I’m bouncing back & forth between Stephen Myer’s ‘Return of the God Hypothesis’ and David Berlinski’s ‘The Devil’s Delusion.’
Myer is a professed Christian. Berlinski is a professed atheist.
I love both of these scholars because they are not merely erudite, but unafraid to have civil discourse with someone possessing an opposing worldview.
Berlinski’s purpose is to expose the pretense of science where conclusions outside of their arenas of expertise are concerned. In simpler terms, he’s putting the arrogance of atheistic scientists on display as they continue to impose on mankind the lie that the natural world of the sciences is all there is, proving there is no God.
Of course, this is silly. And so juvenile that it should embarrass any scientist making this preposterous claim.
Berlinksi bravely – and rightly – stands against the atheist establishment, writing,
Has anyone provided proof of God not existing? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close… Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.
As I’ve stated before, science is necessarily agnostic. It tells us nothing about whether or not God exists. What science does is provide facts about the natural world, covering everything from biology to cosmology. These facts/findings/discoveries, in turn, provide evidence for one’s worldview where God’s existence (or non-existence) is concerned.
But, the scientists Berlinski is writing about are not satisfied with ‘letting science be science,’ and allowing people to, as Plato’s Socrates, said, “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
They’d rather you just follow them, despite the evidence.
They quickly abandon the arena of science altogether and, appropriating what is sometimes called ‘extra-scientific’ or ‘pseudo-scientific‘ materialism – become amateur philosophers and theologians, giving their own biased and hubristic opinions about the Christian faith, force-feeding their philosophical opinions to the masses as truth. (Richard Dawkins appears to be the patron saint of this nonsense.)
Allow me to close with one particular quote from Berlinksi’s book. He begins by quoting geneticist, Richard Lewontin, who said,
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” (emphasis mine)
Then Berkinski comments,
“Why should any discerning man or woman take the side of science, or anything else, under these circumstances? It is because, Lewontin explains, ‘we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In other words, these particular scientists push their atheistic agenda on the weak-minded in desperate hopes of making absolutely certain no one begins to question them, thinking that maybe – just maybe – (dare we say) God might exist. (This is why I often plead with people to think deeply, and think for themselves, not permitting someone else to do their thinking for them.)
“If one is obliged to accept absurdities for fear of a Divine Foot, imagine what prodigies of effort would be required were the rest of the Divine Torso found wedged at the door and with some justifiable irritation demanding to be let in?”