Anyone who wishes to speak intelligently about science's pretensions to metaphysics (understanding God's presence or God's absence, drawn from the nature of being) needs to read this book by David Berlinski, a secular-agnostic Jew. It is cogent, concise and brilliant. He loses focus in his last chapter where he presents a recount of the Roman Church's struggle to come to grips with expanding scientific realities in the time of Nicolaus Copernicus and shortly there after. But aside from that last departure the book is brilliant.
The jacket cover gives an excellent review of the book in the author's own questions and answers:
Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good and what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
From TrueFreeThinker.comWill Richard Dawkins debate David Berlinski?
Interesting question, as Richard Dawkins has stated, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Yet, he has stated the following of David Berlinski:
Are there, then, any examples of anti-evolution poseurs who are not ignorant, stupid or insane, and who might be genuine candidates for the wicked category? I once shared a platform with someone called David Berlinski, who is certainly not ignorant, stupid or insane. He denies that he is a creationist, but claims strong scientific arguments against evolution…As I said, he is certainly not ignorant, stupid or insane.
So, in Richard Dawkins’ estimation David Berlinski is not ignorant, stupid or insane—just wicked.
He is wicked, by default, for daring to question the dogmatheism of Dawkins’ god; Darwin. Now, Dawkins has stated that if you doubt, yes even doubt, that human beings are related to bananas and turnips you are to be likened to a Holocaust denier. Yet, David Berlinski—the agnostic Jew—dares to doubt it and his parents escaped from Germany to escape from the Nazis, to escape the Holocaust. What grotesque results ensue from Richard Dawkins’ constant attention getting and emotive remarks. - End Quote.
The fact remains in this inside outside world, those claiming ultimate knowledge of God's non-existence are seen to be Luciferian and not rational men and women, and this includes all of the fathers of naturalism that turned post-human anti-God, and anti-Christ. (Malthus, the collective Huxleys, Darwin, the entire Scientistic Dictatorship Elite, etc., etc.) I would suggest not just reading, but re-reading and studying this book. +++