا الموضوع. وكذلك استحضار نظريات فيزيائية ورياضيّة أسهمت في دك أركان العلم والعقل النظري بشكل خاص كمبرهنة عدم الاكتمال لغودل، أو مفارقة تارسكي (بيّنهما طه عبد الرحمن بشكل مبسّط في سؤال المنهج، وكذا مواقع علمية عربيّة كـ "الباحثون السوريون" أو "الباحثون العراقيون" أو "الباحث السعودي"... بملفات نصيّة وفيديوهات). كذا بعض ما تعلّق بالنظريات الشائعة والتي يعتقدها الملاحدة كنظرية داروين.

العنوان باللغة الإنجليزية: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its scientific Pretensions
والظاهر أنه نقد لما جاء في كتاب "وهم الإله" لدوكينز -لم أقرأ كتاب دوكينز-.
المؤلف غير مؤمن ويعتبر نفسه من كنيسة العلم، لكنه يقرّ بعدم كفاءة التفسير العلم ويقينيته ويميل لترجيح وجود خالق للكون.
يبتدئ المؤلف في محاضرة عنونت بنفس العنوان بمشهد الكاتدرائية وجاليليو، وتصلّب الكنيسة تجاه التأويلات العلميّة، والتي فهمت منها أنّ نظام الكون كلمات الله الفعليّة وهو "الطبيعة" والنظام فيها حتميّ مصمم بعناية لا يخالف نظامه الذي وضع لأجله، بينما الكتاب المقدّس هو كتاب الله القولي تجاه نظام الإنسان "الأخلاق"، وهو النظام الذي جعل للإنسان الخيار في مخالفته أو موافقته. إلا أنّه في الكتاب قد وضع كلامه عن الكاتدرائية في آخر الكتاب، كملحق لا يُهتمّ به! وربما لأنّ آخر ما يطرق أذن الإنسان هو آخر ما يفكّر فيه فأراد ختم كتابه به، أو لا علاقة للترتيب بالتنظيم أصلا، وربما هو تنظيم زمنيّ! لا أعلم.
الذي أرشحه أن يقدّم المقال ليوصف وضع كنيسة العلم بتصلّبها الإلحادي، ومحاولتها شد قصور النظرية الخلقية الداروينية ونظام الكون الإلحادي لاستبعاد الإله بالحجج الواهية، مثلما كان حال الكنيسة النصرانيّة في الانتصار لنظرية بطليموس ونبذ الكوبرنكيّة بل ومعاقبة قائليها، وهي الخلاصة التي يقابل بها المؤلّف بين تاريخها وبين واقعنا الآن، فالإلحاد العلمي ليس نزاهة علميّة بل إيديولوجيّة لها كنيستها المتضخّمة بلا براهين، وهدفها مطاردة دخول الإله من أي فج علمي، والاستماته لا للبرهنة العلمية لوصف الكون والإنسان، بل لطرد الإله من الكون وخلق الإنسان! إلا أنّ هذا الإله الذي سماه (إله الفجوات) يخرج لهم في كل مرّة مع كل نظريّة في الفجوات العلمية التي لا يمكن ردمها!
هذا رابط المحاضرة، ويقال أنها مترجمة في العنوان ولكن لا أعرف لماذا لم تظهر لي الترجمة في الهاتف:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIjkD...

عن الكتاب:
دفعته مهاجمة الأديان من قِبل الملاحدة إلى مناقشة مدى علمية الإلحاد؟ كان بعض العلماء الناهضين بأوروبا علمياً (لا أدريّة) بين احتمالين لم يرجّحوا أحدهما على الآخر، مبقين صلاح العلم والدين معاً، بينما كنيسة الإلحاد العلمية اليوم تميل إلى لا أدرية ترفض الدين بلا أدلة علميّة، وتراه معارضاً يهدد قصصها عن نشأة الكون والإنسان! وقد سمّى إلحادهم بالإلحاد القروي استناداً على قصة القروي الملحد، يقول المعلّق: "حاصل قصة القروي الملحد مع المؤمن المسيحي، أنّ الأوّل عاب على الأخير توكله على الله في الزراعة وجني المحصول، وقال: لنزرع معاً، وأنت ادع الله وأنا أسبّه؛ ونرى من يكون محصوله أكثر! فلمّا حل شهر أكتوبر وجد الملحد محصولاً وافراً عظيماً، فطفق يهزأ برفيقه المؤمن قائلاً: أرأيت أيها الأحمق! ما الذي لديك لتقوله عن الله الآن؟ فرد عليه المؤمن: إن الله لا يصفي حساباته في أكتوبر"- أي استعجال الحساب-.
هذا الإلحاد القروي له رموز يجاهرون به في عصرنا بأشنع التصريحات، وقالوا مقولات لم يطبقوها هم على أنفسهم، مما جعل الإلحاد بؤرة قوّة واستقطاب لكل من أراد أن يرفع شأنه باسم العلم، فصار العلم كنيسة متشددة لا تقبل التأله إلا لها! ومهمّة العلم ليست إثبات وجود الله بل نفي وجوده، حتى لو رجّح أحدهم وجود الإله بالبرهان فلن يؤمن به، كـ تاركسي؛ الذي أثبت دليلاً وجودياً يرجّح وجود إله، لكنه لم يرغب بالإيمان به.
يشهد التاريخ بأن الدين قد أنهض العلم والتفكير العلمي، لا في الغرب بل عند المسلمين، فقد طوّروا أنظمة دقيقة وعلمية كالمواقيت والفلك لخدمة دينهم، إلا أنّ اتباع شهوة الاستزادة من العلم بلا ضابط قد حرّفت مسار المسلمين فيما بعد. وهذه الشهوة العلمية هي التي أدّت إلى لا أخلاقيّة العلم في أوروبا! ولا يقرّ سدنة العلم بما أفضت إليه من كوارث، بل يتجاهلونها، فكيف يقرّون بأنها نتيجة متوقعة لغياب الرقابة الإلهي عن العلم والعالم؟ كتشومسكي!
ولعل من رموز الكنيسة العلمية الإلحادية "هاريس"، فمن مواضيعه الشيّقة لمهاجمة الدين: مجازر وضحايا الحروب بين الأديان! ولكنه مع ذلك يتجاهل فضائع الإلحاد في القرن العشرين، ومنتجات العلم من أسلحة دمار شامل، وتجارب علمية فاتكة بالإنسان! وكذا من يسير في نفس الركب وينظر بعين عوراء، ولا يبصر وحشيّة العلم كـ"ستيفن واينبرج"! ولذلك وضع المؤلف قائمة حروب عصر العلم وملايين ضحايا القتل والحروب في عصر كنيسة العلم الإلحادي!
يؤكد المؤلف على أن الدعوة إلى نفي الإله ينبغي أن تأخذ بعين الاعتبار لوازم هذا النفي، وهو الذي تنبّه له تولستوي؛ فبنفي الإله ينفى الإنسان، لغياب الرقيب على الأخلاق! إن أهم لازم هو "غياب الرقابة"؛ أي المسؤولية الأخلاقية، فلا حسن ولا قبح للأفعال، ومن لوازم هذا الغياب أيضاً الاستغناء على "الواجب" والانحصار في "الواقع"، أي غياب "كيف يجب أن يكون عليه الحال" إلى "هذا هو الحال"! يرى المؤلف أن جل ما يؤمن به كثير من الملاحدة هو "العدم"؛ ومع العدم فلا مشرّع للأخلاق إلا بتواطئ المجتمع، وهو إجماع حرّ للمجتمع، كما فعلت النازية.
إن المعايير الماديّة للبرهنة على وجود الله معايير تفرض على العالم حدودها! وهي الحدود التي كشف غودل اللثام عنها كما في النصف الأوّل من القرن العشرين، وبيانه لمحدودية العقل، وبالطبع محدودية مجاله. لذا فالسؤال: هل الله مادي أو غير مادي؟ وإن كان مادياً فما هو؟ ولماذا هو في هذه المبادئ المادية الأولى؟ والحقيقة أن هذه المناقشة ليست مناقشة علمية، بل هي مناقشة تشيءّ الإله أولاً، ومن ثم تعامله معاملة الموضوعات الماديّة.
أما الأسئلة التي تعيد للفيزيا مأزقها نحو: السؤال عن علّة الكون؟ وعن سبب وجود الكون؟ لا يمكن أن يجاب عنها بالفيزياء؛ إلا أن كنيسة العلم الإلحادي تأبى تكافؤ احتمالات اللأدرية، لتقسرها نحو نفي الإله بعدة نظريات كـ: النموذج القياسي، الانفجار العظيم، الأوتار...إلخ. والتي تنبّه وينبرج فيما بعد لخطر "الانفجار العظيم" على العلم لاحتما دخول افتراض وجود خالق من بابه، وهذا تفسير مربك لـ "علة الكون"! أما السؤال عن سبب وجود الكون بما هو عليه الآن، فقد تولّت فيزياء الكم الجواب فراراً من لوازم "الانفجار العظيم"، وذلك باختراع نظرية "العوالم الممكنة" دخولاً من باب قطة شرودنجر!
في حين قطع الدين شوطاً في الإجابة عن السؤالين: ما علّة الكون؟ أي ما مبدأ الكون؟ وما سبب وجود ا��كون على ما هو عليه؟، أصرّ الإلحاد العلمي على مطاردة الفجوات التي من خلالها يمكن دخول الإيمان بالإله، فسعى بقوّة السلطان الجماهيري، والقهر الإيدولوجي على رفع الأصوات المناصرة وكبت الأصوات المشككة بلا علميّة، ولا أدلة علميّة تثبت الأصول الميتافيزيقية للفيزياء العلمية اليوم!
ويخلص المؤلف إلى عد "الكونيات الكمومية فرع عن ميتافيزيقيا الرياضيات، إنها لم تقد أي علة لظهور الكون... ولا تقترح أي سبب لوجود الكون" ص١٤٥. وفي بسط لطيف ومتهكم وواصف بدقة "متقن العقيدة الكمومية" باعتبارها "تلقين لا تدليل"كتب التالي:
"متن اعتقاد الكونيات الكموميّة:
س: ممَّ تطوّر كوننا؟
ج: لقد تطور كوننا من كون أصغر بكثير، كون مصغّر ومفرّغ أكثر. لك أن تتصوره مثل البيضة.
س: كيف كان هذا الكون الأصغر والأقل امتلاء؟
ج: لقد كان كرة رباعية الأبعاد لا تحوي الكثير في داخلها. لك أن تتخيله شيئاً غريبا.
س: كيف تأتى لكرة أن تكون رباعية الأبعاد؟
ج: يمكن لكرة ما أن تكون رباعية الأبعاد إذا كان لديها بُعدُ رابع زيادة على الأبعاد الثلاثة، لك أن تتصور هذا واضحاً.
س: هل من اسم لهذا الكون الأصغر والأقل امتلاء؟
ج: يطلق على الكون الأصغر والأقل امتلاءً اسم كون دي سيتر، لك أن تتصور هذا على أنه الوقت الذي حان فيه الالتفات لدى سيتر.
س: هل هناك شيء آخر ينبغي معرفته بشأن الكون الأصغر والأقل امتلاءً؟
ج: نعم، إنه يمثّل حلاً لمعادلات أينشتاين للمجال، لك أن تتصور هذا على أنه شيء طيب.
س: أين كان الكون الأصغر والأقل امتلاءً أو البيضة؟
ج: لقد كان في الموضع الذي لم يوجد فيه المكان كما نعرفه، لكن أن تتصوره مثل الكيس.
س: متى كان هناك؟
ج: لقد كان هناك في الوقت الذي لم يوجد فيه الوقت كما نعرفه، لك أن تتصوره وكأنه لغز.
س: من أين أتت البيضة؟
ج: في الواقع لم تأت البيضة من أي مكان، لك أن تتصور الأمر على أنه مدهش.
س: إن كانت البيضة لم تأت من أي مكان، فيكف وصلت هناك؟
ج: لقد وصلت البيضة هناك لأن دالة الكون الموجيّة قالت إنه ممكن، لك أن تتصور الأمر على أنه صفقة منتهية.
س: كيف تطوّر كوننا من البيضة؟
ج: لقد تطوّر عن طريق نفخ نفسه بنفسه من داخل كيسه ليصبح الكون الذي نجد أنفسنا فيه الآن، لك أن تتصوره واحداً من تلك الأشياء.
هذا المتن التعليمي التلقيني، كما ينبغي أن أضيف، ليس محاكاة ساخرة للكونيات الكمومية، إنه كونيات كمومية فعلاً..." ص١٤١-١٤٣.

أما بالنسبة لعقيدة نشأة الإنسان المهيمنة في الكنيسة العلمية الإلحادية فهي "نظرية داروين" التي لم تثبت رغم كم الأبحاث والأوراق والتجارب والكتب، لم تثبت ببساطة لم تثبت، هي نظرية مثل أي نظرية اعتقاديّة أخرى، وأهم من ينافح عنها هو الجاهل بحقيقة النظرية علمياً لكن المستخدم لها أيدولوجيا "دوكنز"، فلا يمكنه الإثبات وإن أطال صوته وأكثر كلامه للاعتداد بها! يقول المؤلف: "إن كانت نظرية التطوّر الداروينية لا تسهم إلا بالقليل في محتوى العلوم، فإن لديها الكثير لتقدّمه لأيدولوجياتها؛ إنها تؤدي وظيفة خرافة الخلق في زمننا، بنسبة صفات إلى الطبيعة كانت تنسب سابقاً إلى الله" ص٢٣٤.

خلاصة الكتاب:
أهم نظريات تفسير نشوء الكون ونشوء الإنسان لم تفلح علمياً في دحض تفسير خلق الكون وخلق الإنسان الدينية في: الإسلام، النصرانية، اليهوديّة. والهيمنة لا لقوة الدليل بل لقوة سلطان العلم في زمننا.

هذا والله أعلم، وصل اللهم وسلم وبارك على محمد وآله

[Karl-O · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was very impressed with this book when it talked about the physical sciences. Much less I would say when it talked about evolution by natural selection. From what limited reading I had done in evolutionary theory, I really think Berlinski doesn't understand the current status of the science. He always insists about considering Darwin and his Origin as the definitive source of evolutionary theory in a time when most biologists believe Darwin made some mistakes on his own on the one hand, and other branches of science were not developed enough at his time to have a fully cohesive theory on the other. Reading the physics parts of the book and seeing how much the guy understands not only the current science but its philosophy too, I'm really surprised how he missed similar developments in biology.

The parts about physics were a joy to read. Honestly. Very good to see that there is actually a debate between scientists and theologians. Many in the scientific community are very anxious to give the impression that when it comes to knowing about the world, science rules supreme. Science may sometimes to be as much faith-based as religion, and though I would personally bet on science, I would say the most important lesson from this book is that of philosophy: there are limits of what we can know, and though these limits one day budge, it is always better to treat them as unchangeable. There are questions that we may never be able to answer in one way or another.

Berlinski's humor is hilarious. Mind that this is coming from a very big admirer of Hitchens who was perhaps the figure who most suffered from the Berlinski's witty remarks.

I was very lucky to read Manny's excellent review and get the book, which BTW reminds me of another albeit corny but important lesson from the book: never judge a book from its title. Here's a textbook example of that adage!

[G.R. Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want a little harmless amusement, try quoting selected passages from this book to cosmologists and particle physicists of an atheistic persuasion. I particularly recommend the sections on string theory and the Hawking-Hartle construction. David is very funny and has a wonderful turn of phrase.

[Frank R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Delightful and subversive. Berlinski, a secular Jew and respected mathematician, author, and professor, gleefully undertakes to puncture the pretensions of our modern all-but-established religion, the Church of Materialist Atheism. This book has one main premise: the claims of Dawkins, Harris, Pinker et al, the leading evangelists of this religion, are nowhere near as strong as they say, nor do they give any conclusive proof against the existence of a Creator. Berlinski covers physics, including the modern quest to explain away the rather uncomfortable coincidence that our universe seems fine-tuned for life, and biology, especially the weak proofs for macro-evolution and the lacking evidence for a gradual descent of species. His final chapter, with its analogy of the Cathedral of Science, is especially powerful.

[Sulaf Farhat · Rating 2 out of 5]

I do think this book is worth reading ...
But if you're looking for an OBJECTIVE defense of religious thought -in general- against the vicious attack of militant atheism, this isn't it!
The author is extremely biased towards HIS form of religious thought and HIS religious/social background, despite his claims to the contrary. He seems to attack some forms of religious thought along with atheism, making degrading generalizations, while conveniently forgetting the sins of other forms of religious thought (the ones he is obviously influenced by).
Many of his arguments are valid, but the style of argument is immature most of the time.

[joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The not-so-well-kept (but oft-denied) secret of the current debates between the new atheists and their religious opponents is that the arguments are not strictly limited to issues of science, logic, & reason. These are discussions as much of philosophy, ideology, and ethic as they are of anything material. Both systems of thought - religious and non-religious alike - are based upon presuppositional thinking, are driven by faith in tenants unprovable, and result in very tangible and real-world consequences. The difference, it would appear, between the two sides is that one tends to be forthcoming in its admission of these facts while the other cloaks its claims in the supposedly undeniable veneer of naturalistic "science".

It is with these kinds of pretensions that Berlinski takes issue. And he does so with remarkable panache: the author is bitingly sarcastic and unflinchingly antagonistic towards the scientific establishment's seemingly blind & almost complete embrace of Darwinian theory (an establishment, it should be noted, that Berlinski himself is firmly ensconced in, with degrees in mathematics and a Ph.D. in philosophy to his credit). Thus, the book has a definite ring of authority to it: it is criticism from within, as well as from the mind of a man with no particular religious commitments of which to speak.

This book is a thought-provoking and intellectually deep read, but in no-way inaccessible for the layman (although it should probably be noted that it is probably not the best first step for those uninitiated to the evolution/intelligent design debate). Berlinski's arguments are steeped in logical progression and his allusions and metaphors have a highbrow quality to them - his unanswered & rhetorical questions demand serious consideration from those who insist on holding the party line when it comes to Darwin. The conclusions should leave many readers contemplating some new paradigms in regard to the current cultural status quo: scientists are not infallible in either their thinking or their declarations; science itself seems woefully inept to know all that it claims to know or will ever be able to know; the establishment's espoused emperor has not a lick of clothing on him.

The arguments and information are both deep enough and solid enough to demand multiple readings - it's probably close to impossible to absorb all Berlinski has to say in one pass. And that, for a book of philosophy and argument, is a great thing.

[Ian Hodge · Rating 4 out of 5]

The new atheism of Hitchens, Dawson and Harris, for example, has had wide coverage over the past few decades. The atheist's mantra "there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God" has been shouted loudly and clearly for all to hear.

Berlinksi portrays the misuse and abuse of both science and logic that are tied up in the atheists' presentation of their case. He shows that the atheist argument is irrational and at times simply contradictory. This should not be surprising, since the underlying premise of atheism is that the universe and everything about it can be explained from the principle of ultimate abstractionism, or impersonalism. There can be no "logic" or "rationality" on this basis, so the atheists struggle to present their case on the "rational" basis they claim to have.

This is a great analysis of logic and the use of science. It is well written, humorous at times, an enjoyable read on an important topic.

[Eli · Rating 1 out of 5]

Straw Man: The Book.

I've been on a bit on an atheist kick lately, so I figured I would do the theistic side justice and read one of their books. This one came highly rated, so I figured it would be well written and contain some nuanced and reasoned arguments for the existence of god. Instead, I found what is perhaps the most impressive collection of bad arguments I've ever come across.

Mr. Berlinksk is an educated fellow. He has a PhD in philosophy from Princeton and he has previously worked as a research assistant in both biology and applied mathematics. This makes his remarkable lack of reflection and glaring fallacies of reason all the more confusing. How can someone this smart write something this dumb?

All right, enough with the ad hominem. Let me break down some of his arguments.

Mr. Berlinski begins his book with an appeal to morality. As even a novice student of atheistic theory will tell you, appeals to morality have nothing to do with the existence of god. Yes, it would be nice if there was a divine judge who clearly laid out what is and is not moral, but just because something would be nice doesn't mean that something is true. His numerous attacks on atheistic morality are commonplace and tired, and will be familiar to anyone who's studied the subject. He cites Hitler, Stalin and Mao as examples of atheistic worldviews leading to mass murder while ignoring or downplaying the role of faith in the Crusades, Inquisition, and the genocide of indigenous peoples by European colonizers. To clarify, this is not "whataboutism." Berlinski makes an argument whose premise is "a lack of belief in god causes genocide," with the corollary being "belief in god prevents genocide." In pointing out the Crusades and Inquisition, I am not saying "yeah, but what about this?" I am saying that the premise of Berlinski's argument, and the argument that theism prevents immorality in general, is provably false.

Berlinski also says that atheism's lack of objective morality is "disconcertingly disconcerned." For those who don't know, "atheism" is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with morality. However, many atheists do prescribe to a humanistic view of morality, wherein "what is moral" is reached via the consensus of a people or humanity as a whole. Simply put, murder and theft are wrong because we say they are. For many theists, this is maddening because it forces them to take moral responsibility for their actions. With god, one can commit all kinds of atrocities and then lay responsibility for them at the feet of a deity. "I did not do this for myself, I did it because it is the will of god." Those prescribing to humanistic morality must fully own up to their actions. If a humanistic atheist doesn't approve of gay marriage, he must admit to himself that it is because HE, not god, disapproves of homosexuality.

The bulk of Berlinski's arguments concern scientific reasoning, and he drops academic buzzwords and scientific jargon like cluster bombs in order to make his arguments seem more compelling. He dismisses many, many scientifically supported arguments against the existence of an intelligent creator by calling them "incoherent" and "absurd," though he rarely offers an answer as to why they are incoherent or absurd. Nearly all of his "scientific arguments" for the existence of god seem to boil down to a single non-sequitur: science can not yet fully explain all natural phenomena, therefore it is reasonable to believe in god. I will admit I had difficulty following his arguments regarding math and physics, but if they are anywhere near as bad as his biological arguments, where he claims that because humans and chimpanzees have differently shaped jawbones we are completely distinct lifeforms and therefore can not possibly have a common ancestor, I did not miss much.

This book has many, many more bad arguments built on flimsy premises and logical fallacies, from Berlinski's claim that the human eye could not have evolved through natural selection (it could and probably did,) to his claim that the scientific method is useless as a tool for reasoning because one can use it to prove that good golfers are good at golf because they are good at golf. Seriously. I'm not really sure if I can recommend this book to anyone. Atheists like myself may get a kick out of going through his arguments and breaking them down, but the arrogant tone, mean-spirited and unfunny jabs at the opposition, and shockingly racist and sexist asides make reading this book an unpleasurable experience. I'm not even sure theists could get much of it, as Berlinski's language is so baroque that many of his arguments become rhetorically unintelligible. All I can say is, if this is the best that modern religious apologists can muster, than religiosity as we know it is doomed.

[Sami Sultan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A light and funny read. Perhaps a good introduction for someone who hasn't read/heard the topics it brings up before. I actually liked it better than Hamza Tzortzis' "The Divine Reality", but only because TDR is too long and dry.

The subtitle, "Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" is a perfect summary. Berlinski shows that 'scientific' ideas that atheists usually point to to 'disprove' theism (think the Big Bang, Darwinism) are either (a) not supported by evidence in the way that is popularly understood (b) in contradiction to available evidence (c) just as much a of faith as religious beliefs and/or (d)fundamentally build on the assumption that there is no divine power acting on the world.

If there's a specific topic you're interested in, see the relevant chapter below:
1: Basically an introduction. What are militant atheists saying?
2: Can humans be good without God? (No). How do you decide what is objectively moral without God? (You can't).
3: What counts as evidence? There is no reason that we must only accept observation-evidence-as-interpreted-by-naturalism.
4: The Kalam Cosological Argument and the Big Bang.
5: The Argument for a Necessary Being.
6: The Universe is suspiciously fine-tuned for the existence of life.
7: Refuting Dawkin's "God Delusion". Dawkins' argument is that God is impossible because God is improbable. However Dawkins' believes in the Multiverse Theory which is even less probable, untestable, and proposed purely to get around the problem of the universe *beginning* with the Big Bang
8 & 9: Darwinsim does not explain the fossil record. Biologists publicly champion Darwinism while privately publishing their reservations. What could be more miraculous than our senses and intelligence arising from dead matter?
10: The Catholic Church wasn't strongly against Science or Heleocenterism per se, just people suggesting that scripture was false.

[Bill · Rating 2 out of 5]

Working my way through the dross of Dawkins' The God Delusion, I was casting about for a purgative to restore my faith in agnosticism. Little did I realize I'd be climbing into bed with the intelligent designer and (ostensibly) "secular Jew"* who coached Ann Coulter in writing Godless!

Sheesh! When will I learn to google before I leap?

Consider the second star as a triumph of style over substance. As a stylist Berlinski is clever to the point of incoherence.

* Berlinksi's words, not mine -- far as I can tell, he's a covert apologist for Roman Catholicism!

[Karim Bazan · Rating 3 out of 5]

في هذا الكتاب يفند و ينتقد المؤلف مزاعم ورموزالالحاد الجديد في اطروحاته للعلم وزعمهم ان العلم معارض و مناقض للدين
بالرغم من اعتراف المؤلف بعلمانيته ذو خلفية يهودية الا انه في هذا الكتاب يقوم بالدفاع عن الدين (والكتاب المقدس) كما يقول في وجه هذه الهجمة الشرسة و يفند أقوالهم خاصة كتاب دوكينز وهم الإله .
الكتاب غني ومهم بلا شك

[Anthony Michaelson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am really glad to be done reading this book.

Pro: Berlinski can really write. Sincerely, his way with words is entertaining, at times funny, and ever interesting.

Cons: Everything else.
His skill as a writer is more often used to formulate witty cheap shots than to illuminate interesting or well thought out ideas. It is unclear to me whether Berlinski simply enjoys his own writing so well that he prefers witty, one sentence paragraph capstones to substantive argument, or if he thinks that is an effective strategy to convince someone of his “point.”

Speaking of, there really isn’t a point, so far as I can tell. Which is frustrating. It is frustrating because Berlinski is obviously an intelligent man, and so I’d be interested in reading an actual argument from him, but there isn’t one provided. Instead, we get this rambling book. At times, it is hard to critique, because it barely bothers making points or building a case.
So far as there is a thesis, it is this: “Saying that science has disproved God is incorrect, and even a little dumb.” This is true and not a difficult point to make (if not a frustrating one to argue when involved with a stubborn combatant.)
But the book is over 200 pages, the vast majority of which is spent energetically saying trivial, insubstantial, confused, confusing and incorrect things about “science” in general.
There is a total paucity of defined terms, and those terms used are changed without notice, and conflated without justification.
Speaking of paucity, there is about zero intersection with meaningful arguments from those with whom Berlinski disagrees. At one point, he uses a block quote from Steven Pinker about how the world seems, in many respects, to have become a better place over time. He then ignores it entirely (one wonders why he would bring it up at all) and goes on to list death tolls from wars in the 20th century.

The majority of the book is spent taking odd, cringy pot-shots at atheists in specific and science in general.
The only semi-interesting critique of science is his critique of the multiverse hypothesis.
The rest of the critiques of science amount to, “but there are things which remain unclear!” (The scandal!), “but that doesn’t mean that god doesn’t exist!” (How profound) and “But that’s confusing and sounds a little funny!” (How do we trust these folks?)
Unsurprisingly, the worst critiques are offered toward Evolution. He says a lot of untrue and misleading things, while dealing with exactly zero examination of evidence, preferring instead to merely deny that there is any.

Perhaps the most confusing part of the whole experience is that Berlinski describes himself as a secular Jew, saying, “religion didn’t take.”
This is awkward in light of the text he has written. Multiple times he states positively the existence of God.
It is also awkward considering the book as a whole, which contains many possible defenses of God’s existence. A reasonable person might ask, “Then why, after providing so many reasons to do so, is Berlinski not convinced by the weight of his own arguments?”
Perhaps it is because they are weak, and often times barely even arguments.
In this case, why write the damn book?

I’d put this book into the category of “Will be enjoyed by those who are more interested in feeling well about what they currently believe than engaging meaningfully with interesting ideas.”
For this reason, I despise it.
I can only hope that when I return it to the friend who wanted me to read it, we can have an interesting, fruitful conversation about science and it’s relationship to faith, in spite of the ways this book, of itself, gets in the way of that endeavor.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book starts out on a fairly good roll: the author mentions that he is a secular Jew -- his religious instruction "did not take". Thus I was hopeful that this author might be able to approach the long-running science-religion "war" with a bit of detached objectivity. He certainly is well qualified, in general terms, to write such a work, having written at least two rather widely read technical popularizations (Tour of the Calculus and Advent of the Algorithm).

The initial material on the weaknesses of the recent spate of books by prominent atheist authors was reasonably good. He points out, for instance, that demands that only hard-nosed quantitative scientific discussion is worthy of the label "truth", are self-refuting, because such rhetoric itself lacks clear, crisp, quantitative scientific content. He also points out how criticisms of religion based on the prevalence of religious war ignores the two major world wars of the 20th century, which together killed nearly 100,000 human beings, but which in neither case was based even secondarily on religious conflicts. The Holocaust, for instance, was directed by Hitler under cover of WWII, but was not by any means the central conflict of WWII.

But then Berlinski's discussion declines rapidly into a tirade. He ridicules quantum cosmology in a superficial two-page Q/A outline. He ridicules Stephen Hawking's work. He ridicules Leonard Susskind. He ridicules string theory, quoting Smolin and Woit in opposition but not offering anything more than tirade on his own. As for the extra dimensions implied by string theory, Berlinski lapses into melodrama.

Just when you thought that the narrative had bottomed out, Berlinski launches into evolution. Here it is clear that he is completely uninformed. In 30 pages of polemicism, Berlinski demonstrates only that he has only the most superficial knowledge of evolutionary biology. For example, on page 190 he questions whether natural selection exists at all. I'm sure those battling a panoply of newly evolved pathogens, including tuberculosis, AIDS and influenza, that are resistant against all known medical countermeasures, would be startled to learn from Berlinski that these new strains are only imaginary. Berlinski also states flatly in numerous places that probability calculations rule out evolution, unaware that such lines of reasoning have been refuted time and time again -- what such calculations refute is the creationist theory (i.e., that various biological structures came to be in an instant of random chance) rather than the scientific theory (that they developed gradually over eons in response to evolutionary pressures that are anything but random).

No, quantum physics will not just go away because Berlinski laughs at it. Big bang cosmology will not just go away because Berlinski laughs at it. Evolutionary biology will not just go away because Berlinski laughs at it. It is most unfortunate that a highly qualified author descended into hyperbole, polemicism and mystery.

[Inna L · Rating 4 out of 5]

Автор чуть-чуть немножечко слегка перебирает с красивыми (и подзадабывающими в конце концов) шпильками, но если хочется прочитать о грустном состоянии современной науки в части претензий на понимание мироустройства с тзр наличия в нем Божественного (никаких объяснений-доказательств наука дать не может, и не сможет, и сама того не понимает, и не хочет понимать, скатываясь в жуткое научное мракобесие) - то это очень-очень полезная книга. Насыщенная фактическим материалом, захватывающе-интересная, мотивирующая глубже вглядываться во разные уголки научных знаний с критическим интересом.

[عمر · Rating 4 out of 5]

يقول بيرلنسكي:
في مطل أطروحته بعنوان "الحفريات الفقارية والتطور"، أدرك روربرت كارول على نحو صحيح تمامًا أن ((معظم السجل الأحفوري لا يدعم تفسيرًا تدرُجيًا صارمًا)) للتطور. إن التفسير التدرُّجي الصارم هو بالضبط ما تُطالب به نظرية دارون: إنه قلب وروح النظرية. وللسبب نفسه، لا يوجد أي براهين مختبرية على الانتواع أيضًا، ملايين ذبابات الفاكهة تغدو وتروح ثم لا توحي ولو لمرة أنه قد كُتِب عليها الظهور بخلاف كونها ذبابات فاكهة. هذه هي النتيجة التي يوحي بها أيضًا ما يربو على ستة آلا عام من الانتخاب الاصطناعي، الممارسة المعهودة في الفناءين المجاور والخلفي للمنزل على حد سواء. لا يمكن لشيء أن يبعث دجاجة على وضع بيضة مربعة أو يقنع خنزيرًا بأن يطور عجلات مركَّبة على رولمان بلي. فعلى مرأى فوري من الدجاج والخنازير وبسخط منهما غالبًا، سيمثّل ما سبق انتهاكًا لجوهر طبيعتهما.
ويقول:
إن كانت لا تُسهم نظرية التطور لدارون إلا بالقليل في محتوى العلوم، فإن لديها الكثير لتقدمه لأيديولوجياتها. إنها تؤدي وظيفة خرافة الخلق في زماننا بنسبة صفات إلى الطبيعة كانت تنسب سابقًا إلى الله. ومن ثم تتطلب ضربًا خاصة من التأييد الحار.
ويقول:
فلئن كان كاردينال القرن السابع عشر متأهبًا للقول بأننا أسأنا فهم الدين لإقامة العلم، فإنه متأهب في القرن الحادي والعشرين للقول بأننا أسأنا فهم العلم لإقامة الدين. إن العلم الغربي كنيستنا، إنه المقر الذي استودعناه ثقتنا وتوكلنا. أنا أعُد نفسي من المؤمنين، ومخلص للكنيسة.
...
الكتاب جميل جدًا والترجمة كذلك لكن أحسب أن قراءة الكتاب باللغة الأصلية سيكون أفضل، كما أن الكتاب يحتاج إلى معرفة علمية - إن عدمت في بعض المواطن - يعسر فهم بعض المواطن من غيرها.

[Jesse Winslow · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had really high hopes for this book. #1 it comes highly regarded. #2 I'm always interested in hearing a different opinion than my own and this was quite promising. I loved the idea of a secular point of view stating a defense for religious thought and a rebuttal to arguments by Harris, Hitchens, and others. Well this booked seemed to be full of contextual biases and out of context statements. Add in a serious dose of "you can't prove it, so you are wrong" and you've got the gist of this book. Case in point... In Chapter 3 he states Aquinas' causation idea. You know "everything is caused, so what's the first cause? The uncausable cause;i.e. God" Well Berlinski says basically that since Richard Dawkins argues against this point and can't prove that God didn't create everything, he needs to shut up.
I really tried to get into this book and see this guy's point of view, but I just felt that he was using the same type of argument he's refuting.

[Joel · Rating 1 out of 5]

More disingenuous trash from the Discovery Institute.