Book Description
Marc Hauser's eminently readable and comprehensive book Moral Minds is revolutionary. He argues that humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of gender, education, and religion. Experience tunes up our moral actions, guiding what we do as opposed to how we deliver our moral verdicts.
For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that moral judgments arise from rational and voluntary deliberations about what ought to be. The common belief today is that we reach moral decisions by consciously reasoning from principled explanations of what society determines is right or wrong. This perspective has generated the further belief that our moral psychology is founded entirely on experience and education, developing slowly and subject to considerable variation across cultures. In his groundbreaking book, Hauser shows that this dominant view is illusory.
Combining his own cutting-edge research with findings in cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, economics, and anthropology, he examines the implications of his theory for issues of bioethics, religion, law, and our everyday lives.
Customer Reviews:
Natural Morality.......2007-09-17
Over the last decade the study of the human brain has moved out of the leafy halls of academia into many different fields, including ethics and the law. If socially unacceptable behavior is being driven by some wiring problem in the brain, is a person legally liable? Or is the brain just one part of the chain of causes with learning and experience playing a larger part? The lion's share of the evidence indicates that genes and the brain determine how we interact with the environment rather than determining how we behave, but there is still a great deal of research that needs to be done.
This book has been getting a lot of attention and for a very good reason: not only is it a well-written account by someone who is an exceptionally clear thinker, but the implications of his book stretch far beyond simple academic discussions: they have implications not only for neuroscience, but for ethics, spirituality and the law.
Marc Hauser is a biologist at Harvard and in this book he argues that the human moral sense is inbuilt and the product of evolution, much like our capacity for language. He suggests that the structure of our minds - or at least our brains - reflect our egalitarian hunter-gatherer past and reveals "left over circuitry from the cavemen."
Hauser begins by contrasting three approaches to moral thinking:
The first was espoused by the philosopher Immanuel Kant in the late eighteenth century, who proposed that we follow a categorical imperative. In Kant's view, we could and should live by the Golden Rule, treating others as we would have them treat us, and never using people merely as a means to something else.
The second approach was proposed by the eighteen century Scottish philosopher David Hume, who came to the conclusion that reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions. So if we do something because we are frustrated or angry, we should be castigated and punished because we failed to express out true nature.
The third approach is that of the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls - like the Harvard linguist Noam Chomsky - proposed that there are deep similarities between language and morality. Chomsky believes that we are hardwired to understand and produce language, while Rawls believes that we all have an innate moral faculty. What that means is that we are all born with an ability to form moral judgments, and that we do not simply embrace the views of our family, tribe or church. The rub is this: because it is an innate ability bred of countless millennia of evolution, we often have no idea why we hold the views they we do.
The parallels between our innate morality and language are explored in this book.
When a twenty-nine year old Chomsky produced his first book in 1957 it created a firestorm of protest as well as some enthusiastic acceptance. We know that people the world over utter grammatical sentences in their own language, but it had been assumed that it began as simple mimicry: children copied the language, syntax and grammar of their parents and others. But Chomsky proposed that the ability is hardwired into the structure of the brain, and that is why we have little or no insight into how grammar works. By analogy, Hauser proposes that children and adults construct moral codes and make judgments without any insight into their reasons for doing so.
Hauser is an acclaimed academic, and it is no surprise that he supports his hypothesis with an array of thought-provoking examples, some better known than others.
One of the better known has been used in psychology and philosophy classes for years. It is the Trolley Problem, taken from a classic set of moral dilemmas proposed by the philosopher Phillipa Foot. The story goes like this. A bystander named Denise is a passenger on an out-of-control railway trolley, which is speeding down the track with an incapacitated driver. The vehicle is heading directly toward five people on the track ahead, bringing with it certain death. Denise can flip a switch that would turn the trolley onto a sidetrack with just one person on it. That one person will die, saving the other five. Should she flip the switch? Hauser's own intuition is that she should, and he marshals various moral arguments to support him.
But now comes the second part. Consider another bystander named Frank. He is on a footbridge over the same railway trolley with the same five endangered people. On the bridge is a large man whom Frank can push off the bridge and so stop the trolley and save the five. Should he do so? Should he sacrifice one man to save five?
Here Hauser's view is that he should not. But exactly why not? Is it because of Denise and Frank's intentions? Is it because Frank would be using the man as a means? In each case the result is the same, one person is killed and five are saved. This is interesting, not as an academic exercise, but because most people come up with similar responses to the dilemma.
Here is another example: what if a surgeon can save the lives of five dying people by taking organs from one perfectly healthy person? Almost no one says that this action is justified, but why not? In fact when such a thing was actually done during the Holocaust, the prosecutors at Nuremberg considered it to be one of the most egregious of all the crimes committed. The utter breakdown of agreed moral norms during those dark years and continuing depravity in some parts of the world remains a challenge for philosophers and scientists to this day; including the author of this book.
Hauser is evidently a good teacher, and he constructs a number of variations of these themes to show us that, with the kinds of exceptions that I just mentioned, the intuitions of very different people are usually much the same. Second. He shows how difficult it is to provide logical justifications for those intuitions. Like all good teachers he includes some personal disclosures, and tells an amusing tale about his own father, who, despite being an intelligent and well-educated physicist, became confused and frustrated when he tried to find logical justifications for his immediate responses.
Hauser reviews evidence from different cultures and from his own research using an online Moral Sense Test, to show how little judgments vary between people of different backgrounds and cultures.
This leads to another important similarity between language and morality. Languages are not chaotic: they follow certain constraints. All known languages follow a set of universal principles. But there are also a set of variable parameters that include the order of words, different ways of making plurals, gender attributions and all those other nuances that can frustrate anyone trying to master a foreign language. Hauser argues that it is the same with morality: there are universal principles and culture-bound parameters. He continues the parallels to point out that as with a language, once people acquire their specific moral grammar, other grammars may seem as incomprehensible as does Japanese to a native English speaker.
He illustrates his thesis with valuable discussions about murder and manslaughter, the treatment of women in different cultures, attitudes to abortion, euthanasia, pedophilia and incest, together with notions of fairness and punishment.
The book is illustrated by some delightful little drawings that do an excellent job of breaking up the narrative.
Marc Hauser if a very good writer and the book is not a difficult read, despite weighing in at over 400 closely reasoned pages. He makes many points that need to be heard. Not only by his colleagues and by people curious to understand more about themselves and those around them, but also by politicians, lawyers and ethicists.
Highly recommended.
Richard G. Petty, MD, author of Healing, Meaning and Purpose: The Magical Power of the Emerging Laws of Life
A poor collection of sophomoric philosophy.......2007-04-01
In a grand way Marc Hauser represents centuries of philosophy intermingled with anecdotes from psychological, anthropological, and economic research. Unfortunately, what he doesn't do is provide a scientific grounding for understanding moral choice.
To understand why people call things right and wrong you need to start with the biology of learning, expectation, and cognition. Given that we are just barely now scratching the surface of these topics Hauser's attempt was bound to fail. His own morals pervade the book and act as logical starting points for his arguments, but rarely does he act as a scientist and dismiss his own morality to seek out the real question which is, "How does the brain create a sense of right and wrong, and is there any definitive proof that there is a universal biological morality?"
Neuroscience tells us that there are very few things we are hardwired to do that we cannot unlearn or adapt to deal with our environments. Hauser spectacularly fails to convince that any moral code is anything other than a learned societal norm.
great idea, poor execution.......2007-03-31
I agree with Rick: great idea, poor execution. Various moral and social systems have long tried to codify and explain away through religious and other naratives what is only natural to us. Kudos to Mark Hauser for bringing our innate "moral organ" to broad attention.
His writing however is another matter. I suggest, read his introductory chapter "What Is Wrong?" and then cherry-pick from the rest of the book as much of the following material is highly repetitive. This is topic waiting to be tackled again by another, stronger writer.
Placing morals into the biological realm where they belong.......2007-03-23
This book affirms something that I have thought true for some time now - that morality is governed by instinctual paradigms in healthy individuals. Hearing from birth and from right-wing sources on the news daily that our morality can only be saved by a reversion to "biblical" mores, I had always wondered why the statistics do not back this "moral majority" up. For instance, in countries like Sweden and Iceland and many other European nations where secularism is high, they have much lower rates of crime and their citizens are just as happy if not more so than the average Sunday-bible-toting-American who thinks they have a "higher" version of morality than the "godless heathen."
Hauser cites empirical data that shows that morality is often operating at an unconscious level in human beings as evidenced by tests where subjects make a moral choice but then can offer only incoherent justifications. Hauser's parallel to our "Language Instinct" here is spot on, given that most native speakers can form perfectly grammatical sentences, but if asked about detailed grammatical structures and relationships, they fail miserably. This, I think, is one reason that religion enjoys its ascendant status (at least in America) in regards to morality. Religion is an overt manifestation of moral principles, something people otherwise have little or no conscious access to. It doesn't matter how outdated or ridiculous religious "morals" are, people will cling to them because in their minds it is the only available source of a description of morality. The faster that science can describe these principles, the better off humanity will be.
Taking in relevant topics from moral philosophy, economics, psychology, and of course, the meat of his argument, socio-biological findings from our primate and animal cousins, Hauser shows that the precursors of human morality, at least in rudimentary form, are present in many other animals. This presence gives science a strong foothold in the arena of ethics. These findings must be to the chagrin of such writers as Francis Collins who invoked the god of the gaps in "The Language of God" to explain that human morality must be due to divine fiat. Indeed it is not.
It's just not written well.......2007-03-21
I got this book after hearing Hauser give a very illluminating and fascinating interview on NPR. Sadly his book is not as nearly interesting as his interview technique is. He repeats his thesis into the ground many times. His clever examples are sometimes not so clever. The book is too long and wordy. Being a lover of philosophy, I of all people never thought I would say that about a book. That can be a good thing in capable hands, but Hauser is definitely a scientist and not a writer. Some better editing and tightening of the text would've made this book a real winner. Finally, the link to linguistics, a main theme of the book, is a turn off for me personally as the linguistics field in no way interests me. However, one refreshing aspect is that he amdits its a theory. Sometimes I feel contemporary science books are too ready to start claiming themselves to be fact. Only get it if you can find it cheap, and hopefully Hausers honesty, enthusiasm and knowledge will get you past the poor writing, sadly it wasn't the case for me.
Book Description
"It's the animal in us," we often hear when we've been bad. But why not when we're good? Primates and Philosophers tackles this question by exploring the biological foundations of one of humanity's most valued traits: morality.
In this provocative book, primatologist Frans de Waal argues that modern-day evolutionary biology takes far too dim a view of the natural world, emphasizing our "selfish" genes. Science has thus exacerbated our reciprocal habits of blaming nature when we act badly and labeling the good things we do as "humane." Seeking the origin of human morality not in evolution but in human culture, science insists that we are moral by choice, not by nature.
Citing remarkable evidence based on his extensive research of primate behavior, de Waal attacks "Veneer Theory," which posits morality as a thin overlay on an otherwise nasty nature. He explains how we evolved from a long line of animals that care for the weak and build cooperation with reciprocal transactions. Drawing on both Darwin and recent scientific advances, de Waal demonstrates a strong continuity between human and animal behavior. In the process, he also probes issues such as anthropomorphism and human responsibilities toward animals.
Based on the Tanner Lectures de Waal delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2004, Primates and Philosophers includes responses by the philosophers Peter Singer, Christine M. Korsgaard, and Philip Kitcher and the science writer Robert Wright. They press de Waal to clarify the differences between humans and other animals, yielding a lively debate that will fascinate all those who wonder about the origins and reach of human goodness.
Customer Reviews:
Plausible.......2007-09-19
This is a very short book. The main essay has just about over 50 pages. The rest is introduction, some responses, and a closing statement.
Who says that important books need to be long? Possibly it is not all that important, but the main idea is new to me, therefore I am glad that I picked it up, after a recommendation in Der Spiegel.
Let me also say, I don't find the main hypothesis really compelling, in the sense of thoroughly thought through and explained. But I think it is plausible, and as I had been used to think in different directions and categories, this is a new paradigm for me.
Simply put, FdW challenges the conventional view that morality is part of civilization, that morality is a 'veneer' over our animal core, which is generally assumed to be selfish and immoral. He rejects the view that mankind developed as individuals and then became socialites, requiring rules for co-existence. Rather, homo evolved as a social animal and started his career on Earth with a set of rules for social life. I.o.w., the whole question how a human society without a creator can have morality, is superfluous, baseless, a waste of energy.
On the way to this hypothesis, FdW gets into arguments with the 'selfish gene' theory and with the Dawkins direction of neo-Darwinism. My suspicion is, that this conflict is as useless as a goitre (as we say in German). I don't think that Dawkins really meant the gene to be literally 'selfish', hence let's drop this linguistic bickering. (However I am too lazy to look it up in Dawkins.)
Only 4 stars, not because it is not important, but because it remains below its potential. The discussion part is not always to the point.
I am tempted to give an extra star for the foto of Georgia admiring her own reflection in the camera lens. But maybe an Oscar is more appropriate?
Welcome new perspectives on moral theorizing.......2007-09-06
This book is an interesting confrontation between primate research and professional moral philosophers. The aim is to discuss De Waal's attack on `veneer theory', the idea that moral behaviour is not really grounded in our nature but just a thin cultural overlay, but the discussion quickly becomes way more general.
In fact, we quickly see familiar dividing lines appear. Some, like Korsgaard, see morality as based on reason alone, and therefore purely human. Others, like De Waal, see it as primarily based on inborn capacities like empathy, and maintain that we share a lot of our morality with primates.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. Actually almost all the contributors confirm this in some way, but this is obscured by the fact that the authors do not seem to be able to agree on the meaning on the word`morality'.
Semantic confusion and untenable extremes: Nothing new in the world of discussions of morality then? What does make this book interesting, is that this time the discussions are informed by empirical evolutionary research, which means that even the philosophers have to keep their feet on the ground. Apart from the ape-stories being interesting to read, the result is a welcome new perspective on existing moral theories.
Critically Important Research.......2007-08-25
Teleologically oriented theologians and pompous philosophers need to read this book. New empirical research offers dramatic insights as to the how's and why's of the bilogoical origins of human values and morality. The more this book is read and digested, the faster the phony televangelists will disappear from popular and uninformed culture.
Excellent .......2007-07-29
I do not have the required background knowledge to really make a judgment as to the fundamental claim here i.e. that moral behavior, including decision-making is not an exclusively human prerogative but in fact is the natural condition of a wide variety of species for whom cooperatrive and and altruistic behavior can be collectively advantageous. De Waal's critique of what he calls 'veneer theory' the idea that human morality is a thin layer which comes over and above our fundamentally aggressive, selfish nature is I believe, even when one considers humans in isolation, quite convincing.
He brings certain evidence and examples to show that other species' outside the human, including such stereotypically cruel and mean creatures as wolves engage in mutually advantageous group behavior. The question however of the degree of conscious decision involved in this is one not really solved here. Clearly the human capacity for language- use and symbolic - communication extends not only modes of cooperation, but complexities in consciousness. One feels that deliberation and decision in human action work in ways other animals cannot come close to.
Our hertitage deepens.......2007-06-10
Succinct, quotable, accessible and scholarly ( in the best sense!)- Dr De Waal never disappoints.
Average customer rating:
- Calculations are only as good as your numbers
- Pants on fire?
- Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed.
- Very Interesting
- History as Science Fiction
|
History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
Anatoly Fomenko
Manufacturer: Mithec
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Chinese
| Ethnic & National
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Irish
| Ethnic & National
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Japanese
| Ethnic & National
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Women
| Specific Groups
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Augustine, Saint
| ( A )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Doctors & Medicine
| Humor
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
Lawyers & Criminals
| Humor
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
Love, Sex & Marriage
| Humor
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
Assyria, Babylonia & Sumer
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Early Civilization
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Historiography
| Historical Study
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| World
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Asian American
| United States
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Asian American
| Poetry
| United States
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
French
| Erotica
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Victorian
| Erotica
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Epic
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
German
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Russian
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Spanish
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Chinese
| Classics
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Conspiracy Theories
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
War on Drugs
| Crime & Criminals
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
English (All)
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Arabic
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Armenian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Czech
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Greek
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Hungarian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Japanese
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Korean
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Norwegian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Persian & Farsi
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Polish
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Portuguese
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Romanian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Russian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Swedish
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Turkish
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Science
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Online Research
| Genealogy
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Native American
| Earth-Based Religions
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
History of Science
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Magic & Wizards
| Fantasy
| Science Fiction & Fantasy
| Subjects
| Books
Sailor Moon
| Popular Characters
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
Pilates
| Exercise & Fitness
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
History
| Fashion
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Art Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Biographies
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Children's Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Entertainment Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Health Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside History Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Fiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Reference Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Religion & Spirituality Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Romance Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Fiction & Fantasy Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2 (Chronology)
-
History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Chronology III
-
Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient America: Lost History And Legends, Unearthed And Explored
-
Before the Pharaohs: Egypt's Mysterious Prehistory
-
They Cast No Shadows: A Collection of Essays on the Illuminati, Revisionist History, and Suppressed Technologies
ASIN: 2913621058 |
Book Description
Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.
Customer Reviews:
Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03
Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.
Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19
Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.
Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09
There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.
For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.
Very Interesting.......2007-03-07
It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.
History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10
Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.
I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.
Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.
Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.
I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.
This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.
Average customer rating:
- very interesting account
- WHAT CONTROVERSY?
- A Riveting Account Well Worth the Read
- Get the monkey off Darwin's back
- Riveting
|
Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
Edward Humes
Manufacturer: Ecco
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Education
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Science & Religion
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Creationism
| Theology
| Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Curricula
| Education
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Religion & Spirituality Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin®, and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania
-
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
-
The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA
-
The Counter-Creationism Handbook
-
Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives
ASIN: 0060885483
Release Date: 2007-01-30 |
Book Description
What should we teach our children about where we come from?
Is evolution good science? Is it a lie? Is it incompatible with faith?
Did Charles Darwin really say man came from monkeys? Have scientists really detected "intelligent design"—evidence of a creator—in nature?
What happens when a town school board decides to confront such questions head-on, thrusting its students, then an entire community, onto the front lines of America's culture wars?
From bestselling author and Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist Edward Humes comes a dramatic story of faith, science, and courage unlike any since the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. Monkey Girl takes you behind the scenes of the recent war on evolution in Dover, Pennsylvania, the epic court case on teaching "intelligent design" it spawned, and the national struggle over what Americans believe about human origins.
Told from the perspectives of all sides of the battle, Monkey Girl is about what happens when science and religion collide.
Customer Reviews:
very interesting account.......2007-09-27
This is a well-written account of the evolution-ID battle in Dover, Pennsylvania. It is more even-handed than many accounts, and attempts to describe the personalities involved. More of a sociological and journalistic treatment than a biological or education one, but the story is well-told, gripping, and complicated nuances are explained clearly.
WHAT CONTROVERSY?.......2007-09-12
Our president was recently quoted as saying the "jury is still out" on evolution. (To which Lewis Black replied: "WHAT jury, where?")
Where, indeed?
There's no need to mince words here: evolutionary theory - Darwin's defined mechanism of change through random mutation and natural selection - has been widely confirmed by modern genetics, to say nothing of "hard" evidence in the form of transitional species in the fossil record.
Specifically, the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA as the molecular building block and instructional "codebook" of life, and human genome coding - which were unknown in Darwin's day - all tend to validate evolution.
"As the science of biochemistry has developed, as the science of cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, and other elements of science have developed, all of these have fit beautifully into the general framework described by Darwin almost 150 years ago!" says biology professor and textbook author Kenneth Miller.
Yet there are still those in our society who would have us believe that - to paraphrase Tina Fey - Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church! It seems that these misguided and misinformed souls, (who apparently regard The FLINTSTONES as if it were a documentary,) would presume to indoctrinate our children rather than teach them.
We can thank the Founding Fathers for their wisdom and foresight in giving us the Establishment Clause - thereby fashioning a nation in which religion and government were never to interfere with each other. Without its protection, we'd all be fighting the same Dark Age, regressive, anti-intellectual forces that the parents of Dover, Pennsylvania suddenly found themselves confronted with in 2004. (Yes, you read right - 2004. Not 1304 - or even 1804, mind you - but 2004!!)
I read Edward Humes' excellent MONKEY GIRL from cover to cover in two sittings, and I can recommend it, without reservation, to thinking adults of all walks of life. That is, people who are interested in science, reason, education, law and logic; people who care about who we really are, and how we actually came to be.
"Intelligent Design" proponents - and other children - are encouraged to wait for the comic book version.
[P.S: One amusing postscript - which isn't in the book - concerns the cretinous evangelist "Dr" Kent Hovind, a smug creationist huckster who's been spreading pseudo-scientific babble for decades, both in and out of Dover. He was sentenced in January 2007 to 10 years in Federal prison for income tax evasion. Tsk, tsk! It seems that Mr Hovind's math is just as suspect as his "science"!]
A Riveting Account Well Worth the Read.......2007-09-07
As someone who's never had issues with religion and science, including evolution, I wanted to know what all the Intelligent Design fuss was about. So I started reading books. First I read Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters. This peaked my interest to know more. Then I found Monkey Girl. I almost didn't buy the book, thinking that reading about a court case would be too boring. Boy was I ever wrong!
I couldn't put this book down. The author does a masterful job of painting a vivid picture of everyone involved in the case and providing helpful background information, including history sometimes going back centuries, to show how the U.S. divide between evolution and Intelligent Design came together in one school board in one high school in one small town in Pennsylvania.
Now I understand much better.
The last chapter of the book begins:
"It is humanity's unique blessing and peculiar curse to be the only species on Earth, as far as we know, that worries so obsessively and at such great expense about where we came from and why we're here."
My journey to know these things has taken me through Protestantism, Judaism, and now Buddhism. I've felt fortunate to live in a country that protects my right and everyone else's to be able to learn about and practice my chosen spiritual path. Or to choose to follow no particular path if I want.
But some Christians in this country want to do away with this right. To them, their approach to religion is the only approach. They even say it's what this country was founded on. I've read that's not the case. So now I'm reading about the faith of our founding fathers.
What bothers me the most, if the recounting of the Dover case is true, which I think it is, is that people who call themselves religious believers will lie to try to impose their beliefs on others. This seems very unChristian to me, and unJewish, unMuslim, and unBuddhist for that matter.
Given the judge's ruling in the Dover case that Intelligent Design is religion, not science, I'm hopeful that my Constitutional rights will continue to be upheld by people who understand their vital importance to our country. I have no problem with any religion, as long as I or my children or grandchildren are not required to learn about it in school or any other public or governmental place.
Get the monkey off Darwin's back.......2007-08-11
Monkey Girl, by Edward Humes, is the story about the ongoing conflict between the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). While Humes holds no official training in biology or theology, in this book he has been able to use his skills as an investigative writer to bring the conflicts of these two theories into a clearer picture than what other books have been able to achieve. According to Humes, the intent of this book was to "help dispel the larger myths about evolution theory, its relationship to religion, and the questions that science can and cannot answer." It is the goal of this author to clarify the facts of this dispute in order to allow his open-minded readers to decide what they believe to be true. I believe Humes has achieved this goal.
A major part of the appeal of this book is the style in which it is written. It allows the non-scientific reader to understand some complicated topics. As shown in the trial in Harrisburg, PA (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District), it is very easy for people to get bogged down or even bored by the details of evolution. The greatest strength of this book is that it teaches the reader about these details inside a story that is not just easy to comprehend, but in a way that keeps the reader's attention from beginning to end. To do this, Humes ably portrays the ridiculous and shameful behavior of fundamentalist Christian groups of people who have played and who continue to play an active role in this controversy. One extremist that Humes points to is the fundamentalist speaker Kent Hovind. According to Hume, Hovind outlandishly preaches that the teaching of evolution is the cause of the moral decay in this country and is directly related to "increases in crime, premarital sex, adultery, and drug use." What is scary is that Humes never runs out of extremists to talk about, as he is able to tell the reader about death treats Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by George W. Bush and much approved of by the Intelligent Design people before the trial in Harrisburg, received when he dared to rule against their case. While the portrayal of these extremists is a strength for this book and is understandable, it also could be considered a weakness. I believe that Humes devotes too much print to these extremists. While he does say that there are mainstream Christian groups, including the Catholic Church, that have no problem with theory of evolution, much less time is given to this much larger group of people.
In leading up to the climax of this book, Humes gives the reader a history of evolution's disagreements with creationism and introduces the latest challenge, ID, being put forth by the Discovery Institute. A well-funded think tank of some very bright "scientists", the goal of the Discovery Institute is to introduce ID into the public school system. Once the stage has been set, Humes describes the scene in Harrisburg where, not only was the judge convinced that ID was essentially creationism, but also a scene where one by one, scientists convincingly showed that the theory of evolution is real science and ID is not. For example, proponents of ID dispute the evidence of decent from a common ancestor. Yet, evidence in the trial showed that the chromosomes of chimpanzees are remarkably similar to those of humans. Also, Dr. Michael Behe has argued that complex parts of an organism such as the blood-clotting cascade could not have come from evolution. His theory, irreducible complexity, is that "natural selection can't create such a complex machine all in one step, nor could it gradually assemble it in the conventional evolutionary model, one bit at a time, because the bits don't work on their own." But, much to Behe's embarrassment, his theory was proven wrong under cross-examination in a way that the judge described as "painful." Time and again, Humes describes scientists who were very able to convince the judge that the facts show that ID is not science and is religiously based and therefore should not be taught in a public school system.
Monkey Girl is a well-written and informative book that should play a crucial role in helping many legislators, judges, school officials, and average Americans understand the controversy between evolution and Intelligent Design and the true facts about each theory. In writing this book, Edward Humes has provided a valuable service to the world of science that will hopefully have a positive impact on the theory of evolution and how it relates to religious beliefs. For those mainstream Christians who believe that an intelligent designer has utilized evolution to mold the creation over the last 3.5 billion years, this book will provide some answers.
Riveting.......2007-08-10
I thought I knew a lot about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial: I had read Judge Jones's decision and some of the trial testimony, I've read books written by some of the witnesses, and so forth. I expected this book to fill in around the edges of my understanding.
Instead, it showed me a whole new picture of the trial and its place in the American "culture wars." To begin with, the book is very well written and exciting. (I stayed up reading it last night four hours past my usual bedtime.) Second, it shows players on all sides as intricate, three-dimensional individuals. It would be easy to ridicule Bill Buckingham as an ignorant rube, but in this book he comes across as a man of courage and conviction, as well as a man lacking an understanding of either science or religion. Humes makes his own opinions clear, but those who disagree with him are treated with respect, while those who agree with him are not given a free pass. Finally, while Humes centers his writing on the Dover trial and the science of evolution, he also puts it into context with discussions of Scopes and Kansas, as well as the role of reason in making policy.
One specific thing I learned from this book is that Dover school board members and administrators thought that the term "origin of life" meant macroevolution, speciation, and the origin of humanity. I didn't believe anyone could be so far off base, but I looked up the trial transcripts and found that he was not exaggerating.
I found three errors: (1) Humes claims that the Revolutionary Battle of Yorktown, Virginia occurred in York, Pennsylvania. (2) He describes iron molecules (not atoms) as spin aligned. (3) He twice claims that Bill O'Reilly broadcasts for the Cable News Network. (On a third occasion Humes correctly places O'Reilly at Fox News.)
Humes's love of America, while never mentioned explicitly, comes through clearly on every page. Humes worries about our country in an environment were every complex question is reduced to a simplistic two-sided barroom brawl, and were people cannot distinguish fact from opinion.
Book Description
Moral thinking pervades our practical lives, but where did this way of thinking come from, and what purpose does it serve? Is it to be explained by environmental pressures on our ancestors a million years ago, or is it a cultural invention of more recent origin? In The Evolution of Morality, Richard Joyce takes up these controversial questions, finding that the evidence supports an innate basis to human morality. As a moral philosopher, Joyce is interested in whether any implications follow from this hypothesis. Might the fact that the human brain has been biologically prepared by natural selection to engage in moral judgment serve in some sense to vindicate this way of thinking--staving off the threat of moral skepticism, or even undergirding some version of moral realism? Or if morality has an adaptive explanation in genetic terms--if it is, as Joyce writes, "just something that helped our ancestors make more babies"--might such an explanation actually undermine morality's central role in our lives? He carefully examines both the evolutionary "vindication of morality" and the evolutionary "debunking of morality," considering the skeptical view more seriously than have others who have treated the subject.
Interdisciplinary and combining the latest results from the empirical sciences with philosophical discussion, The Evolution of Morality is one of the few books in this area written from the perspective of moral philosophy. Concise and without technical jargon, the arguments are rigorous but accessible to readers from different academic backgrounds. Joyce discusses complex issues in plain language while advocating subtle and sometimes radical views. The Evolution of Morality lays the philosophical foundations for further research into the biological understanding of human morality.
Customer Reviews:
Doing to others.......2006-09-03
"Morality", that sense of doing good, or at least avoiding harm, to others is one of humanity's treasured phrases. It is one of the characteristics that supposedly sets us apart from the other animals. We use the values imparted to it in judging others, as we are judged in turn. However, it remains an enigmatic term, carrying a host of definitions. And that's not counting the exceptions. Richard Joyce, for all his assertive title, isn't claiming to have the final word on morality. Instead, he's launching a project with areas of study that should be investigated further. Only one thing he insists on - as a product of evolution by natural selection, human beings will find the origins of that valued concept in our biological heritage.
Joyce's treatise is tightly organised. Given he addresses this complex idea in just over two hundred pages, discipline with words is a must. There are but six chapters in which to deal with questions plaguing our species since at least the invention of writing. In that short stack, he ties anthropology, sociology, evolutionary psychology and other fields together in a very neat package. Even such a short presentation doesn't force him to be terse. The material is clearly presented and sprinklings of wit keep it from bogging the reader down. However, the proposals are carefully, if succinctly, offered and the reader's attention must not flag.
Since "morality" hinges on the interactions between humans [other animals, whatever their behaviour traits, are deemed "amoral"] the key in Joyce's analysis is "reciprocity". Reciprocity hinges on a host of factors, from the genetic proximity of relatives to what kind of reputation one has - even across a large group. Game theory has been employed to demonstrate the variations reciprocity can achieve and the lengths to which it might go. The other aspect of interaction is language. For Joyce, setting moral standards and assessing behaviour against these can only be effective when the norms are understood. It's not possible to derive moral values from actions alone.
The expression of moral statements and the expectation that these will be respected is a significant aspect of maintaining human communities. The exchange of views within a group and the acceptance of certain behaviour patterns strengthens the identity of the community. As values were tested, individuals could discern who among the group could be trusted, particularly in times of difficulties. Those accepting the norms are more likely to gain status and, hence, reproductive success. These conditions lead to reinforcement of the values under consideration, making a moral sense an innate human characteristic. Not only is the application of moral values universal, but these values are projected beyond the small group to more extended communities with seamless ease. Joyce makes no attempt to define when, or even where, this process began. It was sufficiently distant in time to have made a sense of moral values part of the baggage our species carried out of Africa.
Having concluded that there's sufficient evidence to warrant declaring the morality is a evolved trait, Joyce asks "So what?" in a "philosophical tone of voice". This "tone" is applied to a number of philosophers who have addressed the issue of morality as a result of evolutionary development. He examines "The Naturalistic Fallacy" that has been attributed to George Moore early in the 20th Century. The claim imputed to Moore, that "ought" cannot be derived from "is", is misdirected, says Joyce. Several scholars, such as Robert Richards, William Casebeer and Daniel Dennett are reviewed on this and other issues - what, for example, is "virtue" and does it determine what is "ethical"? From this, Joyce moves to a discussion of which moral standards we should value. He is careful to caution readers not to feel they should derive specific moral beliefs from evolution. There's a massive leap from evolution giving us a moral sense to which elements we choose to apply it to. The capacity for moral judgement doesn't provide a prescription for specific behaviours.
Although Joyce is hardly the first philosopher to consider our evolutionary roots for ethics and morality, the succinct approach and clear writing make this an excellent starting point for someone new to the concept. Avoiding arcane propositions and pedantic language, the author provides a clear pointer for future study. No reader should feel intimidated by the prospect of taking up this book. We need more such work and workers dealing with defining what makes a human being. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Moral Skepticism Defended.......2006-02-04
Moral philosophers tend to take the content of morality as given, perhaps by intuition or our cultural heritage, and attempt to derive moral truth from a sparse set of assumptions, such a utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill), virtue theory (Aristotle), or synthetic a priori deontological notions (Kant). Other philosophers attempt to derive valid moral rules themselves on the basis of a neo-Platonic foray into the juggling of abstract universals (Rawls, Nozick, Singer, Dworkin). Perhaps I betray my position as a behavioral scientist by believing that morals are things that people have, like noses and tendencies to procrastinate, and should be studied scientifically rather than philosophically. Happily, I am not alone, however, as Richard Joyce takes the same position in his book, The Evolution of Morality.
Joyce recites the extensive body of evidence showing that there is a universal human morality observed in virtually all societies ever studied, including the thousand or so primitive hunter-gather societies that exist in the contemporary world. Of course, there are also strong contrasts in some moral principles across societies, but these tend to be confined to a few delicate areas, including gender relations and political philosophy, and they can doubtless be explained by level of economic development and political integration. But, if this is the case, it is unlikely that "ethical theory" can stand as a bastion of philosophizing. Rather, ethical theory is the study of the structure and evolution of human morality. This is the "moral skepticism" that Joyce embraces, and it is well taken.
The problem with traditional moral philosophy is that it has not recognized that morality is an evolved trait of our species, and had we evolved differently, we would have radically different morality. Therefore, morality cannot be derived from abstract, ahistorical axioms that would hold for any intelligent, social creature. Darwin understood this clearly when he wrote that if we had evolved from bee-like ancestors (quote in Joyce, p. 229), "unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters." Similarly, political philosophy would be much different in a race of intelligent termites, or even of chimpanzees, than of humans.
It is safe to say humans are the only species with a moral sense, although we have bred our domestic pets to appear to conform to our morality. Why has this occurred? Joyce suggests that in a complex society with many subtle norms of behavior and multi-dimensional relations among individuals, a moral sense is individually fitness-enhancing. The amoral sociopath, who behaves morally only when this suits his purpose, should in theory do better than the moral person, who is willing to sacrifice personally in order to uphold moral rules. But, humans tend to be "present-oriented", overvaluing immediate pleasures and undervaluing long-term gains. A moral sense helps us be reasonable prosocial and prudential concerning our long-term interests, because it substitutes present pleasures and pains for future ones. For instance, I brush my teeth, and am courteous to my boss, because I would feel bad if I did otherwise, not because I am reckoning some trade-off between present and future well-being. As Hamlet says, "Conscience doth make cowards of us all," except the coward, who obeys societies rules, lives to have more offspring, while the hero is remembered only in books.
Average customer rating:
- Probably the only real design guide for cultural evolution
|
Guided Evolution of Society: A Systems View (Contemporary Systems Thinking)
Bela H. Banathy
Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Ethics & Morality
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Cultural
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Physical
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Evolution
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Sociology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| New & Used Textbooks
| Stores
| Books
Physical
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| New & Used Textbooks
| Stores
| Books
Cultural
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| New & Used Textbooks
| Stores
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Professional & Technical
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0306463822 |
Book Description
Based on a comprehensive review of human and societal evolution the book develops an approach to conscious, self-guided evolution.
In the course of the evolutionary journey of our species, there have been three seminal events. The first happened some seven million yeas ago, when our humanoid ancestors entered on the evolutionary scene. Their journey toward the second crucial event lasted over six million years when - as the greatest event of our evolutionary history -
homo sapiens sapiens, started the revolutionary process of cultural evolution. Today, we have arrived at the threshold of the third major event, `the revolution of conscious evolution,' when it becomes our responsibility to enter into the evolutionary design space and guide the evolutionary journey of our species.
The book tells the story of the first six million years of the journey in just enough detail to understand how evolution had worked in times when it was primarily biological, driven by natural selection. With the human revolution some fifty thousand years ago, with the emergence of self-reflective consciousness, the evolutionary process transformed from biological into cultural. From this point on, the book follows the journey with detailed attention, in order to learn how cultural evolution works. The book is organized in three parts. Part One commences with an exposition of a brief history of the evolutionary idea through time with a focus on a review of the science of general evolution and specifically social and societal evolution. Next, the book unfolds the `evolutionary story' of our species from the time when the first humanoids entered the evolutionary scene to our current era. Part Two develops a systems view of evolution, explores the ways and means of how evolution works, characterizes evolutionary consciousness and develops the idea of conscious evolution. Part Three builds upon the knowledge developed in the first two parts and sets forth the key conditions of conscious, self-guided evolution, elaborating the core condition, which is the acquisition of evolutionary competence through evolutionary learning. The focus of this part is on an approach to the design of evolutionary guidance systems that our families, neighborhoods, communities, organizations, social and societal systems can use to design the future they aspire to attain.
The work is set aside from other statements in three important ways. It provides: (1) a comprehensive review of how evolution has worked with a focus on socio-cultural evolution, (2) an explanation of evolutionary consciousness and the conditions of engaging in conscious evolution, and (3) most significantly, it develops a detailed approach and a methodology to the design of evolutionary guidance systems.
Customer Reviews:
Probably the only real design guide for cultural evolution.......2001-05-22
Dr. Banathy has written what is probably the only work in existence on an evolutionary epistemology. He contends that humanity needs to take charge of its own cultural evolution, and to do that requires co-creative design of our future. His book provides powerful tools for accomplishing this.
The first part of the book takes the reader through the human evolution from a systems perspective. The latter half focuses on the methods for engaging in collective, participative design creating an evolutionary guidance system that can carry us forward. This work builds on Dr. Banathy's classic previous work on social systems design, "Designing Social Systems in a Changing World."
In the latter half of the book, the reader is taken through the design process of creating an evolutionary guidance system. This process begins with the establishment of common ground and continues through the determination of the functions and components of systems that can learn and grow toward and ideal future. The book talks about both the process and dynamics of design, highlighting that social systems design is both an iterative and a complex process of movement forward and recursive revision to what has been done. We cannot know the end state, but we can move toward our best vision of it.
The unique and intriguing aspect of Dr. Banathy's work in general, and this work in particular, is the emphasis on the process of social systems design. No prescribed future is proposed; rather, Dr. Banathy seeks to provide the methodological tools for humanity to create a better future. In this sense, the work does not try to advocate any other values than that people must take charge of their future and that everyone should be involved in the design of the social systems in which they will inhabit. It is thus, in a sense, a work about how to be a responsible citizen in the modern age.
It is a book about democracy, but not about government. Rather it is a book about focused, meaningful, and productive public dialogue, both generative and strategic. As a metaphor, Dr. Banathy reminds us of the citizen democracies of ancient Greece, where public issues could be debated in full view.
This book is an essential manual for people who are serious about social change, because the book talks about how to engage a large system in meaningful dialogue. And it is only through meaningful dialogue that the system will be change. Despite the plethora of proposals about what our future should be, it is impossible to sit back and determine it from an armchair. Rather, as Dr. Banathy describes, we must engage together and let that future emerge through our genuine, focused, and open dialogue.
Book Description
Taking us behind the scenes with today’s foremost researchers and pioneers, bestselling author Joel Garreau shows that we are at a turning point in history. At this moment we are engineering the next stage of human evolution. Through advances in genetic, robotic, information, and nanotechnologies, we are altering our minds, our memories, our metabolisms, our personalities, our progeny–and perhaps our very souls. Radical Evolution reveals that the powers of our comic-book superheroes already exist, or are in development in hospitals, labs, and research facilities around the country–from the revved-up reflexes and speed of Spider-Man and Superman, to the enhanced mental acuity and memory capabilities of an advanced species. Over the next fifteen years, Garreau makes clear in this New York Times Book Club premiere selection, these enhancements will become part of our everyday lives. Where will they lead us? To heaven–where technology’s promise to make us smarter, vanquish illness, and extend our lives is the answer to our prayers? Or, as some argue, to hell–where unrestrained technology brings about the ultimate destruction of our species?
Customer Reviews:
A Book for the SciFi Inspired to the Technologically Challenged.......2007-05-08
Reading Radical Evolution is like reading a "How to" column - you are always surprised what can really be done. The book opens with a number of mind boggling bits of research talking about things from telekinesis to a device that gives soldiers x-ray vision; the funny thing is that these things are really occurring in laboratories as we speak. The purpose of the book is to provide an understandable, digested version of the work that is happening in Futuring land. Futuring, for those who are not in the know, is simply the study of trends and projections in an effort to forecast the future. Much like a meteorologist predicts the weather, futurists attempt to predict the social, political, technological, and economic climate 50 to 100 to a 1,000 years in advance. The book tries to stay neutral, explaining the possible horrors and terrors of advancing technology, but it clear from the first page to the back cover that its author, Joel Garreau, is a big supporter of advancements in technologies. Beyond the first couple examples, he goes further to describing how technologies can affect every bit of our being. Surveying the thoughts and opinions of numerous, credible futurists, he talks about how little robots can allow us to live in to our 200 hundreds and how we may have space colonies on the moon before we know it. The title, Radical Evolution, comes from the idea that through these advancements in technology, we, as humans, are creating a radical chain of evolution that is pushing past any boundaries that nature had set for us. It is even argued that we are actually transcending our humanity through these changes.
In the middle of the book he presents a point/counter-point discussion of the future technology, appropriately labeled "Heaven" and "Hell"; the greatest possible outcomes pinned against the most devastating consequences force the reader to ponder the benefits of new technology. As a compromise, Garreau offers a scenario in which humans simply prevail, this is neither a scenario of humanities grandeur or it's defeat, but rather a median between both extremes. Finally, Garreau admits the limited view that even the greatest researchers have in terms of looking at the future. People can make predictions to their hearts content, but in the end chance happenings and unplanned events can transform the course of any one prediction. All that any futurist can do is take the best information available and make a thorough forecast off with that data, supporting the argument until the next trend arrives.
Radical Evolution.......2007-04-15
Radical Evolution was written by Joel Garreu and is subtitled The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies--and what it means to be Human. The book leaves many ideas in a readers head about what is going to come of humanity, and what is in store for our future. Many researchers and scientists are interviewed throughout the book to give realistic ideas about possibilities dealing with technological, genetic, and philosophical changes that can possibly occur in the future. Garreau notes that the first difficulty in the world today is "making sense of the world unfolding before us, in which we face the biggest challenge in tens of thousands of years in what it means to be human". The book aims at helping to shape our world, our lives, our children, and our relationships.
Many different advancements in the world are being worked on as we speak such as mood-enhancing drugs, metabolism-enhancing drugs, drugs that will enable us to live without sleeping nearly as much as we do, and increasing mental capacity with genetic machines. Garreau's book dives into the ideas and endless possibilities behind GRIN technologies. GRIN technologies include genetics, robotics, information technology, and nanotechnology. Throughout the book, the author also explores the idea of how the world is going to end up. He presents many different scenarios that can formulate the world that will surround our children as they grow up. These possibilities include the heaven scenario, the hell scenario, and the prevail scenario. It is obvious throughout the book that the author leads towards the prevail scenario in which we take the "two steps forward, and one step back" philosophy and we end up successfully slowly continuing our future.
The book was extremely well written and a difficult book to put down after you begin reading it. It is shocking to find out that in our future, our bodies can be changed so much that dieting and exercise could become a thing of the past. Garreau did a wonderful job researching and finding information and advancements in technology that can be important throughout the future of our lives. The book is a prime example of a post-human future in which society uses advancements in technology to allow humans to shape their lives, bodies, minds, and well being. This book introduces the idea that our technologies are beginning to merge with our minds, our memories, our metabolisms, our personalities, our progeny, and even beginning to merge with our souls.
O the possibilities .......2007-04-15
Joel Garreau's Radical Evolution is a trip through our wildest fantasies, where anything is possible. This in-depth analysis of what may be in store for our earth and the human species can, at times, seem intriguing, frightening, mind-boggling or even overwhelming, but never boring. Garreau's overall aim is to inform a general audience of the vast changes that are currently reshaping our selves, our children and our relationships. To do this he focuses on the advancements of what he calls the "GRIN" technologies, or genetics, robotics, information, and nano-tech. He presents his work and scenario predictions through scientific research and entertaining depictions of scientists and pioneers in various fields, all of whom hold widely different views
Following a brief background of defining scenarios and what they entail, Garreau begins his analysis of future scenarios by introducing the idea of the "The Curve" or the rate of exponential change in technology and the Singularity scenario. He demonstrates "the curve" through the progression of "GRIN" technologies, while also setting the scene for the remainder of the book, which focuses on the various potential outcomes of these advancements.
Garreau divides the majority of the book into four scenarios, "Heaven," "Hell," "Prevail," and "Transcend." Although he defines them separately, he believes that the future is usually a combination of all the stories you can construct to anticipate it. While reading the book, this is a good outlook to have because the scenarios presented are radical. In the "Heaven" scenario, supported predominantly by Ray Kurzweil, positive technological advancements have led to a Utopian society. In this prediction the human race has achieved perfection on all realms. In the "hell scenario," a complete contradiction of the "heaven" one, everything goes awry. In this pessimistic forecast, primarily described by Bill Joy, the human species not only fails to thrive, but has to fight for survival against the technology it created. "Prevail," presented by Janor Lanier is a scenario in which the human race "muddles through." In this forecast we do not excel, but we do survive. Lanier believes that as we advance we will create and discover new problems but, like always, we will get through them. It is important to know that Garreau describes the first three as not being on a line, but forming a triangle where the two base points are the "heaven" and "hell" scenarios. This entails that Prevail, although a more moderate scenario is not a mid-point between the other two.
The last major scenario presented in the book is "transcend," which forecasts the world transforming beyond our wildest dreams. The information here is hardly feasible and at times hard to grasp. Overall the book is fascinating and paradigm shifting, leading the reader to evaluate the presented scenarios and challenge preconceived notions about what the future entails.
How can we maintain in the midst of what's ahead?.......2007-04-11
Radical Evolution, by Joel Garreau is one of the most insightful, down to earth and wonderful reads about the field of futures thinking, futures studies and many other things future-related. Garreau depicts for the reader in his work how we have already begun the development of technologies that will lead us into the following decades and how the development of these new technologies, and the way in which humanity implements them, will fundamentally alter and forever change what it means to be human and to exist in this world. Garreau's theories and brilliant depictions of many possible future scenarios are easily understood; he is extremely careful and precise in his vivid manner of relating seemingly complex moral, ethical and physical future situations to the reader. The effectiveness of his work shines through in his "everyman" approach to discussing the material within the book's pages. Although he is a professional and scholar in the field of futures studies and futures thinking, Garreau never seems to put himself above the reader. Radical Evolution is not a lecture, more, this book is a sort of conversation between the reader and Garreau. If you compare this book to others that include projections of the future, at least half of Garreau's work/chapters stand out far from the rest. Instead of merely making worked-over and tired predictions about the future of humanity and our developing technologies, Garreau details in three of the eight chapters in Radical Evolution, three separate and distinct scenarios for the future of mankind. Chapter 4, heartwarmingly titled Heaven, exhibits the ultimate in desired futures: a place where work is done by the technologies we've developed and humans enjoy lives of leisure. The Heaven scenario depicts a place where, if we have not cured all, or even most, of the diseases that plague the human body, we are extremely close. In Chapter 5 the reader comprehends (rather fearfully at times) Garreau's Hell scenario, in which the title explains it all. Quickly, Garreau revives the reader with a chapter that outlines his Prevail prediction/scenario in which the future has a more human (perhaps faulty) approach, meaning, not all is well at first, things go wrong, etc. however mankind will carry on. Radical Evolution is a fair and balanced portrayal of both good and bad, order and chaos, light and dark and moral and evil. Radical Evolution paints an in-depth, touching and rich portrait about where mankind is heading, outlining how we are propelling ourselves there slowly but surely and most importantly, helping to define what it all means for the individual.
Exponential curve?.......2007-01-29
Radical Evolution discusses how the rate of technological innovation has consistently accelerated over time, and the implications for what the world might look like in ten, twenty, fifty years because of this.
Garreau focuses on 3 main scenarios for how it all might turn out, and he dubs these Heaven, Hell, and Prevail, which you can think of as optimistic, pessimistic, and realistic, respectively.
Interspersed in this presentation are many interesting tidbits and information about what is currently being worked on by agencies such as DARPA. My overall impression was that the book was of the variety of Blink and Faster, but with more meat.
The book content is actually only 273 pages long, due to a large index and collection of suggested readings, both very comprehensive.
Book Description
From bestselling author Michael Shermer, an investigation of the evolution of morality that is "a paragon of popularized science and philosophy" The Sun (Baltimore) A century and a half after Darwin first proposed an "evolutionary ethics," science has begun to tackle the roots of morality. Just as evolutionary biologists study why we are hungry (to motivate us to eat) or why sex is enjoyable (to motivate us to procreate), they are now searching for the very nature of humanity.In The Science of Good and Evil, science historian Michael Shermer explores how humans evolved from social primates to moral primates; how and why morality motivates the human animal; and how the foundation of moral principles can be built upon empirical evidence. Along the way he explains the implications of scientific findings for fate and free will, the existence of pure good and pure evil, and the development of early moral sentiments among the first humans. As he closes the divide between science and morality, Shermer draws on stories from the Yanamamouml;, infamously known as the "fierce people" of the tropical rain forest, to the Stanford studies on jailers' behavior in prisons. The Science of Good and Evil is ultimately a profound look at the moral animal, belief, and the scientific pursuit of truth.
Customer Reviews:
One of Shermer's Greats.......2007-10-03
Let me begin by saying that I love everything Shermer. He is one of a few scientists out there who actually write lucid philosophy. Another scientist who does that same is Tyler Volk. This book secures the place of science in the morality debate. One of the most important ideas that I took away from the book was the idea of "transcendental empiricism" when it comes to the origin of morality. Too often philosophers frame the debate of morality as either being something outside of the human mind - transcendentalism or a product of the human mind and experience - empiricism. The famous question from ancient Greek philosophy, "Do the Gods love something because it is holy or is it holy because the Gods love it?". Shermer elaborates on this age-old debate saying that neither transcendentalism or empiricism are exclusively true. A more accurate notion of the origins of morality is a combination of the two ideas: Transcendental empiricism. Transcendental because it is not us that devise the moral codes, it is a remnant of evolution dating back to our hominid ancestors. And it is empirical because it is indeed us (as opposed to supernatural forces) that have devised the moral code. Also the idea of premoral sentiments, as presented in the book, in non-human animals is very important to these ideas.
I am really offended by the Washington Post review of this book. The reviewer Anthony Brandt mentions that, "He (Shermer) was, in college, a fundamentalist Christian, taking a degree in psychology and biology from Pepperdine University, a fundamentalist fortress in the hills above Malibu." What does that have anything to do with Shermer's work or this book for that matter? Are we all to be judged by the circumstances that we were born in, or brought up in? Why is Brandt implying that since Shermer used to be a fundamentalist Christian that his ideas are somehow suspect? This is highly inappropriate and borders on slander as it relies on defaming the author rather than arguing with the ideas presented in the book. Another quote from the review, Brandt says that, "If he has a god, it is Charles Darwin". Quite simply, HOW DARE HE say something like that? We all have great writers and scientists that we are influenced by, none who is producing literary or scientific works is an island unto herself, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but for Brandt to say that Shermer's God is Darwin??? More defamatory slander that has nothing to do with the contents of the book. Why is Shermer subject to such "criticism", simply because he is an atheist? (or nontheist as Shermer likes to put it).
Brandt, after much ranting, finally decides to tackle the ideas themselves as presented in the book. Of course, it all comes down to altruism. The one concept critics can reliably return to when questioning the sociobiological theory of morality. Shermer spends a great deal of time in the book elaborating upon group dynamics and group selection. "There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection." Brandt argues that the idea of group selection is something "strict Darwinists abjure". I suppose Brandt is now the leading authority on what "Darwinists" propose?? How can he after having criticized Shermer and Darwin claim to expound what it is that "Darwinists" really believe? Brandt seems to forget that unlike other theorists, Shermer is a scientist and his ideas draw upon research in Anthropology, sociology, biology and history. Is Brandt really out to debunk all this research? I don't understand what his rationale is behind discrediting these ideas.
Lastly, Brandt mentions that, "It is, in a sense, unfortunate that this should be so, for it may explain why the book, despite its highly charged subject matter, lacks passion. Or it may just be that Shermer is not an eloquent writer. His prose is flat and has a tendency to shift tone and fall into the demotic at odd moments ("bass ackward" is the worst instance), as if he were unclear who his audience is or as if he were writing for television. The result is that he is not entirely convincing. He is a meliorist, but he never persuaded me that human beings had become "better" -- better behaved, less filled with hate, less murderous -- since the Greeks, say, or since World War II". Forgive me for calling Brandt an idiot, but the idiot needs to realize that if he wants to read "passionate" writing he can read Hemingway and Tolstoy. As for convincing idiots that we have "become better since the Greeks or WW2", THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BOOK OR THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION. This is the same kind of "argument" creationists expound against evolution, "If evolution is so great and all-explaining, why have we not "seen" anything evolve?" That is because evolution works in geological time and cannot be "witnessed" during our short lifespans or memory of history.
Finally, I really don't understand why a great newspaper such as the Washington Post assigned the review of this book to Brandt who seems like nothing but a creationist in intellectual clothing. It is shameful to see the author being defamed for what he once was, a Christian, and the book being described as "lacking passion" for the lack of better criticism. This book as a great achievement for Shermer, and a great contribution to understanding the origins and nature of our morality. Shermer is often harpooned as leaving God out of the equation of morality, but we do not need God to be good.
excellent.......2007-01-06
Shermer summarizes the consensus from various scientific disciplines. Since it can read like a textbook, it may be best to skip around to topics of interest. Great source for info and logical argument without being confrontational (offensive) towards religious readers.
More rambling discussion than science..........2006-10-10
The one time theist Micheal Shermer has become the St. Augustine of the modern skeptical movement.
Like Augustine, Shermer became converted to the faith (on in this case atheisim) of his mother and like Augustine Shermer approaches his new found faith with that missionary zeal so often akin to converts.
To begin, contrary to the tile of the book, only one half of Mr. Shermer's discussion relates to the "science" of good and evil. The rest is a recount of philosophical speculation...sometimes his, sometimes others but always uniquely irrelevant in that special way pure philosophical discussion so often is.
As it relates to the science of good and evil, two great books on this topic are Matt Ridley's "Origins of Virtue" which provides an evolutionary explanation for why people would place the interest of others before their own and Jeffrey Moses' "Oneness" which verbatim places the various religions statements of the golden rule (among other ethical precepts) so that you can really see just how doctrinally, the world's constituted faiths resemble each other.
In this way, the two cited books actually make the point it would seem Shermer is trying to make: that evolutionarily speaking ethical incentive is identical among people's even if their myths of origin differ. From this, it would more naturally follow that while being universal, the ethical precepts command univerisal adherence whereas the myths of beginning (or so the reasoning could go) merely demand respect as vaunted artifacts of culture.
If you've read other Shermer material or seen him speak, you know for yourself that he could have done better.
Should be named differently.......2006-09-02
I found this book very informative and provided me with very good arguments for a secular non-theistic ethic foundation. I agree with most of what Shermer expresses.
However, I think it's more a philosophy book that uses scientific facts to prove its points than a science text. So, I think it should be named somethingh like "Good and evil: a naturalistic approach".
Another complaint is about the author's use of "fuzzy logic". I think it's too simplistic just to assign fractions to everything in life: "That act is 0.7 immoral". "That animal is 0.6 conscious". I recommend Shermer (and you) reading Edgar Morin "Complex thought" ideas.
Another thing I found the book lacking is discussion about the diversity of moral issues. Shermer just assumes every act as perceived as "good" or "evil", no matter the cultural differences.
Anyway, although I would like a more complex and deep approach on the subject matter, it is a very interesting book. Read it!
(By the way, I learned the word "unalloyed" from this book. He uses it a lot!)
PS. Sorry if you find some spelling errors. English is not my first language.
Effectively questions the basis of morality........2006-06-04
Like a majority of us, I was of the opinion that being religious is a necessary and required condition for being a moral person. (Mind you, I had that view even as I wasn't practicing the religious customs I was brought up to follow and -- by nothing more than my own self-admission -- living a clean and very moral existence for a decade without following any "rituals.") Not a second after I completed reading this book because it made me question that premise.
Shermer's book provided a clear, if not complete, explanation for a moral living without the crutch of being a religious follower. Even if one is a follower, the understanding that morals are not necessarily bestowed to us on a bright and sunny afternoon by a creator but evolved in us -- if you must, by the creator -- as we ourselves evolved is a point worth acknowledging.
Any reasonable person must look at the evidence as presented by Shermer, not just by itself, but as a first step, to make an informed decision on the affect of morals on us, and we, as humans, on morals. As for the creator himself, it suffices to say that Shermer is a self-professed agnostic. So, the choice would still be on our side even as we question if those morals were provided to us at an instance or inspired in us over years.
Book Description
Human Nature After Darwin is an original investigation of the implications of Darwinism for our understanding of ourselves and our situation. It casts new light on current Darwinian controversies, and in doing so provides an introduction to philosophical reasoning and a range of philosophical problems. Janet Radcliffe Richards claims that many current battles about Darwinism, in particular about evolutionary psychology and religion, are based on mistaken assumptions about the implications of the rival views. Her analysis of these implications provides a much-needed guide to the fundamentals of Darwinism and the so-called Darwin-wars, as well as providing a set of philosophical techniques relevant to wide areas of moral and political debate. It also raises philosophical problems of knowledge and certainly, free will and responsibility, altruism, the status of ethics, and the relevance of Darwinism to questions of ethics, politics and religion. The lucid presentation makes the book an ideal introduction to both philosophy and Darwinism, as well as a substantive contribution to topics of intense current controversy. It will be of interest to students of philosophy, science and the social sciences, and critical thinking.
Customer Reviews:
An excellent introduction.......2005-08-02
This book is an excellent introduction to current Darwinian thinking about human nature. As the book discusses the implications of accepting Darwinism it does not put forward an awovedly materialist view backed by arguments, but the author's stance on this issue is nevertheless unequivocal.
The style is admirably clear, and the general claim that in most cases, the often supposed differences between non-Darwinian and Darwinian lines of thinking are only apparent ones is convincing.
However, there are some passages which I disagree with.
1. The distinction between the formal validity of conditionals and the existence of a causal or explanatory relation between the antecedent and the consequent is blurred. Radcliffe writes:
"finding out the truth of the conditional is not a matter of finding out whether the antecedent is true... or whether the the consequent is true. Even if you proved conclusively that either of those was true or false, you would still have no evidence at all for the truth of the conditional... In fact, even if you proved both antecedent and consequent true, or both false, or the consequent true and the antecedent false, that would still have no bearing on the truth of the conditional. In all these cases, the conditional could be either true or false...
This is because a conditional is a statement which is not about the truth of any individual proposition, but a particular connection between the two."(p. 92)
For someone trained in formal logic this should seem puzzling. Formally, the truth table of the conditional does determine when it is false, namely when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. It may be debated whether this extensional truth table really captures the meaning of natural language conditional statements (many say it gives absurd results in some important cases), but it cannot be denied that it goes some way to achieve that. To consider conditionals as expressing a connection between the two contained propositions is to treat them intensionally, i. e. in a way in which their truth does not depend on their constituent propositions. This distinction is an important one, and it should have been indicated clearly in the text.
2. The discussion of the Divine Command view of ethics is simplistic in one respect. Radcliffe says if you think that the problem of Evil needs to be answered, you cannot consistently accept the Divine Command View, as it considers goodness as dependent on the will of God, moreover, it says that whatever God willed must be good. Thus if God willed that suffering be present in the world, this must be a good thing, too.
I think this line of argument would reduce the DC view to absurdity, and Radcliffe unjustly mocks it by saying "[if the DCV were true]we could just say 'War is a good thing after all'."
Of course, one could obviously point out in defence of the DCV that you need not forego it in order to see a real problem in the existence of Evil. One could deny that God willed the suffering (maybe other people did, or Satan in the case of natural disasters) and hold on to the DCV, and/or work out a theodicy in which all sufferings are eventually justified by some greater good, so one can keep the DCV consistently again.
3. There is another argument in the chapter that I disagree with and which I consider the weakest one of the book. It is about the inconsistency of moral relativism. R. says that relativism in its familiar formulations is incoherent, because "it specifies that no principle should be given precedence over others, but in doing so it gives itself precedence; it says that you should not impose your principles on others, but in doing so attempts to impose itself on the holders of other views, and displace theirs."
I have two objections:
a) relativism as a practical guide may be incoherent, but people often act incoherently, as witnessed by the problem of the weakness of will. In itself, there is nothing problematic with that: if all values are subjective, then perhaps there is no other possible way for us to think and act.
b) In addition to the pratical level, there is the meta-level of justification where moral relativism may well win the day. This issue is independent of whether relativism as a practical view is incoherent or not. Furthermore, I find R.'s claim that we can conduct a 'secular moral enquiry' to discover moral truth by using our reason entirely unconvincing. The proposed means, intuitive reasoning, can only work provided there is something objective to be ascertained. However, R. does not in the least argue that there must be objective moral truths: it is one thing to claim that the existence of objective moral standards does not presuppose the existence of God (I agree on this point), and another to substantiate the claim that there are objective moral standards in the first place. Of course, we could see this argument as one working out an implication of Darwinism (i. e. as arguing for the possibilty of a Darwinist ethics) and not as one for such a substantive claim. But in the light of everthing else R. says about morality, especially in the last chapter where she claims that there ARE some real differences between accepting the Darwininan and the non-Darwinian view (plus materialism), (notably concerning survival of death and the prearranged moral order of the universe), what she had said about objective moral truth beforehand does seem very curious. She concludes the first-mentioned chapter by saying 'there is no reason to think that if materialism is true we must be unable to reason morally'. Well, that may be so, but provided that moral reasoning is done by reflective persons, it may easily lead to its own demise, too, or at least we cannot exclude this possibility a priori.
In my view, if you accept the Darwininan view, the only available choice is moral nihilism, or perhaps a version of an "error theory" of morality.
Despite the above critical remarks, in my overall assessment this is a superb book which everyone interested in evolutionary thinking should read. I hope I have not misrepresented the author's arguments in my criticism of them. I would appreciate if you shared your comments with me.
extremely disappointed in Janet Radcliffe Richards.......2004-05-14
I am a huge fan of Radcliffe Richards book "The Skeptical Feminist" which is an excellent presentation of logical arguments for feminism.
So I was extremely disappointed that Radcliffe Richards has joined the forces of Darwinian reductionism and evolutionary psychology. She claims she is simply presenting non-partisan logical arguments for Darwinian theories for our sober consideration, but her own biases come through fairly often - and she thanks a leading proponent of evolutionary psychology, Helena Cronin, in the front of the book.
Cronin wrote a paper "The Evolved Family" (available online) and in this paper she argues (based not on empirical evidence but rather on 'Darwinian logic') that since women as a group have evolved to value men almost exclusively for their income; and to prefer to spend time with their children to spending time at work, there should be a two-tiered system of employment - one for men and one for women - an official mommy track:
"Rather than taking male standards as the universal measure, or expecting both sexes to adopt androgynous working 'roles', the government should design family-friendly employment practices that reflect the different preferences of women and men."
She does not differentiate between mothers and childless women when discussing feminine preferences, so you can't tell if the Cronin plan calls for all women to be pushed into the mommy track, or just all fertile women or just women with children. And she doesn't bother to suggest a system in which a woman might plead for a special dispensation to join the male work force - perhaps the Queen could grant titles of 'honorary male.'
And it's striking how Radcliffe Richards chides those opposed to Darwinian reductionism for emotion-ridden criticisms of her side, when Cronin never mentions feminists without expressing biting contempt.
I can't believe Radcliffe Richards would countenance this radical right-wing social philosopher. Perhaps she became more conservative over the years. Feminism has lost a valuable friend.
Socrates on evolutionary ethics.......2002-05-25
If you have any interest in the ethical or political implications of evolutionary theory, read this book.
If you ever wished you could spend a week with Socrates, discussing a topic of contemporary interest, read this book.
If you have ever, are now, or intend in the future to write or talk about about evolutionary ethics, and you have not read this book, please quit wasting my time!
Overlooked.......2002-01-15
The publishers seem to have misunderstood (or at any rate, underrated) this superb book, which would profit from exposure to a wider audience. It's as if someone in a suit smelled a whiff of the lamp around here and exiled it to the ghetto of academic writing. This is a pity, but it is perhaps in part understandable. The nominal topic is "evolution," but the real subject is the activity of clear thinking. More directly -- no one excels Janet Radcliffe Richards in demonstrating how to use the tools of philosophy in the analysis or understanding of every day problems. There is an audience for this sort of thing. The publisher seems not to have found it and both auther and audience (saying nothing of the publisher) are the losers.
Book Description
This book introduces readers to the dynamic networks made up of businesses, NGOs and multilateral organizations that, for better and for worse, define corporate social responsibility (CSR) today. It examines the work of these CSR networks that are taking on the "heavy-lifting" of global governance in places where traditional public policy and international law fail to provide basic protection for people and the natural environment.
Books:
- Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human
- Photovoltaics Design And Installation Manual: Renewable Energy Education for a Sustainable Future
- Phylogenetic Trees Made Easy: A How-To Manual, Second Edition (with CD-Rom)
- Planet Earth: As You've Never Seen It Before
- Putting the Movement Back into Civil Rights Teaching
- Speciation
- Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species
- Survival of the Sickest: A Medical Maverick Discovers Why We Need Disease
- Survival of the Sickest: A Medical Maverick Discovers Why We Need Disease
- Survival of the Sickest: A Medical Maverick Discovers Why We Need Disease
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Stealing Lincoln's Body
- Jesus for the Non-Religious
- Grand Emporiums: The Illustrated History of America's Great Department Stores
- Healthy Digestion the Natural Way: Preventing and Healing Heartburn, Constipation, Gas, Diarrhea, In
- Israel at Vanity Fair: Jews and Judaism in the Writings of W.M. Thackeray
- Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutati
- History: Fiction or Science
- The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 1: Family Letters, 1905-1931
- Eros, Magic and the Murder of Professor Culianu
- Escape From North Korea: A Nonfiction Account of Savage Battles and Political Intrigues of the Forgo
Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (The University Center for Human Values Series)
The God Delusion
The Evolution of Morality (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology)
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief
Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality
