Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

My Meeting with David Berlinski — a True Renaissance Man

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Last evening I had the joy of meeting David Berlinski at Biola University during his tour of the U.S. to promote his new book, The Devil’s Delusion — Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.

I was hanging out on the front steps of the lecture hall when David appeared, and we chatted in both French and English. (As bizarre as it might seem, although I earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D, my three college degrees are in French language and literature, and classical piano.) I was wearing my Harley Davidson windbreaker, and David asked if I was a Harley rider, to which I replied yes. He asked about what model Harley I rode, and expressed his passion for motorcycles.

David is one of the most eloquent, insightful, clever, iconoclastic, and irreverently humorous speakers I have ever had the pleasure to encounter. During his lecture he talked about the great successes of the scientific enterprise — especially in the 20th century with the discoveries of modern mathematics and physics — but how the dreams of this enterprise to explain everything have dissolved into fantastic and unsupported speculation (e.g., multiverses), in the name of the rational and objective science on which it is supposed to be based.

If the dreams of 20th century mathematics and physics have dissolved into fantastic and unsupported speculation concerning the big questions, then surely naive 19th century Darwinian speculation about the origins and diversification of living systems must be in even deeper trouble. But Darwinian “theory” seems to enjoy an extraordinary resistance to being falsified or even challenged. All evidence, however contradictory, supports it.

During the Q&A session I commented about how, historically, erroneous scientific theories are eventually overthrown when the evidence becomes irrefutable. David seems somewhat pessimistic about the imminent overthrow of Darwinism, because of the heavy investment in it on the part of the scientific community. I would suggest that this investment is multifaceted: philosophical, economic, and cultural (in academia, at least). And, of course, ridicule and persecution await any legitimate challenger, no matter the evidence.

But David quipped that if Darwinism is ever overthrown, it will be seen as a triumph of Darwinian theory — a theory so robust that it even predicted that the theory would be proven to be false.

After the event, I chatted further with David, and mentioned that I was a classical concert pianist. It turns out that David’s parents were classical concert pianists who studied with Nadia Boulanger and Alfred Cortot. It’s a small world.

I purchased a copy of The Devil’s Delusion last evening but have not had the time to read it. I will write a review at a later date. However, I found the following comments in the preface to be of interest:

I am a secular Jew. My religious education did not take… I cannot pray. I have spent more years than I care to remember in studying mathematics and writing about the sciences. Yet the book that follows is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment.

[…]

While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. The yearnings of the human soul are not in vain. There is a system of belief adequate to the complexity of experience. There is recompense for suffering. A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos. All will be well.

I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

Occupied by their own concerns, a great many men and women have a dull, hurt, angry sense of being oppressed by the sciences. They are frustrated by endless scientific boasting. They suspect that as an institution, the scientific community holds them in contempt. They feel no little distaste for those speaking in its name.

They are right to feel this way. I have written this book for them.

I sense in David Berlinski a great Renaissance man, with a keen mind and a searching, warm soul. I pray that this soul will find that for which it yearns.

Comments
Borne:
Je ne savais pas que David B. parlait français. Est-ce qu’il a des livres en français? J’aime bien les discussions sur ce site ainsi que les sujets que tu commence. Lâche-pas!
David is as fluent and eloquent in French as he is in English. I don't know if any of his books are in French. I'm embarrassed to admit that The Devil's Delusion is his first book-length opus I have taken the trouble to buy and read. I mentioned to David that I was tempted to read his book, A Tour of the Calculus, and he suggested that for me it was a must-read. In college I studied three semesters of differential and integral calculus and one semester of differential equations, just because I loved mathematics so much, even though math had nothing to do with my majors in foreign language and music. I've always been intrigued by the fact that mathematics describe so much of basic physical reality. Why should a mathematical inverse square law describe gravity? Of course, I now know the answer: It was rigged that way. Any other explanation is a desperate attempt to explain away the obvious. But I digress. I'm so glad you enjoy the discussions on this site, and I'm pleased that you appreciate the subjects and themes I initiate at UD. Don't worry -- I won't give up. I was liberated from the depressing, nihilistic, dark, cold, curse of "scientific" atheism, which is, au fond, a hideous lie. If I can help others to be liberated from such a lie I will count my life as having been well-lived.GilDodgen
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
ericb There's no false dichotomy. Either intelligent agency was somehow involved in the origination and diversification of life or it wasn't. Poking holes in neo-Darwinian dogma is more like a fight between Republicans and Democrats. If the majority shifts from one to the other the Libertarian party still exists but the Libertarian Party is in such a distant third place it doesn't really matter that much. DaveScot
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Allen Interesting statistics on changes of mind and/or heart. The most interesting bit is that when the fraction of the of the class comprised of non-science business majors fulfilling a humanities requirement rose (trebled?) the number of those accepting neo-Darwinian evolution rose in proportion. The take home point there is that business majors are a lot less skeptical of neo-Darwinian dogma than are science majors. That's not a good reflection on the NDE dogma.DaveScot
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Russel asked (in #15):
"What’s the usual outcome of these discussions? Are minds changed, and in which direction?"
That's a very interesting question. Will Provine and I have been keeping statistics on this very question in our evolution courses for the past 15 years. During the first lecture of every semester we anonymously poll the students on the following question:
Which of the following most accurately corresponds with your beliefs?" 1) God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 2) Man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including mankind's creation. 3) Man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but some intentional agent (identity unspecified) guided this process. 4) Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life. God had no part in this process.
We then repeat the poll during the last lecture, to see if there are any significant changes. (These were taken, with slight modifications, from the Gallup polls conducted repeatedly since the early 1980s. This is done to allow comparison with the national poll results.) Four trends have become apparent over the years: 1) The percentage of students choosing #4 has risen steadily. Until about five years ago, it was about 15% of the class (i.e. creationists and ID supporters were about 85% of the class). Recently, the proportion of students who choose #4 has risen to slightly more than half of the class. This may be due to a change in science distribution requirements, as the majority of the students taking our non-majors course are now business and economics majors, who take our course to fulfill a humanities distribution requirement (it's cross-listed as a history of science course). 2) The percentage of students choosing #1 has remained virtually unchanged at around 10-12%. Young earth creationists also make up about 10% of students taking introductory biology, for both majors and non-majors, at Cornell. 3) The percentage of students choosing #3 has risen, while the percentage choosing #2 has fallen proportionally. We attribute this to the success of ID in the public relations arena. 4) The only significant changes from the beginning to the end of the course have generally been a slight increase in the percentage choosing #1 and #4. That is, students who change their minds over the course of the semester become either young earth creationists or naturalists, at the expense of "guided" evolution. This is quite interesting, as nearly all of the invited speakers for the past few years have been ID supporters (however, this includes John Sanford, who would qualify as both an ID supporter and a young earth creationist). In other words, the majority of the students who take the course seem to already have their minds made up, and the material we (and our invited presenters) provide for them has little effect on their positions, aside from leading a small fraction to shift to one of the two "non-guided" positions. Anyone care to interpret these outcomes? I have some opinions, but would like to hear from others on this list first. P.S. Dr. Dembski has accused Will Provine of "slanting" our evolution course "in order to convert our students into atheists". Not only is this an outright lie, even if it were true (which it clearly isn't, given the lengths to which we go to invite people who disagree with us to make presentations in our courses), these poll results would seem to indicate that we're doing a rather poor job of it.Allen_MacNeill
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
austin_english (17): "I remember also from the decision that it’s not valid to treat problems with neodarwinism as evidence for ID. Judge Jones mentioned the fallacy of the false dichotomy." You are quite correct that it would be a false dichotomy to say, "If neoDarwinism is false, then ID must be true." (What about evo devo, or other ideas?) Thankfully, I don't think this is what serious ID proponents are advocating. (They do maintain that neoDarwinism must not be treated as dogma that cannot be questioned, but criticism alone does not establish ID.) Although there are false dichotomies, there are also true dichotomies. For example, "If undirected processes/causes are insufficient to produce/explain this effect, then this indicates the influence of something more than undirected processes, namely the influence of directed causation, a.k.a. the influence of intelligent agency. Science doesn't "prove" in the way that mathematics does, but it does reason from the weight of empirical evidence, and in that context this distinction is valid and regularly used. Draw a circle and label its contents Undirected. Outside the circle one has Not Undirected, i.e. Directed. This is a legitimate dichotomy, and it is used by science routinely with only one consistent blind-spot exception. Due to the bias of materialism, an inference to directed causes is resisted if the influencing intelligence could possibly be God. It doesn't have to be God. It is unacceptable even if we are just not sure that it is not God. Hence, Dawkins freely allows that life could be designed, provided we are only talking about aliens, but is certain that it cannot be designed by God. Until we can point to E.T., a deaf ear is turned toward the obvious design of biological cells. This kind of philosophical bias has no proper place within science. It is ideological prejudice, which always distorts the evaluation of the evidence.ericB
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
austin_english says: You talk about “naive 19th century Darwinian speculation about the origins and diversification of living systems.” But my philosophy notes say that the paradigm of relativity took hold between 1910 and 1920. Quantum mechanics took hold in the 1920s. Neodarwinism took hold in the 1930s. What do a bunch of 20th century dates have to do with 19th century speculation?Jasini
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Dr. Dodgen, You say, "During the Q&A session I commented about how, historically, erroneous scientific theories are eventually overthrown when the evidence becomes irrefutable." I read part of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in a philosophy course. Kuhn said that paradigms are replaced by better ones. Was a paradigm ever overthrown and not replaced? I read the Kitzmiller decision as a source for a term paper in history. I remember that ID had very few articles in science journals. Maybe neodarwinism is about to be replaced. But why would ID be in the new paradigm? I remember also from the decision that it's not valid to treat problems with neodarwinism as evidence for ID. Judge Jones mentioned the fallacy of the false dichotomy. You talk about "naive 19th century Darwinian speculation about the origins and diversification of living systems." But my philosophy notes say that the paradigm of relativity took hold between 1910 and 1920. Quantum mechanics took hold in the 1920s. Neodarwinism took hold in the 1930s.austin_english
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Salut Gil, Je ne savais pas que David B. paralait français. Est-ce qu'il a des livres en français? J'aime bien les discussions sur ce site ainsi que les sujets que tu commence. Lâche-pas!Borne
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill: "That’s why I always invite creationists and ID supporters to make presentations to my students, and strongly encourage my students to examine all sides of these issues from a highly skeptical point of view. It makes for good discussions, and helps them understand what the real issues are and what their importance is." What's the usual outcome of these discussions? Are minds changed, and in which direction?Russell
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
I’m just about done the book, I’m on page 197. I too vouch for David's character. He would be a great friend to have. The book is really excellent. David has a unique mind and writing style. He really touches on the philosophical issues regarding the nature of atheism and science. Its a 5 star book IMOP. It has that ability to make you really think when your reading it and it has a certain way of pointing things out and saying things that make your head spin. Not that it is confusing - but you often think to yourself "well, I never thought of it like that." Sheer novelty.Frost122585
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Speaking of abusing science for ideological ends, Dinesh D'Souza (a recent topic here) discusses such a thing. Mentioning a successful move to have 'impersonal' and 'unsupervised' removed from a National Association of Biology Teachers position statement re: evolution, with Eugenie Scott consenting to the logic that such wording goes beyond science. Seems rather on-topic with what Berlinski's book is focused on.nullasalus
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Sorry, off topic, but has anyone found any really good documentaries about the truth of global warming? Something with reputable scientists in it?Gods iPod
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
History has repeatedly shown that politics is uniformly fatal to good science. This includes all attempts by both sides in this debate to legislate scientific "truth", from the Butler Act to the current shenanigans in Florida. Personally, I have no problem with debating what is and isn't good science in my biology and evolution classes. That's why I always invite creationists and ID supporters to make presentations to my students, and strongly encourage my students to examine all sides of these issues from a highly skeptical point of view. It makes for good discussions, and helps them understand what the real issues are and what their importance is. I look forward to reading Dr. Berlinski's new book. Will Provine and I may, if all of our schedules permit, invite him to make a presentation in our evolution course at Cornell. If we are lucky enough to be able to arrange this, I will (like T. H. Huxley) be "sharpening my beak and claws" in readiness...Allen_MacNeill
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Your bike sounds fierce - I hope you've upgraded the brakes and suspension to cope with all that extra hp!duncan
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
I started reading THE DEVIL'S DELUSION yesterday. His prose easy to read, but laced with content. I found that I needed to slow down to get what he is really saying. He is exceedingly intelligent.toc
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
gpuccio: "I owe him some of my best “intelligent” laughs!" Then prepare yourself to laugh again. "The Devil's Delusion" is way sharp. My sides were hurting.Upright BiPed
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
So which Harley do you own? A 1998 Dyna Superglide, non-stock and souped up with Screaming Eagle pipes, S&S carburetor, high-performance ignition and cam, and increased compression ratio. It has 50% more horsepower than stock, and really roars.GilDodgen
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Gil
During the Q&A session I commented about how, historically, erroneous scientific theories are eventually overthrown when the evidence becomes irrefutable.
And this is always the way unless politics intervenes to stop the natural order of things. I believe politicians should let scientists define what science is or is not. Or a new class of scientifically educated politicans is required. Then where would their alligence be I wonder? To politics or science? Not only does the evidence need to be irrefutable it needs to be overwhelming! After all, does ID not already consider IC to be irrefutable? Then only overwhelming is left! :)RichardFry
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
I pray that this soul will find that for which it yearns.
Or perhaps that "this soul will yearn for what it needs."russ
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
So which Harley do you own?duncan
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Gil: "I pray that this soul will find that for which it yearns." That's one of the most beautiful, simple and universal prayers I have ever heard. I join you with all my heart. I have not read much by Berlinski, but what I have read has been stimulating, refreshing and, above all, fully enjoyable. I owe him some of my best "intelligent" laughs! I will read "The devil delusion" with absolute priority.gpuccio
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Gil says, "I sense in David Berlinski a great Renaissance man, with a keen mind and a searching, warm soul. I pray that this soul will find that for which it yearns." Amen.Gerry Rzeppa
April 9, 2008
April
04
Apr
9
09
2008
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
I may be a theist, but I admire David Berlinski's approach to the subject - and that quote alone was enough to make certain I get his book. ID aside, other issues aside, I agree with what he's saying about the perceived institutional misuse of science. I look forward to seeing what he writes.nullasalus
April 8, 2008
April
04
Apr
8
08
2008
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply