Entertaining and Enlightening

It is a curiosity that a book written by an atheist, or at least an agnostic, who is a mathematician, could hold me in such wrapt attention. I have one regret only; that this book had an ending.

5 people found this helpful

Masterful Argument in Masterful Prose

Berlinski makes easy work of the pretense of knowledge exuded by atheist intellectuals. Along the way, the reader is exposed to a staggering breadth of scientific knowledge and a penetrating wit. Berlinski has a way of formulating subtle but devastating jokes at his opponents' expense, all while remaining a gentleman.

Unfortunately, the narrator used some... creative pronunciations, even for very obvious words such as "Jupiter" when reading a passage about Elijah and the JUNIPER tree. Overall, though, he did a splendid job of capturing the sarcastic spirit of the author's many jests.

4 people found this helpful

A Logical and Concise Criticism of Modern Atheism

What made the experience of listening to The Devil's Delusion the most enjoyable?

Berlinski's prose is second-to-none. I could read his writings all day long and never tire.

What did you like best about this story?

Berlinski's ability to see "behind the curtain", as it were, and expose the nonsensical nature of modern, militant atheism and cosmology.

Which character – as performed by Dennis Holland – was your favorite?

Not really applicable for this book...

If you were to make a film of this book, what would the tag line be?

"Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions"
The official subtitle works great.

Any additional comments?

(Taken from my Amazon review)
After [listening] this book for the [third] time, I have to say that it comprises one of the most logical and well developed criticisms of atheism in the modern day. Berlinski is clear in stating that he himself is not a believer, but an agnostic Jew. Only, he can see the glaring holes in conventional cosmology and atheism clearly enough to feel the need to defend the often derided alternative world view of a higher power. And this is something he does extremely well.
For a topic so ensnared by controversy and ad-hominem debate, Berlinski remains level headed and admits when his points are less than certain. This is not to say that his arguments lack evidence or efficacy, just that he's willing to admit when something is simply unprovable when so many others will not.
If you're open enough to critically challenge your world view, I can't recommend this book enough. It is superlative among its peers and remains one if the best works in this ever fiery category.

24 people found this helpful

Great perspective!

David created a way to look into the mind of the sceptic and divulge their worries and questions.

3 people found this helpful

interesting view

I'm a firm believer in reading different viewpoints especially on important matters. this is a well written book with a secular view.

3 people found this helpful

Riddled With Problems

I'm currently in the middle of this book, but even if I found the rest of it completely revelatory and satisfying I would still be writing this review.

Also, before I get into the problems with content, I have to say that Dennis Holland's narration is pretty monochromatic and robotic. I wondered for a moment if they'd gotten a more sophisticated Microsoft Sam or Siri type of program to read this book, so take that into consideration.

I came to this book as someone who's currently trying to figure out what I really believe about the nature of the universe and the existence of God. I've been reading books on science, theology, various religions, etc. - so I worked this one into the rotation in the hope that it would continue to broaden my perspectives and help me learn about things I've yet to.

I have been severely disappointed.

To begin with, Berlinski's prose - while well-worded - is absolutely dripping with disdain and condescension. Time after time he strays so far into self-congratulatory narcissism with his word choice and style that this book practically grinds to a halt. He spends paragraphs just calling people names and outlining how he doesn't like this person or what they've said; but rarely does he offer specific reasons as to why he finds someone "odious" or enumerate counterpoints to their hypotheses. Where something resembling a counterpoint can be offered, he invokes philosophers and thinkers of history - sometimes ancient history - without any consistency. At one point he uses David Hume against one of his targets, and then later turns his sneering condescension on David Hume's thinking itself. Moreover his dependence on historical philosophy and science flies in the face of history and science; two things that are constantly having to be updated as new facts come to light.

His big opening argument is one of the most tired and well-addressed of all: Nazis. To paraphrase and simplify "The Nazis were atheists, obviously the Nazis were evil, so clearly atheism is evil." Apart from the fact this argument completely ignores the socio-political history of Germany, numerous psychological factors on an individual and group scale, and grossly oversimplifies geopolitical climate - it's simply not true. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord" ... That's a two-fer, Hitler invoking traditional Christian thought and creationist ideology. But Himmler and Rosenberg espoused pagan beliefs founded in the myths of Germanic folklore. Kerrl even believed that Christianity could be integrated into Nazism as part of the official party platform. So if you're going to call out the Nazis for being atheists, you've got to contend with a mountain of evidence that says the opposite - or at the very least that they were simply moral degenerates who used whatever philosophical and religious means they could get their hands on to manipulate the people and justify their actions. But calling that behavior "atheism" instead of just "evil" is unforgivably reductive and inaccurate, and Berlinski marches right past those more complex ideas while patting himself on the back for so thoroughly revealing atheism to be the real reason Nazi Germany happened in the first place.

The book is filled with these kinds of oversimplifications and logical fallacies. When he's not invoking ad hominem argument attacks against those he deems intellectually inferior, he's rattling off war/genocide statistics for several minutes. I mean this quite literally; at one point in his riposte against the idea that the 20th century has seen a largely improved human condition (historically speaking) he lists all the wars and genocides and dictatorships that occurred during the 20th century along with their estimated death tolls. I don't know how long it took, but it felt like an eternity listening to the almost robotic narrator go on and on and on when the same point could just have easily been made in a few short sentences. Berlinski seems, however, far too interested in making his point as laborious and pretentious as possible.

Elsewhere he says "Science has no method - like golf - beyond the trivial." This, by the way, in a paragraph denouncing what he perceives as the pretentiousness of the scientific method and the arrogance of those who invoke it. I am genuinely stumped by how a man so demonstrably brilliant (his bibliography touches on topics of mathematics far more complex than I personally can claim to fully understand) can so arrogantly accuse others of arrogance. I'm even more stumped at how an agnostic and self proclaimed secular Jew with no active belief in the supernatural can so abhor the scientific method; arguably the cornerstone of empirical thought and research.

There are sparks of good arguments in here, there really are. There is so much fertile ground for intelligent discussion and debate regarding NOMA, or how Big Bang cosmology squares and/or doesn't square with the ideas of creationism and intelligent design, or the difficulties that Darwinian evolution still has to overcome from a theoretical standpoint, or the havoc wreaked by even the most well-intentioned scientific endeavors...the list goes on. But in place of thoughtful arguments (meaning an explanation of the shortcomings/strengths, and then an offer of counter-argument against/in favor) Berlinski is only interested in poking holes and then using his considerably impressive vocabulary (the man is undoubtedly a wordsmith) to stand back and admire his own intellect. If this book were drained of its ad hominem arguments, false dilemmas, arguments from incredulity, snarky rhetorical questions, laborious lists, insufferable arrogance in the face of easily cited fact, and some plain-old-playground-name-calling...it could fit on a napkin. And that's just the kind of catty putdown with which this book is filled, by the way.

The entire book is effectively one long argument from its own conclusion, so if you're just looking for some cleverly-worded phrases and putdowns to spit at atheists during your next rant - you have come to the right place and you won't find a more gleefully kindred spirit in that endeavor than David Berlinski. But if you're currently trying to find well-constructed arguments for belief in the supernatural, you would be much better off in the hands of C.S. Lewis, Francis Collins, John Lennox, or even Ravi Zacharias.

79 people found this helpful

A dazzlingly logical presentation!!

Largely devoid of theology, the author argues the case in the evolutionists own vernacular and fittingly so: for science itself (honest science anyway), demands that the relationship between theory and observation must be congruent! If, after due diligence, there exists deviation from that fundamental requirement, then the SEEKER OF TRUTH IN FACT, must yield to observation, abandon silly postulation, and go back to theory for resolution. Can there be any other way with concrete reason?? Come now all ye that thirst for truth in fact; let us REASON together with logic and prudence, leaving behind superstition and wild speculation. Instead, may we put the evidence to the test and follow it with open minds to wherever it leads.

It lies within us to be seekers or inquisitors. Have we not had our fill of the latter at the expense of the former?? Therefore, let freedom of thought be among the expressions of our humanity as we gallup around the cosmos in our spaceship Earth.

8 people found this helpful

Listen with an open mind

Listen with an open mind to see the clarity of Mr Berlinsk’s statements that plainly repudiate the paucity of any real proof that science explains everything. His grasp of the sciences and their inability to explain the origin of life, its purpose and the human mind is remarkable.

1 person found this helpful

It is a delight!

I have listened to this book three times and also bought the Kindle version. It has a lot to teach. It can serve as an updated introduction to the history of science. Written in an entertaining way. The author indulges in elegant jokes. The narrator is well chosen.

1 person found this helpful

Typical (excellent) Berlinski; boring narration

If you have read anything by David Berlinski or ever heard him speak then you probably have some idea of what to expect. He has strong viewpoints and doesn't suffer any fools. With a training in philosophy and mathematics, he is one of the world's true polymaths (and I hate using that term but it seems appropriate for Berlinski).

Covering a wide range of philosophical and scientific topics, Berlinski's aim - and one in which he succeeds - is to show NOT that atheism is false, but that to say that science supports atheism is absurd.Berlinski is himself an agnostic secular Jew. He is no religious believer but neither is he a scientistic believer. His goal is to show the incoherence of stating that science itself leads to atheism.

With a sardonic wit and writing as only he can, Berlinski succeeds and then some.

My only issue with the book is that Dennis Holland's narration was quite monotone and boring.

FOUR STARS.

1 person found this helpful