What do you think?
Rate this book
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love
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.
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.
263 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 171 reviews
October 11, 2022
لا أحب هذا النوع من الكتب أبدا و أسميها كتب المقالب.
تختار الكتاب ذو العنوان القيم و الكاتب اللامع و التقييمات المرتفعة و المقدمة المبهرة ثم تكون المفاجأة أنه ليس كتاب و ليس له موضوع ان هى الا مجموعة مقالات من الشرق للغرب كتبها المؤلف على مدار حياته فى عدة مصادر أو خطب القاها أو رسائل أرسلها أو وصلته و ظلت مبعثرة سنوات طويلة إلى أن قرر أن يجمعها فى كتاب علشان حظى الحلو. شكرا داوكنز و إلى اللقاء فى الكتاب القادم
كلمة أخيرة: قد يكون الكتاب جيد و ثرى و متنوع و ترجمته ليست سيئة و لكنى فقط لا أحب هذا النوع من الكتب
June 12, 2007
A Devil's Chaplain is an excellent collection of Dawkin's writing, ranging across the topics of genetics, memetics, pseudoscience, religion, terrorism and the nature of life itself. This is a field trip through Dawkin's mind, including letters to the prime minister, introductions to the books of others, and pieces that have appeared in popular print. His eulogy for his good friend Douglas Adams is particularly touching, and no less so is his treatment of his late rival, Stephen Jay Gould. But the best is saved for last, with his incredible piece entitled A Prayer for my Daughter, in which he tries to prepare his young child for the world of deception that lies ahead, and arm her against it.
This is the quintessential introduction to Dawkins, and shows that he is more than just an outspoken advocate of humanism and reason - he is a loyal friend, an attentive father, a loving husband, and when the ocassion calls for it, a fierce champion for the truth. If you have never read Dawkins before, I would highly recommend that this is where you start.
This is the quintessential introduction to Dawkins, and shows that he is more than just an outspoken advocate of humanism and reason - he is a loyal friend, an attentive father, a loving husband, and when the ocassion calls for it, a fierce champion for the truth. If you have never read Dawkins before, I would highly recommend that this is where you start.
September 13, 2015
Okay, this review is going to be a little about the book as a whole and a lot about an irritation about one of Dawkins' habits.
First off, the good stuff. My favorite essays were The Great Convergence, The 'Information Challenge', the eulogies for Douglas Adams and Hamilton and lastly Good and Bad Reasons for Believing (A Prayer for My Daughter), which is how I found out about this book in the first place. It was heart warming to see how Dawkins' passion, which so often is expressed in a stern voice towards religion, creationists and apologists, translates into equally powerful warmth when speaking about people he respects.
The format was nice, though the content is nothing new really if you've read all of Dawkins books before, or even just a few.
Now for the other 95% of the review.
It can be very disappointing when someone you respect opposes your own views. It is even more disappointing however, when your ideals and opinions are being portrayed a certain way; not just unflattering, but simply falsely.
I'm referring to the following fragment, which is the sole reference Dawkins uses to categorize feminism as a relativism in the chapter 'What is True?':
Oh, come on now. I don't doubt that are feminists who believe such things, same as that I don't doubt there are atheists who have irrational ideas about other things than religion, but to present a single quote with such (thankfully!) rare an opinion, is just using a straw man and beneath someone I respect as much as Dawkins.
The misrepresentation is not all of it. The source used, at the time of publication of A Devil's Chaplain is at the time of publication already a nearly 35 year old book (first published in 1970), probably only used because of the religious term in the title ("Professing Feminism"), which nota bene is a book written by feminist scholars who try to distantiate the academic feminism from the nonsense in women's studies they've come across, which is totally admirable (note also how the students referred to in the quote are not even called feminists).
Another point of criticism of the choice of just this quote is that the quote isn't just not representable, but also against what many feminist scholars strive for. Yes, there is in part the promoting of the female representation in history, which was up till recently largely absent, similar to accounts from poorer classes and other races, and there's also the earning respect for feminine (not necessarily female!) qualities. These goals are however more prominent in older waves of feminism. In more modern times, you see the cutting loose of human qualities from their "masculine" and "feminine" labels, to make them accessible for everyone (e.g. to facilitate the acceptance of men very involved in the care of their children, the ambitious woman, the stay-at-home father, the female president). I'm sure that I am biased as I work in academia (not women's studies - by the way, is it even still called women's studies..?), but the feminism I am in contact with most does adopt empiricism and would never attach itself to a statement as the one above, because it's exactly the dichotomy it tries to get away from. And as an atheist reading this book, retracting rationality from me is pretty much as grave an insult as they come.
Sadly, I find Dawkins doing this another time in ADC. Later in the book, there's another exotic quotation presented in a context where sure, it is just quoted from a "feminist 'philosopher'" and mentioned in the company of other apparently "feminist truths" (they were news to me) such as Newton's Principia being a rape manual (?) and E=mc2 being a 'sexed equation' (?!).
If you've read the previous of my review on why such quotations are an issue carefully, I'm sure you can pinpoint yourself what exactly is the issue with the quote above.
This is not a matter of cutting off unpopular limbs to distantiate myself from those that are exposed to criticism, but basically what happened here is the equivalent of a Christian lumping all atheists together with Hitler, or using a church bulletin distributed within a village with 100 inhabitants in some edge of the world as a source for the definition of Christian beliefs. Criticism against feminism, totally fine. But do it in the same thorough way as you treat anything else you're looking at critically; thorough, use representative sources, no cherry picking, and report transparently. And really, there's no room for that in Dawkins' work. So either stick to atheism or write a book dedicated to criticizing feminist theory. And I think we all agree we'd prefer him to spend his precious time on his own fields, where he's of the greatest value.
First off, the good stuff. My favorite essays were The Great Convergence, The 'Information Challenge', the eulogies for Douglas Adams and Hamilton and lastly Good and Bad Reasons for Believing (A Prayer for My Daughter), which is how I found out about this book in the first place. It was heart warming to see how Dawkins' passion, which so often is expressed in a stern voice towards religion, creationists and apologists, translates into equally powerful warmth when speaking about people he respects.
The format was nice, though the content is nothing new really if you've read all of Dawkins books before, or even just a few.
Now for the other 95% of the review.
It can be very disappointing when someone you respect opposes your own views. It is even more disappointing however, when your ideals and opinions are being portrayed a certain way; not just unflattering, but simply falsely.
I'm referring to the following fragment, which is the sole reference Dawkins uses to categorize feminism as a relativism in the chapter 'What is True?':
"Women's Studies students are now being taught that logic is a tool of domination ... the standard norms and methods of scientific inquiry are sexist because they are incompatible with 'women's ways of knowing'... These 'subjectivist' women see the methods of logic, analysis and abstraction as 'alien territory belonging to men' and 'value intuition as a safer and more fruitful approach to truth."
Oh, come on now. I don't doubt that are feminists who believe such things, same as that I don't doubt there are atheists who have irrational ideas about other things than religion, but to present a single quote with such (thankfully!) rare an opinion, is just using a straw man and beneath someone I respect as much as Dawkins.
The misrepresentation is not all of it. The source used, at the time of publication of A Devil's Chaplain is at the time of publication already a nearly 35 year old book (first published in 1970), probably only used because of the religious term in the title ("Professing Feminism"), which nota bene is a book written by feminist scholars who try to distantiate the academic feminism from the nonsense in women's studies they've come across, which is totally admirable (note also how the students referred to in the quote are not even called feminists).
Another point of criticism of the choice of just this quote is that the quote isn't just not representable, but also against what many feminist scholars strive for. Yes, there is in part the promoting of the female representation in history, which was up till recently largely absent, similar to accounts from poorer classes and other races, and there's also the earning respect for feminine (not necessarily female!) qualities. These goals are however more prominent in older waves of feminism. In more modern times, you see the cutting loose of human qualities from their "masculine" and "feminine" labels, to make them accessible for everyone (e.g. to facilitate the acceptance of men very involved in the care of their children, the ambitious woman, the stay-at-home father, the female president). I'm sure that I am biased as I work in academia (not women's studies - by the way, is it even still called women's studies..?), but the feminism I am in contact with most does adopt empiricism and would never attach itself to a statement as the one above, because it's exactly the dichotomy it tries to get away from. And as an atheist reading this book, retracting rationality from me is pretty much as grave an insult as they come.
Sadly, I find Dawkins doing this another time in ADC. Later in the book, there's another exotic quotation presented in a context where sure, it is just quoted from a "feminist 'philosopher'" and mentioned in the company of other apparently "feminist truths" (they were news to me) such as Newton's Principia being a rape manual (?) and E=mc2 being a 'sexed equation' (?!).
"The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the ability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that portrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids ... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders."
If you've read the previous of my review on why such quotations are an issue carefully, I'm sure you can pinpoint yourself what exactly is the issue with the quote above.
This is not a matter of cutting off unpopular limbs to distantiate myself from those that are exposed to criticism, but basically what happened here is the equivalent of a Christian lumping all atheists together with Hitler, or using a church bulletin distributed within a village with 100 inhabitants in some edge of the world as a source for the definition of Christian beliefs. Criticism against feminism, totally fine. But do it in the same thorough way as you treat anything else you're looking at critically; thorough, use representative sources, no cherry picking, and report transparently. And really, there's no room for that in Dawkins' work. So either stick to atheism or write a book dedicated to criticizing feminist theory. And I think we all agree we'd prefer him to spend his precious time on his own fields, where he's of the greatest value.
June 23, 2016
Knjiga je zbirka eseja pisanih kroz desetljeće i više i podijeljenih u nekoliko cjelina. U niima se Dawkins, u svom beskompromisnom stilu dotiče uobičajenih i manje uobičajenih tema- biologije, znanosti, tradicije, odnosa s drugima- i lucidno razjašnjava stvari. Sapienti sat.
May 24, 2013
The essay on Postmodernism is a delightful skewering of that pretentious twaddle dished out in so many social science departments.
September 12, 2016
A retired senior bureaucrat from the Kerala administrative service had once written a column about how people are being exploited in the name of their beliefs. In his words, almost 60% of the population wakes up every day with this tinny little voice ringing at the back of their minds - ’Somebody please con me !’ And so on television we have advertisements for seashells that can fix all problems, powders that help you seduce anyone you want, magicians who will bestow all the good things in life on you…yada yada. Voices like Richard Dawkins’s are quite rare to come by in the oceans of such obvious nonsense and yet it is a relief to know that such thinkers are active in the public space. The book is a collection of his essays that give us a glimpse into his mind which is tuned to the voices of science and reason and is quick to point out the illogical and idiotic things that one encounters in life.
The essays in the book cover a lot of ground with genetics, evolution and general science making a lot of appearances. Dawkins does not hold his fire when he deals with creationist theories, quacks and alternate medicine. There is a scathing essay in which he makes mincemeat out of alternate medicine. There are also reviews of books, eulogies and the occasional autobiographical piece in here. Two of the articles are really outstanding. The first is Dawkins’s piece for The Guardian as a response to the death of famed novelist Douglas Adams. This article is not well thought through, it is not elaborate and neither is it objective. It is a knee jerk reaction from a man who has lost a dear friend and colleague and hence it is a very touching piece in an otherwise dispassionate book. The second is Dawkins’s letter to his daughter as she enters her teenage years. It is a candid observation on the nature of beliefs and how much a rational mind can help you in understanding the world better. He does not bash religion and beliefs all that brutally here but tells his daughter to make an informed choice when she feels equipped for it. Unlike his other articles, he does not elucidate things to a great extent and sticks to a bare bones evaluation of thought processes that might help an adult live a no-nonsense life.
This is more of a sneak peek at Dawkins’s enormously productive oeuvre and ergo recommended.
The essays in the book cover a lot of ground with genetics, evolution and general science making a lot of appearances. Dawkins does not hold his fire when he deals with creationist theories, quacks and alternate medicine. There is a scathing essay in which he makes mincemeat out of alternate medicine. There are also reviews of books, eulogies and the occasional autobiographical piece in here. Two of the articles are really outstanding. The first is Dawkins’s piece for The Guardian as a response to the death of famed novelist Douglas Adams. This article is not well thought through, it is not elaborate and neither is it objective. It is a knee jerk reaction from a man who has lost a dear friend and colleague and hence it is a very touching piece in an otherwise dispassionate book. The second is Dawkins’s letter to his daughter as she enters her teenage years. It is a candid observation on the nature of beliefs and how much a rational mind can help you in understanding the world better. He does not bash religion and beliefs all that brutally here but tells his daughter to make an informed choice when she feels equipped for it. Unlike his other articles, he does not elucidate things to a great extent and sticks to a bare bones evaluation of thought processes that might help an adult live a no-nonsense life.
This is more of a sneak peek at Dawkins’s enormously productive oeuvre and ergo recommended.
March 2, 2009
I prefer it when Dawkins sticks to the science and leaves out the philosophy, not because I think he's so incorrect, but because I think his arrogance distracts from his correctness.
September 20, 2009
This collection of essays, written before Professor Dawkins succumbed to the pomposity that is sadly so often an accompaniment to fame, and started to confuse intellect with wisdom, is one of my favorites. Most of the thirty or so essays in the book display the charm, erudition, and clarity of exposition that are characteristic of his earlier work, though some of the pieces dealing with religion prefigure his subsequent descent into shrillness and condescension.
The tone of the final essay, "A Prayer for my Daughter" (Good and Bad Reasons for Believing) is blessedly free of any hint of shrillness, however.
His eulogy to Douglas Adams is particularly affecting, but if I had to pick a favorite, it would probably be the hilarious skewering of the pomo set in "Postmodernism Disrobed". An easy target, granted, but Professor Dawkins's demolition job is masterful.
The tone of the final essay, "A Prayer for my Daughter" (Good and Bad Reasons for Believing) is blessedly free of any hint of shrillness, however.
His eulogy to Douglas Adams is particularly affecting, but if I had to pick a favorite, it would probably be the hilarious skewering of the pomo set in "Postmodernism Disrobed". An easy target, granted, but Professor Dawkins's demolition job is masterful.
May 20, 2020
I think now I know why I love Dawkins. It's not because he completely changed my view of life (or we can say destroyed it) when I was only 18 nor because of how beautiful his writing style is nor even due to how much knowledge he possesses. It is merely because he is a teacher. He actually "wants" you to learn and make you understand in the most straightforward and transparent ways he can afford. He doesn't try to sound sophisticated and write vaguely to make himself look important. He doesn't use big and complicated words to hide his ignorance behind them. He uses a poetic and beautiful language to feed you the intriguing knowledge on a plate of simplicity.
He devoted a chapter talking about those sophists who have nothing worth of knowing but want to be considered as respectful academics. He says: "Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life and collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with a respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content."
As his usual job, Nietzsche condensed all these charlatans, these priests of unclarity in a single sentence: "They muddy the water to make it seem deep."
Dawkins despises these wannabe academics and makes it his mission to show you how complicated scientific concepts can be presented in an understandable and comprehensible way.
I now realize why these men (Sagan, Dawkins, Tyson, Feynman..etc) are considered to be prophets of science. It is because of their incredible ability to write as they are your friends, sitting beside you, explaining to you the world through the lens of science. And it was this book that opened my eyes to this obvious yet hidden fact.
This book is different from Dawkins's other books. You don't find him attacking religion and god as he usually does, although if there is an actual miracle, it would be Dawkins writing a book without doing that at all. This book is a personal note; it is close to him on a personal basis. It contains many special things about his life, from his eulogies to his deceased friends to his letter to Juliet, the daughter whom he devoted the book to for her eighteenth birthday. Here you find a different Dawkins. A kind-hearted, as he often is, Dawkins. Above all, you find out how humble and down to earth he is; this was another hidden thing I discovered through the book.
Do give it a try if you already know him, and if you hadn't known him already; because he is very close to leave us for good. So close that I fear not finishing this review without hearing that he passed away.
He devoted a chapter talking about those sophists who have nothing worth of knowing but want to be considered as respectful academics. He says: "Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life and collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with a respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content."
As his usual job, Nietzsche condensed all these charlatans, these priests of unclarity in a single sentence: "They muddy the water to make it seem deep."
Dawkins despises these wannabe academics and makes it his mission to show you how complicated scientific concepts can be presented in an understandable and comprehensible way.
I now realize why these men (Sagan, Dawkins, Tyson, Feynman..etc) are considered to be prophets of science. It is because of their incredible ability to write as they are your friends, sitting beside you, explaining to you the world through the lens of science. And it was this book that opened my eyes to this obvious yet hidden fact.
This book is different from Dawkins's other books. You don't find him attacking religion and god as he usually does, although if there is an actual miracle, it would be Dawkins writing a book without doing that at all. This book is a personal note; it is close to him on a personal basis. It contains many special things about his life, from his eulogies to his deceased friends to his letter to Juliet, the daughter whom he devoted the book to for her eighteenth birthday. Here you find a different Dawkins. A kind-hearted, as he often is, Dawkins. Above all, you find out how humble and down to earth he is; this was another hidden thing I discovered through the book.
Do give it a try if you already know him, and if you hadn't known him already; because he is very close to leave us for good. So close that I fear not finishing this review without hearing that he passed away.
August 5, 2011
Richard Dawkins more often than not is labeled arrogant, whther in print, in lecture or in person. Having read, listened and talked to Dawkins, I would be hard pressed to argue the contrary. Nevertheless, I still like him and what he has to say, even if I don't understand everything.
The Devil’s Chaplain is a collection of essays published in 2003, that according to the backleaf of the paperback, is “an enthusiastic declaration, a testament to the powers of rigorous scientific examination to reveal the wonders of the world.” Well, I think it is a wonderful collection ranging from the pedantic to the candid, from righteous to humble (if you look close, you’ll see this). He can be wittily entertaining and maddeningly academic, but never boring. And he doesn’t pull punches (no expects that anyway).
Dawkins grouped his essays into six (actually seven) sections and provides a foreword to each, explaining his choices for inclusion.
In “Science and Sensibility” he talks about Darwin (of course). He examines the relativity of truth as related to perspective, with science as the only real truth. He looks at the human ape family tree, ethics in genetic studies, relates his experiences as a jury member (prompting me to rethink the jury concept). Two of my favorite essays in this section look at quackery of new age crystal proponents and a brilliant review of “Intellectual Impostures” by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (published in the US as “Fashionable Nonsense”)offering Dawkins’ Law of Conservation of Difficulty and a web link to a hilarious site: The Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/post...” that “will spontaneously generate for you, using faultless grammatical principles, a spanking new postmodern discourse, never before seen.”
In “Light Will Be Thrown”, the chapters look at Darwinism’s effect outside biology and Darwinism as a universal truth. He also relates with palpable distaste his experience with the “murky underworld of creationist propaganda.” Within that chapter is a fascinating look at information transfer, one of the best, if dry, reads in the book.
In “The Infected Mind”, Dawkins concentrates all barrels on religion. He revisits memes and his view of religions as viruses of the mind. He dismisses claims of the convergence of science and religion, and does a number on the tendency to afford religious spokesmen a “privileged platform”, such as including their opinions in scientific discussions where they have no place.
“They Told Me, Heraclitus” is a collection of tributes and eulogies to Douglas Adams, W.D. Hamilton and John Diamond, the last exposing some of the snake oil masquerading as “alternative medicine.”
“Even the Ranks of Tuscany” blows the lid off the exaggerated conflict between Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins freely admits he was neither close friends with Gould nor in agreement on their respective views of evolution, but he was highly respectful of Gould’s scientific approach and laudatory of Gould’s writing. The chapter contains some reviews of Gould’s books, both favorable and unfavorable, and concludes with a sad recounting of a final collaborative effort against the intelligent design movement that was cut short before publication by Gould’s death.
After a chapter on Africa, he concludes with a moving letter to his (then) ten year old daughter entitled "Good and Bad Reasons for Believing"
The Devil’s Chaplain is a collection of essays published in 2003, that according to the backleaf of the paperback, is “an enthusiastic declaration, a testament to the powers of rigorous scientific examination to reveal the wonders of the world.” Well, I think it is a wonderful collection ranging from the pedantic to the candid, from righteous to humble (if you look close, you’ll see this). He can be wittily entertaining and maddeningly academic, but never boring. And he doesn’t pull punches (no expects that anyway).
Dawkins grouped his essays into six (actually seven) sections and provides a foreword to each, explaining his choices for inclusion.
In “Science and Sensibility” he talks about Darwin (of course). He examines the relativity of truth as related to perspective, with science as the only real truth. He looks at the human ape family tree, ethics in genetic studies, relates his experiences as a jury member (prompting me to rethink the jury concept). Two of my favorite essays in this section look at quackery of new age crystal proponents and a brilliant review of “Intellectual Impostures” by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (published in the US as “Fashionable Nonsense”)offering Dawkins’ Law of Conservation of Difficulty and a web link to a hilarious site: The Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/post...” that “will spontaneously generate for you, using faultless grammatical principles, a spanking new postmodern discourse, never before seen.”
In “Light Will Be Thrown”, the chapters look at Darwinism’s effect outside biology and Darwinism as a universal truth. He also relates with palpable distaste his experience with the “murky underworld of creationist propaganda.” Within that chapter is a fascinating look at information transfer, one of the best, if dry, reads in the book.
In “The Infected Mind”, Dawkins concentrates all barrels on religion. He revisits memes and his view of religions as viruses of the mind. He dismisses claims of the convergence of science and religion, and does a number on the tendency to afford religious spokesmen a “privileged platform”, such as including their opinions in scientific discussions where they have no place.
“They Told Me, Heraclitus” is a collection of tributes and eulogies to Douglas Adams, W.D. Hamilton and John Diamond, the last exposing some of the snake oil masquerading as “alternative medicine.”
“Even the Ranks of Tuscany” blows the lid off the exaggerated conflict between Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins freely admits he was neither close friends with Gould nor in agreement on their respective views of evolution, but he was highly respectful of Gould’s scientific approach and laudatory of Gould’s writing. The chapter contains some reviews of Gould’s books, both favorable and unfavorable, and concludes with a sad recounting of a final collaborative effort against the intelligent design movement that was cut short before publication by Gould’s death.
After a chapter on Africa, he concludes with a moving letter to his (then) ten year old daughter entitled "Good and Bad Reasons for Believing"
September 19, 2008
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”.
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”.
February 6, 2014
Cuando decidí leer el Capellán del diablo tenía la idea que sería un libro de ataque a las religiones, por el título y tomando encuentra que es de uno de los jinetes del ateísmo, pero me equivoqué totalmente es mucho mejor, me topé con un libro lleno de ciencia, explicando el maravilloso de la evolución, la vida abriéndose paso por miles de años, echando por el piso una teoría tan débil como el diseño inteligente, la vida actual de nuestras especies y ecosistemas son el conjunto de errores tras errores que se han acumulado y sobrevivido.
No hay nada más estimulante que leer a un científico apasionado.
No hay nada más estimulante que leer a un científico apasionado.
September 13, 2007
It would no doubt discomfit Dawkins to know that I revere the words he writes with an almost religious zeal. I love his belligerence, I love his conviction, I love his passion. And I believe he's correct in his science. The closing essay is a letter to his daughter about how to decide what to believe, and it's brilliant. I liked learning more about the alleged feud between Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. I found myself taking notes about books mentioned in passing. A delightful book which reinforces all my prejudices.
December 29, 2008
An excellent collection of essays by Dawkins. People who accuse him of being belligerent, dogmatic, or militant have clearly either not actually read his work, or they have approached the books with a pre-conceived idea. His writing is lucid and illuminating. His reviews of Gould's work show just how much the differences between them have been exaggerated by people whose intention it is is to discredit evolutionary theory.
On a side note, Dawkins had the same gripe about the excess of mind-numbing baseball statistics minutia that marred the "Wonderful Life" by Gould that I had.
On a side note, Dawkins had the same gripe about the excess of mind-numbing baseball statistics minutia that marred the "Wonderful Life" by Gould that I had.
January 7, 2020
I highly recommend this book. It covers a wide range of topics from various matters of evolutionary biology, memes, religion, postmodernism etc. Classic Dawkins from cover to cover, really providing a rounded, inclusive selection of Dawkins' interests. Many of these essays are both brilliantly written and about extremely interesting stuff!
August 16, 2018
The book started out ok, with several good essays. The final chapters with the book reviews and eulogies is mostly the reason why the rating is so low. The last chapter, a prayer for my daughter is recommended reading. All in all, not the best book by Richard. I prefer his science books.
June 29, 2021
ان وجود نسبة تطابق حول ٩٨٪ بين البشر والشمبانزي عندما تقارن بأن نسبة التماثل بين البشر والاورانج أوتان هي ٩٦٪ وهي النسبة نفسها بين الشمبانزي والاورانج وبين الغوريلا والاورانج ايضاً نفسها ٩٦٪ ، لان كل القردة العليا الافريقية لها صلة بأفراد الاورانج الاسيوية عن طريق سلف افريقي مشترك . ان كل القردة العليا تتشارك بنسبة ٩٥٪ من جينوماتها مع افراد الجيبون . كما ان كل القردة العليا تتشارك بنسبة ٩٢٪ من جينوماتها مع قردة العالم القديم . ان التفرع بين البشر والشمبانزي قد حدث ما بين ٥ الى ٨ ملايين سنة ، والتفرع بين القردة العليا الافريقية والاورانج منذ ما يقرب من ١٤ مليون سنة والتفرع بين القردة العليا وقرود العالم القديم منذ ما يقرب من ٢٥ مليون سنة .
يتم على نحو دقيق نسخ الجينات وتمريرها من جسد للاخر ولكن بعضها يمرر بتكرار اكثر من الاخرى وبالتالي فإنها حسب التعريف نجاحًا ، وهذا ما يسمى بالانتخاب الطبيعي . ان الجينومات هي مستعمرات ض��مة من الفيروسات . تتعاون الجينات داخل الجينوم احدها مع الاخر لان الانتخاب الطبيعي قد حبذ تلك الجينات التي تزدهر في وجود جينات اخرى يحدث ان تكون شائعة في المستودع الجيني . الصفتين اللتين يتطلبهما الفيروس او اي نوع من الناسخات الطفيلية ، وهما صفتان مطلوبتان لوجود الوسط الودي صفتان تجعلان ماكينات الخلية جد ودودة تجاه DNA الطفيلي .
ان الامخاخ البشرية ما زالت بارعة ، ولعلها تقرب في امانتها من فيروس RNA ولكنها ليست في براعة DNA . ان الامخاخ البشرية قادرة على النسخ بدقة لها قدرها ، على ان هذه الدقة يكون معها بعض اخطاء .
ان الكثير من الكون كما يكتشفه العالم هو مما يصعب فهمه فهناك نسبية اينشتين واللايقين الكمومي والثقوب السوداء والانفجار الكبير والكون المتمدد ، والحركة جد البطيئة للزمان الجيولوجي كل هذه امور يصعب استيعابها . ولا عجب في ان العلم فيه ما يخيف بعض الناس . الا ان العلم يستطيع حتى ان يفسر السبب في ان هذه الامور يصعب فهمها ولماذا الخوف من بذل مجهود في ذلك . فنحن قردة عليا قد زادت رقيا وعقولنا كانت مصممة لتفهم التفاصيل الواقعية لطريقة بقائنا احياء السافانا الافريقية بالعصر الحجري .
يتم على نحو دقيق نسخ الجينات وتمريرها من جسد للاخر ولكن بعضها يمرر بتكرار اكثر من الاخرى وبالتالي فإنها حسب التعريف نجاحًا ، وهذا ما يسمى بالانتخاب الطبيعي . ان الجينومات هي مستعمرات ض��مة من الفيروسات . تتعاون الجينات داخل الجينوم احدها مع الاخر لان الانتخاب الطبيعي قد حبذ تلك الجينات التي تزدهر في وجود جينات اخرى يحدث ان تكون شائعة في المستودع الجيني . الصفتين اللتين يتطلبهما الفيروس او اي نوع من الناسخات الطفيلية ، وهما صفتان مطلوبتان لوجود الوسط الودي صفتان تجعلان ماكينات الخلية جد ودودة تجاه DNA الطفيلي .
ان الامخاخ البشرية ما زالت بارعة ، ولعلها تقرب في امانتها من فيروس RNA ولكنها ليست في براعة DNA . ان الامخاخ البشرية قادرة على النسخ بدقة لها قدرها ، على ان هذه الدقة يكون معها بعض اخطاء .
ان الكثير من الكون كما يكتشفه العالم هو مما يصعب فهمه فهناك نسبية اينشتين واللايقين الكمومي والثقوب السوداء والانفجار الكبير والكون المتمدد ، والحركة جد البطيئة للزمان الجيولوجي كل هذه امور يصعب استيعابها . ولا عجب في ان العلم فيه ما يخيف بعض الناس . الا ان العلم يستطيع حتى ان يفسر السبب في ان هذه الامور يصعب فهمها ولماذا الخوف من بذل مجهود في ذلك . فنحن قردة عليا قد زادت رقيا وعقولنا كانت مصممة لتفهم التفاصيل الواقعية لطريقة بقائنا احياء السافانا الافريقية بالعصر الحجري .
July 21, 2019
A revealing collection of essays by a passionate scientist
One of the wonderful things about this book is the sense that one gets of a distinguished scientist letting his hair down, as it were, and discoursing informally on a number of interesting subjects including some outside his area of expertise. In the game of "Who would you invite to dinner if you could choose anybody?" Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, and other important works on evolution, would be near the top of my list.
Not that I agree with everything he says. Indeed, that is part of the fun. Dawkins is adamant on some subjects, religion being one of them. A goodly portion of this book is devoted to letting us know exactly how he feels about the "God hypothesis," "liberal agnostics," and the so-called miracles recognized by especially the Catholic Church. The title of Chapter 3.3, "The Great Convergence" (of science and religion), for example, is used ironically. He sees no convergence; in fact, he calls such a notion "a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham." (p. 151)
Clearly Dawkins is not a man to mince words. But his insistence on a restrictive definition of "God" as "a hypothetical being who answers prayers; intervenes to save cancer patients...forgives sin," etc., is really the problem. He considers the "religion" attributed to scientists like Einstein, Carl Sagan, Paul Davies and others (and even himself!) to involve a misuse of the term, calling such a definition "flabbily elastic" and not religion as experienced by "the ordinary person in the pew." (p. 147)
But what Dawkins is really railing against is the illegitimacy of believing in the supernatural and science at the same time.
While I think Dawkins makes a good point with this argument, I think it would be better to make a distinction between fundamentalist religion, which has been, and continues to be, the root cause of much of the horror in the world, and the more progressive varieties which recognize the limitations of the barbaric "Bronze-Age God of Battles." See Chapter 3.5 "Time to Stand Up" in which Dawkins rightly condemns the hatreds and violent history of the three middle eastern religions. At the same time I think he needs to realize that it is legitimate to define "God" as God is defined in, for example, the Vedas; that is, as The Ineffable, which has no attributes, about which nothing can be said.
However it is exactly his point that there is no evidence for the God hypothesis and that to partially accept such a notion, or even to be "agnostic" is to depart from a purely scientific viewpoint. In this I think the atheistic Dawkins is mistaken. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, period. And as far as religion, per se, goes, I would add that not only is religion part of human culture (for better or for worse), but is also part of the so-called "extended phenotype" of human beings, and not something that is going to be argued away.
I also have some reservations about his reasons for not debating with creationists. He believes that to debate with them gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve. In Chapter 5.5, he reveals a letter he wrote to Steven Jay Gould expressing such a view. I don't debate creationists either, but my reason is that creationists don't really debate. They have already made up their minds and are not capable of being influenced by evidence. Theirs is purely an exercise in propaganda. Furthermore, as Dawkins discovered himself (in Chapter 2.3 on the Australian film crew that he allowed into his house for an interview), it is often the case that creationists don't play fair.
In Chapter 1.5 "Trial by Jury" Dawkins presents his reservations about "one of the most conspicuously bad good ideas anyone ever had." I understand his demurral, but would like to point out that juries dispense a social justice; that the tribe makes its decisions based on what it perceives as good for the tribe now, not necessarily what's true in an objective or scientific sense.
Interesting enough, Dawkins demonstrates his knowledge of other scientific subjects, including physics, and he does it very well. I was particularly impressed with his explanation of entropy and how it effects the evolutionary process in Chapter 2.2. (See especially page 85.) He also does a fine job of elucidating why Lamarckism cannot work without a "Darwinian underpinning" since there must be a mechanism for selecting between the acquired characteristics that are improvements and those that are not. (p. 90) Good too is his characterization of genes as constituting "a kind of description of the ancestral environments through which those genes have survived." (p. 113)
On his tiff with Gould, Dawkins attempts to make amends by reprinting some semi-gracious and mostly positive reviews of some of Gould's books; however it is obvious that his professional and emotional differences with Gould remain.
One of the most important points that Dawkins reaffirms here is his belief that we humans, because of our unique insight into ourselves and our predicament, "can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." (p. 11) What Dawkins means is that we do not have to take biology as destiny or to take Darwinism as a template for our morality--a point often missed by his critics.
There is much, much more of interest in this refreshingly personal collection of essays by one of our most original evolutionary thinkers, some of it first rate, and some of it rather ordinary; yet taken in total reveals a lot about Richard Dawkins, scientist, science writer, teacher, and human being that I was pleased to learn.
Incidentally, the title is from Charles Darwin who speculated on how such a personage might regard "the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature." (p. 8)
That "devil's chaplain" here is Richard Dawkins himself who mostly directs his ire toward the stupidities of human beings.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
One of the wonderful things about this book is the sense that one gets of a distinguished scientist letting his hair down, as it were, and discoursing informally on a number of interesting subjects including some outside his area of expertise. In the game of "Who would you invite to dinner if you could choose anybody?" Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, and other important works on evolution, would be near the top of my list.
Not that I agree with everything he says. Indeed, that is part of the fun. Dawkins is adamant on some subjects, religion being one of them. A goodly portion of this book is devoted to letting us know exactly how he feels about the "God hypothesis," "liberal agnostics," and the so-called miracles recognized by especially the Catholic Church. The title of Chapter 3.3, "The Great Convergence" (of science and religion), for example, is used ironically. He sees no convergence; in fact, he calls such a notion "a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham." (p. 151)
Clearly Dawkins is not a man to mince words. But his insistence on a restrictive definition of "God" as "a hypothetical being who answers prayers; intervenes to save cancer patients...forgives sin," etc., is really the problem. He considers the "religion" attributed to scientists like Einstein, Carl Sagan, Paul Davies and others (and even himself!) to involve a misuse of the term, calling such a definition "flabbily elastic" and not religion as experienced by "the ordinary person in the pew." (p. 147)
But what Dawkins is really railing against is the illegitimacy of believing in the supernatural and science at the same time.
While I think Dawkins makes a good point with this argument, I think it would be better to make a distinction between fundamentalist religion, which has been, and continues to be, the root cause of much of the horror in the world, and the more progressive varieties which recognize the limitations of the barbaric "Bronze-Age God of Battles." See Chapter 3.5 "Time to Stand Up" in which Dawkins rightly condemns the hatreds and violent history of the three middle eastern religions. At the same time I think he needs to realize that it is legitimate to define "God" as God is defined in, for example, the Vedas; that is, as The Ineffable, which has no attributes, about which nothing can be said.
However it is exactly his point that there is no evidence for the God hypothesis and that to partially accept such a notion, or even to be "agnostic" is to depart from a purely scientific viewpoint. In this I think the atheistic Dawkins is mistaken. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, period. And as far as religion, per se, goes, I would add that not only is religion part of human culture (for better or for worse), but is also part of the so-called "extended phenotype" of human beings, and not something that is going to be argued away.
I also have some reservations about his reasons for not debating with creationists. He believes that to debate with them gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve. In Chapter 5.5, he reveals a letter he wrote to Steven Jay Gould expressing such a view. I don't debate creationists either, but my reason is that creationists don't really debate. They have already made up their minds and are not capable of being influenced by evidence. Theirs is purely an exercise in propaganda. Furthermore, as Dawkins discovered himself (in Chapter 2.3 on the Australian film crew that he allowed into his house for an interview), it is often the case that creationists don't play fair.
In Chapter 1.5 "Trial by Jury" Dawkins presents his reservations about "one of the most conspicuously bad good ideas anyone ever had." I understand his demurral, but would like to point out that juries dispense a social justice; that the tribe makes its decisions based on what it perceives as good for the tribe now, not necessarily what's true in an objective or scientific sense.
Interesting enough, Dawkins demonstrates his knowledge of other scientific subjects, including physics, and he does it very well. I was particularly impressed with his explanation of entropy and how it effects the evolutionary process in Chapter 2.2. (See especially page 85.) He also does a fine job of elucidating why Lamarckism cannot work without a "Darwinian underpinning" since there must be a mechanism for selecting between the acquired characteristics that are improvements and those that are not. (p. 90) Good too is his characterization of genes as constituting "a kind of description of the ancestral environments through which those genes have survived." (p. 113)
On his tiff with Gould, Dawkins attempts to make amends by reprinting some semi-gracious and mostly positive reviews of some of Gould's books; however it is obvious that his professional and emotional differences with Gould remain.
One of the most important points that Dawkins reaffirms here is his belief that we humans, because of our unique insight into ourselves and our predicament, "can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." (p. 11) What Dawkins means is that we do not have to take biology as destiny or to take Darwinism as a template for our morality--a point often missed by his critics.
There is much, much more of interest in this refreshingly personal collection of essays by one of our most original evolutionary thinkers, some of it first rate, and some of it rather ordinary; yet taken in total reveals a lot about Richard Dawkins, scientist, science writer, teacher, and human being that I was pleased to learn.
Incidentally, the title is from Charles Darwin who speculated on how such a personage might regard "the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature." (p. 8)
That "devil's chaplain" here is Richard Dawkins himself who mostly directs his ire toward the stupidities of human beings.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
February 14, 2022
This is a book of short essays, and the essays are on a massive range of topics. I wasn't interested in all of those topics, so I did skip some. I read (as far as I can tell) all of the ones on religion, plus some more. I sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed with Richard Dawkins.
I have decided, though, not to read any more of him for the time being, because when it comes to talking about Christianity, he shows he just doesn't understand enough to critique it. Every time I've read one of his books, that's been clear and, because of it, it's hard to be persuaded by his criticisms of a religion he doesn't understand as much as he seems to think he does. It's probably not worth much more of my time now that I've read a few of his books.
I have decided, though, not to read any more of him for the time being, because when it comes to talking about Christianity, he shows he just doesn't understand enough to critique it. Every time I've read one of his books, that's been clear and, because of it, it's hard to be persuaded by his criticisms of a religion he doesn't understand as much as he seems to think he does. It's probably not worth much more of my time now that I've read a few of his books.
July 7, 2023
It was full of very interesting information, and I enjoyed reading his viewpoints and opinions, however it was very convoluted and full of tedious technical analogies. I feel like the analogies were implemented in the hope that the average reader could understand the complex scientific concepts he was trying to explain, but I found them quite rambling and confusing. Still, he had some interesting insights and I appreciate his intellect of course. Very smart and funny man.
September 15, 2022
A collection of his essays, released in 2003.
Extracts:
What is true?
In theory people could switch allegiance from any one truth to any other if they decide it has greater merit. On what basis might they do so? Scientific truth is the only member of the list which regularly persuades converts of its superiority. People are loyal to other belief systems for one reason only: they were brought up that way and they have never known anything better. When people are lucky enough to be offered the opportunity to vote with their feet, doctors and their kind prosper while witch doctors decline. Even those who do not or cannot avail themselves of a scientific education choose to benefit from the technology that is made possible by the scientific education of others.
Gaps in the mind.
It is we that choose to divide animals up into discontinuous species. ..The lawyer with his trained discontinuous mind insists on placing individuals firmly in this species or that. He does not allow for the possibility that an individual might lie part way between two species. Self styled ‘’pro lifers’ and OTHERS that indulge in footling debates about exactly when in its development a foetus becomes human, exhibited the same discontinuous mentality. It is no use telling these people that depending upon the human characteristics that interest you, foetus can be half human or 1/100 human. Human to the discontinuous mind is an absolutist concept. There can be no half measures . And from this flows evil.
34 When Carl Sagan was asked a futurological question , he said that not enough was known to answer it. The questioner pressed him: what is your gut feeling. sagan's reply is immortal ‘ but I try not to think with my gut’. Got thinking is one of the main problems we have to contend with in public attitudes to science.
70. What matters is not the facts but how you discover and think about them: education in the true sense, very different from today's assessment mad exam culture .
94 Darwin triumphant .
We cannot quite say that Darwinism is in the same unassailable class. Respectable opposition to it can still be mounted, and it can be seriously argued that the current high standing of Darwinism in educated minds may not last through all future generations. Darwinism may be triumphant at the end of the 20th century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the 21st century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.
Core Darwinism, I suggest, is the minimal theory that evolution is guided in adaptively non random directions by the non random survival of small random hereditary changes.
125 Genes aren't us .
imagine the following newspaper headline: scientists discover homosexuality is caused. Obviously this is not news at all. everything is caused.
Some genetic causes are hard to reverse . Others are easy. Some environmental causes are easy to reverse. Others are hard. Think how tenaciously we cling to the accent of childhood. …Genes have no monopoly on determinism .
137. The infected mind
To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I'm often asked why I am so hostile to organised religion. My first response is that I'm not exactly friendly towards disorganised religion either. As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence : fairies, unicorns, werewolves, any of the infinite sets of conceivable and unfalsifiable beliefs epitomised by Bertrand Russell’s hypothetical china teapot orbiting the sun. The reason organised religion merits outright hostility is that religion is powerful, influential, tax exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves.
284. Good and bad reasons for believing [Open letter to my daughter aged 10. I had always been scrupulously careful to avoid the smallest suggestion of infant indoctrination, which I think is ultimately responsible for much of the evil in the world. I very much wanted her to make up her own mind freely when she became old enough to do so . I would encourage you to think, without telling her what to think ] .
I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something, and warm you against three bad reasons for believing anything. There called tradition, or authority and revelation.
When asked about religious beliefs, children trot out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents , which in turn were not based upon evidence. Of course, since they all believe different things, they couldn't all be right.
Traditional beliefs after they've been handed down over some centuries, the fact that they are so old makes them seem special. People believe things simply because people have believed the same thing over centuries . That is tradition .
One particular tradition that Roman Catholics believe is that Mary the mother of Jesus was so special that she didn't die but was lifted bodily into heaven. Other Christian traditions disagree. Saying that she died like anybody else. Roman Catholics called Mary the queen of heaven. The Bible says nothing about how or when Mary died , in fact the poor woman is scarcely mentioned in the Bible at all. The belief that her body was lifted into heaven wasn't invented until about 6 centuries after Jesus’s time…It finally was written down as an official Roman Catholic belief only very recently, in 1950. But the story was no more true 1950 was when it was first invented 600 years after Mary’s death.
152. Like immune-deficient patients, children a wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
162. Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of 1, the chances are that you won't know it and may even vigorously deny it. What tell tale signs might you look out for? I shall answer by imagining how a medical textbook might describe the typical symptoms of a sufferer .
1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep inner conviction that something is true or right or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to do anything to evidence or reason , but which nevertheless he feels as totally convert compelling and convincing . We doctors refer to such a belief as faith.
2. Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith being strong and unshakeable, in spite of not being based upon evidence. Indeed they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief. This paradoxical idea that lack of evidence is a positive virtue where faith is concerned have something of the quality of a programme that is self-sustaining, because it is self -referential. Once the proposition is believed, it automatically undermines opposition to itself. The ‘Lack of evidence is a virtue’ idea would be an admirable sidekick, ganging up with faith itself in a clique of mutually supportive viral programmes.
3. A related symptom which a faith sufferer may also present, is the conviction that mystery, per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.
174. Einstein's much quoted phrase ‘the mind of God’ no more indicates belief in God than does my ‘God knows!’ as a way of saying that I don't.
‘It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it's clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it’. [from Albert Einstein, The Human Side].
178. Modern atheists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists . We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further.
187. Time to Stand Up
My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a ‘they’ as opposed to a ‘we’ can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language and social class. ..It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy labelling device in history.
188. Religion is unusual among divisive labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them we might have to accept them in spite of their unpleasantness . But there is no such evidence. To label people as death deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.
189. [After the 9-11 attacks] Is there no catastrophe terrible enough to shake the faith of people, on both sides, in God's goodness and power? No glimmering realisation that he might not be there at all : that we must just be on our own needing to cope with the real world like grown-ups.
213. Experimental design can be made more sensitive . The patients can be sorted into matched pairs, matched for age, weight, sex that set from. The ultimate matched pairs design is to use each patient as his own control, receiving the experimental and the control dose successively, and never knowing when the change occurs.
224. The engineer who first designed the jet engine simply threw the old propeller engine out and started afresh.
Extracts:
What is true?
In theory people could switch allegiance from any one truth to any other if they decide it has greater merit. On what basis might they do so? Scientific truth is the only member of the list which regularly persuades converts of its superiority. People are loyal to other belief systems for one reason only: they were brought up that way and they have never known anything better. When people are lucky enough to be offered the opportunity to vote with their feet, doctors and their kind prosper while witch doctors decline. Even those who do not or cannot avail themselves of a scientific education choose to benefit from the technology that is made possible by the scientific education of others.
Gaps in the mind.
It is we that choose to divide animals up into discontinuous species. ..The lawyer with his trained discontinuous mind insists on placing individuals firmly in this species or that. He does not allow for the possibility that an individual might lie part way between two species. Self styled ‘’pro lifers’ and OTHERS that indulge in footling debates about exactly when in its development a foetus becomes human, exhibited the same discontinuous mentality. It is no use telling these people that depending upon the human characteristics that interest you, foetus can be half human or 1/100 human. Human to the discontinuous mind is an absolutist concept. There can be no half measures . And from this flows evil.
34 When Carl Sagan was asked a futurological question , he said that not enough was known to answer it. The questioner pressed him: what is your gut feeling. sagan's reply is immortal ‘ but I try not to think with my gut’. Got thinking is one of the main problems we have to contend with in public attitudes to science.
70. What matters is not the facts but how you discover and think about them: education in the true sense, very different from today's assessment mad exam culture .
94 Darwin triumphant .
We cannot quite say that Darwinism is in the same unassailable class. Respectable opposition to it can still be mounted, and it can be seriously argued that the current high standing of Darwinism in educated minds may not last through all future generations. Darwinism may be triumphant at the end of the 20th century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the 21st century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.
Core Darwinism, I suggest, is the minimal theory that evolution is guided in adaptively non random directions by the non random survival of small random hereditary changes.
125 Genes aren't us .
imagine the following newspaper headline: scientists discover homosexuality is caused. Obviously this is not news at all. everything is caused.
Some genetic causes are hard to reverse . Others are easy. Some environmental causes are easy to reverse. Others are hard. Think how tenaciously we cling to the accent of childhood. …Genes have no monopoly on determinism .
137. The infected mind
To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I'm often asked why I am so hostile to organised religion. My first response is that I'm not exactly friendly towards disorganised religion either. As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence : fairies, unicorns, werewolves, any of the infinite sets of conceivable and unfalsifiable beliefs epitomised by Bertrand Russell’s hypothetical china teapot orbiting the sun. The reason organised religion merits outright hostility is that religion is powerful, influential, tax exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves.
284. Good and bad reasons for believing [Open letter to my daughter aged 10. I had always been scrupulously careful to avoid the smallest suggestion of infant indoctrination, which I think is ultimately responsible for much of the evil in the world. I very much wanted her to make up her own mind freely when she became old enough to do so . I would encourage you to think, without telling her what to think ] .
I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something, and warm you against three bad reasons for believing anything. There called tradition, or authority and revelation.
When asked about religious beliefs, children trot out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents , which in turn were not based upon evidence. Of course, since they all believe different things, they couldn't all be right.
Traditional beliefs after they've been handed down over some centuries, the fact that they are so old makes them seem special. People believe things simply because people have believed the same thing over centuries . That is tradition .
One particular tradition that Roman Catholics believe is that Mary the mother of Jesus was so special that she didn't die but was lifted bodily into heaven. Other Christian traditions disagree. Saying that she died like anybody else. Roman Catholics called Mary the queen of heaven. The Bible says nothing about how or when Mary died , in fact the poor woman is scarcely mentioned in the Bible at all. The belief that her body was lifted into heaven wasn't invented until about 6 centuries after Jesus’s time…It finally was written down as an official Roman Catholic belief only very recently, in 1950. But the story was no more true 1950 was when it was first invented 600 years after Mary’s death.
152. Like immune-deficient patients, children a wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
162. Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of 1, the chances are that you won't know it and may even vigorously deny it. What tell tale signs might you look out for? I shall answer by imagining how a medical textbook might describe the typical symptoms of a sufferer .
1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep inner conviction that something is true or right or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to do anything to evidence or reason , but which nevertheless he feels as totally convert compelling and convincing . We doctors refer to such a belief as faith.
2. Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith being strong and unshakeable, in spite of not being based upon evidence. Indeed they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief. This paradoxical idea that lack of evidence is a positive virtue where faith is concerned have something of the quality of a programme that is self-sustaining, because it is self -referential. Once the proposition is believed, it automatically undermines opposition to itself. The ‘Lack of evidence is a virtue’ idea would be an admirable sidekick, ganging up with faith itself in a clique of mutually supportive viral programmes.
3. A related symptom which a faith sufferer may also present, is the conviction that mystery, per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.
174. Einstein's much quoted phrase ‘the mind of God’ no more indicates belief in God than does my ‘God knows!’ as a way of saying that I don't.
‘It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it's clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it’. [from Albert Einstein, The Human Side].
178. Modern atheists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists . We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further.
187. Time to Stand Up
My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a ‘they’ as opposed to a ‘we’ can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language and social class. ..It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy labelling device in history.
188. Religion is unusual among divisive labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them we might have to accept them in spite of their unpleasantness . But there is no such evidence. To label people as death deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.
189. [After the 9-11 attacks] Is there no catastrophe terrible enough to shake the faith of people, on both sides, in God's goodness and power? No glimmering realisation that he might not be there at all : that we must just be on our own needing to cope with the real world like grown-ups.
213. Experimental design can be made more sensitive . The patients can be sorted into matched pairs, matched for age, weight, sex that set from. The ultimate matched pairs design is to use each patient as his own control, receiving the experimental and the control dose successively, and never knowing when the change occurs.
224. The engineer who first designed the jet engine simply threw the old propeller engine out and started afresh.
March 6, 2015
I'm not partial to collections of an author's shorter, previous writings. Although they can give an overview of the subject's thoughts, too often they are hodgepodges of ideas better formulated in the author's major published works. Objectively, A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Essays does give the reader general insight into Dawkins' thinking from the groundbreaking The Selfish Gene (1976) until he began writing the greatly important The God Delusion (2006). Practically, most readers will want to pick and choose which items to read in this collection, then, if interested, go to the related major work for a more complete explication.
Everything we know of Dawkins is represented here: science, Darwinian evolution, religion, a bit of Africa, book reviews—mostly on books which I suspect few readers will have read. There are also obituaries, a letter to his daughter, and email correspondence with the contradictory evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Fans of Dawkins surely will find something of interest.
For me, the best essay is the angry newspaper editorial "Time to Stand Up", written shortly after the 9/11 attacks. I don't know if this tragedy was the trigger for him to eventually write The God Delusion, but I wouldn't be surprised: that 2001 editorial is a powerful call to change the way we uncritically accept religion.
Here's a quote from A Devil's Chaplain that I love—they're not Dawkins' words, but from a teacher he respects—which seems to apply quite well to him, but only wishfully to me since I sit in my chair reading too much:
Everything we know of Dawkins is represented here: science, Darwinian evolution, religion, a bit of Africa, book reviews—mostly on books which I suspect few readers will have read. There are also obituaries, a letter to his daughter, and email correspondence with the contradictory evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Fans of Dawkins surely will find something of interest.
For me, the best essay is the angry newspaper editorial "Time to Stand Up", written shortly after the 9/11 attacks. I don't know if this tragedy was the trigger for him to eventually write The God Delusion, but I wouldn't be surprised: that 2001 editorial is a powerful call to change the way we uncritically accept religion.
Here's a quote from A Devil's Chaplain that I love—they're not Dawkins' words, but from a teacher he respects—which seems to apply quite well to him, but only wishfully to me since I sit in my chair reading too much:
"I agree with Nietzsche that 'The secret of a joyful life is to live dangerously.' A joyful life is an active life – it is not a dull state of so-called happiness. Full of the burning fire of enthusiasm, anarchic, revolutionary, energetic, demonic, Dionysian, filled to overflowing with the terrific urge to create – such is the life of the man who risks safety and happiness for the sake of growth and happiness."
October 27, 2018
A Devil's Chaplain is an excellent collection of Dawkin's writings and provides a well-rounded illustration of his personal and professional interactions. Ranging from a eulogy for the late Douglas Adams to forwards for books and personal correspondence with his colleagues, the text provides an intriguing glimpse into some of the more interesting corners of a storied academic's body of work.
Dawkins is first and foremost a great scientific mind, but it is in his circle of colleagues and friends that I find a great deal of his personality laid bare. His interactions illustrate the reasoning behind Dawkin's rise to the forefront of personalities which define the small number of people who are trusted with leading a post-religious movement in the western world. Perhaps not to the degree of Hitchens, but certainly apparent, is Dawkin's knack for capturing and summarizing complex and nuanced ideas and presenting them in a way that is both approachable and comprehensive. I have always admired Dawkin's work, but this text creates an appreciation for the man behind that work as well.
It could be said that the collection of writings in this text are somewhat unfocused. They meander from topic to topic, so varied that they seem almost random. I think this is a reflection of the breadth of personality that defines a modern renaissance man, as Dawkins could be considered. I appreciated the book because I was already a fan, but I fear that others who are less familiar may struggle to find the interest. The book is very good, and a must read for any Dawkins fan, but I think it falls somewhat short for the average reader. A great book for the right reader, but simply an interesting read for others.
Dawkins is first and foremost a great scientific mind, but it is in his circle of colleagues and friends that I find a great deal of his personality laid bare. His interactions illustrate the reasoning behind Dawkin's rise to the forefront of personalities which define the small number of people who are trusted with leading a post-religious movement in the western world. Perhaps not to the degree of Hitchens, but certainly apparent, is Dawkin's knack for capturing and summarizing complex and nuanced ideas and presenting them in a way that is both approachable and comprehensive. I have always admired Dawkin's work, but this text creates an appreciation for the man behind that work as well.
It could be said that the collection of writings in this text are somewhat unfocused. They meander from topic to topic, so varied that they seem almost random. I think this is a reflection of the breadth of personality that defines a modern renaissance man, as Dawkins could be considered. I appreciated the book because I was already a fan, but I fear that others who are less familiar may struggle to find the interest. The book is very good, and a must read for any Dawkins fan, but I think it falls somewhat short for the average reader. A great book for the right reader, but simply an interesting read for others.
October 31, 2020
An excellent collection of Dawkins' essays covering elegant descriptions of evolution; criticisms of religion, pseudo-science, and postmodernism; and beautiful eulogies to Douglas Adams and W. D. Hamilton.
As I've said before, Dawkins may be the best science writer. He holds a deep understanding of evolution, uses crisp and novel metaphors to convey abstract concepts, expresses the courage to discuss uncomfortable facts, and always avoids the pitfalls of the curse of knowledge.
My favourite essay was Light Will be Thrown his forward to a republishing of Darwin's The Descent of Man. A perfect combination of lucid exposition of evolutionary ideas and appreciation of Charles Darwin, his Dangerous Idea, and the remarkable and often prescient insights (preceding Mendelian genetics) the great scientist had.
As I've said before, Dawkins may be the best science writer. He holds a deep understanding of evolution, uses crisp and novel metaphors to convey abstract concepts, expresses the courage to discuss uncomfortable facts, and always avoids the pitfalls of the curse of knowledge.
My favourite essay was Light Will be Thrown his forward to a republishing of Darwin's The Descent of Man. A perfect combination of lucid exposition of evolutionary ideas and appreciation of Charles Darwin, his Dangerous Idea, and the remarkable and often prescient insights (preceding Mendelian genetics) the great scientist had.
October 31, 2012
What a great collection of essays, for the most part. The only reason I did not hand over five stars is that I got horribly lost in the collection of prefaces to other books and eulogies for people I had never heard of. In saying that, the two pieces on Douglas Adams were wonderful (though I have read them elsewhere). I suppose in their own right these pieces were brilliant, though I am not sure that putting them in this collection gave them the context they deserved! The strong ending, supported by Dawkins' letter to his daughter, did however make up for all of this; the style of writing is reminiscent of his more recent work 'The Magic of Reality'.
July 29, 2016
What excellent material in this book, first when I started reading this book I found some mysteries I could not understand some of it but then by completing the section one by one I found an explanation of each mystery.
This book giving a very clear idea about the sciences, mysteries, myths and reality. His articles make sense for me at most.
Most important section is the last one.
Very recommended for the skeptics in the science researches. Thank you Richard!
This book giving a very clear idea about the sciences, mysteries, myths and reality. His articles make sense for me at most.
Most important section is the last one.
Very recommended for the skeptics in the science researches. Thank you Richard!
February 21, 2011
As a fan of Dawkins, this is somewhat repetitive with other books I really liked - such as God Delusion and Greatest Show on Earth. I would only recommend this one for serious fans.
November 20, 2021
3 stars for the book and 1 extra for Dawkins.
September 6, 2017
Charles Darwin mused that a devil's chaplain might write quite a book on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low, and horridly cruel works of nature. A Devil's Chaplain is not quite that book, however, though it does include a mention of fantastically inefficient bio-planning on nature's part, as well as a paragraph or two on parasitic wasps. Dawkins uses the title to collect various articles, prefaces, and reviews he has written, all pooling in either biology or skepticism. Those familiar with Dawkins will find no surprises: he writes on the role of wonder in science, champions skepticism and evidence-based thinking, addresses religion with teeth bared in the wake of 9/11, and expands on his notion of cultural ideas being transmitted like genes, as "memes" -- an originally serious word that is now applied to pictures with words on them, from captioned cats desirous of cheeseburgers to political commentary. There's also a considerable section dedicated to the then recently-late Stephen Jay Gould, with whom Dawkins had professional disputes. (Dawkins defends their relationship as more professional than adversarial.) Because the collection is so varied, it's rather hard to rate; here's a chapter on genes and wasps, there's an appraisal of a novel set in Botswana. Most of the book is on biology and critical thinking, and there he had me; when he moves to morals and culture, however, I found him wanting.
I raised my first eye when Dawkins praised Peter Singer, who sees no reason to value a room of babies over a room of puppies, and asserts that religion only sustains itself by having its adherents instill the beliefs in their children. Of course, religions like any other cultural element are maintained through that kind of transmission -- language, for instance. They also sustain themselves, however, by providing something people need or want: meaning at the individual level, and tribal cohesion and (in some cases) some degree of public morality at the social level. Dawkins' understanding of religion as expressed here is simplistic, but part of his argument is fair: material facts should be believed on the basis of evidence, not desire or authority. Dawkins writes at the beginning that one bit of an advice a devil's chaplain can provide, looking at the spectre of nature red in tooth and claw, is that while we are composed of selfish genes, we are not limited by them. Our intelligence gives us the ability to overcome the amoral logic of the jungle (or the savannah, no less savage). On the whole, however, amoral logic seems to have the edge; if a man can't favor a room of babies over a room of animals, there's something vital missing.
I raised my first eye when Dawkins praised Peter Singer, who sees no reason to value a room of babies over a room of puppies, and asserts that religion only sustains itself by having its adherents instill the beliefs in their children. Of course, religions like any other cultural element are maintained through that kind of transmission -- language, for instance. They also sustain themselves, however, by providing something people need or want: meaning at the individual level, and tribal cohesion and (in some cases) some degree of public morality at the social level. Dawkins' understanding of religion as expressed here is simplistic, but part of his argument is fair: material facts should be believed on the basis of evidence, not desire or authority. Dawkins writes at the beginning that one bit of an advice a devil's chaplain can provide, looking at the spectre of nature red in tooth and claw, is that while we are composed of selfish genes, we are not limited by them. Our intelligence gives us the ability to overcome the amoral logic of the jungle (or the savannah, no less savage). On the whole, however, amoral logic seems to have the edge; if a man can't favor a room of babies over a room of animals, there's something vital missing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 171 reviews