What do you think?
Rate this book
The Third Basic Instinct: How Religion Doesn't Get You
"Winner of independent publisher awards, The Third Basic Instinct is a one-of-a-kind journey into the mind and religion. In addition to the basic animal instincts to survive and to reproduce, humans possess a crucial third instinct, which has been a force for scientific discovery, innovation, and emotional intelligence. Without it, humans would not have evolved so far beyond other animals. Unfortunately, a grave threat to this fundamental asset is organized religion, which restricts human potential, but rather than raging about the dismantling of all organized religion, Key focuses instead on the importance of carefully choosing one’s personal belief system. Drawing examples from ancient and contemporary history and science, The Third Basic Instinct paints a thought-provoking picture of the conflict between religion and human nature. "
308 pages, Paperback
First published June 27, 2009
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 7, 2012
I sought out the book because of it's characterization of Home sapiens as driven by three basic instincts: survival, reproduction and curiosity. I needed a resource for a blog post on European history.
The book posits the third instinct as something new, which apparently has not been widely recognized, and makes a plausible argument for its existence. I agree, with some caveats. However, he goes on to make a somewhat overly-long argument against religion (in favor of science and non-deism in general), using the "3rd instinct" he's posited as a platform for his argument.
On one hand, I agree largely (with some personal embellishments) with his assessment of human nature, and wholeheartedly with his assessment of organized religion and even the origins of most religious beliefs. But somewhat like Peter Watson, he falls victim to the "baby with the bathwater" syndrome, and crosses over into the unknowable, i.e. seems to argue that because our "god inventions" are false, there must then be nothing. That may be the case, but I don't think we have anything to prove that, either.
In the end, I think he should have written two separate books. As it is now, I feel both arguments lose something. For me, it seems a misspent opportunity to explore the role of curiosity and problem-solving within the development of man. Too bad.
The book posits the third instinct as something new, which apparently has not been widely recognized, and makes a plausible argument for its existence. I agree, with some caveats. However, he goes on to make a somewhat overly-long argument against religion (in favor of science and non-deism in general), using the "3rd instinct" he's posited as a platform for his argument.
On one hand, I agree largely (with some personal embellishments) with his assessment of human nature, and wholeheartedly with his assessment of organized religion and even the origins of most religious beliefs. But somewhat like Peter Watson, he falls victim to the "baby with the bathwater" syndrome, and crosses over into the unknowable, i.e. seems to argue that because our "god inventions" are false, there must then be nothing. That may be the case, but I don't think we have anything to prove that, either.
In the end, I think he should have written two separate books. As it is now, I feel both arguments lose something. For me, it seems a misspent opportunity to explore the role of curiosity and problem-solving within the development of man. Too bad.
Displaying 1 of 1 review