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.