Rating: 
Summary: A Reasonable Effort
Review: --from an avid reader of the life sciences and philosophy, Shermer's survey of evolutionary ethics is excellent start to finish. His prologue is simply the best I've read on the subject. I highly recommend this book without any reservations.
Rating: 
Summary: A bible for nontheists. If only the others would listen.
Review: --from an avid reader of the life sciences and philosophy, Shermer's survey of evolutionary ethics is excellent start to finish. His prologue is simply the best I've read on the subject. I highly recommend this book without any reservations.
Rating: 
Summary: Just So Stories
Review: As David Stove notes in Darwinian Fairytales, Darwin's theory of natural selection has a great weak spot, its inability to account for the evolution of morality. This gaping hole requires using selfishness to explain altruism, no mean feat. Given the well-documented mendacity of Darwinists, the hype meter needs to be on full strength for sophistry alert on this one, especially when 'experts' demand our assent in the name of 'science' for some of the backflips against intuition that this field has produced, and then declared the answer without field evidence.
In fact, Darwin proposed the original group selection thesis, which ticked over in the background until the work of G. Williams. There is a revealing observation in Shermer's book about the attempt to blast beyond this fiction with a theory competitive at the individual level, "Since the 1960's group selection was vilified as the pap of bleeding-heart liberals who couldn't deal with the reality of 'nature red in tooth and claw'. This is the attitude of those who wish to replace, in the name of 'science', the whole history of ethics as a form of superstition. This mindset of slovenly economic thinking, Rand corporation game theory mixed with Machiavellian politics and libertarian obsessions is about as capable of a theory of ethics as a group of jailbirds. These are gimmicks and the public is under no obligation to take them as established science. We don't have to go much further to see the problem is one of ideology, in an economic order, a criticism of long-standing of Darwin's theory, and one that fails to register because the demand for the legitimation of selfishness is provided with a supply, and a host of confused defenders.
In any case, it is completely sillly to think that current models of population genetics are goind to solve the problem of the evolution of morality. Don't buy into this stupidity. Darwinists have done enough damage here, small wonder they are hounded by fundamentalists.
Rating:
Summary: A Believable Basis For Morality
Review: Can humans be moral without relying on some divine list of rights and wrongs? This book describes how morality could emerge from the need to optimize in-groups ("us") and coalesce in a common defense from out-groups ("them"). When we are seen as the descendents of hundreds of generations of hunter-gatherers, the idea is that certain lines of behavior might confer reproductive advantage, thus the genes motivating in-group cooperation and mutual defense towards common out-groups would prosper into the future. The rules of such cooperation and mutual altruism become codified into moral systems. A superb book.
Rating:
Summary: Can there be morality without God?
Review: Can there be morality without God? This is the question tackled by the Skeptic Society's Michael Shermer and while he definately deserves a five for his effort, the resulting book shows a man straining against inherent limits.
The first inherent limit Shermer struggles against his own upbringing wherein he indicated that his mother did not believe in God. It is very fascinating that regardless of what education one goes on to attain they invariably ultimately return to the religous views of their upbringing later in life. This is not a bad thing but it is interesting that whenever writers attempt to assert some grand new theory all they're really talking about is what their parents believed. Perhaps it is for this reason that truly revolutionary religious thought is such a rare thing.
Shermer also struggles against the evidence. In the first part of his book, Shermer is quick to assert that morality is the natural product of human evolution. However, and this is according to Shermer's own cited figures, for 84% of the people on this planet that morality ACCOMPANIES MEMBERSHIP IN AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION. In other words, one cannot fairly gainsay that morality is an evolutionary by product without also conceding that religion as well is an evolutionary by product. To be sure, an absence of religious belief cannot be said to be an absence of morality any more than the presence of religious belief can itself be said to be evidence of morality. Still the same there has been, and remains, an undeniable and as yet unfully explained relationship between religion and morality. In this sense, Shermer's first half of his book serves as a great starting point for further study of this important topic.
However, and again, we are talking about a starting point and definately not the last word.
Finally, Shermer is limited by logic. If one is to believe his earlier referenced studies that humans only appear to have free will, then why should recourse be made to the many philosophers he cites in the second half of his book? For that matter, if human behavior really is a "science" then why resort to philosophy at all? Logically, one would have to concede that that which is possible would have to yield to that which is. Phenomenon, not paradigm, is paramount.
In all, the book had a certain endearing quality. After having read the two predecessor works by Shermer in this series -- Why People Believe Wierd Things and Why We Believe -- it's strangely comforting to see Shermer admit to such a detailed knowledge of the television program Star Trek. (As he was quoting the Kirk monologue, I found myself mentally inserting the appropriate pauses between the words...just as Kirk did in the original TV episode.)
So in the end the question remains: Can there be a morality without God?
I don't know. Maybe this question should be asked when we can really be sure that we even have morality with God.
Rating:
Summary: Can there be morality without God?
Review: Can there be morality without God? This is the question tackled by the Skeptic Society's Michael Shermer and while he definately deserves a five for his effort, the resulting book shows a man straining against inherent limits.
The first inherent limit Shermer struggles against his own upbringing wherein he indicated that his mother did not believe in God. It is very fascinating that regardless of what education one goes on to attain they invariably ultimately return to the religous views of their upbringing later in life. This is not a bad thing but it is interesting that whenever writers attempt to assert some grand new theory all they're really talking about is what their parents believed. Perhaps it is for this reason that truly revolutionary religious thought is such a rare thing.
Shermer also struggles against the evidence. In the first part of his book, Shermer is quick to assert that morality is the natural product of human evolution. However, and this is according to Shermer's own cited figures, for 84% of the people on this planet that morality ACCOMPANIES MEMBERSHIP IN AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION. In other words, one cannot fairly gainsay that morality is an evolutionary by product without also conceding that religion as well is an evolutionary by product. To be sure, an absence of religious belief cannot be said to be an absence of morality any more than the presence of religious belief can itself be said to be evidence of morality. Still the same there has been, and remains, an undeniable and as yet unfully explained relationship between religion and morality. In this sense, Shermer's first half of his book serves as a great starting point for further study of this important topic.
However, and again, we are talking about a starting point and definately not the last word.
Finally, Shermer is limited by logic. If one is to believe his earlier referenced studies that humans only appear to have free will, then why should recourse be made to the many philosophers he cites in the second half of his book? For that matter, if human behavior really is a "science" then why resort to philosophy at all? Logically, one would have to concede that that which is possible would have to yield to that which is. Phenomenon, not paradigm, is paramount.
In all, the book had a certain endearing quality. After having read the two predecessor works by Shermer in this series -- Why People Believe Wierd Things and Why We Believe -- it's strangely comforting to see Shermer admit to such a detailed knowledge of the television program Star Trek. (As he was quoting the Kirk monologue, I found myself mentally inserting the appropriate pauses between the words...just as Kirk did in the original TV episode.)
So in the end the question remains: Can there be a morality without God?
I don't know. Maybe this question should be asked when we can really be sure that we even have morality with God.
Rating:
Summary: ...But is it "science" simply because it is naturalistic?
Review: I'm torn between the naysayers and the wide-eyed on this one. First, I am a naturalist who believes, like Shermer, that ethics doesn't need god. Unlike Shermer, though, I don't think that this is anything close to a 'science'. Seeing people conflate 'it's a naturalistic explanation' with 'its a scientific explanation' forgets that science is a process, not an ideology. Yes, Shermer gives us a naturalistic explanation, but just like most evolutionary psych, it is simply naturalistic "puzzle filling" of what MIGHT have happened, not experimental and falsifiable conjecture that makes for science. For his part, Shermer does a decent job (so long as we see his as that of a philosopher, not a scientist; Shermer, I think, would protest this). He presents a case for a naturalistic ethic and goes into a fair amount of detail. Here's the problem: not only has everything here been proposed before by those more apt than Shermer (Mary Midgley, JL Mackie, Steven Pinker, William James) but the things he says here are quite common, and really in need of little defence. Shermer's point is that moral 'rules' are naturally endowed by evolution (or so it seems) and are provisoinal - they hold for most people, in most situations; they are more like guilelines for action. Okay, I believe it (just as I believed it when the said authors wrote it). But he really doesn't follow this up with what exactly that means. What are 'most people' and what are 'most situations'? Most troublingly, does merely saying 'evolution did it' and showing that homo erectus shared food (thus enforcing altruism by pasing along their genes) really mean that the theory is 'scientific' (even though it is non-emprical albeit good conjecture?) I am giving the book a three-star rating, though. Truth be told, I enjoyed it and think its judgments (although better defended, say, by Mackie) are sound (and easier to read than Mackie). Particularly if you are into biology and haven't really done much thinking in philosophy, this book is great! Shermer is an entertaining, and widely learned writer (even though I disagree with some details about, say, group selections power to explain). If a more detailed, less lay-like book is what you are looking for, I'd suggest: Mackie's "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong", Midgley's "Beast and Man", and even Paul Ehrlich's "Human Natures". If you've read and liked this book, read Ridley's "Origins of Virtue" and Flanagan's "Problem of the Soul".
Rating: 
Summary: Shermer should be ashamed for minimizing the evils of 9/11!
Review: In his latest book, The Science of Good & Evil, Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer suggests that President Bush was mistaken in calling the 9/11 terrorist attacks "pure evil." According to Shermer, no such thing exists. On page 81, Dr. Shermer writes: "September 11, 2001, comes to mind here. United States President George W. Bush described what happened that day as an act of pure evil. Yet millions of people around the world celebrate that day as a triumphant victory over what they perceive to be an evil American culture. What we are witnessing here is not a conceptual difference in understanding the true nature of evil. Nor is it simply a matter of who is in the right. It is, at least on one important level, a difference of perspective. To achieve true understanding and enlightenment it might help to understand what the other side was thinking." He should issue a public apology for trying to minimize the moral gravity of these actions and ignoring the human pain they caused. He should be ashamed of defending terrorists who killed thousands of innocents in the name of God. None of us will move any closer to "enlightenment" if we join him in dismissing the specific actions that caused the 9/11 mass murders as a "difference of perspective." The degree of evil of the 9/11 murders does not depend on the fluctuating measures America's popularity in foreign public opinion polls. Exploring every delusion held by the 9/11 terrorists won't make their crimes less vicious or bring their victims back to life. According to Dr. Shermer "pure evil" is nothing but a word. Any morally blameworthy act can be nothing more than what Shermer names "provisional evil." If we accept his limited concept, an ethical and moral gray area must always exist when thousands of innocents are brutally murdered in the name of God. In truth, the ultimate value of human life transcends space, time, material reality, and Darwinian evolution because we are loved by, and created for, eternal friendship with an eternal God who exists independent of the Big Bang and all material reality. The intentional mass murder of innocent human life is "pure evil" because it rejects the God-given inherent worth of the human person. In a recent e-mail, Dr. Shermer told me he supports the current war in the Middle East. He also said he doesn't endorse or excuse the 9/11 attacks. He can't have it both ways, however. The statement he chose to publish in his book gives comfort to all current and future enemies of human life, and he should print a retraction on his website at www.skeptic.com. Shame on you, Dr. Shermer.
Rating:
Summary: Shermer should be ashamed for minimizing the evils of 9/11!
Review: In his latest book, The Science of Good & Evil, Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer suggests that President Bush was mistaken in calling the 9/11 terrorist attacks "pure evil." According to Shermer, no such thing exists. On page 81, Dr. Shermer writes: "September 11, 2001, comes to mind here. United States President George W. Bush described what happened that day as an act of pure evil. Yet millions of people around the world celebrate that day as a triumphant victory over what they perceive to be an evil American culture. What we are witnessing here is not a conceptual difference in understanding the true nature of evil. Nor is it simply a matter of who is in the right. It is, at least on one important level, a difference of perspective. To achieve true understanding and enlightenment it might help to understand what the other side was thinking." He should issue a public apology for trying to minimize the moral gravity of these actions and ignoring the human pain they caused. He should be ashamed of defending terrorists who killed thousands of innocents in the name of God. None of us will move any closer to "enlightenment" if we join him in dismissing the specific actions that caused the 9/11 mass murders as a "difference of perspective." The degree of evil of the 9/11 murders does not depend on the fluctuating measures America's popularity in foreign public opinion polls. Exploring every delusion held by the 9/11 terrorists won't make their crimes less vicious or bring their victims back to life. According to Dr. Shermer "pure evil" is nothing but a word. Any morally blameworthy act can be nothing more than what Shermer names "provisional evil." If we accept his limited concept, an ethical and moral gray area must always exist when thousands of innocents are brutally murdered in the name of God. In truth, the ultimate value of human life transcends space, time, material reality, and Darwinian evolution because we are loved by, and created for, eternal friendship with an eternal God who exists independent of the Big Bang and all material reality. The intentional mass murder of innocent human life is "pure evil" because it rejects the God-given inherent worth of the human person. In a recent e-mail, Dr. Shermer told me he supports the current war in the Middle East. He also said he doesn't endorse or excuse the 9/11 attacks. He can't have it both ways, however. The statement he chose to publish in his book gives comfort to all current and future enemies of human life, and he should print a retraction on his website at www.skeptic.com. Shame on you, Dr. Shermer.
Rating:
Summary: The Golden Rule is a Human construct.
Review: In my own studies I have often come across those who believe, for there exists no other term, that religion and a belief in some supreme being are the root, the very foundation of moral behavior. As a student of evolutionary psychology, Ecclesiastical History and later of Divinity, I feel
certain I can address this concept. It is, as history has proven time and again, simply incorrect. A better understanding of the "Golden Rule" as it has come to be known can be seen in Shermer's latest book, as in the white papers of John Nash (especially Bargaining, Zero Sum Games and Economics), in the work of Charles Darwin, (most specifically his later ideas on an evolutionary ethics); the writings of Edward O. Wilson, (especially The Ants), and finaly with even a meager
observation of nature itself. We do bargain, we do make social "deals." This is observable in Chimpanzee groups, and so far as I know, they have no "religion." That we have to make
"golden rules," not out of a religious ideal but for the survival of our species seems obvious to anyone. Shermer's time line indicates that morality and a social ethic were in development some 100,000 years ago. This seems about right, as ample social anthropological evidence indicates a turn toward large group hunting, and social coopertation far before this period. That some form of norm is required for an understanding of allowable and un-allowable actions within the group seems at most apparent from simian studies. This seems to me common sense, despite some reviewers inability to follow it. That a divine figure is necessary to explain morality, especially a very human-like human deity, seems to me silly at best. In the fine tradition of Darwin, Wallace, Dawkins and Sagan, Shermer points out that, which once read, seems obvious. Shermer, in the fashion of Carl Sagan, uses plain and simple concepts to explain the formation of a morality, not as a divine order, but as a aid to survival and social progress. The few issues I have with this book are more semantic than substance. I cannot
scientifically, or in this case "morally" argue with anything put forward in this excellent account the development of modern moral thinking. Clearly hunger motivates us to eat, and pair
bonding (love),besides the obvious advantage for child rearing (seen in avian species as well as many Mammalian)motivates us to cooperative hunting. That some reviewers fail to agree with this straightforward page-turner perhaps speaks more to their own "beliefs" than the evidence put forth in Shermer's book.
|
