The Devil's Delusion

Found on Amazon.ca, on the summary page for The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.

I was poking around in books that were giving the religious response to the 'New Atheist' works of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc... I was trying to find one that I thought would be a well-argued, but not petty, response to these best-selling books (of which I have only read one - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins). Well, maybe my first mistake was clicking on the link for a book called The Devil's Delusion (already sounds horribly reactionary, doesn't it?). Apparently Dawkins struck a few nerves (it is rather an inflammatory title), as there is also a book called The Dawkins Delusion somewhere out there.

Anyway, I came across this list of questions and answers, purportedly meant to summarize the contents of the book. I am going to list them all and provide my own (probably long-winded) comments:

"Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close."
Presumably this book is at least somewhat a response to The God Delusion, so shouldn't you rather address Dawkins' position that the burden of proof should reside with the religious voice?

"Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close."
I believe, and Dawkins and Carl Sagan would appear to agree with me, that not knowing something is no reason to apply an arbitrary solution to the problem. Call me a proof man, but I'm hedging my bets until reality is revealed conclusively. I will take that to the grave, too, and it does not bother me.

"Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close."
Not much to say about this one, except that I hope the author at least has the sense to acknowledge or address the anthropomorphic principle.

"Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough."
This is offensive; I am sure many scientists are trying to reconcile their beliefs with their studies, and falling on both sides of the fence.

"Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough."
I fail to see how this is an argument in the favour of God.

"Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close."
This discourse must be interesting. I don't agree but I would be open to reading this component. The answer is incredibly snarky, though, and does not reflect the attitudes of an author I would enjoy.

"Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough."
The question is too broad (within the sciences at large? why not just address your 'New Atheists?') and the answer doesn't even really fit with the question. I think you would find many scientists much more receptive if you brought them evidence; reproducible evident would be event better. That's how scientists think. It's not close-minded; it's the way we test the world, so that when we declare something, we know that it will stand up to reason. We wouldn't be anywhere today (in terms of knowledge) if people were not questioning, and questioning is not a close-minded thing.

"Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark."
I'm tempted to just say 'what?' but I think that would not do this question justice. I think that, depending on how you define rational, religion could be claimed to be very irrational, but so could atheism. Firmly believing something, or disbelieving it, with no proof of either position, is something that I consider irrational. I can elaborate on that if anyone desires, but this post is getting to be long.

"Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on."
Well, my intellectual contempt stems from poorly framed questions such as these, which would appear not to directly address any of the points made in the book this one is named after. I sincerely hope that this is not the author that has written this summary, and that this part of the summary does not reflect the contents of the book, but I will not be buying the book because this is the way it has been represented. If you want to write inflammatory books that are meant to raise people's ire and bring this debate down to schoolyard scraps with words, that's fine. I just won't buy your book, and will probably think less of you. You are, after all, just proving Dawkins right when he believes that religion can not be debated.

(All quotes taken lovingly from Amazon.ca , Amazon.com, Inc's Canadian website)