Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 19, 2021 9:10:54 GMT -8
God of the Details: The Scientific Cover-Up of Intelligent Design is a 119 page rhetorical take-down of scientism. At the moment you can get it for 99 cents.
This is a book written by a layman and aimed toward the layman. Parts of it are as good of a critique of scientism as I've read, including David Berlinski.
Basically the thrust of it is that science has been corrupted by an atheist/materialist metaphysics that has it doing not only goofy things (the multiverse theory) but reprehensible things (getting fired for questioning the core atheism of modern science). Unfortunately, this book is light on the kind of intolerance that gets people fired or marginalized just for going against the party line. But it does mention it in passing.
However, like much of the intelligent design movement, it scores well when critiquing atheism but doesn't replace it with much. One could say that simply carving out a legitimate space for religious belief is a job well done. But this fellow keeps stating that all of religion everywhere is all just made up.
So what we see (or at least I see) is a fellow who is at stage one or stage two of his journey out from under the dark umbrella of atheism. But he retains one of the core characteristics of those whom he is critiquing. He declares that these atheist-committed scientists are using their status as scientists to forward their biases (or intuitions, or preferences) as fact. And this book is full of the author basically doing the same thing. He is basically saying that my intuition (all religion is baseless) is correct. There is no room for other views.
But this conflicts with the core tenet of his book which is that God has made the universe in such a way that we are meant to find Him in it. So....are all the sages and prophets of the last several thousand years exempt from having any intuition of God?
This man is ultimately as arrogant and narrow-minded (and uninformed) as those he critiques. But some of the critiques of scientism are brilliant. Is this worth the 99 cents? Probably not. You can read better stuff here. By me. Without the bias.
This is a book written by a layman and aimed toward the layman. Parts of it are as good of a critique of scientism as I've read, including David Berlinski.
Basically the thrust of it is that science has been corrupted by an atheist/materialist metaphysics that has it doing not only goofy things (the multiverse theory) but reprehensible things (getting fired for questioning the core atheism of modern science). Unfortunately, this book is light on the kind of intolerance that gets people fired or marginalized just for going against the party line. But it does mention it in passing.
However, like much of the intelligent design movement, it scores well when critiquing atheism but doesn't replace it with much. One could say that simply carving out a legitimate space for religious belief is a job well done. But this fellow keeps stating that all of religion everywhere is all just made up.
So what we see (or at least I see) is a fellow who is at stage one or stage two of his journey out from under the dark umbrella of atheism. But he retains one of the core characteristics of those whom he is critiquing. He declares that these atheist-committed scientists are using their status as scientists to forward their biases (or intuitions, or preferences) as fact. And this book is full of the author basically doing the same thing. He is basically saying that my intuition (all religion is baseless) is correct. There is no room for other views.
But this conflicts with the core tenet of his book which is that God has made the universe in such a way that we are meant to find Him in it. So....are all the sages and prophets of the last several thousand years exempt from having any intuition of God?
This man is ultimately as arrogant and narrow-minded (and uninformed) as those he critiques. But some of the critiques of scientism are brilliant. Is this worth the 99 cents? Probably not. You can read better stuff here. By me. Without the bias.