Book Review of The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

David Berlinski is an agnostic mathematician and appears to be well versed in philosophy. It seems to me that Berlinski’s criticism of the New Atheism and atheistic scientism is well placed, or at least he challenges the presumptions that atheists affirm in their supposed “reasoned” worldview. First, I liked how Berlinski challenged the atheists from a teleological point of view. If we really are a mistake and come from some sort of valueless origin it is an illusion to assume some sort of meaning. Second, in the book the author talks about how physicists suppose that the physics of the universe break down at a singular state prior to the Big Bang, but they also like to assume some sort of hypothesis based on mathematical schemes that are suspect as Berlinski points out. Why? Well if the physics prior to the Big Bang are unknown to us (as physicists seem to think), or if there were no "physics" (at least as we understand it) at all, how can we affirm that a multiverse is more parsimonious? Sure, the mathematician can provide some sort of theory based on mathematics, but it will certainly not be about physics that are unavailable to us. The author takes the time of engaging other aspects of atheistic scientism throughout the book which is well received by me. I recommend the book, because it’s informative, funny, witty, and a critical assessment from a person who has no personal stake in theism.

Opinions Vary

Just about everyday we get to hear and read people's opinions.  I attempt to understand what people are implying when they say or write such and such.  I may ask, what about this, or what did you mean by that?  Although, I might also respond to the opinion(s) in order to show that there could be another possibility.  Some people do not like to read or hear what I have to say.  But, do they not open themselves to the scrutiny of others when they decide to voice what's on their mind?  On various occasions an individual may engage the discussion by erecting false dilemmas, straw man arguments, and other sorts of fallacies in an attempt to rescue their position(s).  If they get called out on these fallacies they attack my character, because it appears to me that they cannot give a reasonable response.

The more I think about it, I tend to conclude that maybe these people who cannot take constructive criticism are insecure in someway.  On the surface it seems as if they just do not want their assertions challenged.  Maybe it's better for me not to waste my time?  I mean, a person like I have described is going to want to keep living the illusion in order to protect their view(s).  A person like that (as described above) is not willing to be pragmatic (it's not the same as relativism, btw) about their beliefs.  The interesting thing about all this is: these people are relativists in their worldview, but they want to present an authoritarian position when it comes to what they think.

My Review of A Discourse On The Method

René Descartes is considered one of the fathers of modern philosophy. As you read the book you will understand why. The book contains an introduction section where it gives the reader a concise biography of Descartes and of the time period in which he lived. The book of course contains the Discourse On The Method and the explanatory notes by Ian Maclean.

Descartes understood that the human senses while good were prone to error. So, Descartes thought to inject a principle where if anything gave him a slight hint of doubt it would have to be deemed as false. Descartes' aim in his project was to attain conclusions that gave him absolute certainty. Descartes concluded that since he was able to doubt "he existed!" Thus, he rationalizes "I think therefore I am."

Perhaps even more intriguing is the fact that Descartes set to make a system that broke away from Scholastic-Aristotelian thought, which was the predominant philosophy in Descartes' time. In the book you will find all sorts of information about a man that set his standards so high it changed the world of philosophy forever. A good book and very much worth the read.

René Descartes (3)

In A Discourse On The Method Descartes writes about how he wants to fashion a method. Descartes claims that the method is composed of four parts. The four parts have the following characteristics: "certainty in the distinction in truth and error, ease of application, fruitfulness, and wisdom or the production of true knowledge." I will try to briefly examine these four characteristics in Descartes' method.

Being able to distinguish between truth and error is vital to any sort of reasoning schema. If one cannot discern what is true and what is false then the system will not and could not work. The law of non-contradiction is evident for example if something exists it cannot not exist at the same time. Perhaps, that something did not exist at some point in time, but it did come to exist at a later point in time. However, a distinction ought to be made that something does not exist and exist at the same time, and if something can exist and not exist at the same time we are part of an absurd world. If the world we live in is absurd then logic and philosophy are futile.

When Descartes alludes to "ease of application" I think he is proposing Occam's Razor or the Law of Parsimony. Occam's Razor is defined as follows: "a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities."[1] I agree with Descartes, because most of the time (if not always) we should attempt to analyze the things we are trying to understand by positing the simplest composition that fits the theory.

I assume that when Descartes talks about "fruitfulness" he is proposing that given the definitions of the law of non-contradiction and ease of application—both should produce a meaningful insight into what is being explored. Since we have established a system that is not absurd or illogical we can proceed in the investigation, because it is prosperous to do so. Since the system is "logical" then it ought to yield fruitfulness regarding the matters that are being probed. Keeping everything I have discussed so far in mind--we should be able arrive at wisdom or the production of true knowledge.

While Descartes is not claiming absolute knowledge he certainly purports a method that constructs possibilities. From these possibilities Descartes deduces what might fit best in the construct. I would like to mention in passing that Descartes thinks skepticism of our own bias is the best way to arrive at conclusions. For example, Descartes concludes that because he doubts he knows with certainty he exists. However, it is hard to establish how much we ought to doubt since the three laws of thought are merely accepted and not established empirically. That said, I do not intend to exhaust Descartes' system, but try allude to what I think Descartes is trying to achieve by giving us an explanation of his approach.

____________________
[1] Occam's Razor

René Descartes (2)

In Discourse Descartes alludes to the mind as immaterial. We also find that Descartes states reason, imagination, and memory do not reside at given locations, but rather are present to interact with the body. I think Descartes is distinguishing thoughts from physical interactions of the body. What does it mean for our thoughts to be immaterial?

When I use my mind I do so in a realm that cannot be touched, but it can be accounted for. Descartes points out what we perceive is immaterial (the mind), because we cannot account for it physically but we know the event happened. I think Descartes at the very least succeeds in establishing the possibility of the reality of immaterialness. For if he fails to demonstrate that the mind is immaterial and it is not real, then we cannot account for our thoughts. If we cannot account for our thoughts we have been plunged into an abyss of irrationality. Thus, no amount of reasoning will be equalvalent to ultimate meaning.

René Descartes (1)

I will try to analyze part of the philosophy in the book titled René Descartes A Discourse On The Method (A new translation by Ian Maclean). I am not sure I can do Descartes justice, but I will try to examine some of Descartes' philosophy nonetheless. My assessment will be in different parts as I attempt to tackle different subjects and would like to break it up into different posts.

Descartes speaks of good sense, which is described or alluded to as "universal wisdom." Descartes states that humans have this good sense,[1] and the way it is applied might reveal different results. The results could vary due to the fact that people apply or see things differently. Since people's thoughts are "directed differently," what is important is that the correct process (being able to distinguish what is truth and what is false) is applied. Finally, Descartes proposes one can arrive at a more accurate conclusion if the application of the process is taken at a slower pace.

I think Descartes is implying that as long as one has a mind that is able to work properly, this good sense is available to all. If that is what he means I do agree with him. I would venture to say that this good sense is part of what we deem to be evident/apparent. However, as Descartes distinguishes, we need to test or examine this good sense. Moreover, Descartes is right to point out that if the individual uses a slower thought process, chances would increase to detect incorrect assumptions through the method. For example, if I write a paper and attempt to correct it at a fast pace more errors are likely to be made than if I slowly took the time to make the corrections. Regarding good sense Descartes is dead on if you ask me...

_____________________
[1] Interestingly enough, Descartes claims that this good sense is available to "all men." In other words, Descartes is assuming that everyone has access to this good sense.