What do you think?
Rate this book
Bonobo și ateul: în căutarea umanismului printre primate
În Bonobo și ateul, Frans de Waal folosește cunoștințele dobândite în zeci de ani de cercetare a primatelor, și a speciei bonobo în particular, pentru a aprofunda cu ochiul fin al eseistului cultural, versat în istoria artei și în filozofie, probleme fundamentale ale naturii umane. Care este izvorul moralității și ce transformări a suferit aceasta pe parcursul evoluției? Putem fi buni și altruiști și în lipsa constrângerilor religiei? Este simțul moral apanajul omului, sau e prezent şi la speciile de maimuțe cu care ne înrudim? Pentru a afla un răspuns la toate acestea și pentru a ne înţelege mai bine condiţia, autorul ne propune să renunțăm la perspectiva antropocentrista și să privim nepărtinitor la primatele atât de apropiate nouă și la ce ne pot spune ele despre empatie, emoții, etică și religie.
324 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2013
493 people are currently reading
10392 people want to read
About the author
Frans de Waal
45 books1,725 followersFrans de Waal has been named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People. The author of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, among many other works, he is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University’s Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 554 reviews
April 19, 2013
I am a fan of Frans DeWaal's and have read much of his work. I think he has been instrumental in opening up our view and making us less homocentric. Unfortunately, this book seems like something his editor asked him to write so as to catch the current secular wave. There is so much he could have written but didn't and so much he did write and should not have. His incessant focus on the art of Hieromimous Bosch is inexplicable. Why spend so much time discussing a piece of art (even if it is a masterpiece), when there is so much he could have told us about primates and human ethics, etc. I cannot and do not see how Bosch contributes anything to his argument. Through out the book I felt like things were just getting interesting when he would revert back to art criticism.
On the other hand, his explication of bottom up morality and ethics is important and there is no doubt that religion has usurped our natural desire for harmony and fairness, and taken credit for it. It is a good argument and demonstration by way of his and other's research with primates and I applaud him for that.
When he gets into discussing the new atheists, he seems a bit out of touch. He criticizes them, but seems unaware of the driving force behind much of the movement - church state separation, religious child abuse, political control of school boards, etc. Yes, he makes passing reference to some of these issues and to the anti science of many religionists, but he seems to need to throw a bone to the religious while ignoring much of what is done in the name of their religion. He is probably correct, that religion is not going to disappear any time soon, but I see no need for pandering to patriarchal religions.
While critical of the new atheists, he observes that Humanism is not anti religion and was not in its beginning. That may be a bit loose with the facts, but even if correct, the reason Humanism has become more aggressive of late if largely because the accommodationist approach has done nothing but emboldened the religionists. Playing nice with the Catholic Church does not stop child rape. Playing nice with evangelicals does not stop preachers preaching politics from the pulpit. Playing nice with Pentecostals does not stop religious child abuse. Playing nice with the Black Church does not stop ministers from taking the last dime from a single mom for the promise of prosperity or heaven later. Sure, we may get our ethics from natural tendencies in our species, but it is not enough to simply make that argument and then lay low on the whole issue of religion and its impact on our species.
He seems unaware of the real emotional, psychological and social damage that religion does to millions of people even as they proclaim religious morality and ethics. He duly notes that we are a hierarchical species, but fails to show how such hierarchies can be high jacked by religion and used to oppress and distort our natural fairness instincts.
I wish he had done a more complete analysis of religion and morality rather than constantly giving religion a pass or the benefit of the doubt. If he is going to talk about religion, it seems to me that he needs to be a good deal more interested in how it actually works in our species. His only attempt seems to be in the last chapter where he tries to look through the eyes of the bonobo. It doesn't work.
I will not recommend this book. I struggled to get through it because there is insufficient information or argument to be worth the time investment. If you have not read any of his other works, this may be worth your time that is why I give it three stars, but why not just read his best stuff and let this one pass. There are far better authors to read on morality and ethics.
On the other hand, his explication of bottom up morality and ethics is important and there is no doubt that religion has usurped our natural desire for harmony and fairness, and taken credit for it. It is a good argument and demonstration by way of his and other's research with primates and I applaud him for that.
When he gets into discussing the new atheists, he seems a bit out of touch. He criticizes them, but seems unaware of the driving force behind much of the movement - church state separation, religious child abuse, political control of school boards, etc. Yes, he makes passing reference to some of these issues and to the anti science of many religionists, but he seems to need to throw a bone to the religious while ignoring much of what is done in the name of their religion. He is probably correct, that religion is not going to disappear any time soon, but I see no need for pandering to patriarchal religions.
While critical of the new atheists, he observes that Humanism is not anti religion and was not in its beginning. That may be a bit loose with the facts, but even if correct, the reason Humanism has become more aggressive of late if largely because the accommodationist approach has done nothing but emboldened the religionists. Playing nice with the Catholic Church does not stop child rape. Playing nice with evangelicals does not stop preachers preaching politics from the pulpit. Playing nice with Pentecostals does not stop religious child abuse. Playing nice with the Black Church does not stop ministers from taking the last dime from a single mom for the promise of prosperity or heaven later. Sure, we may get our ethics from natural tendencies in our species, but it is not enough to simply make that argument and then lay low on the whole issue of religion and its impact on our species.
He seems unaware of the real emotional, psychological and social damage that religion does to millions of people even as they proclaim religious morality and ethics. He duly notes that we are a hierarchical species, but fails to show how such hierarchies can be high jacked by religion and used to oppress and distort our natural fairness instincts.
I wish he had done a more complete analysis of religion and morality rather than constantly giving religion a pass or the benefit of the doubt. If he is going to talk about religion, it seems to me that he needs to be a good deal more interested in how it actually works in our species. His only attempt seems to be in the last chapter where he tries to look through the eyes of the bonobo. It doesn't work.
I will not recommend this book. I struggled to get through it because there is insufficient information or argument to be worth the time investment. If you have not read any of his other works, this may be worth your time that is why I give it three stars, but why not just read his best stuff and let this one pass. There are far better authors to read on morality and ethics.
April 5, 2021
This is a wonderful, beautiful book. As the subtitle suggests, the author was in search of humanism as an inbred trait in primates. Most of the discussion is documenting this reality. He connects this to the origin of morality in humans. In the process, he rightly challenges the dark portrayals of humans that are advanced by the likes of Augustine and Thomas Hobbes and the unsubstantiated portrayal of evil in Lord of the Flies. These notions were the basis of social darwinism, which was a direct factor in fomenting the disastrous WW I.
As for the atheist in the title, the author is not of the militant kind. He has an entire chapter critiquing the aggressive "neo-atheists." I'm agnostic myself and agree with his conclusions. Attempting to prove once and for all that God does not exist or, conversely that he does exist cannot be achieved. Although it is entirely fair to point out some of the problems such as the theodicy issue for orthodox believers. Toward the end of the book, the author revisits religion.
TED talk by the author....
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/3864...
====
Here are a couple of videos that give the flavor of these beautiful primates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-Hj...
And the bonobo babies at the LOYA YA BONOBO orphanage in the Congo. I showed this to my 2-year-old granddaughter and she was entranced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYILL...
As for the atheist in the title, the author is not of the militant kind. He has an entire chapter critiquing the aggressive "neo-atheists." I'm agnostic myself and agree with his conclusions. Attempting to prove once and for all that God does not exist or, conversely that he does exist cannot be achieved. Although it is entirely fair to point out some of the problems such as the theodicy issue for orthodox believers. Toward the end of the book, the author revisits religion.
TED talk by the author....
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/3864...
====
Here are a couple of videos that give the flavor of these beautiful primates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-Hj...
And the bonobo babies at the LOYA YA BONOBO orphanage in the Congo. I showed this to my 2-year-old granddaughter and she was entranced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYILL...
March 30, 2013
A book about religion from one of the foremost primatologists in the world. In this brilliant book, De Waal defends his thesis that morality is not an invention of religion, but that religion is a cultural scaffolding that builds upon and enhances biologically innate moral rules. Even more, De Waal acknowledges that religion is so deeply engrained in human nature that it has become one of the defining characteristics of humanity. Interestingly, De Waal’s conclusions resonate deeply with the findings of the cognitive science of religion (De Waal hints to this resonance himself in the final chapter). I am curious to see where this will go in the future.
Moreover, even though De Waal explicitly admits he is an atheist himself, he argues against the militant new atheists (whose behavior he describes as having a religious zealousness), that religion should perhaps not be done away with before atheism is able to come up with an equally solid and generally convincing scaffolding. Not surprisingly, some of these atheists, such as Sam Harris, have already responded to De Waal’s view with ridicule.
This is a highly interesting multi-layered book: it is a book about the biological and evolutionary roots of human morality; it also is a book with numerous anecdotes showing how moral behavior is already displayed by non-human primates and even other animals like elephants and dogs; and it is a philosophical meditation on what it means to be human.
De Waal is an optimist. He dismisses the idea that humans are born evil and that morality is meant to keep our evil tendencies in check. He believes that humans are social animals, being born to cooperate and support each other. But De Waal is also a realist in that he recognizes that such cooperation and support is extremely volatile and difficult to maintain.
I found this book a delightful read. And as a philosopher of religion and a theologian, taking science very seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with De Waal’s analysis and conclusions.
Moreover, even though De Waal explicitly admits he is an atheist himself, he argues against the militant new atheists (whose behavior he describes as having a religious zealousness), that religion should perhaps not be done away with before atheism is able to come up with an equally solid and generally convincing scaffolding. Not surprisingly, some of these atheists, such as Sam Harris, have already responded to De Waal’s view with ridicule.
This is a highly interesting multi-layered book: it is a book about the biological and evolutionary roots of human morality; it also is a book with numerous anecdotes showing how moral behavior is already displayed by non-human primates and even other animals like elephants and dogs; and it is a philosophical meditation on what it means to be human.
De Waal is an optimist. He dismisses the idea that humans are born evil and that morality is meant to keep our evil tendencies in check. He believes that humans are social animals, being born to cooperate and support each other. But De Waal is also a realist in that he recognizes that such cooperation and support is extremely volatile and difficult to maintain.
I found this book a delightful read. And as a philosopher of religion and a theologian, taking science very seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with De Waal’s analysis and conclusions.
November 17, 2015
Frans De Waal makes a well researched and eloquent argument about the source of human morality.
He is not feverishly opposed to organized religion, though he is an atheist. He is opposed to the kind of violence that any kind of fundamentalist mind-set can bring.
He describes empathy, and, by extension, morality as a mammalian and certainly a primate thing. He sees its formulation as a'bottom up' rather than 'top down' approach, arguing that morality doesn't come from religion but from the mammalian need and capacity for communal living.
De Waal doesn't doubt the importance of religion and/or spirituality as forms of spiritual and cultural nourishing and sees their value as great organizing forces. But he carefully argues that all social animals (except the occasional psychopath) are by nature and neurology moral and empathic beings who rely at least as much on cooperation as on competition.
This is a very good book. There are a few things I would argue with. One is his assertion that science is a recent invention and that religion is more inherent and as old as we are. I suppose it depends on what one means by science, but if one means the observation of natural phenomenon.
Well, how about this. Here is a dictionary definition.
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
And I am pretty sure, when reading this, that science is at least as old as religion, and that the two are not always so far apart. They both, at their best, allow for and encourage wonderment, reverence, appreciation, etc.
I could write a book about this book, and I may write a longer review at some point, but for now, going to end with some quotes.
There is no evidence whatsoever that sexual violence is heritable. (104)
on Gould
I agree with Gould that we gain little from evolutionary guesswork about each and every human behavior. Gould made himself any enemies, though, by voicing skepticism. Several skirmishes between him and the evolutionary establishment unfolded in the pages of the New York Review of Books in 1997. It was a sight to behold, all those outsized egos tumbling over each other with innuendos, criticism by hearsay, name-calling (one was ridiculed as another’s ‘lapdog’), or acting as if they’d never heard of one another. The vitriol obviously didn’t help them close ranks. Creationists were rubbing their hands in delight and exploited the row to their own ends as was reflected in remarks about the theoretical discord in places as unexpected as the Miss USA Pageant. Someone should have nominated those Darwinists for a Darwin Award.
But this confrontation was nothing compared with the reaction to another Gould opinion. An atheist himself, he declared science and religion compatible well before neb-atheists decided they were not. Following his untimely death, in 2002, Gould thus became a lightning rod for his lack of intolerance. (104)
More Gould
SOMETHINGISM
In his famous essay, published in the same year as the above loveliest with fellow evolutionists, Gould recalled running into a group of lunching priests at the Vatican. The priests expressed worry about a new brand of creationism that had sprung up , known as intelligent design. They asked Gould why on earth evolution was still under attack. In his essay, the paleontologist comment on the profound irony that he, an ex-Jew, had to reassure Catholic priests that evolution was in fact doing fine and that the opposition was restricted to a small segment of the American population.
This story was Gould’s way of hinting that the alleged war between science and religion is overblown. (105)
On Darwin and Queen Victoria
It is precisely this impact that upset Queen Victoria. Staring into the ape’s mirror, she felt the metaphysical ground shifting underneath her royal feet. Seeing the same orangutan and chimpanzee at the same zoo, Darwin reached quite a different conclusion; he invited anyone convinced of man’s superiority to come take a look. Darwin felt a connection where the queen felt a threat. (107)
Empathy finds its origin in bodily synchronization and the spreading of moods. Complex forms based on imagination and projection grow out of this, but only secondarily. (133)
I have never felt any attraction to the view of animals as stimulus-response machines; it is so impoverished that I don’t even know where to begin taking it apart. (135-136)
Empathy is hopelessly biased, as was shown, for example, in a study…Needless to say, the Swiss take their soccer seriously. Only their own club members activated empathy. In fact, seeing fans of the rival club getting shocked activated the brain’s pleasure areas. So much for loving thy neighbor. (141)
Empathy is multilayered like a Russian doll. At its core is the capacity to match another’s emotional state. Around this core, evolution has built ever more elaborate capacities, such as feeling concern for others and adopting their viewpoint. Few species show all layers, but the core capacity is as ancient as the mammals. (144)
I refuse to use a different terminology for these reactions in human and apes, as urged by the opponents of anthropomorphism. Those who exclaim that ‘animals are not people’ tend to forget that, while true, it is equally true that people are animals. To minimize the complexity of animal behavior without doing the same for human behavior erects an artificial barrier. (145)
He is not feverishly opposed to organized religion, though he is an atheist. He is opposed to the kind of violence that any kind of fundamentalist mind-set can bring.
He describes empathy, and, by extension, morality as a mammalian and certainly a primate thing. He sees its formulation as a'bottom up' rather than 'top down' approach, arguing that morality doesn't come from religion but from the mammalian need and capacity for communal living.
De Waal doesn't doubt the importance of religion and/or spirituality as forms of spiritual and cultural nourishing and sees their value as great organizing forces. But he carefully argues that all social animals (except the occasional psychopath) are by nature and neurology moral and empathic beings who rely at least as much on cooperation as on competition.
This is a very good book. There are a few things I would argue with. One is his assertion that science is a recent invention and that religion is more inherent and as old as we are. I suppose it depends on what one means by science, but if one means the observation of natural phenomenon.
Well, how about this. Here is a dictionary definition.
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
And I am pretty sure, when reading this, that science is at least as old as religion, and that the two are not always so far apart. They both, at their best, allow for and encourage wonderment, reverence, appreciation, etc.
I could write a book about this book, and I may write a longer review at some point, but for now, going to end with some quotes.
There is no evidence whatsoever that sexual violence is heritable. (104)
on Gould
I agree with Gould that we gain little from evolutionary guesswork about each and every human behavior. Gould made himself any enemies, though, by voicing skepticism. Several skirmishes between him and the evolutionary establishment unfolded in the pages of the New York Review of Books in 1997. It was a sight to behold, all those outsized egos tumbling over each other with innuendos, criticism by hearsay, name-calling (one was ridiculed as another’s ‘lapdog’), or acting as if they’d never heard of one another. The vitriol obviously didn’t help them close ranks. Creationists were rubbing their hands in delight and exploited the row to their own ends as was reflected in remarks about the theoretical discord in places as unexpected as the Miss USA Pageant. Someone should have nominated those Darwinists for a Darwin Award.
But this confrontation was nothing compared with the reaction to another Gould opinion. An atheist himself, he declared science and religion compatible well before neb-atheists decided they were not. Following his untimely death, in 2002, Gould thus became a lightning rod for his lack of intolerance. (104)
More Gould
SOMETHINGISM
In his famous essay, published in the same year as the above loveliest with fellow evolutionists, Gould recalled running into a group of lunching priests at the Vatican. The priests expressed worry about a new brand of creationism that had sprung up , known as intelligent design. They asked Gould why on earth evolution was still under attack. In his essay, the paleontologist comment on the profound irony that he, an ex-Jew, had to reassure Catholic priests that evolution was in fact doing fine and that the opposition was restricted to a small segment of the American population.
This story was Gould’s way of hinting that the alleged war between science and religion is overblown. (105)
On Darwin and Queen Victoria
It is precisely this impact that upset Queen Victoria. Staring into the ape’s mirror, she felt the metaphysical ground shifting underneath her royal feet. Seeing the same orangutan and chimpanzee at the same zoo, Darwin reached quite a different conclusion; he invited anyone convinced of man’s superiority to come take a look. Darwin felt a connection where the queen felt a threat. (107)
Empathy finds its origin in bodily synchronization and the spreading of moods. Complex forms based on imagination and projection grow out of this, but only secondarily. (133)
I have never felt any attraction to the view of animals as stimulus-response machines; it is so impoverished that I don’t even know where to begin taking it apart. (135-136)
Empathy is hopelessly biased, as was shown, for example, in a study…Needless to say, the Swiss take their soccer seriously. Only their own club members activated empathy. In fact, seeing fans of the rival club getting shocked activated the brain’s pleasure areas. So much for loving thy neighbor. (141)
Empathy is multilayered like a Russian doll. At its core is the capacity to match another’s emotional state. Around this core, evolution has built ever more elaborate capacities, such as feeling concern for others and adopting their viewpoint. Few species show all layers, but the core capacity is as ancient as the mammals. (144)
I refuse to use a different terminology for these reactions in human and apes, as urged by the opponents of anthropomorphism. Those who exclaim that ‘animals are not people’ tend to forget that, while true, it is equally true that people are animals. To minimize the complexity of animal behavior without doing the same for human behavior erects an artificial barrier. (145)
September 22, 2013
There are things I liked about this book, and things I can't agree on. I learned a lot about primatology that I didn't know before, I feel he is quite an objective expert in this. It surprised me to learn bonobo had a sense of consequence, or played pranks on each other. This was well written and I learned quite a bit.
I couldn't agree with De Waal's perspective on human issues. He opposes a "top down" morality imposed by religion but not religion. He talks about Genital mutilation and circumcision here in the US as if it is exactly the same yet treated differently. He talks about Atheist evangelicals who proselytize as much as Christians, giving the analogy that it like "sleeping furiously". It is a fair criticism to say that some atheists go out and try to convert others. It is a hotbed of an issue here, but I think he is looking in and not understanding there is a lot of infringement. He was raised in a country where religious people are a minority and are not pushing their beliefs on others, an ideal situation where it is very peaceful. He has nostalgic, and sentimental feelings toward these religious groups who are a minority in Holland, this is totally understandable.
Here unfortunately there is a vocal number of religious people who can't respect people with different beliefs or none at all. They are on TV, in government, and taking the schools to court over not teaching creationism or intelligent design. A month ago a public school librarian pulled my daughter aside and told her about Jesus, she is one of many. I am not angry about it but I do wish people would keep their beliefs to themselves and I kindly told her that. Last week a protest took place in Texas because intelligent design was trying to make its way back into the curriculum. These people that oppose this receive plenty of criticism and its easy to see how an outsider could describe it as "sleeping furiously".
He also compared female genital mutilation to circumcision in the US, seeing us a hypocrit on the issue. While I can't imagine how these trends ever started and don't agree with them they are not comparable. FGM removes sexual pleasure for a lifetime, the clitoris as twice as many nerves as the penis. Circumcision removes the outside skin, and not the ability to have an orgasm.
My last thought on this book is that he really displays a superior air throughout the book no matter the issue. When he talks about these issues he seems to put himself above them. He is a good writer and explains the issues and discoveries in Primatology well. They are very well studied and thought out, his personal perspectives not nearly as much.
I couldn't agree with De Waal's perspective on human issues. He opposes a "top down" morality imposed by religion but not religion. He talks about Genital mutilation and circumcision here in the US as if it is exactly the same yet treated differently. He talks about Atheist evangelicals who proselytize as much as Christians, giving the analogy that it like "sleeping furiously". It is a fair criticism to say that some atheists go out and try to convert others. It is a hotbed of an issue here, but I think he is looking in and not understanding there is a lot of infringement. He was raised in a country where religious people are a minority and are not pushing their beliefs on others, an ideal situation where it is very peaceful. He has nostalgic, and sentimental feelings toward these religious groups who are a minority in Holland, this is totally understandable.
Here unfortunately there is a vocal number of religious people who can't respect people with different beliefs or none at all. They are on TV, in government, and taking the schools to court over not teaching creationism or intelligent design. A month ago a public school librarian pulled my daughter aside and told her about Jesus, she is one of many. I am not angry about it but I do wish people would keep their beliefs to themselves and I kindly told her that. Last week a protest took place in Texas because intelligent design was trying to make its way back into the curriculum. These people that oppose this receive plenty of criticism and its easy to see how an outsider could describe it as "sleeping furiously".
He also compared female genital mutilation to circumcision in the US, seeing us a hypocrit on the issue. While I can't imagine how these trends ever started and don't agree with them they are not comparable. FGM removes sexual pleasure for a lifetime, the clitoris as twice as many nerves as the penis. Circumcision removes the outside skin, and not the ability to have an orgasm.
My last thought on this book is that he really displays a superior air throughout the book no matter the issue. When he talks about these issues he seems to put himself above them. He is a good writer and explains the issues and discoveries in Primatology well. They are very well studied and thought out, his personal perspectives not nearly as much.
October 21, 2023
Professor de Waal cites a number of studies to back up his points, but what I'll remember are the stories of bonobos and chimpanzees taking very "human" actions. The author is the Ronald Reagan of primatology, emphasizing his points with anecdotal evidence that is much more convincing that the much drier study reports. He has reached the conclusion that apes have evolved behavior that comes close to looking like morality. From there he posits that morality is based on biology rather than culture and therefore morality predates religion. However, he also suggests that humanity has also evolved a predisposition to religion, but is untroubled by the possibility of a chicken or egg situation. He has decided that religions incorporated already existing morality, rather than imposing morality on its followers. This non-traditional way of looking at the relationship between religion and morality is worth pondering whether one is an atheist or a bonobo.
March 8, 2018
Am aflat o mulțime de chestii interesante din cartea asta, care atinge subiecte din domeniul științei, religiei și filozofiei, dar și al artei, cu un limbaj accesibil și teorii prezentate pe înțelesul tuturor. Am fost captivată în egală măsură de reflecțiile lui Frans de Waal despre religie și moralitate, precum și de poveștile din lumea animală, observate în mod direct de primatolog sau experimentate de alți oameni de știință.
Autorul aduce numeroase exemple și argumente care arată că originile moralității pot fi recunoscute în comportamentul altor animale, precum primatele, elefanții, canidele și rozătoarele. Opinia lui de Waal este că umanitatea vine din interiorul nostru, fiind un rezultat al evoluției și al mileniilor de trai în comunitate.
Îmi dau seama că titlul cărții îi poate ține departe pe unii cititori cu convingeri religioase puternice. Frans de Waal se declară ateu, iar religia este una dintre temele recurente ale cărții, însă primatologul nu este genul de ateu militant, care pune la zid religia și luptă pentru excluderea ei din societate. Frans de Waal are o abordare tolerantă și echilibrată, asumându-și rolul de observator și cercetător pe cât posibil imparțial, care ia în calcul atât descoperirile științei, cât și latura mistică a firii umane. Își declară aversiunea pentru dogmatism, pe care îl consideră mai periculos decât religia în sine, fiindcă înlocuiește gândirea, reflecția și curiozitatea cu dogma.
Puteți citi aici recenzia mai lungă, scrisă pentru blog: http://lecturile-emei.blogspot.ro/201...
| Blog | Facebook | Instagram |
Autorul aduce numeroase exemple și argumente care arată că originile moralității pot fi recunoscute în comportamentul altor animale, precum primatele, elefanții, canidele și rozătoarele. Opinia lui de Waal este că umanitatea vine din interiorul nostru, fiind un rezultat al evoluției și al mileniilor de trai în comunitate.
Îmi dau seama că titlul cărții îi poate ține departe pe unii cititori cu convingeri religioase puternice. Frans de Waal se declară ateu, iar religia este una dintre temele recurente ale cărții, însă primatologul nu este genul de ateu militant, care pune la zid religia și luptă pentru excluderea ei din societate. Frans de Waal are o abordare tolerantă și echilibrată, asumându-și rolul de observator și cercetător pe cât posibil imparțial, care ia în calcul atât descoperirile științei, cât și latura mistică a firii umane. Își declară aversiunea pentru dogmatism, pe care îl consideră mai periculos decât religia în sine, fiindcă înlocuiește gândirea, reflecția și curiozitatea cu dogma.
Puteți citi aici recenzia mai lungă, scrisă pentru blog: http://lecturile-emei.blogspot.ro/201...
| Blog | Facebook | Instagram |
November 5, 2016
De Waal begins with a famous Nietzsche quote: "Is man only a blunder of God? Or is God only a blunder of man?"
The central question of the book seems to be: "Where does morality come from? Does it come from above or from within us?" As someone who thinks scientifically, I believe it obviously comes from within, but how and why?
De Waal speaks of apes holding a door open for another ape to get food even if it means they will eat less. And capuchin monkeys would rather play a card that gets food for others, again even if it means they get less. Mammals give and respond to affection; reptiles do not appear to. Birds show examples of emotion.
American neuroscientist Paul MacLean named the limbic system as the seat of the emotions. He said one of the surest signs of a caring attitude is the "lost call" of young animals. A baby monkey will look miserable and coo until its mother returns. That has been noted in alligators, one example of reptilian emotion. The crocodile family transports some of their young in their mouths.
De Waal summarizes the Dalai Lama's comments by saying, "Compassion goes to the root of what life is all about." Buddhist monks laugh at the thought of measuring the brain to find compassion. They believe it comes from the heart. They make a point since the sounds of human suffering cause a quickening heart rate. In 2005, the Dalai Lama spoke of the need to integrate science and religion.
Does secularism cause a decline in moral authority? Do we fully understand the "moral implications" of secularism? And I ask this along with De Waal as a secularist myself.
DeWaal states in chapter 1: "I am not convinced the morality needs to get its weight from above, though. Can't it come from within. . . ."
But later he also asks, ". . . but what good could possibly come from insulting the many people who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to lead our lives."
And this: ". . . For me, understanding the need for religion is a far superior goal to bashing it."
And also: "Science isn't the answer to everything."
So not only does he point out examples of seeming morality in animals, but he also shows some of the horrors of science.
For me personally, I can't escape the feeling the world would be better off if we relied more on science and appreciated our humanity rather than our different views of the supernatural.
Carl Linnaeus assigned humans their own separate genus, apparently to avoid trouble with the Vatican. Three centuries later, DNA offered better ways to compare species than anatomical comparisons. Surprisingly, the new data placed us apart from the monkeys and smack in the middle of apes. Walking on two legs is not a big deal, even chickens do it. Our ancestors probably kept returning to the apes the way grizzlies and polar bears do. They may have bred together for over a million years.
It was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who first proposed human descent from the apes in 1809. But Lamarckian theories of evolution were no match for Darwin. Lamarck would die penniless the subject of many mocking obituaries.
Lorenz defined aggression as within-species behavior. Herbivores are no less aggressive than carnivores. And we are living proof of aggressiveness in omnivores. Predation should not be confused with aggression.
Claude Levi-Strauss proposed that human civilization started with the incest taboo. Before then, everyone did it with everyone. But suppression of inbreeding is well developed in all sorts of animals, from fruit flies to rodents to primates.
We share genes with bonobos that we don't share with chimps and vice versa. We can be as nice as bonobos and as violent as chimps.
De Waal tells an interesting story about meeting with a group of Mormons when his pet jackdaw flies in. It terrified them and they left hastily speaking of the "devil."
In the military, I agreed to speak with Mormons every Tuesday night for about two months. The deal was that they would tell me about the Mormon church, and I would express my concern about black Americans not being allowed into the Mormon priesthood. That law has since changed. On the final night, they came to see me after "praying all night" that I would "become one of them." I felt so bad. I spent the whole evening apologizing. I kept repeating that I told them from the very beginning that I would never belong. They left very disappointed.
An interesting Dutch coined word: "ietsism." "Ism" is the same as in English, and "iets" means "something." An "ietsist" does not believe in God, but thinks there must be something between heaven and earth.
Neuroscience offers two basic messages about empathy. 1. No sharp dividing line between human and animal emotions. (Makes sense since we ARE animals.) 2. Empathy runs from body to body. Stick a needle in a woman's arm and the pain centers in her husband's brain light up.
The IgNobel Award is given each year for research that "first makes people laugh, and then think." In 2011 it was given to an attempt to find contagious yawning in turtles. Investigators exposed red-footed tortoises to a member of their own species trained to open and close its mouth. Since no tortoises reacted, the researchers concluded turtles lacked mimicry and empathy.
In a debate about passing laws dealing with castration of pigs, a roomful of men was shown a video of an awake pig being castrated. By the end, the men looked very pale and sat "with their hands firmly between their legs." The video helped change the tide on anesthesia. (I remember how disgusting Joni Ernst's ad was when she bragged about "castrating hogs.")
A rat will often help another rat in distress before going to a door with chocolate chips in it.
A story of two unrelated chimps who became friends and shared everything. When one died, the other one became depressed. Friendship can be applied to animals, but it was resisted as anthropomorphic at first.
Chapter 6 discusses the Ten Commandments and the difference between "is" and "ought." The "is" is about facts, the way things are, and the "ought" is about the way they should be. Anyone interested in the environment knows we have a problem with the "ought." I recommend David Hume for the greatest discussion ever on this topic.
One of the many interesting gems DeWaal puts in his book: The apocalyptic right panel of Bosch's The Garden includes two ears pierced by an arrow with a knife between the ears that are riding roughshod over doomed souls. No one knows what it means.
We are good at finding reasons to suit our purposes. As Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing."
Hunter-gatherers often eliminated dangerous deviants from their group by delegating a member of the community to kill the deviant.
In a famous example on The Colbert Report, a conservative politician spoke of the importance of the Ten Commandments, but he could not name them when asked to do so.
Most of the Commandments have nothing to do with morality anyway.
Peter Singer, the extremist animal rights activist, paid private aides to take care of his mother with advanced Alzheimer's. This went against all his theories about utilitarianism.
Chimps follow the principle of "toeing the line." They will punish chimps that get them in trouble with their keepers in a zoo.
Some chapter 7 notes:
Research implies that religion helps people simply because of its "social dimension." That's why we need more secular gatherings that promote good behavior. We need science groups and book clubs. Whatever does the trick. I'm a fan of atheist "churches."
DeWaal asks about the origin of religion. I kept wondering if animals other than humans have anything resembling religion or supernatural beliefs. Tough to do without a language. He describes chimps doing a "rain dance" at a waterfall. An early human "rain dance" that coincided with actual rain might have started someone on a path to priesthood.
"Young chimps are smarter than children." But he never explains how old the children were.
Are humans the only animals that have thanatophobia?
The piraha, a Brazilian forest people, are perhaps the only example of a tribe that lacks religion. But they do believe in "evil spirits." To me, it's the belief in the supernatural that distinguishes religion.
Is Communism an example of atheism gone wild? Pol Pot said: "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss."
Did William Golding have it right in The Lord of the Flies? Children develop a pecking order quickly. I have witnessed that in playgrounds. I watched a touch football game where the "alpha male" could run for touchdowns at will because the other kids were afraid of touching him.
But children would never develop science. Religion will never go away. Science is fragile. The antisciences forces must be kept at bay. The best secular model is now in northern Europe, but it is under duress.
As I finish the book with Chapter 8, I find two flaws: 1. Not that much about bonobos in the book, so a misleading title, and 2. Not a coherent essay leading to a conclusion about "humanism" or "morality" or whatever Mr. de Waal was looking for.
But I loved all of the great stories. The book was filled with them on almost every page.
One of the last was about chimps. When there is a "female with swollen genitals," the males will try to keep peace and maintain calm. No mating until they are under control.
De Waal's ultimate conclusion is that morality arose long before any religions came about. Religion only bolstered the morality, or at least tried to.
The central question of the book seems to be: "Where does morality come from? Does it come from above or from within us?" As someone who thinks scientifically, I believe it obviously comes from within, but how and why?
De Waal speaks of apes holding a door open for another ape to get food even if it means they will eat less. And capuchin monkeys would rather play a card that gets food for others, again even if it means they get less. Mammals give and respond to affection; reptiles do not appear to. Birds show examples of emotion.
American neuroscientist Paul MacLean named the limbic system as the seat of the emotions. He said one of the surest signs of a caring attitude is the "lost call" of young animals. A baby monkey will look miserable and coo until its mother returns. That has been noted in alligators, one example of reptilian emotion. The crocodile family transports some of their young in their mouths.
De Waal summarizes the Dalai Lama's comments by saying, "Compassion goes to the root of what life is all about." Buddhist monks laugh at the thought of measuring the brain to find compassion. They believe it comes from the heart. They make a point since the sounds of human suffering cause a quickening heart rate. In 2005, the Dalai Lama spoke of the need to integrate science and religion.
Does secularism cause a decline in moral authority? Do we fully understand the "moral implications" of secularism? And I ask this along with De Waal as a secularist myself.
DeWaal states in chapter 1: "I am not convinced the morality needs to get its weight from above, though. Can't it come from within. . . ."
But later he also asks, ". . . but what good could possibly come from insulting the many people who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to lead our lives."
And this: ". . . For me, understanding the need for religion is a far superior goal to bashing it."
And also: "Science isn't the answer to everything."
So not only does he point out examples of seeming morality in animals, but he also shows some of the horrors of science.
For me personally, I can't escape the feeling the world would be better off if we relied more on science and appreciated our humanity rather than our different views of the supernatural.
Carl Linnaeus assigned humans their own separate genus, apparently to avoid trouble with the Vatican. Three centuries later, DNA offered better ways to compare species than anatomical comparisons. Surprisingly, the new data placed us apart from the monkeys and smack in the middle of apes. Walking on two legs is not a big deal, even chickens do it. Our ancestors probably kept returning to the apes the way grizzlies and polar bears do. They may have bred together for over a million years.
It was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who first proposed human descent from the apes in 1809. But Lamarckian theories of evolution were no match for Darwin. Lamarck would die penniless the subject of many mocking obituaries.
Lorenz defined aggression as within-species behavior. Herbivores are no less aggressive than carnivores. And we are living proof of aggressiveness in omnivores. Predation should not be confused with aggression.
Claude Levi-Strauss proposed that human civilization started with the incest taboo. Before then, everyone did it with everyone. But suppression of inbreeding is well developed in all sorts of animals, from fruit flies to rodents to primates.
We share genes with bonobos that we don't share with chimps and vice versa. We can be as nice as bonobos and as violent as chimps.
De Waal tells an interesting story about meeting with a group of Mormons when his pet jackdaw flies in. It terrified them and they left hastily speaking of the "devil."
In the military, I agreed to speak with Mormons every Tuesday night for about two months. The deal was that they would tell me about the Mormon church, and I would express my concern about black Americans not being allowed into the Mormon priesthood. That law has since changed. On the final night, they came to see me after "praying all night" that I would "become one of them." I felt so bad. I spent the whole evening apologizing. I kept repeating that I told them from the very beginning that I would never belong. They left very disappointed.
An interesting Dutch coined word: "ietsism." "Ism" is the same as in English, and "iets" means "something." An "ietsist" does not believe in God, but thinks there must be something between heaven and earth.
Neuroscience offers two basic messages about empathy. 1. No sharp dividing line between human and animal emotions. (Makes sense since we ARE animals.) 2. Empathy runs from body to body. Stick a needle in a woman's arm and the pain centers in her husband's brain light up.
The IgNobel Award is given each year for research that "first makes people laugh, and then think." In 2011 it was given to an attempt to find contagious yawning in turtles. Investigators exposed red-footed tortoises to a member of their own species trained to open and close its mouth. Since no tortoises reacted, the researchers concluded turtles lacked mimicry and empathy.
In a debate about passing laws dealing with castration of pigs, a roomful of men was shown a video of an awake pig being castrated. By the end, the men looked very pale and sat "with their hands firmly between their legs." The video helped change the tide on anesthesia. (I remember how disgusting Joni Ernst's ad was when she bragged about "castrating hogs.")
A rat will often help another rat in distress before going to a door with chocolate chips in it.
A story of two unrelated chimps who became friends and shared everything. When one died, the other one became depressed. Friendship can be applied to animals, but it was resisted as anthropomorphic at first.
Chapter 6 discusses the Ten Commandments and the difference between "is" and "ought." The "is" is about facts, the way things are, and the "ought" is about the way they should be. Anyone interested in the environment knows we have a problem with the "ought." I recommend David Hume for the greatest discussion ever on this topic.
One of the many interesting gems DeWaal puts in his book: The apocalyptic right panel of Bosch's The Garden includes two ears pierced by an arrow with a knife between the ears that are riding roughshod over doomed souls. No one knows what it means.
We are good at finding reasons to suit our purposes. As Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing."
Hunter-gatherers often eliminated dangerous deviants from their group by delegating a member of the community to kill the deviant.
In a famous example on The Colbert Report, a conservative politician spoke of the importance of the Ten Commandments, but he could not name them when asked to do so.
Most of the Commandments have nothing to do with morality anyway.
Peter Singer, the extremist animal rights activist, paid private aides to take care of his mother with advanced Alzheimer's. This went against all his theories about utilitarianism.
Chimps follow the principle of "toeing the line." They will punish chimps that get them in trouble with their keepers in a zoo.
Some chapter 7 notes:
Research implies that religion helps people simply because of its "social dimension." That's why we need more secular gatherings that promote good behavior. We need science groups and book clubs. Whatever does the trick. I'm a fan of atheist "churches."
DeWaal asks about the origin of religion. I kept wondering if animals other than humans have anything resembling religion or supernatural beliefs. Tough to do without a language. He describes chimps doing a "rain dance" at a waterfall. An early human "rain dance" that coincided with actual rain might have started someone on a path to priesthood.
"Young chimps are smarter than children." But he never explains how old the children were.
Are humans the only animals that have thanatophobia?
The piraha, a Brazilian forest people, are perhaps the only example of a tribe that lacks religion. But they do believe in "evil spirits." To me, it's the belief in the supernatural that distinguishes religion.
Is Communism an example of atheism gone wild? Pol Pot said: "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss."
Did William Golding have it right in The Lord of the Flies? Children develop a pecking order quickly. I have witnessed that in playgrounds. I watched a touch football game where the "alpha male" could run for touchdowns at will because the other kids were afraid of touching him.
But children would never develop science. Religion will never go away. Science is fragile. The antisciences forces must be kept at bay. The best secular model is now in northern Europe, but it is under duress.
As I finish the book with Chapter 8, I find two flaws: 1. Not that much about bonobos in the book, so a misleading title, and 2. Not a coherent essay leading to a conclusion about "humanism" or "morality" or whatever Mr. de Waal was looking for.
But I loved all of the great stories. The book was filled with them on almost every page.
One of the last was about chimps. When there is a "female with swollen genitals," the males will try to keep peace and maintain calm. No mating until they are under control.
De Waal's ultimate conclusion is that morality arose long before any religions came about. Religion only bolstered the morality, or at least tried to.
April 18, 2022
muhteşem bir tartışma, ahlak dinden mi geliyor yoksa evrim biyolojisi bize başka bir veri mi sunuyor?
November 30, 2022
Hubo una temporada brutal en la que me declaré antirreligioso. Cuando esto sucedió, no solo ya habían pasado años en que había dejado de seguir los preceptos católicos con los que fui educado durante toda mi infancia y parte de mi adolescencia.
Aún recuerdo estar explicándome ante uno de los hermanos lasallistas en la secundaria, el porqué ya no quería asistir a las misas que se celebraban cada primer viernes de mes: "no quiero hincarme ante ningún dios" (sí, según yo, lo pronunciaba en minúsculas), argumentaba.
Con el tiempo, esa distancia aumentó, y se convirtió en una aversión hacia todo tipo de creencia, de religión, de concepción espiritual de la vida en general.
Y llegué a ese punto que comento al inicio: me postulaba pen contra de la religión y veía en ella el origen de más de un mal en la humanidad.
Fui criado en un hogar donde mamá profesa un catolicismo que da cabida a dos que tres ideas más bien alternativas; y un papá ateo/agnóstico/humanista/ya-no-sé-en-qué-va-hoy-día; lo que me brindó dos enriquecedoras perspectivas de la vida.
Sin embargo, terminé inclinándome por una visión más bien racionalista y dejé de lado el caracter católico que intentaron inculcarme.
Sin embargo, si algo he aprendido en lo que llevo de vida, es que podemos tender, tranquilamente, a afirmar cosas sin siquiera comprenderlas bien del todo. No, no he abrazado ningún otro culto, a la fecha, lo único ante lo que soy capaz de hincarme es ante lo que ame, mi pareja, mi hija, mi familia, unos pocos amigos y amigas.
El caso es que, después de haber leído a Dawkins, a Hitchens y a otros, después de haber creído en sus ideas, en sus argumentos, ahora no puedo estar más que opuesto a ellos. Después de haber leído a Gray y a de Waal, después de todas las conversaciones con mis personas de confianza sobre todos los temas que nos inquietan, no, no estoy en contra de las manifestaciones religiosas: y un poco de eso habla este libro.
Entiendo un poco mejor por qué lo titularon así, pero, sigo pensando que es un error editorial garrafal, es un artilugio mercadotecnístico de la peor calaña, es un insulto al trabajo de de Waal, que si bien, no está peleado con los diez mandamientos, estos apenas ocupan unas páginas en el hermoso fresco (y vaya que esta metáfora no cae en saco roto) que es este libro.
De Waal es un ser sumamente brillante y lúcido, un observador minucioso y paciente de la vida animal, en particular de los bonobos.
¿Qué es de Waal? ¿Qué es Gray? ¿Fadanelli? ¿Enrigue? ¿Villalobos? De Waal es de Waal. "Es" biólogo, si eso te dice algo, pero para mí, es un observador precioso. Es un traductor de ideas increíble. Es una persona que me ayuda a comprenderme mejor a mi, y a mis semejantes.
Nunca me había cuestionado si la moral precede a la religión. Si es natural al hombre. Y vaya que la idea es profunda. Sin embargo, de Waal se mantiene alejado de disputas sin sentido, porque... ah, había olvidado que su libro trata sobre bonobos, sobre chimpancés, sobre elefantes, algunas ballenas, unos osos, también hay ratas... ¡carajo!, pero en más de un ejemplo de estudio que menciona, me parecía que estaba hablando de nosotros: los humanos.
¿Se entiende?
Si Cage ya lo había dejado en claro con su 4'33'': no hay silencio absoluto, ¿por qué habríamos de seguir creyendo que hay un absoluto para todo?
El "silencio" de Dios (vuelvo a las mayúsculas porque entiendo que es un nombre propio, antes que una alabanza) no es para todos... como tampoco lo es su voz.
La vida por la vida misma, la vida por el paraíso perdido, la vida por las mil vírgenes; todas PUEDEN ser válidas, siempre y cuando, no dañen al otro, no atenten contra el otro; y el otro puede ser una persona, un bonobo, un chimpacé, un elefante...
Si de algo somos capaces es de seguir aprendiendo, de continuar encontrando nuevas respuestas a preguntas viejas: todo es cuestión de mantenernos abiertos a escuchar, a entender, a conocer... incluso a aceptar que podemos estar equivocados o que podemos volver a aprender lo mismo.
Quisiera, en el fondo, poder escribir algo que te invite a leer este libro: así de necesario lo considero.
Aún recuerdo estar explicándome ante uno de los hermanos lasallistas en la secundaria, el porqué ya no quería asistir a las misas que se celebraban cada primer viernes de mes: "no quiero hincarme ante ningún dios" (sí, según yo, lo pronunciaba en minúsculas), argumentaba.
Con el tiempo, esa distancia aumentó, y se convirtió en una aversión hacia todo tipo de creencia, de religión, de concepción espiritual de la vida en general.
Y llegué a ese punto que comento al inicio: me postulaba pen contra de la religión y veía en ella el origen de más de un mal en la humanidad.
Fui criado en un hogar donde mamá profesa un catolicismo que da cabida a dos que tres ideas más bien alternativas; y un papá ateo/agnóstico/humanista/ya-no-sé-en-qué-va-hoy-día; lo que me brindó dos enriquecedoras perspectivas de la vida.
Sin embargo, terminé inclinándome por una visión más bien racionalista y dejé de lado el caracter católico que intentaron inculcarme.
Sin embargo, si algo he aprendido en lo que llevo de vida, es que podemos tender, tranquilamente, a afirmar cosas sin siquiera comprenderlas bien del todo. No, no he abrazado ningún otro culto, a la fecha, lo único ante lo que soy capaz de hincarme es ante lo que ame, mi pareja, mi hija, mi familia, unos pocos amigos y amigas.
El caso es que, después de haber leído a Dawkins, a Hitchens y a otros, después de haber creído en sus ideas, en sus argumentos, ahora no puedo estar más que opuesto a ellos. Después de haber leído a Gray y a de Waal, después de todas las conversaciones con mis personas de confianza sobre todos los temas que nos inquietan, no, no estoy en contra de las manifestaciones religiosas: y un poco de eso habla este libro.
Entiendo un poco mejor por qué lo titularon así, pero, sigo pensando que es un error editorial garrafal, es un artilugio mercadotecnístico de la peor calaña, es un insulto al trabajo de de Waal, que si bien, no está peleado con los diez mandamientos, estos apenas ocupan unas páginas en el hermoso fresco (y vaya que esta metáfora no cae en saco roto) que es este libro.
De Waal es un ser sumamente brillante y lúcido, un observador minucioso y paciente de la vida animal, en particular de los bonobos.
¿Qué es de Waal? ¿Qué es Gray? ¿Fadanelli? ¿Enrigue? ¿Villalobos? De Waal es de Waal. "Es" biólogo, si eso te dice algo, pero para mí, es un observador precioso. Es un traductor de ideas increíble. Es una persona que me ayuda a comprenderme mejor a mi, y a mis semejantes.
Nunca me había cuestionado si la moral precede a la religión. Si es natural al hombre. Y vaya que la idea es profunda. Sin embargo, de Waal se mantiene alejado de disputas sin sentido, porque... ah, había olvidado que su libro trata sobre bonobos, sobre chimpancés, sobre elefantes, algunas ballenas, unos osos, también hay ratas... ¡carajo!, pero en más de un ejemplo de estudio que menciona, me parecía que estaba hablando de nosotros: los humanos.
¿Se entiende?
Si Cage ya lo había dejado en claro con su 4'33'': no hay silencio absoluto, ¿por qué habríamos de seguir creyendo que hay un absoluto para todo?
El "silencio" de Dios (vuelvo a las mayúsculas porque entiendo que es un nombre propio, antes que una alabanza) no es para todos... como tampoco lo es su voz.
La vida por la vida misma, la vida por el paraíso perdido, la vida por las mil vírgenes; todas PUEDEN ser válidas, siempre y cuando, no dañen al otro, no atenten contra el otro; y el otro puede ser una persona, un bonobo, un chimpacé, un elefante...
Si de algo somos capaces es de seguir aprendiendo, de continuar encontrando nuevas respuestas a preguntas viejas: todo es cuestión de mantenernos abiertos a escuchar, a entender, a conocer... incluso a aceptar que podemos estar equivocados o que podemos volver a aprender lo mismo.
Quisiera, en el fondo, poder escribir algo que te invite a leer este libro: así de necesario lo considero.
April 23, 2017
Frans De Waal is the sort of guy who, even within an alternative subculture, is fond of espousing alternative viewpoints. For example, he's a scientist (specializing in primates, especially chimpanzee and bonobos), and it's not much of a surprise to discover he's an atheist, but he also seems to think that Dawkins, Harris, and their ilk get too worked up about it. He doesn't like the term "brights" that some atheists wish to use for themselves, and says "what good could possibly come from insulting the many people who find value in religion?"
Another quote: "to know what morality would look like without religion...would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause."
But, de Waal is not writing this book primarily to defend religion. In fact, he is intending to look at the idea that we need religion to keep us moral. If we cannot find human societies that are not either highly religious (most of the world), or were highly religious until within living memory (parts of Europe), then we can look at our close relatives. Chimpanzees and bonobos are the species most closely related to homo sapiens, and they do not have anything we could call "religion" unless we stretched the meaning of the term so much as to make it not very useful. What does their morality look like?
He also looks at questions that bear on the idea of the inner lives, such as whether they are aware of death, whether they feel guilt, whether they are outraged at moral offenses, what they think is happening when they cooperate, and so forth. One repeated point is that in order to learn about what kinds of tasks they are capable of doing, you have to construct the test in such a way that they want to do it, and it makes sense for their abilities. For example, he mentions a study which looked at the ability of chimpanzees to do facial recognition, that tested them using the same pictures of human faces that had been used on human subjects. Not surprisingly, chimpanzees did not do as well, but when given pictures of chimpanzees instead they were equal to humans.
When explaining experiments on, for example, whether or not elephants can think ahead to use tools, or chimpanzees can understand the concept of money, or so on, he often provides us with his own illustrations. There is something about his simple but entertaining and informative style of illustration that mirrors and complements very well his writing style.
There has been a bit of a pendulum effect over the centuries, in the attitude of scholars towards the inner lives of other animals, from thinking them similar to ourselves and then as mindless automatons (or reasonless and driven by emotion only). Frans de Waal does a great job of guiding us through the last few decades of research, which have gradually swung opinions back towards the idea that the inner lives of humans and other mammals exist on a continuum, rather than two separate worlds. It is also clear that a great deal of our own morality predates religion, and is shared with many other species, where we can see cooperation, punishment of cheating, adoption of infants who are not closely related, and many other behaviors that are hard to explain if you have Skinner as your model for the way in which animals think.
On the other hand, de Waal does not shrink (too much) from showing us the very real limits which our biological heritage provides us in regards to morality. First and foremost, it doesn't scale very well to large societies. The behavior of chimpanzees towards monkeys, or even other groups of chimpanzees, is sometimes pretty gruesome. The behavior of bonobos, though often portrayed as like flower children from the 1960's, is pretty violent compared to most human societies. If religion is an imperfect way of scaling up morality, it is at least clear that there is a real need which it is attempting to fill, and simply removing it does not solve the problem.
To his credit, de Waal does not try to answer every question for us. It is clear, though, that a career in studying our close relatives has given him a better perspective for thinking about them, and with this book he has done a great job of sharing that perspective with us.
Another quote: "to know what morality would look like without religion...would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause."
But, de Waal is not writing this book primarily to defend religion. In fact, he is intending to look at the idea that we need religion to keep us moral. If we cannot find human societies that are not either highly religious (most of the world), or were highly religious until within living memory (parts of Europe), then we can look at our close relatives. Chimpanzees and bonobos are the species most closely related to homo sapiens, and they do not have anything we could call "religion" unless we stretched the meaning of the term so much as to make it not very useful. What does their morality look like?
He also looks at questions that bear on the idea of the inner lives, such as whether they are aware of death, whether they feel guilt, whether they are outraged at moral offenses, what they think is happening when they cooperate, and so forth. One repeated point is that in order to learn about what kinds of tasks they are capable of doing, you have to construct the test in such a way that they want to do it, and it makes sense for their abilities. For example, he mentions a study which looked at the ability of chimpanzees to do facial recognition, that tested them using the same pictures of human faces that had been used on human subjects. Not surprisingly, chimpanzees did not do as well, but when given pictures of chimpanzees instead they were equal to humans.
When explaining experiments on, for example, whether or not elephants can think ahead to use tools, or chimpanzees can understand the concept of money, or so on, he often provides us with his own illustrations. There is something about his simple but entertaining and informative style of illustration that mirrors and complements very well his writing style.
There has been a bit of a pendulum effect over the centuries, in the attitude of scholars towards the inner lives of other animals, from thinking them similar to ourselves and then as mindless automatons (or reasonless and driven by emotion only). Frans de Waal does a great job of guiding us through the last few decades of research, which have gradually swung opinions back towards the idea that the inner lives of humans and other mammals exist on a continuum, rather than two separate worlds. It is also clear that a great deal of our own morality predates religion, and is shared with many other species, where we can see cooperation, punishment of cheating, adoption of infants who are not closely related, and many other behaviors that are hard to explain if you have Skinner as your model for the way in which animals think.
On the other hand, de Waal does not shrink (too much) from showing us the very real limits which our biological heritage provides us in regards to morality. First and foremost, it doesn't scale very well to large societies. The behavior of chimpanzees towards monkeys, or even other groups of chimpanzees, is sometimes pretty gruesome. The behavior of bonobos, though often portrayed as like flower children from the 1960's, is pretty violent compared to most human societies. If religion is an imperfect way of scaling up morality, it is at least clear that there is a real need which it is attempting to fill, and simply removing it does not solve the problem.
To his credit, de Waal does not try to answer every question for us. It is clear, though, that a career in studying our close relatives has given him a better perspective for thinking about them, and with this book he has done a great job of sharing that perspective with us.
January 6, 2018
Primatologul isi sustine ideea ca instinctele prosociale, altruismul si comportamentul moral preced religiile cunoscute, care mai degraba au particularizat prin naratiuni locale valori general umane, cu exemple anecdotice sau stiintifice din coloniile de cimpanzei sau bonobo. Respinge ateismul militant cum este el promovat de Hitchens, Dawkins sau Sam Harris printr-o analiza mai degraba functionala a religiei (daca a aparut la mai toate popoarele prin ce o poti inlocui, care sa confere orientarea spre scop comun, sentimentul de apartenenta si coeziune) si a evidentei ca nu poate fi generata coeziunea sociala exclusiv prin orientarea anti-ceva; dar si cu argumente de natura evolutionista sau biologica care il fac de asemenea sa respinga spre ex utilitarismul, care ar nega aplecarea noastra naturala spre sustinerea aproapelui (fam, prieteni), favorizand maximizarea binelui pentru cei mai multi, indiferent de gradul lor de apropiere fata de noi. Noteaza limitele stiintei ca ghid prescriptiv, refuza sa considere altruismul o forma mascata de egoism si nu se da in laturi de la a-l conceptualiza eventual si ca simpla placere - dar mai ales te lasa sa mai si razi de primata din tine si de scenariile sociale uneori extrem de complexe, care se bazeaza pe motivatii extrem de similare cu cele umane. Anul nonfiction a inceput bine
December 11, 2017
If you’ve ever wondered about the evolution of morality and whether humans are the only moral creatures, this is a good exploration of the idea. Frans de Waal posits that we have an innate sense of morality, and like Jonathan Haidt, suggests that this sense dictates what we do – the emotional tail wags the rational dog, rather than the other way round, in Haidt’s terminology.
The main attraction for me is not the ideas, which I’ve come across plenty of times before, but the anecdotes about the behaviour of wild and captive bonobos and chimpanzees. They’re our closest relatives, on the evolutionary tree, and we can learn a lot about ourselves from observing them. Frans de Waal includes a lot of interesting titbits, and I found his work fascinating, though not surprising.
It probably won’t convince anyone who thinks that morality comes only as handed down from God, but if you wonder about this kind of thing, you’ll probably find this interesting.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
The main attraction for me is not the ideas, which I’ve come across plenty of times before, but the anecdotes about the behaviour of wild and captive bonobos and chimpanzees. They’re our closest relatives, on the evolutionary tree, and we can learn a lot about ourselves from observing them. Frans de Waal includes a lot of interesting titbits, and I found his work fascinating, though not surprising.
It probably won’t convince anyone who thinks that morality comes only as handed down from God, but if you wonder about this kind of thing, you’ll probably find this interesting.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
October 28, 2019
If you would like to get some insight into ethology and more specifically primate behavior, this looks like a good start.
Bonobos’ society is governed by strict hierarchical rules that can even pertain to ostracising the most rebellious members.
More surprising than anything, the Alpha male/female is often times a skilled mediator.
The majority of the tell tale signs of almost proto-spiritual features documented in the book are mostly highlights that were collected by observing captive bonobos, but still worth your time, if only to consider the wonder of the madly brilliant social architect called evolution.
Bonobos’ society is governed by strict hierarchical rules that can even pertain to ostracising the most rebellious members.
More surprising than anything, the Alpha male/female is often times a skilled mediator.
The majority of the tell tale signs of almost proto-spiritual features documented in the book are mostly highlights that were collected by observing captive bonobos, but still worth your time, if only to consider the wonder of the madly brilliant social architect called evolution.
May 5, 2025
Dit boekt lijkt je ervan te willen overtuigen dat primaten ook ethisch handelen. En dat morele handelingen niet alleen uit geloof voortkomen. Maar dat deze al bij de mensen voort kwamen voordat ze gekoppeld werden aan geloof en wat er vanuit de godsdienst werd vertelt.
Ik hoefde hier niet zo van overtuigd te worden, ik had al soortgelijke meningen, dus die onderdelen hadden voor mij wat korter gekund.
Het is vooral heel leuk om te lezen over de onderzoeken en vooral veel anecdotes over primaten mee te krijgen. Je kan het niet echt als wetenschappelijk boek lezen. Sowieso zijn onderzoeken naar primaten lastig om op te zetten, ze kosten veel tijd, er is een beperkte hoeveelheid 'proefpersonen' beschikbaar en ze zijn meestal in een onnatuurlijke omgeving uitgevoerd.
Maar ik raad het aan als je wilt lezen over relaties tussen verschillende apen. Hoe de groepsdynamiek ervoor zorgt dat individuen zich schamen, een fout goed proberen te maken, de hiërarchie wordt nageleefd maar er hier ook stiekeme uitzonderingen op worden gemaakt. En hoe lief ze ook voor elkaar zijn, dat ze zorgzaam zijn, elkaar water brengen, vlooien en dat een verlamde aap niet bang lijkt te zijn omdat hij 'weet' dat de andere hem zullen helpen.
Ik hoefde hier niet zo van overtuigd te worden, ik had al soortgelijke meningen, dus die onderdelen hadden voor mij wat korter gekund.
Het is vooral heel leuk om te lezen over de onderzoeken en vooral veel anecdotes over primaten mee te krijgen. Je kan het niet echt als wetenschappelijk boek lezen. Sowieso zijn onderzoeken naar primaten lastig om op te zetten, ze kosten veel tijd, er is een beperkte hoeveelheid 'proefpersonen' beschikbaar en ze zijn meestal in een onnatuurlijke omgeving uitgevoerd.
Maar ik raad het aan als je wilt lezen over relaties tussen verschillende apen. Hoe de groepsdynamiek ervoor zorgt dat individuen zich schamen, een fout goed proberen te maken, de hiërarchie wordt nageleefd maar er hier ook stiekeme uitzonderingen op worden gemaakt. En hoe lief ze ook voor elkaar zijn, dat ze zorgzaam zijn, elkaar water brengen, vlooien en dat een verlamde aap niet bang lijkt te zijn omdat hij 'weet' dat de andere hem zullen helpen.
May 29, 2013
The subject of the book is very interesting. Frans de Waal has a very nice style which makes for an easy read.
However, he does not convince me of his opinions, even though I share many of them. Mainly he does himself what he accuses other scientists of: cherry picking, confirmation bias and even stating his opinion as fact.
For example (I don't say I don't agree with some of the below, the point is the way he presents his ideas and opinions):
"Such behaviour is sure to be selected against" (page 76). Why is this sure? Is there any evidence? None that Mr. de Waal presents. It is just opinion.
"Faith is driven by attraction to certain persons, stories, rituals and values" (page 96) Is that so? Even though his book contains many references, he conveniently forgets to mention references whenever he states his opinion as fact.
"Isn't knowledge invariably good?" (page 137). Seems like a weird comment from a scientist. Knowledge is neither good nor bad. Knowledge can be used to do good or do bad
The book contains many examples like this. Also with the examples of animal behaviour, he seems to be picking the examples that suit him best, which give me the feeling he is cherry picking them.
Specific to the kindle edition: the book contains lots of references, by means of endnotes. These are not links, so if you want to check a reference you have to go to the end of the book and look up the endnote yourself. The same goes for the index: no links, so you have to find the page mentioned manually.
However, he does not convince me of his opinions, even though I share many of them. Mainly he does himself what he accuses other scientists of: cherry picking, confirmation bias and even stating his opinion as fact.
For example (I don't say I don't agree with some of the below, the point is the way he presents his ideas and opinions):
"Such behaviour is sure to be selected against" (page 76). Why is this sure? Is there any evidence? None that Mr. de Waal presents. It is just opinion.
"Faith is driven by attraction to certain persons, stories, rituals and values" (page 96) Is that so? Even though his book contains many references, he conveniently forgets to mention references whenever he states his opinion as fact.
"Isn't knowledge invariably good?" (page 137). Seems like a weird comment from a scientist. Knowledge is neither good nor bad. Knowledge can be used to do good or do bad
The book contains many examples like this. Also with the examples of animal behaviour, he seems to be picking the examples that suit him best, which give me the feeling he is cherry picking them.
Specific to the kindle edition: the book contains lots of references, by means of endnotes. These are not links, so if you want to check a reference you have to go to the end of the book and look up the endnote yourself. The same goes for the index: no links, so you have to find the page mentioned manually.
June 24, 2015
De Waal should stick to biology, because he's weak on philosophy and logic. I found the discussion of "morality" in bonobos and chimps interesting and compelling. It's absolutely clear that morality doesn't depend on religion. And he seems to acknowledge that religion is just a comforting lie, but that doesn't seem to bother him. Atheists are rude to point this out, he says. No, they aren't. Aren't we all obligated to speak the truth?
June 4, 2021
Maymunlarla ilgili o kadar iyi gozlemler var ki... Bunlari okuyunca insanin kendini begenmisligi yuzune tokat gibi carpiyor. Ayrica bazi arastirmalarda maymunlarin basardigini akil edemeyecek insanlar var dunyada.
September 4, 2019
This is an awkwardly named book, partially because it has nothing to do with humanism, per se. de Waal seems to think that “humanism” seems to be roughly definitionally coterminous with “secular morality,” but there are plenty of humanists who don’t subscribe to secular morality and many secularists who aren’t humanists. The book could have been better had that word not been in the title at all.
“The Bonobo and the Atheist” presents a pretty uncontroversial thesis, even for someone like me whose grasp of the scholarly literature in primate ethology is virtually nonexistent: humans aren’t the only animals that display moral behavior. In fact, de Waal’s book is a great sourcebook of just these kinds of behaviors across a wide range of species, mostly culled from anecdotes relating to his personal research at various institutions over the last several decades. (He’s currently the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior in the Department of Psychology at Emory University.) There are plenty of examples of chimps and bonobos showing prosocial behavior all over the book, and even behavior that we could call moral, like expressing frustration or anger at a perceived lack of fairness.
If you are a reader whose curiosity was piqued by the word “atheist” in the title, and were looking for another Hitchens- or Dawkins-inspired dime store screed on how religion will be the end of humanity as we know it, you will be disappointed as well. In fact, the thesis of this book presented no reason whatsoever to even discuss the relatives merits and drawbacks of religion, but I guess throwing in a buzzworthy word into the title can’t harm sales. As is pretty clear from the summary of the book, the main idea he’s trying to present is that moral behavior is present in all of the higher apes (other animals too, but being a primatologist, his focus is mostly the bonobo and the chimpanzee). Consequently, it should come as no surprise that the moral tendencies we share with these animals predates any idea of God, and certainly predates any attempts at formal institutions built to worship said God. The big take-away from the book is that morality, no matter which animal it occurs in, is a product of biology, not of divine revelation or supernatural intercession.
Being originally from the Netherlands, de Waal was at first very perplexed at the popularity, not to mention the fundamentalism, of American life. He moved to the states at in 1981, when he was 33 years old, and has spent more than half of his life here. It’s understandable why European atheists look at American atheists with bemusement, because they seem to be so passionate about something so obvious. However, despite all his time in the U.S, de Waal still seems to think that popularizing atheists with a broad American audience (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris – he thinks Dennett is by far the most rational and thoughtful of the bunch) are “sleeping furiously” – that is to say, since atheism is essentially the rejection of a proposition, they’re making a big deal out of the existence of essentially … nothing. He drives this point home repeatedly in the book, and it’s somewhat befuddling. Here’s a scientist, an open atheist, and yet he doesn’t seem to see the value in doing the yeoman’s work of getting bullshit like “creation science” out of the classroom where it most certainly doesn’t belong.
Are the Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris sometimes grating and strident? Sometimes, tin-eared interlocutors for the ideas they’re trying to promote? Most certainly. But when he refers to them as sleeping furiously, he seems to be criticizing them for more than their stentorian shrillness. In a country where one out of three Americans still believe that the creation account(s) in Genesis hold the authority of science, we need to learn how to walk before we can run. We need more public education about science, and at their best, most effective and most appealing, that’s what they’re doing. Only then can we get the buffoons who think the world was created in six days kicked off of school boards and out of Congress. But to say they are sleeping furiously is akin to calling their work in vain. Perhaps it’s the optimist in me (it occasionally peeks out), but I hope that’s not the case. I’m convinced that a world that makes its decisions based on evidence, weighted consideration of the facts, and rational criticism of ideas is the best possible world that we have to offer future generations. But that kind of world doesn’t just pop into existence ex nihilo. It has to be worked for, and that’s what I’ve always imagined as the most important role for the “public atheist.”
“The Bonobo and the Atheist” presents a pretty uncontroversial thesis, even for someone like me whose grasp of the scholarly literature in primate ethology is virtually nonexistent: humans aren’t the only animals that display moral behavior. In fact, de Waal’s book is a great sourcebook of just these kinds of behaviors across a wide range of species, mostly culled from anecdotes relating to his personal research at various institutions over the last several decades. (He’s currently the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior in the Department of Psychology at Emory University.) There are plenty of examples of chimps and bonobos showing prosocial behavior all over the book, and even behavior that we could call moral, like expressing frustration or anger at a perceived lack of fairness.
If you are a reader whose curiosity was piqued by the word “atheist” in the title, and were looking for another Hitchens- or Dawkins-inspired dime store screed on how religion will be the end of humanity as we know it, you will be disappointed as well. In fact, the thesis of this book presented no reason whatsoever to even discuss the relatives merits and drawbacks of religion, but I guess throwing in a buzzworthy word into the title can’t harm sales. As is pretty clear from the summary of the book, the main idea he’s trying to present is that moral behavior is present in all of the higher apes (other animals too, but being a primatologist, his focus is mostly the bonobo and the chimpanzee). Consequently, it should come as no surprise that the moral tendencies we share with these animals predates any idea of God, and certainly predates any attempts at formal institutions built to worship said God. The big take-away from the book is that morality, no matter which animal it occurs in, is a product of biology, not of divine revelation or supernatural intercession.
Being originally from the Netherlands, de Waal was at first very perplexed at the popularity, not to mention the fundamentalism, of American life. He moved to the states at in 1981, when he was 33 years old, and has spent more than half of his life here. It’s understandable why European atheists look at American atheists with bemusement, because they seem to be so passionate about something so obvious. However, despite all his time in the U.S, de Waal still seems to think that popularizing atheists with a broad American audience (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris – he thinks Dennett is by far the most rational and thoughtful of the bunch) are “sleeping furiously” – that is to say, since atheism is essentially the rejection of a proposition, they’re making a big deal out of the existence of essentially … nothing. He drives this point home repeatedly in the book, and it’s somewhat befuddling. Here’s a scientist, an open atheist, and yet he doesn’t seem to see the value in doing the yeoman’s work of getting bullshit like “creation science” out of the classroom where it most certainly doesn’t belong.
Are the Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris sometimes grating and strident? Sometimes, tin-eared interlocutors for the ideas they’re trying to promote? Most certainly. But when he refers to them as sleeping furiously, he seems to be criticizing them for more than their stentorian shrillness. In a country where one out of three Americans still believe that the creation account(s) in Genesis hold the authority of science, we need to learn how to walk before we can run. We need more public education about science, and at their best, most effective and most appealing, that’s what they’re doing. Only then can we get the buffoons who think the world was created in six days kicked off of school boards and out of Congress. But to say they are sleeping furiously is akin to calling their work in vain. Perhaps it’s the optimist in me (it occasionally peeks out), but I hope that’s not the case. I’m convinced that a world that makes its decisions based on evidence, weighted consideration of the facts, and rational criticism of ideas is the best possible world that we have to offer future generations. But that kind of world doesn’t just pop into existence ex nihilo. It has to be worked for, and that’s what I’ve always imagined as the most important role for the “public atheist.”
November 20, 2015
I finished this a few months ago so I can't find the exact passages that stuck with me the most. While I definitely appreciate the defense of humanist morality (and this book really is an important, well-written read, though not necessarily new - see The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology), I can't help but think that the skeptic/humanist world is too saturated with the old white male perspective.
Perhaps this is what lies behind de Waal's criticism of the "dogmatic" atheist and scientific community. In what appeared to me to be a rant against these men, de Waal seems to think that the worst negative effects of religion currently are merely preaching creationism and a flat earth. Let me then reply-rant: this completely ignores the groups of people who are the most damaged by religion in the western world, namely women and non-Christian people of colour, whose lives are actually, literally, endangered by religious dogmatism. And let's remember these are not fringe groups, but people with considerable political power.
In the last chapter, de Waal mentions a certain "Dr. Benjamin Carson," probably unknown to most people when this book was written, but you'd have to be living under a rock to not know who he is now. In the past few months, Dr. Carson has provided us with an tremendous assault on anything related to reality, truth, rationality and logic. He can only do this because he is able to appeal to the only group of people who appreciate this rhetoric of absolute ignorance, the religious extremists. Regardless of religion, throughout history, extremists have waged wars against knowledge and inquiry - and this is what is at the heart of the problem with religion.
It's not enough to show with rational arguments that morality is innate and doesn't come from religion. You can't win an argument using logic with someone who is completely irrational. However, I do get where he's coming from in defense of spirituality, and if anyone who is an atheist/skepting has an interest in appreciating the benefit of the search for spiritual meaning and traditional knowledge, I highly suggest reading The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World. May I suggest as well searching for humanist ethic books written by women and PoC, because while I respect de Waal's views tbh I'm getting bored of this same old tired perspective.
Perhaps this is what lies behind de Waal's criticism of the "dogmatic" atheist and scientific community. In what appeared to me to be a rant against these men, de Waal seems to think that the worst negative effects of religion currently are merely preaching creationism and a flat earth. Let me then reply-rant: this completely ignores the groups of people who are the most damaged by religion in the western world, namely women and non-Christian people of colour, whose lives are actually, literally, endangered by religious dogmatism. And let's remember these are not fringe groups, but people with considerable political power.
In the last chapter, de Waal mentions a certain "Dr. Benjamin Carson," probably unknown to most people when this book was written, but you'd have to be living under a rock to not know who he is now. In the past few months, Dr. Carson has provided us with an tremendous assault on anything related to reality, truth, rationality and logic. He can only do this because he is able to appeal to the only group of people who appreciate this rhetoric of absolute ignorance, the religious extremists. Regardless of religion, throughout history, extremists have waged wars against knowledge and inquiry - and this is what is at the heart of the problem with religion.
It's not enough to show with rational arguments that morality is innate and doesn't come from religion. You can't win an argument using logic with someone who is completely irrational. However, I do get where he's coming from in defense of spirituality, and if anyone who is an atheist/skepting has an interest in appreciating the benefit of the search for spiritual meaning and traditional knowledge, I highly suggest reading The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World. May I suggest as well searching for humanist ethic books written by women and PoC, because while I respect de Waal's views tbh I'm getting bored of this same old tired perspective.
September 5, 2015
I highly recommend this book to anybody who is passionate about religion and science, particularly the intersection of the two. The central argument is that morality predated religion, and that religion would not be such a strong force in the world without our species having evolved from other community minded creatures. My personal favorite point, however, is peripheral. He asserts that atheists who are vehemently opposed to religion likely grew up in fundamentalist religions, and they simply replace one fundamentalism with another. Using the names we find familiar today, namely Harris and Hitchens, he describes a group of people who actually ignore the societal importance of religion in preference of their own small minded beliefs, similar to how some religious people dismiss basic science.
There are fascinating discussions of different animal experiences, which prove different levels of logic and some form of "morality" in mice, elephants, dogs, and of course, bonobos. He is also particularly obsessed with Bosch's painting The Garden, and uses it and other art to support his arguments. In short, it is an incredible book that any person who struggles with morality should appreciate.
There are fascinating discussions of different animal experiences, which prove different levels of logic and some form of "morality" in mice, elephants, dogs, and of course, bonobos. He is also particularly obsessed with Bosch's painting The Garden, and uses it and other art to support his arguments. In short, it is an incredible book that any person who struggles with morality should appreciate.
December 14, 2019
Frans de waal presents an eloquent and well researched argument claiming that human morality comes from within and is not a result of top down approach as it is envisaged to be. At the start of the book he offers insights into bonobo behaviour and how it starkly differs from chimpanzees. Meanwhile in the book he also refers to issues like fundamentalism of any dogma. He equally criticizes religious authorities for imposing their beliefs and well neo atheists too for rampantly assaulting the religion and other apparatus. Well the author is absolutely right when he says that dogma of any kind is the true enemy of reason. Most of the book deals with how things like caring, altruism, empathy, concern, resolving conflicts etc are indeed not uniquely human. Our nearest cousins have lot of abilities which essentially gives us the idea that human morality is not a result of top down approach. The moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well reasoned principles, rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time. The most fundamental one derives from the survival value of group life. The desire to belong, to get along, to love and to be loved,prompts us to do everything in our power to stay on good terms with those on whom we depend.
October 5, 2019
Чудова книга. Не знаю чи переклад зроблено ідеально, але основні ідеї автора зчитуються зрозуміло і мені ці ідеї подобаються.
Нехай вас не вводить в оману назва цієї книги (в оригіналі вона не така інтригуюча і більше відповідає змісту - The Bonobo and the Atheist. In search of Humanism Among the Primates), бо це не про атеїзм чи антирелігійність, а про нас із вами, про нашу нерозривну єдність із світом приматів/природи.
Якщо хочете дізнатися, чому я сміявся і чому віднайшов для себе джерело надії на людство, раджу прочитати цю книгу. Також рекомендую читати її поруч із Докінзом та Гаррісом, щоби порівняти як можна не перетворюватися на популістів.
Нехай вас не вводить в оману назва цієї книги (в оригіналі вона не така інтригуюча і більше відповідає змісту - The Bonobo and the Atheist. In search of Humanism Among the Primates), бо це не про атеїзм чи антирелігійність, а про нас із вами, про нашу нерозривну єдність із світом приматів/природи.
Якщо хочете дізнатися, чому я сміявся і чому віднайшов для себе джерело надії на людство, раджу прочитати цю книгу. Також рекомендую читати її поруч із Докінзом та Гаррісом, щоби порівняти як можна не перетворюватися на популістів.
May 15, 2023
maybe i’m missing something but it just felt really poorly edited? the way the chapters and the subheadings within chapters were organized made no sense, and so many sections felt random and unintegrated. there were also passages that were virtually identical to passages in Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist, which i guess isn’t really a problem but i just read it so it was jarring.
December 30, 2014
Frans de Waal is one of the most sensible biology writers alive. This the third book of his I've read and he has never failed to please. Cogent observations and ultimate good sense. See more at: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.
March 5, 2018
"Forse è un mio difetto, ma io diffido di tutte quelle persone il cui sistema di credenze è l'unica cosa che si opponga fra loro e l'adozione di un comportamento ripugnante." (p. 9)
January 27, 2023
I love reading all his books, it helps me understand not only animals but people better! And such a warm and kind we all are in our nature!
December 26, 2017
What is the role of religion in determining our personal moral codes as well as how we treat others? Is religion the source of morality to such an extent that without it we all would just do whatever we want without regard for anyone else (the theory of the entertaining if not always wise Ben Carson)? Or does religion reinforce pre-existing ideas we've always held about fairness and empathy?
In "The Athiest and the Bonobo", Frans De Waal comes down on the side of the latter by looking at our nearest primate neighbors. It seems that much like ourselves, bonobos in particular have an intricate system of hierarchies in which all things from hunting, sharing of food, and sex (bonobos do love sex) are done with an eye toward how it will affect others.
Much like with obnoxious humans, some bonobos will step out of line and do what they please but it's often met with swift physical or social reprisals. You can be a jerk, but expect people to treat you like one as well. While bonobos clearly are not religious, De Waal sees a role for religion in strengthening the communal ties that ensure we all get along.
While he doesn't advocate a dogmatic adherence to a spiritual God, he stops short of the vitriol atheists have toward believers. There is always room in the world for the duality of science and fact based conclusions and the mysteries of imagination. As De Waal says, we don't have to point out to our partner while watching Titanic that Leo DiCaprio wasn't really on the ship. We can enjoy the film while not abandoning the reality when it's over.
This book is a call for cooperation and community, not with religion at its center, but also not something that needs to be scorned and completely abandoned either. An engaging and lovely book that will truly make you think. And yes, you'll want to live with bonobos after reading it.
In "The Athiest and the Bonobo", Frans De Waal comes down on the side of the latter by looking at our nearest primate neighbors. It seems that much like ourselves, bonobos in particular have an intricate system of hierarchies in which all things from hunting, sharing of food, and sex (bonobos do love sex) are done with an eye toward how it will affect others.
Much like with obnoxious humans, some bonobos will step out of line and do what they please but it's often met with swift physical or social reprisals. You can be a jerk, but expect people to treat you like one as well. While bonobos clearly are not religious, De Waal sees a role for religion in strengthening the communal ties that ensure we all get along.
While he doesn't advocate a dogmatic adherence to a spiritual God, he stops short of the vitriol atheists have toward believers. There is always room in the world for the duality of science and fact based conclusions and the mysteries of imagination. As De Waal says, we don't have to point out to our partner while watching Titanic that Leo DiCaprio wasn't really on the ship. We can enjoy the film while not abandoning the reality when it's over.
This book is a call for cooperation and community, not with religion at its center, but also not something that needs to be scorned and completely abandoned either. An engaging and lovely book that will truly make you think. And yes, you'll want to live with bonobos after reading it.
February 11, 2014
Muddy thinking, misrepresentation (or ignorance?) of atheist arguments, and lots of irrelevant passages on Hieronymus Bosch. I've really enjoyed other books by Frans de Waal, but this is an unsuccessful departure from his areas of expertise.
Insofar as I can figure out what de Waal is arguing for, I agree with most of his premises:
1. Moral conduct exists on a continuum, including the behaviours of other animals.
2. Dogmatism is terrible and should be avoided.
3. Religion is superfluous to morality.
4. Hardline atheism is unlikely to persuade the devoutly religious to give up their faith.
But then things go wrong.
5. De Waal never addresses whether religion is inherently dogmatic. (Insofar as it's faith-based, where faith is belief without evidence, it certainly seems that way.)
6. De Waal never addresses the harm done by religion (a crucial point made by the thinkers he so blithely dismisses, such as Dawkins and Harris).
7. De Waal claims (without any supporting argument) that religion will always exist.
If you replaced the passages on Bosch with a fair representation of the atheists de Waal is arguing against, you'd have a wonderful book. Better still would be a book using de Waal's research to build on the project of Harris' Moral Landscape, helping to create an alternative to religion (the logical next step from premises 2-4 once you accept 5 and 6 and dismiss 7). Instead, you get an infuriatingly murky read of jumbled ideas with just enough interesting anecdotes about primates to keep you reading through the rambling about Bosch.
Insofar as I can figure out what de Waal is arguing for, I agree with most of his premises:
1. Moral conduct exists on a continuum, including the behaviours of other animals.
2. Dogmatism is terrible and should be avoided.
3. Religion is superfluous to morality.
4. Hardline atheism is unlikely to persuade the devoutly religious to give up their faith.
But then things go wrong.
5. De Waal never addresses whether religion is inherently dogmatic. (Insofar as it's faith-based, where faith is belief without evidence, it certainly seems that way.)
6. De Waal never addresses the harm done by religion (a crucial point made by the thinkers he so blithely dismisses, such as Dawkins and Harris).
7. De Waal claims (without any supporting argument) that religion will always exist.
If you replaced the passages on Bosch with a fair representation of the atheists de Waal is arguing against, you'd have a wonderful book. Better still would be a book using de Waal's research to build on the project of Harris' Moral Landscape, helping to create an alternative to religion (the logical next step from premises 2-4 once you accept 5 and 6 and dismiss 7). Instead, you get an infuriatingly murky read of jumbled ideas with just enough interesting anecdotes about primates to keep you reading through the rambling about Bosch.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 554 reviews