From the Wandering Jew to William F. Buckley Jr.: On Science, Literature, and Religion [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

There are ten short essays on such subjects as psychic surgery in the Philippines, "Oral Roberts on Jim Bakker," "Life Magazine and Astrology," etc., and a number of book reviews, including Searching for Bobby Fischer (1988) by Fred Waitzkin, a life of Lewis Carroll and Lewis Carroll as a photographer, both by Morton Cohen, Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (1995), and What is Mathematics, Really? (1997) by Reuben Hersh. In the latter, Gardner strongly disagrees with Hersh's thesis, insisting that mathematics does indeed exist outside the human mind, and that, for example, two plus two equals four anywhere in the galaxy. (Notice my reluctance to write "anywhere in the universe.") Perhaps the most incisive essay is Gardner's debunking of the phony psychic surgeons, which he does in a style that would please both Carl Sagan and James Randi, and does indeed please this reviewer. Notable in the review of Reflections in a Looking Glass (1998) by Morton Cohen about Lewis Carroll are two photos taken by the author of Alice in Wonderland, one of them of the real-life Alice herself. Also included are introductions to new releases of three books by H.G. Wells.

I was particularly entertained by Gardner's deflation of William F. Buckley Jr. in his review of Buckley's Nearer, My God (1997). It seems that Buckley believes whole heartedly in such fundamental Catholic doctrines as incarnation, virgin birth, atonement, the resurrection of Jesus, papal infallibility, hell, and hell fire. Literally. Gardner wonders if Buckley thinks that Eve was fabricated "from one of Adam's ribs, or does he accept the evolution of human bodies?" (p. 343). Buckley replies to Gardner's review but does not respond to the question about evolution. Gardner concludes that, in spite of his admirable faith, "Buckley is guilty of what has been called the sin of willful ignorance."

I also liked Gardner's devaluation of the so-called science of memetics in his review of psychologist Susan Jane Blackmore's recent book, The Meme Machine. Gardner sees the "memes-eye view" as "little more than a peculiar terminology for saying the obvious" (p. 214), and he agrees with Stephen Jay Gould, who called memes "meaningless metaphors" (p. 215).

I have only one question of Mr. Gardner: how can you justify the time spent on reading works from the likes of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye or about such charlatans as the Seventh Day Adventist fraud, Margaret Rowen? I suspect Gardner would reply that he is doing a public service by flailing against the ever-present tide of pseudoscience and fake religiosity. He undoubtedly feels as Carl Sagan did, that "the rising flood of superstition and pseudoscience is too damaging to society to be ignored" (p. 125). I agree, and in fact, his is a noble cause. May he long persist.

Which brings me to the last essay in the book, the review of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s _Nearer, My God_. Gardner respects Buckley, despite strong disagreements with him on varied topics, and the review, as such, is certainly positive: "I put down 'Nearer, My God' with unbounded admiration for Buckley's courage and honesty and the depth of his piety." However, the bulk of the article is a rambling account of time-worn criticisms of Christianity that Gardner suggests Buckley has answered with willful ignorance. The problem isn't that the criticisms are uninteresting (one of them is the problem of evil, another the difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God that so moved the Gnostics). It's hard to imagine that Buckley could have written a book that answered all of them, and presumably Buckley is as aware of them as the next highly educated and supremely literate Catholic--I suspect (he hints as much in his reply to Gardner, included here) that Buckley would refer Martin Gardner to some of the thinkers Gardner and Buckley mention--Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

The chief problem with the essay is that when it comes to religious matters, Gardner, despite a great admiration for Chesterton and a good deal of knowledge, has a strangely Protestant approach to matters, and tends to judge Catholic thought as if sola scriptura had been the cry not of Luther but of the Church. In particular, although it is hard for me to imagine that the widely read Martin Gardner isn't aware of Newman's ideas on the development of doctrine and the Church's position that tradition, rather than simply the texts of the canon and the Church Fathers, serves a role in this development. Gardner seems to think that the writings of Aquinas are all formally proclaimed doctrine and that doctrines historically present but not written by the earliest fathers are inventions. This overly text-based approach might be a legitimate weapon to use against a Protestant Church proclaiming itself to be based purely on early texts, but it is not very useful in discussing a Church that claims to develop (not invent) doctrine under the continued guidance of an acting Spirit.

This point aside, the book is certainly worth reading if you've enjoyed Martin Gardner's writings in the past.