 |
|
Title: A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love
ISBN: 0618485392
Author:
Richard Dawkins
Publicate Date: 2004-10-27
Publish: 2004-10-27
List Price: $14.95
Average Customer Rating: 4.0
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $8.70
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $3.90
Amazon Merchant Price: $10.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: Always something more to learn
This is a book to sit and read. You are going to reflect why the evolutionary understanding is great!!!
|
2: Dawkins addresses some myths
Some excellent essays. A touch too close to being a bit racist here and there, but perhaps that was inaccuracy of language. For the first time I think I actually understand something about evolution. His point about the 98% figure of genetic similarity with chimps was well made. He cited the fact that if you compare two books, there will be a lot of common letters and the figure would suggest similarity. But if you were to compare them sentence by sentence, they would probably share only a tiny fraction of commonality.
What I still don't understand about theorists on evolution is how they still discuss superiority or desirability for breeding in terms of strength, speed, size etc. After many hundreds of thousands of years during which human cooperation in agriculture, shared civilisation and eventually technological change has transformed the success rate of the species, why are qualities of cooperation, constancy or intellect now not also included in the factors that influence natural selection? Perhaps they are. Maybe I should read late Darwin.
The idea that atheists just go one God further was also a point well made. Many of us would admit to being atheists when it comes to Mithras, Zeus, Thor, etc etc. Of all the Gods, most people who claim not to be atheists probably only admit a belief in one and thus reject thousands of other. It's a bit like claiming to be a vegetarian on the grounds that you don't eat duck, but do eat all the rest of the animal world.
The point about cloning and identical twins was made a few too many times, I think, but then it was a collection of essays. It is a point, however, that the non-scientist would find it hard to relate to, since for someone from that starting position the twins are "natural" and the "clone" is not, despite the fact that genetically they represent identical concepts. The position would be really interesting, however, if the twins, or triplets or quads etc arose as a result of in vitro fertilisation and then implantation, and hence were not "natural".
|
3: 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.
|
4: Dawkins revealed
It's pity about the title: the subtitle is slightly more informative. Dawkins defines the book himself in the first sentence of his introduction: " ... a personal selection from among all the articles, tirades and reflections, book reviews and forewords, tributes and eulogies that I have published (or in some cases not published) over 25 years." This would be a better title but it's a bit long.
If you want to learn more about the things Dawkins writes about, this book is not the best book to read. If you want to learn about genetics or evolution or the God Delusion, this is just an appetiser. But it's a good book to read if you want to get to know Dawkins and his way of thinking.
It's a well-chosen anthology of 32 of Dawkins' "minor works", grouped in seven sections, each with a common theme and an explanatory introduction. Dawkins is a prolific writer, and sometimes he must write in a hurry: you get the impression that in his "tirades" he is using a dictating machine while waving his arms about. But the same passion that makes him do this can, a few pages further on, emerge as language so carefully and economically crafted that it will make you cry or laugh out loud, as probably intended. And make you think, too.
You don't have to read this book in page order. It's a good book to dip into. The memo for Tony Blair is a gem; every politician should be given briefs like this and made to read them. The eulogies are both moving and funny. The book reviews will make you want the books. The last essay is a letter Dawkins wrote to his daughter: it's personal and revealing and rather sad; I suspect the letter wouldn't have worked; he doesn't say. (I'm older than Dawkins and have had more children.) Look for the other personal bits, the anecdotes scattered through these writings: for each anecdote, you get one insight.
This is a great book for an atheist to own and lend.
|
5: Refreshing and Thought-Provoking
Richard Dawkins tells us not only why the Emporer has no clothes, but tell us how he knows - by discussing his logical processes for making his determinations. It's nothing short of brilliant, and offers much to contemplate.
If you enjoy a series of 'articles' on an array of different subjects, as I do, you will find that Dawkins manages to pack a lot of punch into each and every one of his selections on topics that range from Ethics to Public Education to Cloning with a seemless thread that makes it hard to put this book down.
It's my first book by Dawkins, but definitely not my last.
|
|
|
|
|
