Rating: 
Summary: A Fair Scattering of Interesting Stuff
Review: I suggested this as a Book Group selection and the group went for it -- probably because they like the title. I recommended it as a counter book to another's suggestion that we read (another) Shermer book: "The Science of Good and Evil". I was hoping that our next fundamentalist scientist book would be a Dawkins selection instead but "The Selfish Gene" was out of the question -- maybe Unweaving would have been a good choice. The group loved it when he came down hard on religion -- organized and disorganized. In general the group thought the various pieces on fellow scientists were filler though I always like seeing a bit of the personal side of authors I like -- to get a better idea of why I like them. I apologize for not even being aware of the passing of Gould. That felt really wrong since I am also reading "I Have Landed".
I am sure the book went over better than another Shermer book would have and some loved it. I recommend it for book and discussion groups and some articles might do for a good classroom discussion as well. The postmodern issue was fun and it makes me wonder if there is a science generator that could be run on the web much like the postmodern generator. Wouldn't that be just another language? I bet the algorithm is the same. Just the data base is different.
Rating: 
Summary: A response to middle America
Review: I'd just like to briefly respond to the "reader from middle America" who I feel is over-reacting a little to Dawkins' book.Dawkins' main target is not what I'd call 'traditional theists', but that group of what's usually labelled "fundamentalists" who are trying to suppress science teaching and replace it with their bogus "creation science". I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in a God. I don't know any that believe in the literal "created in six days" word of the bible or who think a belief in evolution is absolutely antithetical to religious belief. The majority of denominations - and thus Christians - don't subscribe to the fundamentalist view (don't take my word for it, do a quick search). In fact most explicitly disavow a literal reading of Genesis. So it's entirely wrong for "middle America" to speak of creationism as a "majority" belief. Dawkins does take a fairly militant stance. Although I share his views, I initially felt he was being a bit hard on those he disagrees with. However when I read of people seeking to have creationism ranked as "science" in schools at the exclusion of real science I think he's right to get stuck into them. Dawkin's target isn't "middle America" or the majority of believers for whom belief in God and science can coexist. His target is what we call in Australia "the loudmouth ratbag fringe" who want to foist their view on others. And he's got me on side. Incidentally, his broadside at postmodernism is just as much fun to read as his views on 'creation science'.
Rating: 
Summary: Wasted Money
Review: I'm not saying this is a poor book. Although this is a simple hive of opinion, and I don't agree with many of these writings, they are still provocative for all concerned. The problem is that most of these articles can be found on the internet, so it simply isn't worth the money. It is for this reason that I do not reccomend the book. Another problem is that some of the essays are out of date, such as the "Dolly" controversey. This was written before she had to be put down due to rapid aging. Although Dawkins' infamous religous prejudice is not the reason for my low rating, it is ever present. Getting back to the Dolly controversey, where fundimentalists are blamed for "slowing science," he obviously overlooks the secular ethical arguments against cloning, and instead points his finger at the religous. Long story short: Don't bother with a greatest hits album.
Rating:
Summary: In Defense of the Scientific Method
Review: If you only read one book by Professor Richard Dawkins, I recommend The Selfish Gene. That book is a remarkable tour de force covering the latest thinking about how evolution really works by taking into account our understanding of genetic qualities in reinforcing the evolutionary struggle of the survival of the fittest. By contrast, A Devil's Chaplain is a book that will appeal primarily to people who have read several books by Professor Dawkins and would like to know more about him as a person and his views outside of neo-Darwinism. If you have not read anything by Professor Dawkins, I recommend you skip this book unless you have a thorough understanding of the latest evolutionary theories. Much of the book won't make sense to you otherwise. A Devil's Chaplain is a series of essays (some published before and some not), laments, eulogies and a letter to his daughter. From these materials, you can learn more about how Professor Dawkins sees his colleagues, those who oppose evolutionary teachings, postmodernists, and his personal views on religious beliefs and "alternative" medicine. Much of what he says will not surprise you. As a scientist, he favors the scientific method and is rationally skeptical of anything that cannot be proven by this method. He is also annoyed by a society that grants prominent opportunities to share views that are not proven by scientific methods. As a result, he is also an atheist . . . but one who draws great joy from considering the world around him and the methods by which it has been created. Many people think of atheists as gloomy people, or people without much emotion. Professor Dawkins is neither. His loving descriptions of relations with his colleagues, rivals and mentors show just the opposite. His concern for using scientific methods is obviously also based on a desire to help people live better lives. Catholics may find the book a little annoying in that Professor Dawkins likes to challenge some of the "faith"-based beliefs that that religion espouses. As I finished the book, I found that I was most attracted to the advanced speculations that Professor Dawkins used in his book that speak directly to evolutionary studies. I especially recommend the essay, "Son of Moore's Law," where he describes the timing of when individual genomes will be economically affordable and how that will influence health and medical treatments. I was also drawn to the essays that describe his optimistic belief that we can escape our evolutionary heritage and evolve into people who produce the best possible future for all. There's much food for thought here. I doubt if any religious believers will be undone by his arguments. I also doubt that he will convert any people who believe in the literal creation as described in the Bible to change their views. Ultimately, I was left wondering how other prominent scientists bridge the gap between their scientific methods and having a rich religious life. I graded the book down one star because the editor presumes the reader has a little too much familiarity with the leading lines of thought about evolution. The book could have used more footnotes to explain the background of the points Professor Dawkins is making for those of us who are not evolutionary biologists . . . but simply like to read books about the subject.
Rating:
Summary: An attack on religion
Review: In his opening essay, Richard Dawkins offers what he calls "a call to arms" against the reality of evolution: "I prefer to fight against...natural selection...as a human being...We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators [i.e., our genes]."
This is surely an odd affirmation of faith for the man who made famous the concept of "the selfish gene," the title of Dawkins' first book. In that book, Dawkins demonstrated convincingly that what natural selection selects for is not the good of the biosphere, the ecosystem, the species, or even the individual organism, but only the reproductive advantage of individual genes. In the words Dawkins used in "The Selfish Gene," our genes "created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence...we are their survival machines."
In "A Devil's Chaplain," Dawkins argues that his call to struggle against the force of natural selection does not contradict his intellectual belief in the selfish gene: "There is no inconsistency in favoring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practising one."
This analogy with cancer fails: a theory of oncogenesis is not all-encompassing -- it only explains cancer, it does not explain all of biology, including all of human action. But Dawkins' selfish gene concept is all-encompassing. It claims to explain all of biological life, including humans. There is no exit offered.
In concrete terms, if Dawkins devotes some of his time and energy to struggling against the more nasty consequences of natural selection and if I passively accept the consequences of natural selection and instead focus on advancing my children's reproductive success, my genes will tend to be more successful replicators than Dawkins'.
Natural selection, by Dawkins' own analysis, will reward those of us who do not waste our time struggling against natural selection.
There is a conceivable way out. Suppose our oversized brain gives us direct contact with some "higher realm," a Platonic realm of moral ideals, a religious realm of Divine inspiration, etc. If such non-physical powers can influence our behavior, then perhaps we can respond to Dawkins' "call to arms" after all.
However, in one of the essays in the book, "Viruses of the Mind," Dawkins makes clear he will have none of that. He argues that religious belief is a sign of an "infected mind," claims that the explanation of religion is "epidemiological," and gives a list of symptoms of this particular mental disease.
Indeed, the book simply reeks of hostility to religion.
Why?
Casual observation suggests that religious believers tend to have more kids than skeptics: whatever the innate character traits that incline one towards belief in religion, these traits seem to be favored by natural selection.
It is easy to come up with a possible explanation. The anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski noted long ago that, even in primitive societies, religion is used only in situations where one does not understand or cannot control events. Religion allows people to concentrate on those matters they can actually affect and leave the rest to the gods. Religion lets people direct their attention and channel their anxiety efficiently.
Dawkins does not consider this. Instead, he focuses on the -- very real -- conflict and destruction wrought by the Judaic religions -- Judaism, Islam, and Christianity (he ignores the less aggressive East Asian religions, such as Buddhism).
Much of Dawkins' animus against religion seems to be based on the fact that the argument for God based on the intricate "design" of biological organisms is refuted by the fact of evolution. He's right -- but there are other serious arguments for the existence of God: philosophical arguments on the nature of consciousness, logical necessity, and causation; scientific arguments concerning the existence of the universe, the "fine-tuning" of the constants of nature; etc. (see, e.g., the fascinating debate between Smart and Haldane in their "Atheism and Theism.")
Taking all the arguments into account, I myself doubt that God exists. But it is not a simple question.
Dawkins does argue passionately that we must at least stop lying. Adults routinely lie to their children about everything from Santa Claus to God to the actions of government and the realities of war. Dawkins argues that children are uniquely susceptible to propaganda and often find it difficult to escape from the lies they were fed as children even when they are well into adulthood.
He's right. But perhaps his focus is slightly off: at least in the last century, it is the child-like belief in nationalism, militarism, socialism, democracy, and imperialism which has produced far more suffering than blind religious faith. It is worship of government, not worship of God, which nearly destroyed civilization during the twentieth century.
In concrete terms, who is the greater monster, Joseph Stalin or Pope John Paul II?
Dawkins' anti-religious animus leads him to an uncharacteristic intolerance in dealing with the evolution/creationist controversy -- on one occasion, he explains, he nearly threw an interviewer out of his home when he found out that the interviewer was a creationist (the interviewer had travelled all the way from Australia based on Dawkins' agreeing to be interviewed). Dawkins explains that he refuses ever to debate creationists "because...just to appear on the platform with them is to lend them the respectability they crave."
That's a shame. Evolution is true. The evidence for evolution comes not only from biology and paleontology but also geology and nuclear physics (so-called radiometric dating of the fossil record). Creationists are attacking all of science, but it is hard for members of the general public to understand this if scientists of Dawkins stature refuse to refute the creationists.
"A Devil's Chaplain" is eloquent, readable, and interesting. If it occasionally slips into contradictions, these are contradictions that should provoke the reader to rethink his or her own beliefs and intellectual preconceptions.
Rating: 
Summary: No God is allowed
Review: In this book Dawkins has reprinted his favorite essays, reviews, and addresses. The book's title is taken from a letter Darwin wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker in 1856. Like Darwin, Dawkins argues that evolution is a blind process, demonstrating no concern for suffering because suffering is 'an inherent consequence of natural selection.' Dawkin's evolutionary perspective concludes that the universe is a silent box, empty of all intention and design. Everything within the box must be explained in terms of purely naturalistic materials and processes. No God is allowed. The cosmos, and everything within it, is, he admits, marvelous--although often malevolent-ultimately created by a set of accidents of nature. Dawkins' hostility toward religion in general and Christianity in particular, is very evident from his earliest writings. In his popular articles for secular humanist and atheist periodicals, he identifies atheism as the only credible intellectual option in our modern age. Dawkins makes it very clear in this book that he sees Christianity--and all forms of theistic belief--as intellectual viruses that must be destroyed. On page 117 in a chapter titled "The Infected Mind" he argues that all theistic religion is a sickness, a mind parasite (his words). He adds that he is both hostile and contemptuous to religion, all religion, both organized and disorganized religion. But we underestimate Dawkins if we assume that his concerns are merely academic. To the contrary, Dawkins aspires to be a social engineer and to bring the evolutionary worldview into a firm place in the public square in order to revolutionize everything from politics, culture, economics, and every other dimension of life. The title of his newest book is more than a literary choice. Dawkins openly sees himself as an evangelist for Darwinism and as the high priest of naturalism. He sees all forms of religious belief as the enemy, and wants to expunge from public life all religious arguments, concepts, and traditions. As a militant atheist, Dawkins is living out the inevitable consequences of his Darwinian worldview and working hard to achieve his goal (with the blessing of many high level persons in the church in England, I might add). Ultimately, Dawkins would like to clear the public square of all religious believers as well. In this book this goal comes through clearly, albeit tactfully. I could add that he is making good progress on achieving his goal. He clearly is not just opposed to extreme forms of religion (as most people are) but ALL religion, as his own words clearly explain.
Rating:
Summary: The Great Ocean of Truth
Review: Isaac Newton described himself as a boy, playing on the seas shore, "whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." Charles Darwin explored the great ocean of genetic heritage from which all life has emerged. Dawkins explains the concepts of genetics and biological evolution to a nonprofessional audience, in terms and images that are clear and understandable even to those with no scientific training. I have saved this book and will give to my son to read when he studies biology in high school next year. Dawkins essays radiate intelligence and common sense, as well as a deep and passionate appreciation for the complexities of nature -- that is, for the truth that is exponentially more awe-inspiring, beautiful and fascinating than the nonsensical, repressive and, in may cases -- fear-inspired fantasies of the anti-science fundamentalists. Also, as a former academic who was amazed and repelled that any putative scholar could waste a moment of time on the hot air and charlatanism of deconstruction, I thoroughly enjoyed Dawkin's account of Sokal's hoax, in which a noted physics professor foisted an article that consisted of total gibberish on Social Text, a major post-modernist journal. The debate between Dawkins and Gould, so warmly and decently presented by Dawkins in these essays, provide a model of academic discourse that might well be replicated in the so-called humanities.
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: Isn't much to add to the other reviews, other than repeat that this book is certainly worth the read and thought-provoking, especially for Dawkins admirers!
Rating:
Summary: Gallons of ink
Review: It is clear from reading this book that Dawkins not only does not like traditional theists but, as he himself states, he does not even want to be on the same platform as they are. In his words, "just to appear on a platform with them is to lend them the respectability they crave" Page 219. In America, we are the majority so do not need to crave respectability. Yet Dawkins has spelled gallons of ink (and has written whole books, including much of this one, trying to debunk them). If they are so completely wrong, why expend all this effort? I have in my library almost 60 books that try to debunk the Intelligent Design and creationist theist world view (most of which I have read) and Dawkins, in this book, adds yet another whose primary purpose is to argue (in his words) that the universe only looks like it was designed but, in fact, was made by the Blind Watchmaker who can not see (or hear either ) and, indeed, is unconscious. He is a force called mutations and natural selection (also called neoDarwinism) that creates variety that is moved around by such means as genetic drift and, eventually, produces life forms that can out compete the competition. I used to believe this was all there was to it (to quote Nobelist Barbara McClintock) until I did my university graduate work in molecular biology. Now we know that this story does not explain the origin life (or the origin of much else) yet Dawkins spends his time belittling or worse those who argue that there is more to the story than this. The problem with Dawkins, as is obvious from several chapters in this book, is he does not know (or understand) those that he paints as the enemy. Maybe if he stood on the platform with them he would understand were they are coming from. On the platform they have a chance to respond so Dawkins could understand their reasoning. Dawkins, though, would rather have the last word as in a book.
Rating:
Summary: Epistemic proteccionism
Review: It is interesting to notice that evolutionists take a defensive posture when dealing with creationism. For instance, Richard Dawkins entirely refuses to talk to creationists. As evolutionists start to realize that they are losing the origins debate about the scientific data, where evolutionary theory always claimed a methodological advantage, the only way out is to insist, as Richard Dawkins does, on the "wall of separation between religion and science" and to keep repeating the "slogan" according to which "creation is religion and evolution is science". Instead of daring to confront creationism in a free and open encounter in the marketplace of ideas (in the old liberal tradition of Milton and Mill) Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists want to separate the "scientific market" from the "religious market", leaving the latter for creationists and claiming monopoly status for themselves in the former. This is a classical proteccionist technique used by those who fear competition. It is interesting to notice that the artificial wall between science and religion is the only defense evolutionary theory holds on to these days, since all the observable facts themselves speak in favour of special creation. It is based on this conceptual separation alone that evolutionists like to proclaim the total scientific discredit of creationism. In truth, evolutionism has been suported by a strand of christian theology that claims that faith in God should be totally distanced from the real facts of this world. Creationism distances itself both from the irrational, random and accidental "selfish gene" assumptions from evolutionism, as well as from that kind of christian theology that supports and praises blind faith. These are two kinds of irrationalism that creationists abhorr. Both distance themselves from the actual scientific evidence that supports creation. Biblical creationism is not affraid of competition, and is willing to engage in confronting empirical topics such as cosmology, abiogenesis, pre-biotic soup, mutations, vestigial organs, junk-DNA, radiometric dating, geology, fossils, "ape-man", dino-to-bird, molecular machines, probabilities, design teory, information theory, etc. In all these fields all the observable data, when freed from naturalistic assumptions, points to special creation. Biblical creationism doesn't need to claim a separate market for itself and and doesn't need to capture public power to protect its monopoly status, as is the case with evolutionism. In spite of all the epistemic protectionism of evolutionists, creationism has been pretty successful in directing devastating blows against evolutionary theory.
|
