style as a valid pedagogical method,most students see it for what it is: pa-tronizing and a trifle smug. Plantinga'sgender-inclusive use of "she" not onlyperpetuates this tone of philosophi-cal condescension, but also throwsover his book the pall of a linguisticagenda that has nothing to do withhis thesis.

That and something more. Plant-inga's incessant use of "she" to referto hypothetical scientists skews himaway from a vital issue that lurks be-nearh his book but is never addressed.One of the problems with naturalistic,materialistic science grounded in Dar-

winism is that it is excessively malein approach. Whereas the masculinemindset seeks a "logical" explanationfor everything and desires to categorizethings into discrete boxes, the femi-nine mindset tends to be more holis-tic, more open to explanations that gobeyond facts and figures and charts.Plantinga's inclusive "she" obscures thisdistinction, one that might have helpedhim develop a fuller vision of sciencethat does not arbitrarily exclude theintangible.

Despite these flaws. Where theConflict Really Lies provides a much-needed antidote to new atheists who

have enshrined methodological natu-ralism as a "fact," and to theistic evo-lutionists who have counseled theirfellow believers to simply accept thestatus quo. •

Louis Markos (www.Loumarkos.com), Pro-fessor in English and Scholar in Residence atHouston Baptist University, holds the RobertH. Ray Chair in Humanities; his books includeFrom Achilles to Christ (IVP), Apologeticsfor the 21st Century (Crossway), Litera-ture: A Student's Guide (Crossway), and,most recently. On the Shoulders of Hob-bies: The Road to Virtue with Tolkien andLewis (Moody, 2012).

DiabolicalScience

THE DEVIL'S DELUSION: ATHEISM AND

ITS SCIENTIFIC PRETENSIONS

by David BerlinskiBasic Books, 2009(237pages, $15.95, paperback)

reviewed by MATTHEW DOWLING

DEVIL'SU I 1 I 1 I I I I r u i i i i s i o i s

DELUSION

B Y NOW, THE HOOFBEATS of

the famed "four horsemen"of the New Atheism—Rich-ard Dawkins, Sam Harris,

Daniel Dennett, and ChristopherHitchens—are fading. Scholars of vari-ous stripes—theologians, philosophers,and other thinkers—have had the op-portunity to answer their claims, andmany have found them wanting. Thediscussion, however, continues, andperhaps one of the most lively and eru-dite responses to the New Atheism isby David Berlinski: The Devil's Delusion:Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. Thetitle plays on one of New Atheism'sprimary tomes, Richard Dawkins'sThe God Delusion.

Berlinski is a philosopher and aSenior Fellow at the Discovery Insri-tute's Center for Science and Culturein Seattle, the institutional home and

think tank for much of the scholarshipfoundational to intelligent design theo-ry. Trained in mathematics, molecularbiology, and philosophy, Berlinski isideally suited to take up his book's lineof inquiry: Has science been able toprove God's nonexistence, as it is com-monly contended? The New Atheistssay yes. Berlinski says no.

He is an interesting author for thisproject, and in some ways is set apartfrom others who have written book-length responses to the New Atheists(e.g., theologian Alister E. McGrathin The Dawkins Delusion). Berlinski is asecular Jewish scholar who readily ad-mits that his "religious education didnot take" {xiii). Ironically, given his non-religious leanings, his book tends to beas much a defense of religious thoughtas it is a skewering of the overwroughtclaims of contemporary science—and

"skewering" is just what is happeninghere. His tone throughout the book issharp, witty, and highly polemical, andhe holds little of his vitriol in reserve.

TROUBLES WITH SCIENTISMwhat unfolds throughout much ofthe book is Berlinski's demonstrationthat, in the hands of the New Athe-ists, the authority of science has beenpushed far beyond what science cancredibly establish. Far from being adetractor of science, Berlinski is quickto compliment the scientific traditionand its accomplishments—but as a toolto be used in disproving God, he findsit useless. He notes what others havealready observed but rarely concede-that scientism demands faith as muchas any religion does. Its "faith" is in itsmethodological presupposition thatthe supernarural (i.e., God) is not to beconsidered a priori as a creative agent.

After a thorough explorarion ofthe problems and claims of scientismin chapters 1-3, Berlinski turns inchapter 4 ("The Cause") to one of thegreat cracks in scientism's edifice: thefundamental question of what causedthe universe. Twentieth-century phys-ics, beginning with Einstein, demon-strated that the universe had a begin-ning—the famous result known as "bigbang" cosmology. For many physicists,this result was troublingly support-ive of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures:

52 TOUCHSTONE | M A R C H / A P R I L 2OI3

In the beginning God created tbe heavens

and tbe earth.

Betlinski closes his book with atnetaphot. In the final chaptet ("TheCatdinal and His Cathedtal") he notesthat, like the medieval foundets of Eu-tope's gteat cathedtals, the Enlighten-ment ptoject has btought us its gteatesthandiwotk—science as a way of know-ing. As many questions as science cananswet, howevet, thete is much that it,because of its constitutional limita-tions, cannot, and it is the metaphysi-cal conjectuting of those that misuseit that puts science outside its fieldof competence and tutns it into thedubious teligion of scientism. Thus,Betlinski's metaphot: that science is acathedtal with its ptiests and catdinalsall sitting in a decaying edifice. Sci-ence is not dead, and yet, when used

as a method fot disptoving God, itfails. Thete ate no sutptises hete fotthe Chtistian scholar Fot those of theotthodox faith, thete was nevet any tealthteat.

A RIPOSTE WORTHREADINGThe Devil's Delusion is apptoptiate fotthe pastot and scholat, and fot all thosewho ate intetested in an academic's te-sponse to the New Atheism. Betlinski'swtiting is well infotmed, pointed, andhighly entettaining. Some teadets notused to the polemical tone of muchthat suttounds the New Atheism mightbe sutptised at the pugnacity of his te-sponse. Aftet all, aten't academics sup-posed to be dty and subtle? Not so inthis atena. Indeed, with this antithesis

to The God Delusion, Betlinski showshimself to be a wotthy opponent, andthe tone of his tiposte seems altogethetapptoptiate.

• The book contains a subject index,which is helpful; but footnoting andendnotes ate missing, which is disap-pointing. And any teadet seeking abibliogtaphy on the topic of the NewAtheism will have to look elsewhete.Nonetheless, anyone intetested in theNew Atheists and theit attacks on theChtistian faith in the past five yeats willnot want to miss Betlinski's book. •

Matthew Dowling is an evolutionary biologist

and Christian tbeolo^an studying tbe intersec-

tion of theology and science, particularly reli-

gious and scientific epistemology. He worsbips

and ministers at Monmoutb Cburcb of Christ

in New Jersey.

Not Lostfor WordsMORTALITYby Christopher HitchensTwelve Publishing 2012(119pages, $22.99, hardcover)

FAREWELL FEAR

by Theodore Dalrymple

New English Review Press, 2012(238 pages, $19.95, paperback)

reviewed by MATTHEW WALTHER

wC( I T V y "•• HO ELSE FEELS Chtisto-phet Hitchens gettingtetminal thtoat cancetwas God's tevenge fot

him using his voice to blaspheme him?"Dismayed. That's how I felt in

June 2010 when messages like thisone began to appeat online followingthe announcement that ChtistophetHitchens had been diagnosed withesophageal (not thtoat) cancet. Hitch-

ens, a conttibuting editot at Vanity Fairand Tbe Atlantic, the authot of neatlytwenty books and, fot my money, oneof the best populat litetaty ctitics of hisgenetation, passed away in Decetnbet2011, but while he was with us, he waspethaps out fotetnost public conttovet-sialist.

Take any issue about which theteseems to be, if not genetal, then at leastwidesptead agteement, detetmine its

logical ot polat opposite, and you atelikely to have discoveted Hitchens'sview. No teasonable gtounds existedfot wat with Saddam Hussein, sayHitchens's coevals on the left. No, saysHitchens, the Itaq Wat was both justi-fied and necessaty. Henty Kissinget is agteat statesman, say many Ameticans,tegatdless of theit pattisan commit-ments. No, says Hitchens, he is a watctiminal. Mothet Tetesa was a hetoine,says neatly evetyone. No, says Hitchens,she was a ftaud.

Lutking behind this last, tathetbizatte judgment is, of coutse, the opin-ion fot which Hitchens became most fa-mous, namely that, to bottow ftom thesubtitle of his 2007 bestseilet, teligionpoisons evetything. Hitchens's bel-ligetent and occasionally obnoxiousatheism ftusttated his many Chtistianadmitets, who othetwise appteciatedhis wit and bellicosity. (Thousandsof Ametican teadets of all cteeds canalso thank Hitchens fot inttoducingthem to neglected Btitish novelists likeKingsley Amis, Anthony Powell, Ev-elyn Waugh, and P. G. Wodehouse, theauthot he loved best, in the pages ofTbe Atlantic and The New York Review ofBooks)

MARCH/APRIL 2013 I TOUCHSTONE S3

Copyright of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity is the property of Fellowship of St. James and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.