Berlinski and The Devil's Delusion

Having recently discovered mathematician and polymath David Berlinski, I ordered a pair of his books and am currently reading The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.  The introductory blurb at Amazon.com describing the book:

     

AMAZON: Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.

In response, mathematician David Berlinski, himself a secular Jew, delivers a biting defense of religious thought. The Devil's Delusion is a brilliant, incisive, and funny book that explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it is the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world.

Berlinski's writing packs a punch. “The attack on traditional religious thought,” he writes, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

 

* * *

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about how the Church is dying and Atheism is growing in popularity. As we all know, what's popular isn't always right. Yes, it's easy to cite plenty ot examples of abuse--even horrors--committed in the name of religion, but to hold up Atheism (or secular humanism) as a paragon of virtue is hilarious. Here's how Berlinski dismantles that notion.

In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival" in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature. "Religion," he affirmed, "is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" (italics added).

In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?

If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.

* * *

The book has its critics, and as with most books I suggest that the best way to enjoy a writer is to chew on the meat and spit out the bones. This applies to Nietzsche or Russell, Orwell or Rand. And me, too.

What Is Hitchens' Razor?

I can't recall precisely when I first heard the expression Occam's Razor. You'd think I came across it in one of my philosophy classes in college, though actually I believe I first heard it from my mom. It's meaning used to be common knowledge amongst educated folks, I believe.

Dating back to the 14th century, Occam's Razor is a problem-solving principle that is credited to the English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham. It’s often summed up as: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." 

I looked that up, but what I remember is something like this: when you’re faced with competing explanations for something, the simplest one is usually your best bet. Here's a practical example.

When your car won't start the first thing is to check the battery rather than assume a rare engine defect and a fuel line issue and a cosmic ray interference all hit at once. The idea is to start with what’s most straightforward and only complicate the explanation if evidence demands it. It’s a tool for reasoning, not a hard rule, and it’s been influential in science, philosophy, and even everyday decision-making. It's a mix of logic, common sense and experience.

I bring this up because today in my mornng reading I saw a reference to Hitchens' Razor. I thought, "Hmm, I wonder what that is?" And I also wondered if it were some old time concept from some Hitchens of the past (like the Occam example) or the contemporary Brit journalist. As it turns out, it's the latter.

Hitchens' Razor is a philosophical principle that states "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

In other words, if someone makes a claim but doesn’t back it up with proof, you’re free to reject it without needing to disprove it. It puts the burden of evidence on the person making the assertion, not the skeptic. Hitchens often used this in debates, especially on topics like religion, to challenge unbacked claims. It’s a sharp, no-nonsense way to cut through fluff and focus on what can actually be substantiated.