A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love book cover

A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love

Paperback – October 27, 2004

Price
$13.45
Format
Paperback
Pages
272
Publisher
Mariner Books
Publication Date
ISBN-13
978-0618485390
Dimensions
5.51 x 0.68 x 8.27 inches
Weight
9.8 ounces

Description

"[A] pleasure-inducing voyage into scientific principles . . . brilliantly presented and celebrated." Kirkus Reviews, Starred"Dawkins’s enthusiasm for the diversity of life on this planet should prove contagious." Publishers Weekly"His discussions of religious issues are intensely thought-provoking....Dawkins is creative, articulate and, above all, emotional." --Christine Kenneally The New York Times Book Review — RICHARD DAWKINS is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. He is the author of 15 books including Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain , and The God Delusion . Dawkins lives in Oxford., Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. A Devil's Chaplain Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love By Richard Dawkins Mariner Books Copyright ©2004 Richard DawkinsAll right reserved. ISBN: 0618485392 Excerpt AUTHOR"S NOTEThis book constitutes a personal selection, made by the Editor Latha Menon, from among all the articles and lectures, reflections and polemics, book reviews and forewords, tributes and eulogies that I have published (or in a few cases not previously published) over 25 years. There are many themes here, some arising out of Darwinism or science in general, some concerned with morality, some with religion, education, justice, history of science, some just plain personal. Though I admit to occasional flames of (entirely justified) irritation in my writing, I like to think that the greater part of it is good-humoured, perhaps even humorous. Where there is passion, well, there is much to be passionate about. Where there is anger, I hope it is a controlled anger. Where there is sadness, I hope it never spills over into despair but still looks to the future. But mostly science is, for me, a source of living joy, and I hope it comes through in these pages. My contribution to the book itself has been to write the preambles to each of the seven sections, reflecting on the essays Latha has chosen and the connections between them. Hers was the difficult task, and I am filled with admiration for the patience with which she read through vastly more of my writings than are here reproduced, and for the skill with which she achieved a subtler balance of them than I thought they possessed. Her own Introduction gives the reasoning behind her choice, and behind her sorting of the essays into seven sections with a carefully crafted running-order within each section. But as for what she had to choose from, the responsibility is, of course, mine. It is not possible to list all the people who helped with the individual pieces, spread as they are over 25 years. Help with the book itself came from Yan Wong, Christine DeBlase-Ballstadt, Anthony Cheetham, Michael Dover, Laura van Dam and Catherine Bradley. My gratitude to Charles Simonyi is unabated. And my wife Lalla Ward continues to lend her encouragement, her advice and her fine-tuned ear for the music of language.—Richard DawkinsEDITOR"S INTRODUCTIONIt took quite a while for me to get round to reading The Selfish Gene. My love had been for the elegance, the philosophical profundity, the exquisite simplicity of the world as revealed by physics. Chemistry seemed messy, and as for biology – well, my brief acquaintance with it from school had suggested a dry field, full of dull collections of facts, much learning by rote, and little in the way of organizational principles. How wrong I was. Like many, I had thought I understood evolution, but it was through the books of Richard Dawkins in particular that I was introduced to the astonishing depth and grandeur of Darwin"s (and Wallace"s) idea, to its astounding explanatory power and its profound implications for ourselves and our view of the world. The narrow domestic walls that habit, tradition and prejudice had erected between the fields of science in my mind fell away. I was delighted, therefore, to be able to repay the debt in some small measure when I was asked by the publishers to put together this collection of Richard"s writings. Richard is an academic scientist, but this volume does not include his academic papers. Instead it brings together a number of his shorter articles and columns intended for a wider audience. The task was not an easy one. The composing of this volume has involved some difficult choices and has sadly entailed leaving behind much which must await a future collection. In selecting the pieces included here, I have sought to reflect the range of Richard"s interests and concerns, and something of his life too; indeed, almost inevitably, the volume contains an autobiographical element. It is divided into seven sections, moving broadly from science, through memes and religion, to people and memories. The first six sections contain mixtures of pieces of varying lengths and moods, written in different contexts. There is plenty here, of course, on evolution, and more generally on the nature of science, on its unique ability to seek out truth, contrasted with the muddled thinking of New Age mysticism and spirituality, the superficially more impressive "metatwaddle" of postmodernism, and the closed, authoritarian, faith-based beliefs of revealed religion. This would not be a representative volume without some of Richard"s writings on religion. I have an especially pertinent personal reason for sharing the urgency and passion of his words on the subject: I was born in India – that country which has been so dragged back by its superstitious baggage, where religious labels have been used to such widespread and horrific effect. So much for the necessary and principled stand. Being a scientist and rationalist does not mean a life of soulless grind, of misery and meaninglessness, but one that is immensely more enriched, more precious. Gathered here, too, then, is a selection of warm memories – of an African childhood, of inspiring mentors, of departed friends, much loved. And books and love of learning weave their way throughout the whole, with forewords, reviews and critical commentaries (including a section on the works of the late Stephen J. Gould). The final section, "A Prayer for My Daughter", in many ways sums up the key themes of the volume. It expresses an earnest hope that future generations will continue to strive for an understanding of the natural world through reason and based on evidence. It is a passionate plea against the tyranny of mind-numbing belief systems. My main task has been the selection and arrangement of Richard"s writings. The articles appear much as they did in their original form, with occasional deletions and minor word-changes to fit the context of the collection, and the addition of further explanatory footnotes. Richard himself has been a model of patience and generosity throughout the preparation of the volume, as well as a constant inspiration. My thanks also go to Lalla Ward for her valuable comments and suggestions, Christine DeBlase-Ballstadt for her assistance with the textual material, and Michael Dover and Laura van Dam for their encouragement and support for the project. A final word. For me as editor, working on this collection has been a particularly special experience, so closely do my own views accord with those of the author on many things. Above all, this volume is about the richness of the world when viewed in the light of scientific understanding. Science reveals a reality wondrous beyond the imaginings of tradition. Look again at that entangled bank.—L.M.1SCIENCE AND SENSIBILITYThe first essay in this volume, A Devil"s Chaplain (1.1), has not previously been published. The title, borrowed by the book, is explained in the essay itself. The second essay, What is True? (1.2), was my contribution to a symposium of that name, in Forbes ASAP magazine. Scientists tend to take a robust view of truth and are impatient of philosophical equivocation over its reality or importance. It"s hard enough coaxing nature to give up her truths, without spectators and hangers-on strewing gratuitous obstacles in our way. My essay argues that we should at least be consistent. Truths about everyday life are just as much – or as little – open to philosophical doubt as scientific truths. Let us shun double standards. At times I fear turning into a double standards bore. It started in childhood when my first hero, Doctor Dolittle (he returned irresistibly to mind when I read the Naturalist"s Voyage of my adult hero, Charles Darwin), raised my consciousness, to borrow a useful piece of feminist jargon, about our treatment of animals. Non-human animals I should say, for, of course, we are animals. The moral philosopher most justly credited with raising today"s consciousness in this direction is Peter Singer, lately moved from Australia to Princeton. His The Great Ape Project aims towards granting the other great apes, as near as is practically possible, civil rights equivalent to those enjoyed by the human great ape. When you stop and ask yourself why this seems so immediately ridiculous, the harder you think, the less ridiculous it seems. Cheap cracks like "I suppose you"ll need reinforced ballot-boxes for gorillas, then?" are soon dispatched: we give rights, but not the vote, to children, lunatics and Members of the House of Lords. The biggest objection to the GAP is "Where will it all end? Rights for oysters?" (Bertrand Russell"s quip, in a similar context). Where do you draw the line? Gaps in the Mind (1.3), my own contribution to the GAP book, uses an evolutionary argument to show that we should not be in the business of drawing lines in the first place. There"s no law of nature that says boundaries have to be clear-cut. In December 2000 I was among those invited by David Miliband MP, then Head of the Prime Minister"s Policy Unit and now Minister for School Standards, to write a memo on a particular subject for Tony Blair to read over the Christmas holiday. My brief was Science, Genetics, Risk and Ethics (1.4) and I reproduce my (previously unpublished) contribution here (eliminating Risk and some other passages to avoid overlap with other essays). Any proposal to curtail, in the smallest degree, the right of trial by jury is greeted with wails of affront. On the three occasions when I have been called to serve on a jury, the experience proved disagreeable and disillusioning. Much later, two grotesquely over-publicized trials in the United States prompted me to think through a central reason for my distrust of the jury system, and to write it down as Trial By Jury (1.5). Crystals are first out of the box of tricks toted by psychics, mystics, mediums and other charlatans. My purpose in the next article was to explain the real magic of crystals to the readers of a London newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph. At one time it was only the low-grade tabloid newspapers that encouraged popular superstitions like crystal-gazing or astrology. Nowadays some up-market newspapers, including the Telegraph, have dumbed down to the extent of printing a regular astrology column, which is why I accepted their invitation to write Crystalline Truth and Crystal Balls (1.6). A more intellectual species of charlatan is the target of the next essay, Postmodernism Disrobed (1.7). Dawkins" Law of the Conservation of Difficulty states that obscurantism in an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity. Physics is a genuinely difficult and profound subject, so physicists need to – and do – work hard to make their language as simple as possible ("but no simpler," rightly insisted Einstein). Other academics – some would point the finger at continental schools of literary criticism and social science – suffer from what Peter Medawar (I think) called Physics Envy. They want to be thought profound, but their subject is actually rather easy and shallow, so they have to language it up to redress the balance. The physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated a blissfully funny hoax on the Editorial "Collective" (what else?) of a particularly pretentious journal of social studies. Afterwards, together with his colleague Jean Bricmont, he published a book, Intellectual Impostures, ably documenting this epidemic of Fashionable Nonsense (as their book was retitled in the United States). "Postmodernism Disrobed" is my review of this hilarious but disquieting book. I must add, the fact that the word "postmodernism" occurs in the title given me by the Editors of Nature does not imply that I (or they) know what it means. Indeed, it is my belief that it means nothing at all, except in the restricted context of architecture where it originated. I recommend the following practice, whenever anybody uses the word in some other context. Stop them instantly and ask, in a neutral spirit of friendly curiosity, what it means. Never once have I heard anything that even remotely approaches a usable, or even faintly coherent, definition. The best you"ll get is a nervous titter and something like, "Yes I agree, it is a terrible word isn"t it, but you know what I mean." Well no, actually, I don"t. As a lifelong teacher, I fret about where we go wrong in education. I hear horror stories almost daily of ambitious parents or ambitious schools ruining the joy of childhood. And it starts wretchedly early. A six-year-old boy receives "counselling" because he is "worried" that his performance in mathematics is falling behind. A headmistress summons the parents of a little girl to suggest that she should be sent for external tuition. The parents expostulate that it is the school"s job to teach the child. Why is she falling behind? She is falling behind, explains the headmistress patiently, because the parents of all the other children in the class are paying for them to go to external tutors. It is not just the joy of childhood that is threatened. It is the joy of true education: of reading for the sake of a wonderful book rather than for an exam; of following up a subject because it is fascinating rather than because it is on a syllabus; of watching a great teacher"s eyes light up for sheer love of the subject. The Joy of Living Dangerously: Sanderson of Oundle (1.8) is an attempt to bring back from the past the spirit of just such a great teacher.Copyright © 2003 by Richard Dawkins. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Company. Continues... Excerpted from A Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins Copyright ©2004 by Richard Dawkins. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site. Read more

Features & Highlights

  • The first collection of essays from renowned scientist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins.
  • Richard Dawkins's essays are an enthusiastic testament to the power of rigorous, scientific examination, and they span many different corners of his personal and professional life. He revisits the meme, the unit of cultural information that he named and wrote about in his groundbreaking work
  • The Selfish Gene
  • . He makes moving tributes to friends and colleagues, including a eulogy for novelist Douglas Adams; he shares correspondence with the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; and he visits with the famed paleoanthropologists Richard and Maeve Leakey at their African wildlife preserve. He concludes the essays with a vivid note to his ten-year-old daughter, reminding her to remain curious, to ask questions, and to live the examined life.

Customer Reviews

Rating Breakdown

★★★★★
60%
(151)
★★★★
25%
(63)
★★★
15%
(38)
★★
7%
(18)
-8%
(-19)

Most Helpful Reviews

✓ Verified Purchase

A good intro for those new to Dawkins's ideas

This is a great book outlining Dawkins's various ideas on science, religion and philosophy. Those of you who find his other books hard to follow will benefit from this collection of essays and his views on religion are more pronounced.

The most interesting chapter was the `Information Challenge' where Dawkins highlights the deception that Creationists (by this I mean those of the Christian elk. Unfortunately Dawkins puts all creationists under one umbrella...see my review of his other book, `An Ancestor's Tale - A Journey to the Dawn of Life/Evolution). He noted that he was being videoed by this group from Australia and he was asked if he had known of any examples where mutations increased information content. This is a non-question, but the video then shows that he couldn't answer this. I came across this interview in an Islamic video on Evolution vs Creation (note to Muslims: Please do not use Christian Creationist material...they are very unscientific and deceptive). I thought that Dawkins was proven wrong, but after reading the Information Challenge it turns out that his silence wasn't due to lack of an answer but he was deciding whether to throw them out or not because he realised they were creationists. This chapter is in fact an answer to the question that was posed to him by the Aussie group.

His view on religion is a bit complex because I have noted changing opinions (note I will not use the word, `contradictions' because the last time I did that in my review of `An Ancestors Tale' a creationist misquoted me by saying I highlighted contradictions in Dawkins's arguments when I emphatically stated that these may not be contradictions after all but changes in opinion which can happen). Sept 11 had a profound effect on Dawkins and he made a harsh judgement on religion and that it was responsible for the attacks and other problems of the world. He also said somewhere else that religion was a virus of the mind which needed to be eradicated. This is where I have to part ways with Atheists. Misuse of religion, as with any belief system is a virus. But the religion themselves do not teach mass murder and killings of innocents contrary to Dawkins's claims in the chapter, `Viruses of the Mind'. I agree that the `Suicide Mission Virus' is a deadly virus, but the faith which suicide bombers belong to does not demand such actions, it condemns them totally. Those who use religion as a pretext are the ones to blame as they are going against religious edicts. Hell fire will ensure that murderers are given their just desserts which they didn't get in this life. However, in a later chapter, `Time to Stand Up', Dawkins does admit that it isn't necessarily religion per se that causes murder but it is a label that is used by these murderers. Dawkins did admit that he was a bit too harsh on his claims just after 9/11. I did send him a DVD on Islam and Terrorism (by Dr. Zakir Naik in the presence of the American Counsel of South India) which should have put to rest any thought that Islam encouraged terrorism. It would be nice to get a reply from Dawkins to see if he has changed his views.

I also enjoyed his chapter, `Snake Oil'. It puts to rest any notion that `Alternative Medicine' has beneficial effects compared to Orthodox Medicine. He does successfully expose the quacks who practice them. I agree with Dawkins that Medicine is Medicine. Period. There is no such thing as `Alternative' Medicine.

There are other chapters which the reader will find of great interest. I would recommend this book for those who are new to Dawkins's ideas and before venturing into his other works which are more scientifically detailed.

Hasan Ali Imam

(Ex-Parliamentary Candidate, Conservative Party)

London

UK
12 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

The devil's advocate

Naturalistic Darwinian evolution cannot account for the laws of logic which isn't natural! Therefore evolution is false!
Dawkins indeed is one of the devils right hand men. All the atheist can hold on to are straw man arguments or rescuing devises but in the end even Dawkins will stand before Jesus Christ and give an account of all these lies. Trying to get rid of God using `false science' or `poetry' as Dawkins calls it would sum up his religious methodology! Visit John Hartnett for some true science, not poetry for the God hating Masses!

It seems that Dawkins's followers are adamant protecting the devils turf, trying desperately to get rid of the Bible as one's final authority. Here we have another follower of Dawkins, Reynaldo who it seem has cut and pasted difficult scientific Gibberish to once again bedazzle the unscientific atheist with beautiful `poetry'. The artistic beauty of mathematical formulas seems to tower high above the Word of God for an explanation of all things. Now the crux of the matter is this, mathematics itself cannot be accounted for by Naturalism or Dawkins evolution but it can be accounted for in the theistic worldview for it reflects the beautiful order of a loving creator, Jesus Christ, if the atheist wants to accept this or not, Truth is always unchanging and absolute. The atheist really has no leg to stand on. Let's refute Renaldo's conclusion quickly. He says "The moral of this story is that quantum cosmology and classical theism cannot both be true. One has two choices: become an atheist or else argue that science, in the form of quantum cosmology, is false. However, since Copernicus and Galileo, any time that religion has opposed science, religion has lost.
First, there is no scientist who understand quantum physics completely and who can adequately explain the universe in terms of such `quantum processes' or the origin of the universe. What we are dealing with is ever changing `scientific theories' that lacks credibility amongst true scientists like Dr John Hartnett. Still, the question in physics remain, why is there something rather than nothing which can only be explained by the existence of God.
Secondly, there is a massive difference between true spirituality [that God exists] and religions that is manmade and is merely the doctrine of demons or false spirituality! And here in capital letters is Reynaldo's emotional response to the God of the universe, `YOU ONLY HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS NO PLACE FOR YOUR LITTLE GOD IN THIS UNIVERSE!!!". With bold letters Reynaldo has herald God as dead, no longer do we have to fear being judged by the God of the universe. Here indeed we a new found faith or religion created by Reynaldo, his arbitrary assumptions and mans ever changing `science' have become the final authority in the universe! Also to say spirituality has no Truth value is self refuting for that statement is spiritual in nature, it's like saying logic is nonsense when you need logic to make that statement! Also the laws of logic aren't natural which refute naturalism! Atheism refutes itself because it uses the laws of logic which cannot be accounted for in the atheistic worldview. The Atheist uses my metaphysical presuppositions to say that a metaphysical or spiritual God doesn't exist. Atheism as a worldview cannot even get off the ground and should be disregarded as cynical and sinful.
The only reason Hawking or Dawkins doesn't want to debate William Lane Craig or John Sarfati is because they don't want their false credibility to go down the drain! There are no atheists in hell.
3 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Maintain your sense of wonder...

A collection of essays on a variety of subjects, some of which I found interesting, others not so much. Best part of the book is the chapter devoted to his daughter, whom he advises to maintain her sense of wonder when learning new things. A lesson that can apply to all of us.
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Spotty

I was mesmerized in the first section of the book, having hopes that I could give this one a five star rating. However, its failures come in later sections of the book. A Devil's Chaplain is a collection of odds and ends that Dawkins put together to make this book. Some of it is among his best, and some of it is boring.
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Dawkins' Views & Essays

Usually Dawkins is too scholarly for me, but this one is full of short takes on many subjects. I love his aggressive stance on evolution and what his experience has been through his lifetime with organized religion. I was especially drawn to the letter he writes to his (at that time) 10-year old daughter about how to tell the difference between myth and fact. I wish very, very much someone would have written me that letter when I was a young girl.
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Brilliant writing, occasionally infuriating

[[ASIN:086571567X Diabetes: Sugar-Coated Crisis: Who Gets it, Who Profits and How to Stop it]]

I had long resisted reading Richard Dawkins, because of his reputation as a militant opponent of religion, New Age culture, and fuzzy thinking in general. I thought I would find him too polemical, too much on the attack all the time.

Now I regret waiting. I picked up a copy of A Devil's Chaplain and discovered that Mr. Dawkins is an excellent writer. He's also an evenhanded and effective advocate for science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. A Devil's Chaplain provides a range of Dawkins' essays: book reviews, eulogies, treatises on evolution, attacks on religion, and views on scientific/political issues of the day.

Most are interesting and entertaining reads, but some are nonetheless infuriating. I notice large gaps in his understanding of the relationship between science and society, and a reverence for evolution and its theorists that I don't yet share.

There are six sections in this book. The first features a variety of brilliant essays on topics such as cloning, deconstructionism, science vs. mysticism, trial by jury, and educational excellence. This was my favorite part of the book.

The second section is devoted to a celebration of evolutionary theory, with essays such as "Darwin Triumphant," and "Genes Aren't Us." I believe in evolution, although I don't find random mutation a sufficient explanation for it. But Dawkins clearly believe it is the most wonderful theory and process in the world. He even quotes a colleague saying that there is no use arguing with anyone who doesn't believe evolution is the most important idea in the world. If you're not quite as excited about evolution as he is, you might find this part a bit boring.

The third section is devoted mostly to attacks on religion. I'm no fan of religion, or especially of monotheism. But Dawkins doesn't acknowledge religion's excellent reasons for being. Yes, for rulers and religious leaders, it serves as a form of social control. But the billions of adherents must be getting something out of it! You can rail against religion all you want from the safe and pleasant hillside of upper middle-class academia, but people with hard lives in the trenches will have trouble hearing you, unless you can offer something better. By not acknowledging the perceived benefits of religion, he weakens his arguments. They wind up sounding shrill.

The fifth section consists of book reviews, many of works by Steven Jay Gould, the American writer on evolution. Dawkins and Gould had some well-known debates on issues in evolution, but they might mainly be of interest to those in the field.

The fourth section includes eulogies for Hitchhiker's Guide author Douglas Adams and scientist W.D. Hamilton. Here we see Dawkins' personal side, with wonderful details and anecdotes lighting the lives of the deceased. The sixth section has book reviews relating to Africa, an interesting mix of novels, personal memoirs and science.

I like this book very much. My complaint is the pride of place Dawkins uncritically gives to science over less fact-based ways of thinking. Without doubt, science is the most powerful way to find truth. But for that reason, it has been among greatest causes of harm. Human society has in no way been ready to handle the truths that science, and its kid brother technology, have brought us.

Religion brought us the crusades and the inquisition. But science brought us the internal combustion engine, mechanized agriculture, and the atomic bomb. The first has fouled the air with the potential - if global warming theorists are correct - of ending human civilization for all time. The second has stripped the land of soil, and the bomb, well, we know about that. Science placed in the hands of people motivated by greed has led, among other things, to the near-extermination of Native Americans and Australians at the hands of European immigrants. While humanitarians have used science to cure many diseases, medical technology, placed in the hands of a death-denying culture, has led to extraordinarily expensive suffering for millions of people who live a medically-supported life in a form that barely deserves the name.

Still, I plan to read more of Dawkins' books in future. As a science writer myself - see my books Diabetes: Sugar-coated Crisis and The Art of Getting Well, available on Amazon - I appreciate his style, clarity, and humor.
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Nobody does it better, but . . .

Richard Dawkins is more eloquent in explaining biology and more forthright in disparaging its critics than anyone else writing in English today. However, the Greeks said even Homer nods, and I want to pursue a thread in this collection of reviews, prefaces and articles where I think Dawkins does not follow his own argument.

A recurrent proposition in these essays is that humans evolved in Africa (even Dawkins haters could be charmed by his essays on his return to Kenya) to meet African conditions. Surprisingly, he does not then inquire: How does it come about that a genetic armamentarium designed for camping on the plains of Africa produced a species capable of both inventing absurd religions and working out, through direct observation and indirect, abstract arguments, what stars are? What possible selective value could having a brain capable of either have to a caveman?

The answer, of course, is that the mental function evolved for reasons unrelated to stars or spooks but once evolved proved to have other capacities. In medicine, it is not uncommon for physicians to discover that a drug selected for one organ or syndrome has a completely unexpected, positive effect on some other organ or syndrome. (And, of course, it is even more common for it to have an unexpected, negative effect elsewhere.)

The significance of this is that it opens the door to a special status for humans. Dawkins does not want to concede this, claiming, for example, that if we were aware of the continuous genetic gradient between us and chimpanzees, we would not countenance any fundamental difference between us and, therefore, would not `sacrifice' chimps in medical experiments.

This is very strange proposition for a professional zoologist to be making. What are species for?

The genetic continuity is present, obviously, and, as Dawkins himself sometimes says, goes right back to an ur-organism. So, where does the quantitative difference become qualitative? If it is unthinkable to torture chimpanzees (or, to put it positively, as Dawkins does, if it should be thinkable to imagine interbreeding with them), why not object to eradicating mosquitoes that carry the malaria plasmodium that kills a half a million African babies each year (or maybe a million, who's counting?).

One barrier is to claim for humans a soul. This is nonsense. No one has ever seen such a thing. But another barrier is the capability of being moral actors, and everybody has observed that.

It is not obvious that moral action has selective advantages for inclusive fitness. Dawkins himself worries that having too many babies risks famine. Indiscriminate breeding, without worrying about moral consequences, is likely to leave more descendants, at least in the nearest subsequent generations, than discriminate, morally driven breeding -- or non-breeding, as the case may be.

Surely the evolution of a trait that confers voluntary selective unfitness on a species makes that species qualitatively different from all other species that cannot do it?

I expect this deviationism is a result of Dawkins's desire to see certain outcomes. Very natural it is, too, but it needs to be struggled against. Evolution up to us was non-deterministic. We should keep it that way.

Otherwise, this is a marvelous book.
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

A Collection of Thoughful Articles by a Genius

This is a collection of essays and reviews and introductions and other short pieces written by Richard Dawkins over a considerable period of time. Its copyright date is 2003, so there may well be a newer collection. This one is terrific.

Dawkins is a true genius, also an excellent writer and explainer of complicated stuff. But the best article in the entire collection is the last one, that sent me to Amazon to look for the book in which it was published. Sadly, it is apparently out of print. The article is in the form of a letter he wrote to his daughter when she was ten years old, explain the various reasons for believing things, both good reasons (evidence) and bad (tradition, authority and revelation). If I could, I'd reprint the thing and give it to every student in the Ethical Society Sunday school. Lots of kids under ten would probably get a lot out of it, and even adults can benefit from a clear explanation of how science works.

Because that's really what this entire book is about, and arguably what Dawkins' entire body of work is about: science, evidence, rational thinking. Good stuff.
1 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Five Stars

Great work
✓ Verified Purchase

more like memoirs. you have to know all the literature ...

more like memoirs. you have to know all the literature Dawkins is reviewing to understand what he is talking about!