David Berlinski (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, September 11, 2011, 02:22 (4823 days ago)
Please listen to this interview with Berlinski discuss the thoughts in his book, "The Devil's Delusion" in which he takes apart Darwin, pretentious scientists and atheists. I've read the book. It is full of challenging thoughts and ideas. You will be challenged! He is basically a mathematician philosopher:- http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/uncommon-knowledge-with-david-berlinski.php
David Berlinski
DAVID: Please listen to this interview with Berlinski discuss the thoughts in his book, "The Devil's Delusion" in which he takes apart Darwin, pretentious scientists and atheists. I've read the book. It is full of challenging thoughts and ideas. You will be challenged! He is basically a mathematician philosopher:-http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/uncommon-knowledge-with-david-berlinski.php-This is indeed a stimulating interview, and I love his Number 7 analogy. I do wish the interviewer had pressed him a little further on evolution. I got the impression from the interview that he was a Creationist, but I've googled him, and apparently he is ... heaven be praised! ... an agnostic. We ourselves have already discussed at length the gaps in the theory, but although these allow for divine experimentation or a pre-programmed mechanism, they do not invalidate the basic theory that all forms of life descended from one or a few forms. Presumably Berlinski does not believe in the separate creation of each species by a divine power. If he accepts that humans are a late arrival on the scene, then he has to remain open to the idea that they evolved from earlier forms of life ... and those earlier forms evolved from still earlier forms, and so on. Evolution, as Darwin himself repeatedly pointed out, does not clash with theism. -Since you have read the book, perhaps you could tell us whether he also takes the Creationists apart?
David Berlinski
by David Turell , Monday, September 12, 2011, 15:03 (4821 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Please listen to this interview with Berlinski discuss the thoughts in his book, "The Devil's Delusion" in which he takes apart Darwin, pretentious scientists and atheists. I've read the book. It is full of challenging thoughts and ideas. You will be challenged! He is basically a mathematician philosopher: > > http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/uncommon-knowledge-with-david-berlinski.p... > This is indeed a stimulating interview, and I love his Number 7 analogy. I do wish the interviewer had pressed him a little further on evolution. I got the impression from the interview that he was a Creationist, but I've googled him, and apparently he is ... heaven be praised! ... an agnostic. > Since you have read the book, perhaps you could tell us whether he also takes the Creationists apart?-No, the point of the book was to take apart the atheists, which he does very effectively. Remember Dawkins' statement (and I paraphrase) that Darwin's theory allows an atheist to take that postion and feel comfortable.- Berlinski on page 185: "Darwinian biologists are very often persuaded that there is a conspiracy afoot to make them look foolish". "In this they are correct."-And for a flavor of his writing ability and thought pattern:-"The thesis that we are all nothing more than vehicles for a number of 'selfish genes' has....entered deeply into the simian gabble of academic life, where together with materialism and moral relativism it now seems as self-evident as the law of affirmative action. To anyone who has enjoyed the spectacle of various smarmy insects shuffling along the tenure track at Harvard or Stanford, the idea that we are all simply 'survival machines' seems oddly in conflict with the correlative doctrine of survival of the fitest. This would not be the first time that an ideological system in conflict with the facts has found it prudent to defer to itself." (pg. 8)-I love the mental picture of 'simian gabble'.
David Berlinski
Dhw: Since you have read the book, perhaps you could tell us whether he also takes the Creationists apart?-David: No, the point of the book was to take apart the atheists, which he does very effectively. Remember Dawkins' statement (and I paraphrase) that Darwin's theory allows an atheist to take that postion and feel comfortable.-Maybe that's a pity. As I said before, I inferred from the interview that he was a Creationist, and of course atheists will simply seize on that alternative to ridicule anyone who opposes them. When I first published the "brief guide" on this website, I was totally bewildered by the fact that atheist websites dismissed it as thinly disguised Creationism. This, I have now discovered, is the militants' way of covering up the weakness of their own arguments. I would like to think that my own are balanced, but certainly in the interview, Berlinski's are not. For that, though, I would rather blame the interviewer for not probing just a little deeper.-DAVID: Berlinski on page 185: "Darwinian biologists are very often persuaded that there is a conspiracy afoot to make them look foolish". "In this they are correct."-Once again let me reiterate my dislike of this blanket dismissal of Darwinism. The gaps do not invalidate it as a whole. As Matt is constantly pointing out, evolution is still the best theory we have, and as I am constantly pointing out, it does not in any way exclude the design theory. DAVID: And for a flavor of his writing ability and thought pattern: "The thesis that we are all nothing more than vehicles for a number of 'selfish genes' has....entered deeply into the simian gabble of academic life, where together with materialism and moral relativism it now seems as self-evident as the law of affirmative action. To anyone who has enjoyed the spectacle of various smarmy insects shuffling along the tenure track at Harvard or Stanford, the idea that we are all simply 'survival machines' seems oddly in conflict with the correlative doctrine of survival of the fittest. This would not be the first time that an ideological system in conflict with the facts has found it prudent to defer to itself." (pg. 8) I love the mental picture of 'simian gabble'.-I must admit to a little smirk of pleasure, but only because I am so sick of the similar gibes that militant atheists hurl at theists and agnostics. I much prefer the gentle, rational probing that characterizes our own correspondence on this forum. Sorry if that sounds a little sanctimonious.
David Berlinski, agnostic: latest 2018 interview
by David Turell , Monday, March 30, 2020, 18:22 (1699 days ago) @ dhw
From a Sunday night program transcript. A gift to dhw:
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/david-berlinski-on-the-link-between-evolution-scienc...
BERLINSKI: Suppose you were coming from outer space, you're a biologist, right? You come to the Earth and you listen to a long lecture about Darwin, the immense importance of Darwinian biology, but then, you open your own eyes, say you're from Mars, you open your eyes.
What are the two things that would most strike you about living systems on the face of the Earth? Not the Darwinian rhetoric, but it's just the evidence of your own eyes. One is that all life is related. There's no question about that.
Biochemistry is the same throughout life. All life has very, very many of its properties in common. There's one living system on the face of the planet. Not a multitude of species, one living system. That's the first thing you'd notice.
The second thing you'd notice, if you are honest is that there is a vast inseparable distinction between two kinds of living systems -- human beings and all the rest. That is something that's rarely noticed, rarely emphasized.
The distance between a human being and our nearest chimpanzee-like ancestors, common ancestors is much, much, much greater than the difference between a chimpanzee and a flower. We're talking about a bifurcation in the manifold of Biology. Human beings on one side, the rest of the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom on the other.
These are facts that I think that any untroubled observer, and by untroubled, I mean someone who is not previously adhered to any kind of ideology such as Darwinism. Would it once recognize life is connected? It's in some sense one living system, but profoundly divided between human beings and all the rest.
That's the first step towards some sort of system of reconciliation because it prompts the inevitable question. "Hey, how come? Why are human beings so different? Why do they organize themselves differently? Why do they have mathematics, literature? Why do they speak to one another? Why do they have creative thoughts?
A chimpanzee is probably a lovable animal, but nobody ever asked the chimpanzee a question that was possible for the chimpanzee to answer. So, these are I would say, orthogonal to the main axis of ideology.
***
BERLINSKI: Darwinism is a particular kind of scientific doctrine. It's largely anecdotal. It's very far removed from Physics or Mathematics and it plays a certain role with the ceremonies of democratic life and it has played that role for half a century or so. But, of course, it's like everything else, it's changing. It's undergoing change because of the intense intellectual pressure that's being brought on any scientific theory dealing with these profound questions.
For example, we know perfectly well that questions about the origins of life from the standpoint of 2018 are hopeless. We do not understand how life emerged from whatever muck it did emerge. We are simply unable to make a coherent chemical account.
Jim Tour, a very good synthetic chemist at Rice University has written about this, for "Inference," the journal that I am editing. And he says, it's time to call for a moratorium in our origins of life research. It's not going anywhere. That's one thing.
***
So, you get somebody, for example, I think his first name is Donald Fisher at Stanford. A topnotch physicist and I have seen a preprint of his, and he said, "Well, you know, Darwin has a very, very interesting theory, but it has no quantitative properties. It's not like a theory in Physics," and there is a kind of collective heart attack among the Darwinian biologists, not like Physics, not like gravity, say it isn't so, but it isn't so.
***
BERLINSKI: Look, the struggle begins by making an important distinction. I can say, I believe there is no God. It's one kind of commitment and that's essentially an atheist position.
I believe for whatever reasons that God does not exist, but I can say in a much more ameliorative sense, I don't believe that God exists. Quite different. I withdraw some form of assent.
I believe God does not exist, it's not the case that I believe God exists. I believe the proposition God does not exist, I can defend that. That's the atheist speaking.
I would say, I don't have an intense belief with respect to God's existence. It hasn't been vouched saved me. It's not the case. It's not the case that I believe that God exists, but I'm not tempted to say I believe that He does not exist. I'm tempted to only temporize, and I think that is fundamentally the way most people in a secular society think.
***
But yes, I think dogmatic atheism, the movement of atheism is an embarrassment in contemporary thought and I think I'm pretty much alone in thinking that. It is a very popular, a very effervescent movement. There are whole societies consecrated to upholding atheism, and of course, the first thing they do when they gather together at ecumenical devotion is form factions and start hurling anathemas...
Comment: A true agnostic. His first quote is pure Adler without Adler's conclusion
David Berlinski, agnostic: latest 2018 interview
DAVID: From a Sunday night program transcript. A gift to dhw:
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/david-berlinski-on-the-link-between-evolution-scienc...
DAVID: A true agnostic. His first quote is pure Adler without Adler's conclusion
Nice to have an agnostic making his voice heard. You really don’t have to be a philosopher to realize that we humans – despite our many animal characteristics – have left our animal ancestors far, far, far, far (how many far’s would you like?) behind in terms of our intelligence, technology etc. etc. (how many etc’s would you like?). Otherwise, not much substance for discussion, but thanks for the kind thought!
From “A neutral view of ID”
QUOTE: At the end of the day, the existence or non-existence of such an intelligence cannot be established empirically, is not a matter for science, and should not be taught in science courses. It is a matter for belief, and I have tried here only to argue that such belief, at least in certain of its forms, is not unreasonable, ought not to be unreflectively branded "creationism", and should not be viewed with contempt. The possibility of intelligent design falls in the realm covered by Wittgenstein's famous assertion that "even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.'"
Thanks again. A rather long-winded way of expressing the agnostic’s neutral viewpoint, of which I naturally approve! And one should also extend the same even-handedness to different views of a possible God (see David’s “Theory of Evolution”). And at least we don’t have wars over whose form of agnosticism/atheism is correct!
David Berlinski, agnostic: latest 2018 interview
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 31, 2020, 19:39 (1698 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: From a Sunday night program transcript. A gift to dhw:
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/david-berlinski-on-the-link-between-evolution-scienc...DAVID: A true agnostic. His first quote is pure Adler without Adler's conclusion
dhw: Nice to have an agnostic making his voice heard. You really don’t have to be a philosopher to realize that we humans – despite our many animal characteristics – have left our animal ancestors far, far, far, far (how many far’s would you like?) behind in terms of our intelligence, technology etc. etc. (how many etc’s would you like?). Otherwise, not much substance for discussion, but thanks for the kind thought!
From “A neutral view of ID”
QUOTE: At the end of the day, the existence or non-existence of such an intelligence cannot be established empirically, is not a matter for science, and should not be taught in science courses. It is a matter for belief, and I have tried here only to argue that such belief, at least in certain of its forms, is not unreasonable, ought not to be unreflectively branded "creationism", and should not be viewed with contempt. The possibility of intelligent design falls in the realm covered by Wittgenstein's famous assertion that "even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.'"Thanks again. A rather long-winded way of expressing the agnostic’s neutral viewpoint, of which I naturally approve! And one should also extend the same even-handedness to different views of a possible God (see David’s “Theory of Evolution”). And at least we don’t have wars over whose form of agnosticism/atheism is correct!
Thank you. Thought you'd like it.