What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard Dawkins' Memoirs #1
An Appetite For Wonder: The Making Of A Scientist
New York Times bestselling author and renowned atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins delivers an intimate look into his own childhood and intellectual development, illuminating his path to becoming one of the foremost thinkers in modern science today
“A memoir that is funny and modest, absorbing and playful. Dawkins has written a marvelous love letter to science . . . and for this, the book will touch scientists and science-loving persons . . . Enchanting.” —NPR
Richard Dawkins’s first book, The Selfish Gene, was an immediate sensation and dramatically shifted the study of biology by offering a gene-centered view of evolution. Published in 1976, the book transformed the way we think about genes and evolution and has sold more than a million copies. In 2006, Dawkins transformed the world’s cultural and intellectual landscape again with The God Delusion, a scientific dismantling of religion. It was a New York Times bestseller and has sold more than two million copies worldwide. An Appetite for Wonder is Dawkins’s insightful memoir examining his own evolution as a man and as a thinker. From his beginnings in colonial Kenya to his intellectual awakening at Oxford, Dawkins shares his path to the creation of The Selfish Gene, and offers readers an in-depth look at the man and the mind that has changed the way we view science and evolution.
“A memoir that is funny and modest, absorbing and playful. Dawkins has written a marvelous love letter to science . . . and for this, the book will touch scientists and science-loving persons . . . Enchanting.” —NPR
Richard Dawkins’s first book, The Selfish Gene, was an immediate sensation and dramatically shifted the study of biology by offering a gene-centered view of evolution. Published in 1976, the book transformed the way we think about genes and evolution and has sold more than a million copies. In 2006, Dawkins transformed the world’s cultural and intellectual landscape again with The God Delusion, a scientific dismantling of religion. It was a New York Times bestseller and has sold more than two million copies worldwide. An Appetite for Wonder is Dawkins’s insightful memoir examining his own evolution as a man and as a thinker. From his beginnings in colonial Kenya to his intellectual awakening at Oxford, Dawkins shares his path to the creation of The Selfish Gene, and offers readers an in-depth look at the man and the mind that has changed the way we view science and evolution.
323 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
388 people are currently reading
7112 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 435 reviews
April 23, 2017
This is pretty much entirely an autobiography, giving us all the stray bits of Richard Dawkin's childhood through college and, later, his pet projects and his interest in programming before later publishing The Selfish Gene.
As a writer, he's always good.
He seemed to have a rather interesting childhood in Africa with loving parents, becoming a rather bullied child in school, getting heavily into religion among other things, including a rather unfortunate sexual event. At least it didn't seem to scar him.
He also took a rather indirect path to his studies, too, but I suppose this is also rather normal, being pushed one way or another by faculty and opportunity, but at least he eventually got into the mode, thanks to the theories that naturally dovetailed between programming and biology, to write his most famous book.
Pretty fascinating. I wouldn't say it's extremely so, but it was certainly edifying.
The first half of the book is his life, of course, but the later sections DO give you a pretty concise summary of the thought experiments and science that led up to the book, so be prepared for at least SOME rather intense science, even if most of the rest of the book is more personable.
Funny story: I read this without reading the blurb. And I thought it was just going to be another science book! Not an autobiography! I felt duped! :) lol live and learn, live and learn... :)
As a writer, he's always good.
He seemed to have a rather interesting childhood in Africa with loving parents, becoming a rather bullied child in school, getting heavily into religion among other things, including a rather unfortunate sexual event. At least it didn't seem to scar him.
He also took a rather indirect path to his studies, too, but I suppose this is also rather normal, being pushed one way or another by faculty and opportunity, but at least he eventually got into the mode, thanks to the theories that naturally dovetailed between programming and biology, to write his most famous book.
Pretty fascinating. I wouldn't say it's extremely so, but it was certainly edifying.
The first half of the book is his life, of course, but the later sections DO give you a pretty concise summary of the thought experiments and science that led up to the book, so be prepared for at least SOME rather intense science, even if most of the rest of the book is more personable.
Funny story: I read this without reading the blurb. And I thought it was just going to be another science book! Not an autobiography! I felt duped! :) lol live and learn, live and learn... :)
January 3, 2014
In this short autobiography, Richard Dawkins covers the first half of his life. The book ends with the publication of his first book, The Selfish Gene. The book is filled with short anecdotes about Dawkins' life growing up, from the youngest age.
The first half of the book covers his childhood; in this section Dawkins frequently wonders why he did so many "unthinking" things, often devoid of curiosity. He wonders how he was influenced to become a biologist; and both his parents were interested in the natural sciences. His father, especially, had a strong influence on his early life.
Dawkins' life in a boarding school is interesting. He writes about how bullying was a big element in the school. He wanted very strongly to see evidence in favor of religion. During his early teenage years he felt pleasure in religious observances. However, he later saw hypocrisy in the religious aspects of his school, and noted that even some of the faculty did not relish the religious observances.
My favorite anecdote in the book occurs while Dawkins is a young boy in East Africa. His parents learn about a "lion kill" nearby, so the entire household is loaded up into the family car, and they ride off to see a lion devouring its prey. All the adults are spellbound by the sight. But Richard ignores the lion. Instead, he sits on the floor of the car playing with toy cars ("vroom, vroom").
The second half of the book describes his science education and his early career. He relished computer programming, and developed a number of programs aimed at modeling biological behaviors. Throughout the book, Dawkins writes as a humble person, with none of the arrogance that some people see in him. The only downside to the book is that he writes too much in the beginning about his ancestors--this was somewhat boring. But overall, this is a charming book, about a leading biologist of our age. I listened to this book as an audiobook; Dawkins is the narrator, and his pleasant voice makes listening a delight.
The first half of the book covers his childhood; in this section Dawkins frequently wonders why he did so many "unthinking" things, often devoid of curiosity. He wonders how he was influenced to become a biologist; and both his parents were interested in the natural sciences. His father, especially, had a strong influence on his early life.
Dawkins' life in a boarding school is interesting. He writes about how bullying was a big element in the school. He wanted very strongly to see evidence in favor of religion. During his early teenage years he felt pleasure in religious observances. However, he later saw hypocrisy in the religious aspects of his school, and noted that even some of the faculty did not relish the religious observances.
My favorite anecdote in the book occurs while Dawkins is a young boy in East Africa. His parents learn about a "lion kill" nearby, so the entire household is loaded up into the family car, and they ride off to see a lion devouring its prey. All the adults are spellbound by the sight. But Richard ignores the lion. Instead, he sits on the floor of the car playing with toy cars ("vroom, vroom").
The second half of the book describes his science education and his early career. He relished computer programming, and developed a number of programs aimed at modeling biological behaviors. Throughout the book, Dawkins writes as a humble person, with none of the arrogance that some people see in him. The only downside to the book is that he writes too much in the beginning about his ancestors--this was somewhat boring. But overall, this is a charming book, about a leading biologist of our age. I listened to this book as an audiobook; Dawkins is the narrator, and his pleasant voice makes listening a delight.
December 4, 2013
Richard Dawkins gets a bad rap. Sure, I understand he can be critical of religion and maybe a little arrogant.. He thinks the world would be better off without religion but never advocates its banishment. So what? I hate beets but i won't stop others from eating them. But Dawkins has never knocked on my door at 7 AM and shoved a religious pamphlet in my face. He never insisted on his ideas being read in Sunday school to provide a balanced viewpoint. And he never threatened eternal punishment if I don't read his books. So I'll give him a pass.
The sad thing about people's opinions of Dawkins is that they come almost exclusively from his book The God Delusion. Many do not realize that his reputation as a world class scientist was first cemented with the book, The Selfish Gene in the 70s. Dawkins's research into genes and evolutionary science plus his popular boos introducing the topic to the masses, would trouble no one except those who think the Bible was meant to be a book of science.
An Appetite For Wonders will disappoint those looking for the abrasive Dawkins. The main focus in this memoir, which goes from his birth to the publishing of The Selfish Gene, is on the influences and revelations that led to his love of science. He only pauses on his religious background briefly mentioning he had two short conversions, one from his childhood indoctrination to Anglican Christianity and another through the music of Elvis (If someone as cool as Elvis believes in God it must be right!). But Dawkins was more interested in the area of biology. Any more insight on the development of his theological views, or lack of, will need to wait for the second memoir.
Yet there is much here to rejoice about. His growing up in Africa with his two naturalist parents. His experience in the boys' schools of England. I thinks it says of lot about Dawkins that when he writes about the notorious hazing traditions of British schools, he downplays his own experiences but writes emphatically about what others went through. Also his first job at Berkeley in California not only tells in detail of his education in science but about his budding concern with social issues. Yet there are two areas that make this memoir drag more than necessary. His detailed ancestral tree may be of importance to him but makes for a slow beginning. And when he writes about his first research projects, his love for research come through but his insistence on describing it in detail to what will probably be a layman reader really halts the narrative. If one wants to explore that part more thoroughly he is more likely to read The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchman, both books I highly recommend.
Yet Dawkins' autobiographical endeavor is quite enjoyable and has plenty of interesting revelations about this extraordinary scientist. If you are already a Dawkins fan like me, it is a must. For the regular reader or those whose opinion of him is only derived from The God Delusion, it might be helpful too.
The sad thing about people's opinions of Dawkins is that they come almost exclusively from his book The God Delusion. Many do not realize that his reputation as a world class scientist was first cemented with the book, The Selfish Gene in the 70s. Dawkins's research into genes and evolutionary science plus his popular boos introducing the topic to the masses, would trouble no one except those who think the Bible was meant to be a book of science.
An Appetite For Wonders will disappoint those looking for the abrasive Dawkins. The main focus in this memoir, which goes from his birth to the publishing of The Selfish Gene, is on the influences and revelations that led to his love of science. He only pauses on his religious background briefly mentioning he had two short conversions, one from his childhood indoctrination to Anglican Christianity and another through the music of Elvis (If someone as cool as Elvis believes in God it must be right!). But Dawkins was more interested in the area of biology. Any more insight on the development of his theological views, or lack of, will need to wait for the second memoir.
Yet there is much here to rejoice about. His growing up in Africa with his two naturalist parents. His experience in the boys' schools of England. I thinks it says of lot about Dawkins that when he writes about the notorious hazing traditions of British schools, he downplays his own experiences but writes emphatically about what others went through. Also his first job at Berkeley in California not only tells in detail of his education in science but about his budding concern with social issues. Yet there are two areas that make this memoir drag more than necessary. His detailed ancestral tree may be of importance to him but makes for a slow beginning. And when he writes about his first research projects, his love for research come through but his insistence on describing it in detail to what will probably be a layman reader really halts the narrative. If one wants to explore that part more thoroughly he is more likely to read The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchman, both books I highly recommend.
Yet Dawkins' autobiographical endeavor is quite enjoyable and has plenty of interesting revelations about this extraordinary scientist. If you are already a Dawkins fan like me, it is a must. For the regular reader or those whose opinion of him is only derived from The God Delusion, it might be helpful too.
September 3, 2013
Dawkins has given us some idea of how he has come to be the man he is, and how he has been influenced or not by the times in which he lived and the people and circumstances of his existence. Born during WW-II, in Africa where his Father served the King's African Rifles in Kenya, he relies heavily on his Mother's journals to exhibit details of those early years. History may relegate the African campaigns to North Africa and the exploits of Rommel, Montgomery and Patton, but the war influenced colonial Africa in many ways, not the least of which was the collapse of empires and independence of colonies in the years that followed.
Dawkins might have become a biochemical researcher instead of an animal behaviorist, but for having tutorials with Niko Tinbergen. Who else might study the possible reasons why a fly might follow this or that pattern of cleaning itself by breaking down the individual elements and looking for patterns, or devise a computer program for counting the pecks chicks do on a particular target? His descriptions of these experiments are colorfully rendered not as the scientific papers they would become, but as the experiences of discovery and wonder that they were for him a part of his particular journey.
This memoir stops after publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976, which is just about half way through his life to the present. This reviewer hopes there will be a second volume, and perhaps in future a third installment.
There are moments in this book that gave me pause to stop and give some consideration to this or that thought, or connect to something else from my own life experience. I read Konrad Lorenz seminal book on animal behavior On Agression shortly after it was translated to English, and Desmond Morris The Naked Ape without giving much thought to the subtle problems with their views and what would come to be the thesis of Dawkins' insights into evolutionary thought. It is not the survival of the species, but the survival of the individual that drives natural selection, the principle of local rules which govern the outcomes rather than any drive by the entire specie.
I could not help but think of Stanislaw Lem's wonderful review of "Bitistics" which is part of his volume Imaginary Magnitude, about the future study of computer generated literature, as I read the final paragraphs of the chapter "Return To Oxford".
Dawkins has a marvelous wit, and can be very self-effacing in his presentation of his own behavior. This is readily apparent in those parts of his childhood in which he recalls his participation in bullying other students, or his failure to take advantage of the opportunities presented to him as a teenager to study music or mathematics. If there is one failure in this memoir, it is that his wife seems to be nothing more than a sentence her or there and not a major part of his life.
Dawkins might have become a biochemical researcher instead of an animal behaviorist, but for having tutorials with Niko Tinbergen. Who else might study the possible reasons why a fly might follow this or that pattern of cleaning itself by breaking down the individual elements and looking for patterns, or devise a computer program for counting the pecks chicks do on a particular target? His descriptions of these experiments are colorfully rendered not as the scientific papers they would become, but as the experiences of discovery and wonder that they were for him a part of his particular journey.
This memoir stops after publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976, which is just about half way through his life to the present. This reviewer hopes there will be a second volume, and perhaps in future a third installment.
There are moments in this book that gave me pause to stop and give some consideration to this or that thought, or connect to something else from my own life experience. I read Konrad Lorenz seminal book on animal behavior On Agression shortly after it was translated to English, and Desmond Morris The Naked Ape without giving much thought to the subtle problems with their views and what would come to be the thesis of Dawkins' insights into evolutionary thought. It is not the survival of the species, but the survival of the individual that drives natural selection, the principle of local rules which govern the outcomes rather than any drive by the entire specie.
I could not help but think of Stanislaw Lem's wonderful review of "Bitistics" which is part of his volume Imaginary Magnitude, about the future study of computer generated literature, as I read the final paragraphs of the chapter "Return To Oxford".
Dawkins has a marvelous wit, and can be very self-effacing in his presentation of his own behavior. This is readily apparent in those parts of his childhood in which he recalls his participation in bullying other students, or his failure to take advantage of the opportunities presented to him as a teenager to study music or mathematics. If there is one failure in this memoir, it is that his wife seems to be nothing more than a sentence her or there and not a major part of his life.
December 21, 2022
"Cliché or not, 'stranger than fiction' expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known about it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others."
In my humble estimation, Dawkins falls somewhere between Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell, maybe even a hybrid of the two. He is as much of a philosopher as he is a biologist and sees himself, arguably so, as a champion of evolutionary science.
Ernest Becker points out in his Pulitzer Prize winning psychological study, The Denial of Death, that men who see themselves as historical figures marshal themselves toward the hard work and dedication necessary to achieve that perceived immortality. Richard Dawkins is no exception.
This is an autobiography that evolves, chapter by chapter, into an impressive multi-dimensional résumé. If you admire and respect Dawkins as much as I do, I suspect you'll find this captivating and insightful. Evangelical zealots need not bother.
In my humble estimation, Dawkins falls somewhere between Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell, maybe even a hybrid of the two. He is as much of a philosopher as he is a biologist and sees himself, arguably so, as a champion of evolutionary science.
Ernest Becker points out in his Pulitzer Prize winning psychological study, The Denial of Death, that men who see themselves as historical figures marshal themselves toward the hard work and dedication necessary to achieve that perceived immortality. Richard Dawkins is no exception.
This is an autobiography that evolves, chapter by chapter, into an impressive multi-dimensional résumé. If you admire and respect Dawkins as much as I do, I suspect you'll find this captivating and insightful. Evangelical zealots need not bother.
March 21, 2018
He's best known for The Selfish Gene & an outspoken atheist. He also spent the early part of his life in Africa, so I expected to like this more than I did. It wasn't bad, but amazingly pedestrian. Overall, it was interesting, especially when he discussed his experiments & early computer programming.
Some of the great names he rubbed elbows with were fun to see in another light, too. It was also nice to know that the great man wasn't a child prodigy & he regrets many of the opportunities he let slide in his early life. Don't we all. There was a lot more poetry than I would have expected. Some of it was good, but most annoyed me. I've never gotten into poetry, though.
He did a great job narrating it. I'm glad I read it & now I really want to read The Selfish Gene, but I can't really recommend this. So many books, so little time, & this one didn't really add all that much.
Some of the great names he rubbed elbows with were fun to see in another light, too. It was also nice to know that the great man wasn't a child prodigy & he regrets many of the opportunities he let slide in his early life. Don't we all. There was a lot more poetry than I would have expected. Some of it was good, but most annoyed me. I've never gotten into poetry, though.
He did a great job narrating it. I'm glad I read it & now I really want to read The Selfish Gene, but I can't really recommend this. So many books, so little time, & this one didn't really add all that much.
May 21, 2018
I thought I would LOVE this memoir, but I only liked it!
I'm not saying that I got disappointed, but I wanted this book to give me something else. Something more interesting.
This book [which is the first part of Dawkins' biography] tells the story of Richard Dawkins' childhood and his journey in science - as a student - until his GREATEST accomplishment: the publication of The Selfish Gene.
To be honest, I didn't find the story very interesting. It was an ordinary story - even boring at certain points.
The most beautiful and enlightening parts were when Dawkins wrote about the importance of education.
Tonight I will start reading the second part of the biography, which is supposed to be far more interesting - hopefully!
I thought I would LOVE this memoir, but I only liked it!
I'm not saying that I got disappointed, but I wanted this book to give me something else. Something more interesting.
This book [which is the first part of Dawkins' biography] tells the story of Richard Dawkins' childhood and his journey in science - as a student - until his GREATEST accomplishment: the publication of The Selfish Gene.
To be honest, I didn't find the story very interesting. It was an ordinary story - even boring at certain points.
The most beautiful and enlightening parts were when Dawkins wrote about the importance of education.
Tonight I will start reading the second part of the biography, which is supposed to be far more interesting - hopefully!
July 23, 2016
won•der [wuhn-der] verb
1. to think or speculate curiously.
2. to be filled with admiration, amazement, or awe; marvel.
3. to doubt.
What a curious title Richard Dawkins chose for the first part of his memoir -- An Appetite for Wonder -- since he proceeds to make the case that he was never particularly filled with wonder as a child (a fact that was something of a disappointment to his wonder-filled parents). This should have been a fascinating life story: Dawkins was born in Africa at the twilight of the British Empire; he attended a British boarding school, complete with bullies, "fagging", and at least one pedophile; he studied at Oxford alongside of a lot of sciency people that he name-drops (I had only heard of Desmond Morris); he lectured at Berkley in the 60s and participated in some of the counter-culture there (which he now regrets as youthful naiveté); he returned to Oxford where he wrote some of the earliest computer programming; and he became a successful author, popularizing (if not originating) the contemporary genetic theories of the early 70s (although he did coin the word "meme") in The Selfish Gene.
It should have been fascinating, but that list I just typed is way more interesting and far less annoying than the unexamined, self-congratulatory, self-referencing bloviation that Dawkins compiled here. I listened to this on audiobook (which Dawkins himself narrated very well) and right now I can't find the quote, but when talking about the death of his mentor, Mike Cullen, Dawkins said something like, "His life cannot be summed up better than in the eulogy I wrote and delivered for him…" and then he delivers it again for us. I can find the quote that follows this up because it has been included in others' mocking reviews: ''I almost wept when I spoke that eulogy in Wadham chapel, and I almost wept again just now when rereading it 12 years later". If there's one thing we learn in An Appetite for Wonder, it's that Dawkins is often moved by his own thoughts and words.
But for the most part, this is quite a dull book (and especially the very long and detailed descriptions of experiments Dawkins performed at Oxford on chick-pecking and fly-grooming behaviours) with songs and poems and his positive book reviews thrown in (three bad reviews for The Selfish Gene were attributed to two left-wing extremists and one on the opposite side of the spectrum).
The subtitle of this book (The Making of a Scientist) is also just barely addressed -- Dawkins' father, a biologist and alumnus, pulled some strings to get his barely qualified son into Oxford, but since the young Dawkins didn't have the marks for Biochemistry, he was offered a spot in Zoology. After a lifetime of preferring novels to exploring the countryside and a school career of pointedly refusing to visit the observatory or to take advantage of the other "marvelous facilities", Dawkins allowed his father to pull some strings and make him a scientist (and, of course, this was a happy circumstance because I'm not denying that Dawkins has made many fine contributions).
Based on this book, Joseph Anton, and God is not Great I have come to the realisation that my idea of hell (which, ironically, none of the three authors believe in) would be to be locked in a room with Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, and Christopher Hitchens as they debate which one of them is the greatest genius; a wonder for which I have zero appetite.
August 9, 2016
Can it be? Dawkins the brilliant scientist, thinker and iconoclast, is actually a bit dull?
Start reading from the beginning (but how else could you read it?), and you might think so. It was only after I got to the second half, chronicling his life at Oxford and up to the age of 35 that I really began to appreciate this autobiography of a surprisingly diffident and self-effacing young man. The last chapter, in fact, where Dawkins looks honestly and uncompromisingly at himself, unsparing in his appraisal of his shortcomings, is the best in the book.
Along the way he gracefully acknowledges the huge debt he owes to the people and places that made him. He shares his intense joy in discovering what science is all about - although much of his practical work from that period sounds endearingly mundane to a non-zoologist (he was counting chicken pecks). He also reveals how he was sucked into a computer addiction that lasted the best part of a decade, ending only through a series of power cuts that pushed him into writing his first book. Quite the foil to the character the public usually associates with “Richard Dawkins”!
So, I was motivated to re-read from the beginning. The main problem is that this is a strictly chronological account, starting with his relatives and ancestors. Apart from his father, however, they are not rounded out at all and their lives are not very interesting or relevant to Dawkins himself. Then his own childhood: before he developed his sharp intellect he appears to have been a rather average child and adolescent, and he hasn’t lightened the memoir with a lot of humour (there’s actually much more of that in the adult half). Like many children brought up in England’s colonial days, he was sent to boarding school from 7 onwards, and it wasn’t a good time for him. Although it is quite interesting (and a little heart-rending) to read how he coped with bullying, he was more a bystander than a victim, and that leads to what I thought were his most significant comments about that time:
In several places he wonders, as a compassionate adult, how he could have stood by and simply witnessed such cruelty without doing anything, and he marvels that the child he was seems like a totally different person from who he is today. I must say I understand that and rather feel the same way (maybe everyone does) - but really, if you feel you are a different person, why start your bio with the life of somebody else at all?
[I’ve just started Brief Candle in the Dark, the continuation of this book, and he’s abandoned the chronological approach there]
Here’s something else about the first part: it’s peppered with asides and exhortations (as the adult Dawkins) about the state of today’s world. Much of what he says makes sense but in doing so he comes across as rather pompous and humourless. Just one example: he talks of “dundridges” (after a character in a Tom Sharpe novel), his word for rule-obsessed bureaucrats and drones. Nice word, but he then goes on to tell us to use it often, as he does, in the hopes that it becomes a meme. Oh, Richard, Richard, you invented “meme”! You of all people should know that’s not how they go viral; it doesn’t work when you try so hard!
And maybe I shouldn’t mention the notebook his parents kept with his cute two-year-old sayings. I’m sure his family found them endearing but little Richard was just like other peoples’ children – a wee bit tiresome. Look, my parents had one of those books too but I’m not going to fill a memoir with its contents*. OK, “fill” is an exaggeration, because on re-reading that part I found it was not so long after all – it just felt like it.
But you see what I mean – that’s a lot of lesser stuff to wade through to get to the real Dawkins, and it made this a not-quite 4-star read.
-------------------------------------
* Oh all right, just one. When preparing for a drive to my grandparents’ house, my father asked if I thought the car minded going such a long way. “Silly, it can’t mind,” I apparently said, “it hasn’t got a face.”
Start reading from the beginning (but how else could you read it?), and you might think so. It was only after I got to the second half, chronicling his life at Oxford and up to the age of 35 that I really began to appreciate this autobiography of a surprisingly diffident and self-effacing young man. The last chapter, in fact, where Dawkins looks honestly and uncompromisingly at himself, unsparing in his appraisal of his shortcomings, is the best in the book.
Along the way he gracefully acknowledges the huge debt he owes to the people and places that made him. He shares his intense joy in discovering what science is all about - although much of his practical work from that period sounds endearingly mundane to a non-zoologist (he was counting chicken pecks). He also reveals how he was sucked into a computer addiction that lasted the best part of a decade, ending only through a series of power cuts that pushed him into writing his first book. Quite the foil to the character the public usually associates with “Richard Dawkins”!
So, I was motivated to re-read from the beginning. The main problem is that this is a strictly chronological account, starting with his relatives and ancestors. Apart from his father, however, they are not rounded out at all and their lives are not very interesting or relevant to Dawkins himself. Then his own childhood: before he developed his sharp intellect he appears to have been a rather average child and adolescent, and he hasn’t lightened the memoir with a lot of humour (there’s actually much more of that in the adult half). Like many children brought up in England’s colonial days, he was sent to boarding school from 7 onwards, and it wasn’t a good time for him. Although it is quite interesting (and a little heart-rending) to read how he coped with bullying, he was more a bystander than a victim, and that leads to what I thought were his most significant comments about that time:
In several places he wonders, as a compassionate adult, how he could have stood by and simply witnessed such cruelty without doing anything, and he marvels that the child he was seems like a totally different person from who he is today. I must say I understand that and rather feel the same way (maybe everyone does) - but really, if you feel you are a different person, why start your bio with the life of somebody else at all?
[I’ve just started Brief Candle in the Dark, the continuation of this book, and he’s abandoned the chronological approach there]
Here’s something else about the first part: it’s peppered with asides and exhortations (as the adult Dawkins) about the state of today’s world. Much of what he says makes sense but in doing so he comes across as rather pompous and humourless. Just one example: he talks of “dundridges” (after a character in a Tom Sharpe novel), his word for rule-obsessed bureaucrats and drones. Nice word, but he then goes on to tell us to use it often, as he does, in the hopes that it becomes a meme. Oh, Richard, Richard, you invented “meme”! You of all people should know that’s not how they go viral; it doesn’t work when you try so hard!
And maybe I shouldn’t mention the notebook his parents kept with his cute two-year-old sayings. I’m sure his family found them endearing but little Richard was just like other peoples’ children – a wee bit tiresome. Look, my parents had one of those books too but I’m not going to fill a memoir with its contents*. OK, “fill” is an exaggeration, because on re-reading that part I found it was not so long after all – it just felt like it.
But you see what I mean – that’s a lot of lesser stuff to wade through to get to the real Dawkins, and it made this a not-quite 4-star read.
-------------------------------------
* Oh all right, just one. When preparing for a drive to my grandparents’ house, my father asked if I thought the car minded going such a long way. “Silly, it can’t mind,” I apparently said, “it hasn’t got a face.”
September 27, 2013
We've all heard the stereotypes about kids who grow up to be scientists: precocious, prodigious little children, lonely and isolated from their peers, who lock themselves in a room for several hours at a time doing experiments. By his own admission, Richard Dawkins was none of these things. When he lived in Africa as a boy, he was apparently more interested, for example, in playing with toy cars than watching a pride of lions devour its prey. However, he was-- and is-- a lover of words, and that is very obvious when reading any of his beautifully written twelve books.
Richard Dawkins's latest book, An Appetite for Wonder is an autobiography that details the first half of his life, from his childhood up until the publication of his first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. The first half of the memoir details his family history and his childhood. The second, less personal half is about his intellectual awakening in his late teens which leads to his passionate pursuit of studying biology at Oxford. The book concludes at the beginning of his scientific career, when he begins as a research scientist and eventually becomes a science writer; this is when his life takes a dramatic shift. We are left with a "cliffhanger" of sorts and find ourselves counting down the days until 2015 when Dawkins promises to release the second half of his memoir, provided he does not die before then. His mother is in her mid-90s and his father died at the age of 95. Obviously there are some robust genes in his family, so I don't think we should expect Dawkins to check out any time soon, provided he does not get hit by a church van (Google it if you don't get it).
What is really fascinating about An Appetite for Wonder are the philosophical questions that it postulates throughout. Yes, there are some endearing stories about Dawkins's early love of words; and yes there is a story about him, at the age of 19 months, telling other children that the Santa Claus who came to entertain them was actually a man named Sam, possibly foreshadowing Dawkins's journey into skepticism; yes there are some really interesting research projects that he did as a young man; and yes there are some interesting photographs to look at. But embedded within many of these stories is a continuing "what if?" question, and that is what I find the most fascinating. What if certain details in Dawkins's life had been changed? What if he had gone to different boarding schools than the ones he actually attended? What if he had not been born in Africa? What if he had not returned to England at age 8? What if he had been switched at birth and ben raised by different parents? What if he had not encountered certain friends and mentors during the course of his life? How did these people and experiences shape his personality and his professional life? More profoundly, what if a cannonball had hit his great-great grandfather's "family jewels" (yes, apparently almost happened)? Hell, how about any particular incident that did or did not happen over the course of history?
A lot of the questions about life and existence that Dawkins raises are ones that I have asked myself throughout my life, everything from the events that led to my conception to my first summer at overnight camp at age 14 which dramatically changed my life. The latter is too long of a story to go into here. However, in a very clear and simple example of an important event, my father told me that his mother left his father (my grandfather) and returned to him only because she found out she was pregnant with my aunt (my father's older sister). Had it not been for the social taboo of being a single mother, my father would not have been born, and neither would I. Not that the ends justify the means, but it is still interesting to think about. Dawkins-- and all of us-- owe our unlikely existence to a very precise string of events that occurred ever since the universe began. Change any one of these events, no matter how seemingly insignificant, and we-- Dawkins, you, me, or all of the above-- would not have been born. Perhaps it was not intentional, but it seems that the section Dawkins wrote about his early research into animal decision-making is an apt metaphor for this.
Rounding up my review, I want to commend Dawkins for his thoughts about the bullying he witnessed as a boy and how he regrets not intervening. I say this because I was bullied myself and I know that many people who were bullies or, in his case, who were bystanders are in denial or simply don't remember when confronted about these things later in life. It is not an easy thing to own up to. Overall, An Appetite for Wonder is an outstanding read by a truly talented and deep-thinking writer. As I say to my friends when I recommend a book, just read the damn thing.
Richard Dawkins's latest book, An Appetite for Wonder is an autobiography that details the first half of his life, from his childhood up until the publication of his first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. The first half of the memoir details his family history and his childhood. The second, less personal half is about his intellectual awakening in his late teens which leads to his passionate pursuit of studying biology at Oxford. The book concludes at the beginning of his scientific career, when he begins as a research scientist and eventually becomes a science writer; this is when his life takes a dramatic shift. We are left with a "cliffhanger" of sorts and find ourselves counting down the days until 2015 when Dawkins promises to release the second half of his memoir, provided he does not die before then. His mother is in her mid-90s and his father died at the age of 95. Obviously there are some robust genes in his family, so I don't think we should expect Dawkins to check out any time soon, provided he does not get hit by a church van (Google it if you don't get it).
What is really fascinating about An Appetite for Wonder are the philosophical questions that it postulates throughout. Yes, there are some endearing stories about Dawkins's early love of words; and yes there is a story about him, at the age of 19 months, telling other children that the Santa Claus who came to entertain them was actually a man named Sam, possibly foreshadowing Dawkins's journey into skepticism; yes there are some really interesting research projects that he did as a young man; and yes there are some interesting photographs to look at. But embedded within many of these stories is a continuing "what if?" question, and that is what I find the most fascinating. What if certain details in Dawkins's life had been changed? What if he had gone to different boarding schools than the ones he actually attended? What if he had not been born in Africa? What if he had not returned to England at age 8? What if he had been switched at birth and ben raised by different parents? What if he had not encountered certain friends and mentors during the course of his life? How did these people and experiences shape his personality and his professional life? More profoundly, what if a cannonball had hit his great-great grandfather's "family jewels" (yes, apparently almost happened)? Hell, how about any particular incident that did or did not happen over the course of history?
A lot of the questions about life and existence that Dawkins raises are ones that I have asked myself throughout my life, everything from the events that led to my conception to my first summer at overnight camp at age 14 which dramatically changed my life. The latter is too long of a story to go into here. However, in a very clear and simple example of an important event, my father told me that his mother left his father (my grandfather) and returned to him only because she found out she was pregnant with my aunt (my father's older sister). Had it not been for the social taboo of being a single mother, my father would not have been born, and neither would I. Not that the ends justify the means, but it is still interesting to think about. Dawkins-- and all of us-- owe our unlikely existence to a very precise string of events that occurred ever since the universe began. Change any one of these events, no matter how seemingly insignificant, and we-- Dawkins, you, me, or all of the above-- would not have been born. Perhaps it was not intentional, but it seems that the section Dawkins wrote about his early research into animal decision-making is an apt metaphor for this.
Rounding up my review, I want to commend Dawkins for his thoughts about the bullying he witnessed as a boy and how he regrets not intervening. I say this because I was bullied myself and I know that many people who were bullies or, in his case, who were bystanders are in denial or simply don't remember when confronted about these things later in life. It is not an easy thing to own up to. Overall, An Appetite for Wonder is an outstanding read by a truly talented and deep-thinking writer. As I say to my friends when I recommend a book, just read the damn thing.
September 17, 2014
Richard Dawkins has a reputation. He’s considered the leading figure in the “militant atheism” movement, as well as religion’s harshest critic. In scientific circles, however, he’s also well known as a major contributor to ethology, animal behaviour science, and evolutionary biology. In short, he is, as he put it, a “labourer in Darwin’s vineyard today”.
An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist takes you on a journey where you get to know the man behind the persuasive arguments, celebrated books, and glorious accomplishments.
Dawkins doesn’t start from his birth; he is far too scrupulous for that. In fact, he goes even beyond. He begins his story with the origin of his family name, Clinton, back in the 1700s, and then progressively moves from there. Though all that background information can be a bit tedious, it’s important to understand that Dawkins considers even the most trivial detail about his heritage an integral part of who he is.
The first part of the book mainly consists of his childhood, until the age of eight, in colonial Africa. Born during the Second World War, Dawkins and his family moved from country to country, creating loving memories for the young Richard that contributed in shaping the man he had become.
But to the reader, this part of the book shows Richard Dawkins in a new light. You get to see a small child that is very much like any other small child. Dawkins paints these events in a nostalgic way that is both vivid and engaging. The following paragraph demonstrates how the writing can make you see Richard the boy differently than Richard the man:
‘My parents also recorded that I had a large repertoire of songs, which I would render, always correctly in tune, pretending to be a gramophone, sometimes with “jokes” such as getting stuck in a groove and singing the same word over and over until the “needle” (my finger) was pushed out of the groove.’
Here we don’t see Richard the scientist, or the atheist, but the young boy who, like many boys of his age, provided some entertainment to the grownups using his young childish sense of humour.
The second part of the book begins with the family returning to England, and young Richard being sent to boarding schools; first to a preparatory school then to a public school (a misleading term as it’s actually a private school). In this part of the book, we glimpse some of young Richard’s school life, and even some of the adult’s many regrets.
An interesting fact mentioned repeatedly in the memoir about school is not an abundance of child abuse from the masters (called discipline back then), but the proliferation of near-pedophiliac instances. Dawkins mentions that young boys who carry strong resemblances to girls, including him, were prone to harassment from older students and even from a master.
This part of the book is also significant as it’s the main part of the memoir that contains some reflections on Dawkins different religious views. If you are expecting a fair deal about his atheism, I would simply point out that the book is called The Making of a Scientist and not The Making of an Atheist.
The third part begins with his studies in Oxford and goes on to recount his time in Berkeley, California. This section also holds a great deal about his research in ethology, which would be attractive to any science enthusiast.
There is also a chapter on The Selfish Gene (1976), the book that made Dawkins a household name and glorified him in scientific circles (I highly recommend reading The Selfish Gene). Dawkins’ first book also helped the author coin the term “Meme”, which stands for a cultural unit that evolves from individual to individual, just like a gene does in a molecular manner (yes Meme existed way before Grumpy Cat and Angry Baby).
In conclusion, I recommend reading this wonderful memoir and getting to know the man behind the many controversies. An Appetite for Wonder is funny, engaging, and full-blown fascinating. Also keep your eye out for the second volume of the memoir (yes there will be a new book) meant to come out in two years’ time. I personally can’t wait.
An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist takes you on a journey where you get to know the man behind the persuasive arguments, celebrated books, and glorious accomplishments.
Dawkins doesn’t start from his birth; he is far too scrupulous for that. In fact, he goes even beyond. He begins his story with the origin of his family name, Clinton, back in the 1700s, and then progressively moves from there. Though all that background information can be a bit tedious, it’s important to understand that Dawkins considers even the most trivial detail about his heritage an integral part of who he is.
The first part of the book mainly consists of his childhood, until the age of eight, in colonial Africa. Born during the Second World War, Dawkins and his family moved from country to country, creating loving memories for the young Richard that contributed in shaping the man he had become.
But to the reader, this part of the book shows Richard Dawkins in a new light. You get to see a small child that is very much like any other small child. Dawkins paints these events in a nostalgic way that is both vivid and engaging. The following paragraph demonstrates how the writing can make you see Richard the boy differently than Richard the man:
‘My parents also recorded that I had a large repertoire of songs, which I would render, always correctly in tune, pretending to be a gramophone, sometimes with “jokes” such as getting stuck in a groove and singing the same word over and over until the “needle” (my finger) was pushed out of the groove.’
Here we don’t see Richard the scientist, or the atheist, but the young boy who, like many boys of his age, provided some entertainment to the grownups using his young childish sense of humour.
The second part of the book begins with the family returning to England, and young Richard being sent to boarding schools; first to a preparatory school then to a public school (a misleading term as it’s actually a private school). In this part of the book, we glimpse some of young Richard’s school life, and even some of the adult’s many regrets.
An interesting fact mentioned repeatedly in the memoir about school is not an abundance of child abuse from the masters (called discipline back then), but the proliferation of near-pedophiliac instances. Dawkins mentions that young boys who carry strong resemblances to girls, including him, were prone to harassment from older students and even from a master.
This part of the book is also significant as it’s the main part of the memoir that contains some reflections on Dawkins different religious views. If you are expecting a fair deal about his atheism, I would simply point out that the book is called The Making of a Scientist and not The Making of an Atheist.
The third part begins with his studies in Oxford and goes on to recount his time in Berkeley, California. This section also holds a great deal about his research in ethology, which would be attractive to any science enthusiast.
There is also a chapter on The Selfish Gene (1976), the book that made Dawkins a household name and glorified him in scientific circles (I highly recommend reading The Selfish Gene). Dawkins’ first book also helped the author coin the term “Meme”, which stands for a cultural unit that evolves from individual to individual, just like a gene does in a molecular manner (yes Meme existed way before Grumpy Cat and Angry Baby).
In conclusion, I recommend reading this wonderful memoir and getting to know the man behind the many controversies. An Appetite for Wonder is funny, engaging, and full-blown fascinating. Also keep your eye out for the second volume of the memoir (yes there will be a new book) meant to come out in two years’ time. I personally can’t wait.
September 3, 2013
An Appetite For Wonder is Richard Dawkins’ latest book and unlike The God Delusion is unlikely to be burned. It is essentially a memoir, and follows the first half of the author’s life, up until the publishing of The Selfish Gene. The second part of his life will be dealt with in a later volume.
Dawkins is just about as British as you can get, including the plum in mouth accent that comes through his writing style and is his actual voice in real life. However, like many of his contemporaries born in the waning years of the British Empire, Dawkins wasn’t born in the ‘home country’, but in ‘the Colonies’ instead – in his case Kenya.
The first half of the book deals with his family background, his early education and leaving Africa for England. Much of this is about as exciting as spending a wet afternoon with someone leafing through an old photo album. But as you spend more time with him you understand that despite, what at first might seem like a vaguely pompous air, he really is a rather pleasant fellow and is actually very down to earth. It is well written, undramatic stuff, and if at times it is a little soporific, it still has the virtue of making excellent bedtime reading.
It’s when he gets to Oxford (about half way through the book) that things start to get more interesting. You can almost feel the author’s relief as he takes the spotlight off himself and onto the firmer ground of science. Here he writes with real passion and you can feel the excitement of the young man he was back then as he rolls up his sleeves to divulge the details of more satisfying topics, such as the grooming rituals of houseflies, or the water vascular systems of starfish (it turns out that starfish don’t have blood, but pump seawater around their bodies instead). We witness the inquisitive nature of his mind as he ponders the pecking patterns of baby chicks and devises experiments to transform the seemingly random rise and fall of beaks into raw hard data.
This data leads him to another challenge – how to measure, and tabulate, and analyse it. Computers were in their infancy and still took up a significant portion of a room. Young Dawkins embraced this nascent technology and was one of the fore-runners in the field, writing simple programs at first, and when the limitations of the computers got in the way, devising his own computer languages instead, until soon he was spending almost as much time on computers as on biology. He briefly alludes to the fact that had he continued along that path he could potentially have become Bill Gates, with all the wealth to match, but he harbours no regrets for following the path of biology.
I was hoping for an account of his friendship with Christopher Hitchens, with whom he attended Oxford, but no mention is made of that episode of his life. In fact there are very few details of a personal nature in the latter part of this book, which is really more of a synopsis of some of the ideas that crop up later in his work, though there is an interesting passage about his time in Berkley in the swinging sixties.
It shouldn’t be surprising from the objective mind of a scientist that Dawkins seems to place himself outside his own life, keeping the subject matter at arm’s length, describing it as if seen by an external observer, rather as if he is examining or describing one of his own experiments. In one episode he starts to delve into more candid details of his personal life, but quickly withdraws from revealing more, saying ‘It isn’t that kind of autobiography.’
August 25, 2021
"Science means Knowlege .It is improper to teach a thing of which one has no first hand knowledge" -Sawan Singh -Shabd master 1858-1948
Dawkins as a boy is told by his Minister that God is perfect and so as he studies biology and finds imperfections he INTERPRETS these imperfections to be conclusive proof that there is no God ! So CERTAIN is he that Lectures and writes books on the topic. BUT IS THIS SCIENCE ? to teach about something he has no proof of? (BTW Spiritual scientists who have been to the source tell us that this creation is meant to be filled with imperfections so that we seek to escape it but this never occurs to Dawkins. Surat shabd yoga proves that there is a god by taking our consciousness to his level during our lifetime. This is not arrogance .It is not faith . It is simple scientific fact . To conclude that there is no God when one has not performed the experiment is simply arrogance and ignorance which always stand in the way of scientific progress.
Narrating his own audiobook Dawkins is a very talented most enjoyable narrator, humorist and entertainer . His his recounting of his EARLY LIFE STORY is a real treat (easliy 5 stars) .HIS CHILD HOOD IS DEFINITELY WORTH LISTENING TOO after that not so much .....
I subtracted a 2 stars unscientific lecturing that "god does not exist and for his rather appalling ignorance of or failure to mention Surat Shabd Yoga- the Scientific discipline by which a human consciousness can gain a DIRECT PERCEPTION of “the Supreme Being" in this very life. Rather than using the flimsy human intellect to DEDUCE from physical sciences wither such a being exist or not . Why not just trace your consciousness back to its source and see what that source is?
Why would one be satisfied with DEDUCING what Picasso is like from studying his paintings when you could meet the Picasso and have him tell you about himself and his paintings ? -Not only tell you about them but merge your consciousness into his so that all HIS perceptions , memories, and emotions become YOURS in an instant flash of realization ?
There is, in FACT , a science available to humans (Surat Shabd Yoga ) that can bring us face to face with the Supreme Being-- during our life time ---and its totally free .
What scientist -if indeed- he had "An Appetite for Wonder" could resist THAT offer?
Dawkins can be excused because he has not heard of spiritual science or at least does not mention it . All his exposure to the topic of God has been within the context of religion not science.
Shabd masters teach us that thoughts ( alack of stillness ) is the barrier between out attention and God . Dawkins mind is so caught up in the storm of his own thought that he is oblivious to all else within himself . No wonder he can not perceive God within hence is doubtful of his existence. The churning waters of his mind are not still and clear . A still clear mind is the requisite for perceiving God . He has closed his mind to God - created a mental block and a biased scientist can not perceive and interpret data objectively . He needs to suspend his thinking and JUST OBSERVE what is there for the prescribed amount of time each day ..Too much analysis is like disturbing the surface of water so that it does not act like a mirror in which we can see the sun and sky above .
Reason is good only for figuring things out on the physical plane but a hindrance in knowing God . There are higher subtle faculties in man through which we can perceive non physical things/beings on higher planes of consciousness or higher levels of creation above the physical plane . God is not visible on then gross material plane but is visible on the higher finer planes above the physical . By purifying our thoughts of the physical plane we can , using the technique given by shabd masters enter the subtle planes andf see and hear there more clearly than we can see and hear on this gross physical plane.
The Shabd Masters call these subtle faculties Surat (hears , tastes , smells and thinks ) and Nirat ( sees and feels ) -the eyes (nirat ) and ears (surat) of the soul .Using these we become aware of an unceasing sweet soothing energizing musical sound reverberating in the center of our head which we can follow back to our source .
And so ,lost in his thought , he searches biology to "PROVE????? " that there is no such non physical entity using hovering above him logic rather than direct perception or at lest explain why he is an atheist –not only an atheist but a MILITANT atheist.
I agree that religions scriptures mention some unsatisfactory explanations for how and why the creation was created but that does not mean that EVERYTHING in the scriptures is without scientific basis .
I feel that Dawkin's rejection of a Supreme Being without travelling to higher regions is equally unscientific. I feel that it is preposterous for a man whose attention is confined to the world of the five sense to militantly force his conclusions about a Being of Pure consciousness who is far beyond the grasp of his 5 senses or his thoughts. How can he be an authority on the source of all consciousness unless he traces his own consciousness back to it source and ACTUALLY SEES what that source is ?
Surat Shabd Yoga compares our Source to the sun and our individual consciousness to a ray form that sun which enlivens our bodies . SSY says "God's" reason for creating the world and sending us here can not be grasped by reason its can be understood only by our purified consciousness when it reaches , sees and merges into its source WHICH IT CAN DO IN THIS LIFE and return as an enlightened scientist. If a SSY master is asked why the miserible creation was created and why we where sent here they answer "let is first escape this misery .It is enough to know that we are miserible here let us get out of it then when w ego back to "god " we ask ask him but at that level you will have no need to ask because at that level you will be God.
So for now it is enough to know that ,as "rays" from "sun" we have the capacity to still opur mind so it is like a mirror and reflect our selves back to our source. When properly instructed we have the capacity to change the lfow of our attention form "down and out" into the creation to "UP AND IN" to our source . Our conscious ,which normally looks out through our eyes , learns to rest still within at a subtle portal through which shabd enters and enlivens our body . WE are not only sustained by shabd but can also trace it back to its source .If we turn our attention upwards to it the Shabd acts upon our attention like a magnet pulling us up out of our body and then pulling us through ever higher purer and permanent levels of consciousness compared to which this world is a shifting shadow show until we finally reach and merge in the bight shining eternal ONE reassuming our TRUE identity . Thank to science not an impossible feat. In fact, this precisely what the human teacher has done and he guarantees that if he can do it so can we and that he will not leave us until we have done it !!
Only then can one scientifically report wither "God "exists and what "He" is like .( as far as can be reduced to mortal language )
Surat Shabd yoga explains that WE ARE UNCONSCIOUS (IGNORANT) OF OUR SOURCE SO LONG AS OUR ATTENTION IS CONFINED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE WORLD OF THE 5ENSES.
As with all scientific experiments there is a certain preparation and procedure for its successful condition and any student must be instructed and actively guided by an accredited human teacher who himself has successfully conducted the experiment .Such accreditation will include a letter from his own predecessor authorizing him to teach this science .
Once the student has applied to the teacher and been accepted. (before applying the student must avoid eating any nonvegetarian food except dairy products , avoid all mind/mood/perception altering drugs including alcohol and tobacco , doing ones level best to avoid any sex act out of wedlock, lying , stealing , hurting any ones feelings etc for a period of AT LEAST 1 year .
After this a student may submit his/her application upon acceptance of which the teacher will ,free of charge personally teach that student until the student has gained full success (there are no failures although some gain full success sooner than others )
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT >>>>Surat Shabd Yoga GUARANTEES that each and every student who unswervingly remains fully within the instructions of the teacher will gain positive proof within 6 months of beginning the experiment that we are nonphysical beings who are separate from our body and are part of a much larger superior consciousness that is pulling us upwards out of our body's into a conscious stream of consciousness that seems to call us with a soothing energizing musical emanation( aka The "Shabd" , The Holy Ghost of the Bible) We will definitely contact THAT shabd within 6 months and it will start to transform our consciousness freedom it from matter and enabling it to travel within back to our source . 6 months is not too long to wait . A student may spend years in a college before he/she finds he major and is sure of it.
As contact with shabd increase the student will notice an improvement in his own character traits : a purer mind , a stronger will , braver , higher energy level, more focused mind , increase problem solving abilities , more good will to all creatures etc
Interestingly - if one looks at the charitable projects that the teacher has organized and invited hsi students to participate in ( free hospitals , mass feeding of those in need , disaster relief , largest solar panel array in the world etc etc etc AND the lack of any negative community activities ( wars, arguments with other schools , any internal strife or schisms , one can see the dawning of positive qualities in the consciousness of the students reflected in their actions and the unusually high positive outcomes of this actions –much higher than any government , religion or NGO .
I believe the current membership one one school of Surat Sahbd Yoga (Radha Soami Sat Sang Beas ) is around 4 million students . There seems no limit to what they can accomplish and all without levying and taxes or charging students for lessons .The school's charitable project are funded solely by unsolicited donations by the teacher and the students for the benefit of all suffering humanity.
The size and success of these chartable activities could be taken as "physical " evidence that there is indeed some "spiritual;" energy (shabd) behind them .
The teacher says that we are beings of energy and that contact with the Shabd energizes us to accomplish things in the world that otherwise we'd be too lazy to do .This is more evidence that we are in touch with a higher energy and consciousness during our “lab” time (In Surat Shabd Yoga the the human body is considered to be the laboratory where the spiritual scientist conducts his/her research) and increase energy , focus and positive attitude as seen as signs of progress .This is harnessing science for the good of man . What did Dawkin's ever do ,practically for the good of the hungry , the poor , the sick , the victim's of natural disaster's ? Dawkins would just weep and complain that there is no God while Surat Shabd yogis would draw power from God and take practical steps to render aid. This will show who is the scientist and who is the skeptic.
In fact if we look at the militant atheist’s (pseudo scientists) "contributions" to the world they seem to have increased mans trouble and turned the world into a hell.
.For example Since Dawkins and his ilk has had God and prayer banned form schools as "unscientific" the suicide rate has increased at least 5x . an other example of hell of earth Darwinism we used to justify the Nazi movement resulting in wide spread suffering , tyranny genocide and death . Great record . and all without a shred of proof that God does not exist( want a jack ass!!!)
It’s easy to see how a child on being told by a militant atheist that there is no God to heart his/her prayers Would become depressed and begin thinking “your born – you face school -disease -old age -then die what is the point? Would just cut the whole pointless procedure short concluding that “might as well” and how worldly rulers might try to help evolution along by culling out the ones they judge to be weak .
If the militant atheists ,after being told that all they have to do is avoid non veg food , perception altering drugs , unmarred sex ,lies, stealing ,hurting for 12 months then unswervingly practicing as directed for an additional 6 months in order to get proof positive that a non physical power exists that is pulling them from darkness to light do not try the experiment but continue to asset (without positive proof) that there us no such power then I don not think they deserve to be called scientists -just closed minded arrogant ignoramuses.
This proof goes on increasing in objectivity , clarity and validity the longer one remains unswervingly within the teachers instructions one sees , hears and feels so many things that are so REAL that by comparison this world of 5 senses seems like a dream from which one has awoken to find that he/she was someone or something entirely different than the little creature on the mud ball he/she was dreaming he/she was / Ant this can be realized during this life time .
It should be noted that in order to get the positive proof one must completely eliminate all thoughts using the technique given by the teacher and gaze with pure consciousness into the darkness visible to the closed eyes then the attention will be pulled above behind and between the eyes into the stream of consciousness through which one entered the body .
Those, like Dawkins , who quickly become deeply enthralled in thought , would find it more difficult to eliminate all thought than a employees who follows orders all day. There mind are restless and must be tied out by using the teachers technique but with perseverance even their minds will be still motionless and thoughtlessly lost in the technique and then their inner journey would start .
In the spiritual science thinking is encouraged only in the beginning to get an intellectual grasp of why this is science rather than a mere belief system why a certain individual is a genuine teacher of this science . But while in the “lab” thoughts are discarded just as an astronomer would wipe dirt off a telescopes lens. Just as water must become still before the image of the sun can be clearly reflected in it .So must thought be kept away from the surface of our consciousness when we wish to gain a vision of "god" or hear the shabd and see its light.
In Surat Shabd Yoga intellect is viewed as helpful when applied to solving problems of this world but as something that must be shed on the inner journey . Our thoughts are viewed as the bars of our soul's prison that keeps our attention from ascending within .Our soul , then , is a captive of our mind . Our thoughts hold our soul down to the body and world like iron manacles . Saints teach us how to break these manacles so that our soul can rise above the body and world and ride on the ray of consciousness(shabd) back to it's source -
Once we d9o rise above the body and are riding on the shabd any thought immediately pulls us back down to the place in our foreheads we were before we were pulled up and in by that power .Therefore success demand that our mind be acutely under control – dispelling thoughts becomes almost a reflex act. We are trained how to do this .
Dawkins must understand that our thoughts allow our attention to flow our to the physical plane but prevent it from rising on the ray of consciousness back to our source. Only pure consciousness can enter into and observe pure consciousness .
We don’t reason out the truth about consciousness . WE come face to face with it and unite with it and become it . Compared to this science Dawkins is like a little child studying pebbles on a beach trying to divine the nature of God from them then announcing to the world that there is only chance happenings . If he were a real scientist he would come out of the mud and see things for himself .This is a challenge to all who call them selves scientists > GO WITHIN AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES
Teachers of this science say that upon reaching our source and merging in it all words fail to describe it and that one can only say “IT IS WONDER! WONDER!! WONDER!!! ”
Ironically he has entitled his book “An appetite for Wonder “
Dawkins as a boy is told by his Minister that God is perfect and so as he studies biology and finds imperfections he INTERPRETS these imperfections to be conclusive proof that there is no God ! So CERTAIN is he that Lectures and writes books on the topic. BUT IS THIS SCIENCE ? to teach about something he has no proof of? (BTW Spiritual scientists who have been to the source tell us that this creation is meant to be filled with imperfections so that we seek to escape it but this never occurs to Dawkins. Surat shabd yoga proves that there is a god by taking our consciousness to his level during our lifetime. This is not arrogance .It is not faith . It is simple scientific fact . To conclude that there is no God when one has not performed the experiment is simply arrogance and ignorance which always stand in the way of scientific progress.
Narrating his own audiobook Dawkins is a very talented most enjoyable narrator, humorist and entertainer . His his recounting of his EARLY LIFE STORY is a real treat (easliy 5 stars) .HIS CHILD HOOD IS DEFINITELY WORTH LISTENING TOO after that not so much .....
I subtracted a 2 stars unscientific lecturing that "god does not exist and for his rather appalling ignorance of or failure to mention Surat Shabd Yoga- the Scientific discipline by which a human consciousness can gain a DIRECT PERCEPTION of “the Supreme Being" in this very life. Rather than using the flimsy human intellect to DEDUCE from physical sciences wither such a being exist or not . Why not just trace your consciousness back to its source and see what that source is?
Why would one be satisfied with DEDUCING what Picasso is like from studying his paintings when you could meet the Picasso and have him tell you about himself and his paintings ? -Not only tell you about them but merge your consciousness into his so that all HIS perceptions , memories, and emotions become YOURS in an instant flash of realization ?
There is, in FACT , a science available to humans (Surat Shabd Yoga ) that can bring us face to face with the Supreme Being-- during our life time ---and its totally free .
What scientist -if indeed- he had "An Appetite for Wonder" could resist THAT offer?
Dawkins can be excused because he has not heard of spiritual science or at least does not mention it . All his exposure to the topic of God has been within the context of religion not science.
Shabd masters teach us that thoughts ( alack of stillness ) is the barrier between out attention and God . Dawkins mind is so caught up in the storm of his own thought that he is oblivious to all else within himself . No wonder he can not perceive God within hence is doubtful of his existence. The churning waters of his mind are not still and clear . A still clear mind is the requisite for perceiving God . He has closed his mind to God - created a mental block and a biased scientist can not perceive and interpret data objectively . He needs to suspend his thinking and JUST OBSERVE what is there for the prescribed amount of time each day ..Too much analysis is like disturbing the surface of water so that it does not act like a mirror in which we can see the sun and sky above .
Reason is good only for figuring things out on the physical plane but a hindrance in knowing God . There are higher subtle faculties in man through which we can perceive non physical things/beings on higher planes of consciousness or higher levels of creation above the physical plane . God is not visible on then gross material plane but is visible on the higher finer planes above the physical . By purifying our thoughts of the physical plane we can , using the technique given by shabd masters enter the subtle planes andf see and hear there more clearly than we can see and hear on this gross physical plane.
The Shabd Masters call these subtle faculties Surat (hears , tastes , smells and thinks ) and Nirat ( sees and feels ) -the eyes (nirat ) and ears (surat) of the soul .Using these we become aware of an unceasing sweet soothing energizing musical sound reverberating in the center of our head which we can follow back to our source .
And so ,lost in his thought , he searches biology to "PROVE????? " that there is no such non physical entity using hovering above him logic rather than direct perception or at lest explain why he is an atheist –not only an atheist but a MILITANT atheist.
I agree that religions scriptures mention some unsatisfactory explanations for how and why the creation was created but that does not mean that EVERYTHING in the scriptures is without scientific basis .
I feel that Dawkin's rejection of a Supreme Being without travelling to higher regions is equally unscientific. I feel that it is preposterous for a man whose attention is confined to the world of the five sense to militantly force his conclusions about a Being of Pure consciousness who is far beyond the grasp of his 5 senses or his thoughts. How can he be an authority on the source of all consciousness unless he traces his own consciousness back to it source and ACTUALLY SEES what that source is ?
Surat Shabd Yoga compares our Source to the sun and our individual consciousness to a ray form that sun which enlivens our bodies . SSY says "God's" reason for creating the world and sending us here can not be grasped by reason its can be understood only by our purified consciousness when it reaches , sees and merges into its source WHICH IT CAN DO IN THIS LIFE and return as an enlightened scientist. If a SSY master is asked why the miserible creation was created and why we where sent here they answer "let is first escape this misery .It is enough to know that we are miserible here let us get out of it then when w ego back to "god " we ask ask him but at that level you will have no need to ask because at that level you will be God.
So for now it is enough to know that ,as "rays" from "sun" we have the capacity to still opur mind so it is like a mirror and reflect our selves back to our source. When properly instructed we have the capacity to change the lfow of our attention form "down and out" into the creation to "UP AND IN" to our source . Our conscious ,which normally looks out through our eyes , learns to rest still within at a subtle portal through which shabd enters and enlivens our body . WE are not only sustained by shabd but can also trace it back to its source .If we turn our attention upwards to it the Shabd acts upon our attention like a magnet pulling us up out of our body and then pulling us through ever higher purer and permanent levels of consciousness compared to which this world is a shifting shadow show until we finally reach and merge in the bight shining eternal ONE reassuming our TRUE identity . Thank to science not an impossible feat. In fact, this precisely what the human teacher has done and he guarantees that if he can do it so can we and that he will not leave us until we have done it !!
Only then can one scientifically report wither "God "exists and what "He" is like .( as far as can be reduced to mortal language )
Surat Shabd yoga explains that WE ARE UNCONSCIOUS (IGNORANT) OF OUR SOURCE SO LONG AS OUR ATTENTION IS CONFINED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE WORLD OF THE 5ENSES.
As with all scientific experiments there is a certain preparation and procedure for its successful condition and any student must be instructed and actively guided by an accredited human teacher who himself has successfully conducted the experiment .Such accreditation will include a letter from his own predecessor authorizing him to teach this science .
Once the student has applied to the teacher and been accepted. (before applying the student must avoid eating any nonvegetarian food except dairy products , avoid all mind/mood/perception altering drugs including alcohol and tobacco , doing ones level best to avoid any sex act out of wedlock, lying , stealing , hurting any ones feelings etc for a period of AT LEAST 1 year .
After this a student may submit his/her application upon acceptance of which the teacher will ,free of charge personally teach that student until the student has gained full success (there are no failures although some gain full success sooner than others )
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT >>>>Surat Shabd Yoga GUARANTEES that each and every student who unswervingly remains fully within the instructions of the teacher will gain positive proof within 6 months of beginning the experiment that we are nonphysical beings who are separate from our body and are part of a much larger superior consciousness that is pulling us upwards out of our body's into a conscious stream of consciousness that seems to call us with a soothing energizing musical emanation( aka The "Shabd" , The Holy Ghost of the Bible) We will definitely contact THAT shabd within 6 months and it will start to transform our consciousness freedom it from matter and enabling it to travel within back to our source . 6 months is not too long to wait . A student may spend years in a college before he/she finds he major and is sure of it.
As contact with shabd increase the student will notice an improvement in his own character traits : a purer mind , a stronger will , braver , higher energy level, more focused mind , increase problem solving abilities , more good will to all creatures etc
Interestingly - if one looks at the charitable projects that the teacher has organized and invited hsi students to participate in ( free hospitals , mass feeding of those in need , disaster relief , largest solar panel array in the world etc etc etc AND the lack of any negative community activities ( wars, arguments with other schools , any internal strife or schisms , one can see the dawning of positive qualities in the consciousness of the students reflected in their actions and the unusually high positive outcomes of this actions –much higher than any government , religion or NGO .
I believe the current membership one one school of Surat Sahbd Yoga (Radha Soami Sat Sang Beas ) is around 4 million students . There seems no limit to what they can accomplish and all without levying and taxes or charging students for lessons .The school's charitable project are funded solely by unsolicited donations by the teacher and the students for the benefit of all suffering humanity.
The size and success of these chartable activities could be taken as "physical " evidence that there is indeed some "spiritual;" energy (shabd) behind them .
The teacher says that we are beings of energy and that contact with the Shabd energizes us to accomplish things in the world that otherwise we'd be too lazy to do .This is more evidence that we are in touch with a higher energy and consciousness during our “lab” time (In Surat Shabd Yoga the the human body is considered to be the laboratory where the spiritual scientist conducts his/her research) and increase energy , focus and positive attitude as seen as signs of progress .This is harnessing science for the good of man . What did Dawkin's ever do ,practically for the good of the hungry , the poor , the sick , the victim's of natural disaster's ? Dawkins would just weep and complain that there is no God while Surat Shabd yogis would draw power from God and take practical steps to render aid. This will show who is the scientist and who is the skeptic.
In fact if we look at the militant atheist’s (pseudo scientists) "contributions" to the world they seem to have increased mans trouble and turned the world into a hell.
.For example Since Dawkins and his ilk has had God and prayer banned form schools as "unscientific" the suicide rate has increased at least 5x . an other example of hell of earth Darwinism we used to justify the Nazi movement resulting in wide spread suffering , tyranny genocide and death . Great record . and all without a shred of proof that God does not exist( want a jack ass!!!)
It’s easy to see how a child on being told by a militant atheist that there is no God to heart his/her prayers Would become depressed and begin thinking “your born – you face school -disease -old age -then die what is the point? Would just cut the whole pointless procedure short concluding that “might as well” and how worldly rulers might try to help evolution along by culling out the ones they judge to be weak .
If the militant atheists ,after being told that all they have to do is avoid non veg food , perception altering drugs , unmarred sex ,lies, stealing ,hurting for 12 months then unswervingly practicing as directed for an additional 6 months in order to get proof positive that a non physical power exists that is pulling them from darkness to light do not try the experiment but continue to asset (without positive proof) that there us no such power then I don not think they deserve to be called scientists -just closed minded arrogant ignoramuses.
This proof goes on increasing in objectivity , clarity and validity the longer one remains unswervingly within the teachers instructions one sees , hears and feels so many things that are so REAL that by comparison this world of 5 senses seems like a dream from which one has awoken to find that he/she was someone or something entirely different than the little creature on the mud ball he/she was dreaming he/she was / Ant this can be realized during this life time .
It should be noted that in order to get the positive proof one must completely eliminate all thoughts using the technique given by the teacher and gaze with pure consciousness into the darkness visible to the closed eyes then the attention will be pulled above behind and between the eyes into the stream of consciousness through which one entered the body .
Those, like Dawkins , who quickly become deeply enthralled in thought , would find it more difficult to eliminate all thought than a employees who follows orders all day. There mind are restless and must be tied out by using the teachers technique but with perseverance even their minds will be still motionless and thoughtlessly lost in the technique and then their inner journey would start .
In the spiritual science thinking is encouraged only in the beginning to get an intellectual grasp of why this is science rather than a mere belief system why a certain individual is a genuine teacher of this science . But while in the “lab” thoughts are discarded just as an astronomer would wipe dirt off a telescopes lens. Just as water must become still before the image of the sun can be clearly reflected in it .So must thought be kept away from the surface of our consciousness when we wish to gain a vision of "god" or hear the shabd and see its light.
In Surat Shabd Yoga intellect is viewed as helpful when applied to solving problems of this world but as something that must be shed on the inner journey . Our thoughts are viewed as the bars of our soul's prison that keeps our attention from ascending within .Our soul , then , is a captive of our mind . Our thoughts hold our soul down to the body and world like iron manacles . Saints teach us how to break these manacles so that our soul can rise above the body and world and ride on the ray of consciousness(shabd) back to it's source -
Once we d9o rise above the body and are riding on the shabd any thought immediately pulls us back down to the place in our foreheads we were before we were pulled up and in by that power .Therefore success demand that our mind be acutely under control – dispelling thoughts becomes almost a reflex act. We are trained how to do this .
Dawkins must understand that our thoughts allow our attention to flow our to the physical plane but prevent it from rising on the ray of consciousness back to our source. Only pure consciousness can enter into and observe pure consciousness .
We don’t reason out the truth about consciousness . WE come face to face with it and unite with it and become it . Compared to this science Dawkins is like a little child studying pebbles on a beach trying to divine the nature of God from them then announcing to the world that there is only chance happenings . If he were a real scientist he would come out of the mud and see things for himself .This is a challenge to all who call them selves scientists > GO WITHIN AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES
Teachers of this science say that upon reaching our source and merging in it all words fail to describe it and that one can only say “IT IS WONDER! WONDER!! WONDER!!! ”
Ironically he has entitled his book “An appetite for Wonder “
January 3, 2016
I love Dawkins. He is one of the most brilliant evolutionary biologist of our time. Having said that, I found his memoir largely boring, full of trite details and aspects of his life that, to a reader, bear no importance on his life as a magnificent scientist. I was on page 146 and still reading about his childhood and the fact that he had cold feet, that he once witnessed a child being bullied... So on and so forth.
His writing is magnificent, and his scientific achievements undeniable. I guess I expected this memoir to shed more light on some of the aspects of his scientific discoveries and writings. Instead, it was simply a recounting of his family tree, his days as a kid, his university days, and at the very end- his actual work.
I guess I shouldn't bitch about it; after all, it is a memoir, and he gets to write whatever the hell he wants. So, I'll stick with his other books, which I know are brilliant. I'll skip his further memoirs( I assume there are more to come, since this one is titled "memoir #1).
His writing is magnificent, and his scientific achievements undeniable. I guess I expected this memoir to shed more light on some of the aspects of his scientific discoveries and writings. Instead, it was simply a recounting of his family tree, his days as a kid, his university days, and at the very end- his actual work.
I guess I shouldn't bitch about it; after all, it is a memoir, and he gets to write whatever the hell he wants. So, I'll stick with his other books, which I know are brilliant. I'll skip his further memoirs( I assume there are more to come, since this one is titled "memoir #1).
July 25, 2016
In the past I've often denounced the whole genre of autobiography as being unacceptably self-indulgent, and Richard Dawkins himself, of course, is the walking embodiment of unexamined privilege, so I expected to dislike the smugly titled An Appetite for Wonder more than I did.
It's not that Dawkins has suddenly grown a sense of self-awareness† or that his account of his youth doesn't contain barely-concealed nostalgia for colonialism or the well-publicised trivialisation of child molestation—rather, I think it's down to two main things:
First: every book Dawkins has produced in this century has been more poorly-written than the last. The Magic of Reality may deserve a break because it was written for children, but The Greatest Show on Earth was almost unreadable. Appetite finally breaks this streak; it still has its purple moments, but over-all, it's basically acceptable.
Secondly: I'm very familiar with scions of old-money families born into branches that have long since stretched their inheritance too thinly and bred themselves into the middle class, and I quite enjoy seeing them cling desperately to their faded glory. Many of them manage to face up to reality by the time they hit their 70s, while others only hit denial's full stride in their old age—Dawkins is one of the latter.
I'd think it also helps that the part of the book that covers his coeducational academic career for the most part does so through his actual research. Other misogynists, like James Watson, have focussed too much on their relationships with women, and that just doesn't do anyone any favours. Dawkins of course can't not mention his recent online embarrassment—his victim complex won't allow it—but he does so only obliquely, by whining about ``cyber-bullies''.
Still, I can't imagine anyone but Dawkins' immediate relatives‡ actually enjoying this book. It's in no sense as bad as, say, Christopher Hitchens' Hitch-22, but there's still enough smugness and lamenting the ongoing decline of civilisation and general white-old-mannishness to turn any reader off.
Appetite stops at the publishing of The Selfish Gene, so unfortunately a second part is forthcoming. Maybe he'll be a less shitty person by 2015 and I'll buy it. I doubt it.
--------
† A passage from the epilogue, presented without comment:
‡ He mentions that his parents kept a joint diary of their time in Africa which they shared with the family, and that his mother later wrote her own memoirs separately, so Appetite was presumably written in that tradition.
It's not that Dawkins has suddenly grown a sense of self-awareness† or that his account of his youth doesn't contain barely-concealed nostalgia for colonialism or the well-publicised trivialisation of child molestation—rather, I think it's down to two main things:
First: every book Dawkins has produced in this century has been more poorly-written than the last. The Magic of Reality may deserve a break because it was written for children, but The Greatest Show on Earth was almost unreadable. Appetite finally breaks this streak; it still has its purple moments, but over-all, it's basically acceptable.
Secondly: I'm very familiar with scions of old-money families born into branches that have long since stretched their inheritance too thinly and bred themselves into the middle class, and I quite enjoy seeing them cling desperately to their faded glory. Many of them manage to face up to reality by the time they hit their 70s, while others only hit denial's full stride in their old age—Dawkins is one of the latter.
I'd think it also helps that the part of the book that covers his coeducational academic career for the most part does so through his actual research. Other misogynists, like James Watson, have focussed too much on their relationships with women, and that just doesn't do anyone any favours. Dawkins of course can't not mention his recent online embarrassment—his victim complex won't allow it—but he does so only obliquely, by whining about ``cyber-bullies''.
Still, I can't imagine anyone but Dawkins' immediate relatives‡ actually enjoying this book. It's in no sense as bad as, say, Christopher Hitchens' Hitch-22, but there's still enough smugness and lamenting the ongoing decline of civilisation and general white-old-mannishness to turn any reader off.
Appetite stops at the publishing of The Selfish Gene, so unfortunately a second part is forthcoming. Maybe he'll be a less shitty person by 2015 and I'll buy it. I doubt it.
--------
† A passage from the epilogue, presented without comment:
I have had to earn my own bread. But—while happy to ignore the attacks I have (yes, really) received for being white, male and adequately educated—I cannot deny a measure of unearned privilege when I compare my childhood, boyhood and youth to others less fortunate. I do not apologize for that privilege any more than a man should apologize for his genes or his face, but I am very conscious of it.
‡ He mentions that his parents kept a joint diary of their time in Africa which they shared with the family, and that his mother later wrote her own memoirs separately, so Appetite was presumably written in that tradition.
September 28, 2013
The only reason I gave it only four stars is that a couple of the chapters describing his research were very arcane and way above my ability to follow! Other than that, this is a great book, telling of this great scientist's life from birth until the publication of his surprise best-seller bombshell THE SELFISH GENE. If you want proof of evolution, you need go no farther than his explanation of the revealingly "bad design" of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and how it traces directly back to our evolution from fishes. Oh, please, save your "intelligent design" foolishness for a fool! Explain why this nerve goes from the brain into the chest and THEN to the larynx! Dawkins does, clearly and lucidly. I am eagerly awaiting his next memoir installment which he says will be out in two years. Oh, heck, the nerve thing is so well explained I am giving back the one star I took away! Here is part of what Amazon says: With the 2006 publication of The God Delusion, the name Richard Dawkins became a byword for ruthless skepticism and "brilliant, impassioned, articulate, impolite" debate (San Francisco Chronicle). his first memoir offers a more personal view.
His first book, The Selfish Gene, caused a seismic shift in the study of biology by proffering the gene-centered view of evolution. It was also in this book that Dawkins coined the term meme, a unit of cultural evolution, which has itself become a mainstay in contemporary culture.
In An Appetite for Wonder, Richard Dawkins shares a rare view into his early life, his intellectual awakening at Oxford, and his path to writing The Selfish Gene. He paints a vivid picture of his idyllic childhood in colonial Africa, peppered with sketches of his colorful ancestors, charming parents, and the peculiarities of colonial life right after World War II. At boarding school, despite a near-religious encounter with an Elvis record, he began his career as a skeptic by refusing to kneel for prayer in chapel. Despite some inspired teaching throughout primary and secondary school, it was only when he got to Oxford that his intellectual curiosity took full flight.
His first book, The Selfish Gene, caused a seismic shift in the study of biology by proffering the gene-centered view of evolution. It was also in this book that Dawkins coined the term meme, a unit of cultural evolution, which has itself become a mainstay in contemporary culture.
In An Appetite for Wonder, Richard Dawkins shares a rare view into his early life, his intellectual awakening at Oxford, and his path to writing The Selfish Gene. He paints a vivid picture of his idyllic childhood in colonial Africa, peppered with sketches of his colorful ancestors, charming parents, and the peculiarities of colonial life right after World War II. At boarding school, despite a near-religious encounter with an Elvis record, he began his career as a skeptic by refusing to kneel for prayer in chapel. Despite some inspired teaching throughout primary and secondary school, it was only when he got to Oxford that his intellectual curiosity took full flight.
October 10, 2013
It's hard for me to imagine a world without Richard Dawkins, because his books have contributed so much to my understanding of the world (as they've done for so many others). I've often wondered how exactly he became the man that he is. I have to say that his background is pretty much as anyone might imagine--an African childhood spent wandering the bush (although he downplays its significance), a botanist father, prep school and then Oxford, where his father and several other family members had gone before him.
This autobiography is fairly straightforward in the telling and focuses on Dawkins' academic and professional life, including passages where he shares details of some of his early research. But we get a few glimpses into his other interests as well, like his love of poetry and the written word (largely introduced to him by his mother).
While he covers his schoolboy rejection of Christianity, this volume ends with the publishing of The Selfish Gene, so if you're curious about his transition to the no-holds-barred brand of atheism for which he has become known (probably more for than his research, for better or worse), you won't find it here. But word is there will be a second volume, and there are enough clues in this volume to explain it. His dedication to research and getting to the truth are so core to his being that he can't seem to forgive himself even for the times that, as a child, he failed to question fantastical things that adults told him.
An interesting (and in many ways, inspiring) read.
This autobiography is fairly straightforward in the telling and focuses on Dawkins' academic and professional life, including passages where he shares details of some of his early research. But we get a few glimpses into his other interests as well, like his love of poetry and the written word (largely introduced to him by his mother).
While he covers his schoolboy rejection of Christianity, this volume ends with the publishing of The Selfish Gene, so if you're curious about his transition to the no-holds-barred brand of atheism for which he has become known (probably more for than his research, for better or worse), you won't find it here. But word is there will be a second volume, and there are enough clues in this volume to explain it. His dedication to research and getting to the truth are so core to his being that he can't seem to forgive himself even for the times that, as a child, he failed to question fantastical things that adults told him.
An interesting (and in many ways, inspiring) read.
August 28, 2013
Richard Dawkins shares his life story up to the point of the publication of his first book "The Selfish Gene" (now famous for coining the word "meme"). While I am always fascinated with autobiographies of British people I was a bit disappointed in how much of the book had already been covered in his previous books. I would have liked more personal insight regarding his "appetite for wonder" and fewer lengthy passages lifted directly from his other writings in explanation of his experiments. The earlier chapters on his childhood and schooling were great, but once he got to Oxford it began to fall apart for me. The copy I read was a pre-pub without photos and many diagrams, but I don't believe they would have helped my enjoyment of the book.
November 1, 2013
Richard Dawkins is a man I would like to spend an afternoon with, sharing a bottle of wine and talking about interesting things. He is damn good company and I enjoyed his memoir. And yet, having finished it just a few minutes ago, I'm left mildly dissatisfied. He has given us an account of his intellectual development from earliest years through the publication of The Selfish Gene. He's told us amusing bits about the Great Men who inspired and mentored him. But I'm not entirely sure I learned much about Dawkins himself and the inner fire that must exist in one who has accomplished so much. I learned more about the man from reading The God Delusion than from his autobiography.
At the end of the book, Dawkins promises is a sequel, to which I will look forward.
At the end of the book, Dawkins promises is a sequel, to which I will look forward.
November 17, 2013
I think I should have skipped this book and waited for the second volume where – presumably – Dawkins will talk about how he turned from a scientist into a public intellectual and the face of unapologetic atheism. This volume covers his childhood years in Kenya and then his Oxford years – none of which I found particularly interesting. Nor did I really like the rather long sections describing his doctoral research. The book got more interesting for me towards the end when he talks about the publishing of his first book The Selfish Gene – and that's where the book ends.
Dawkins, like him or not, is an erudite man and a great writer.
Dawkins, like him or not, is an erudite man and a great writer.
July 11, 2025
Richarda Dawkinsa chyba nie trzeba przedstawiać – wybitny naukowiec, „książę ewolucjonizmu” i „rottweiler Darwina”, świetny pisarz i wspaniały popularyzator nauki.
„Apetyt na cuda” to pierwsza część jego autobiografii, którą postanowił napisać z okazji swoich siedemdziesiątych urodzin, obejmująca mniej więcej połowę jego życia – okres od narodzin do wydania „Samolubnego genu” (książka została wydana, kiedy Dawkins miał 35 lat).
Początek książki trochę przynudza – niewiele się dzieje poza poznawaniem drzewa genealogicznego autora, jego pierwszych lat życia w Afryce oraz szkolnych, mniej lub bardziej zabawnych, przygód. Dawkins rozkręca się, kiedy przechodzimy do fazy akademickiej. Ewidentnie łapie wiatr w żagle, kiedy wchodzimy na tak dobrze znaną mu ścieżkę szeroko pojętej nauki, a obraz wyłaniający się z jego wspomnień jest wręcz urzekający. I tak bardzo odmienny od moich doświadczeń z uczelnią wyższą, że aż mnie skręciło z zazdrości :)
Nie wiem, jak wygląda sytuacja na innych polskich uczelniach, ale moje doświadczenie z 5 lat studiów obejmuje bycie traktowanym przez wykładowców jak robak (przez większość czasu, może na 5 roku było trochę lepiej, ale wtedy byliśmy pogrążeni w amoku próbując jakoś ogarnąć milion egzaminów końcowych z wyrobieniem norm na pacjentach, więc niewiele z tego roku pamiętam). A, niestety, profesorów z pasją mogę wyliczyć na palcach jednej ręki. Jednym z nich był uroczy starszy pan wykładający nam biofizykę na pierwszym roku – do dziś pamiętam jak wykrzykiwał rozradowany na wykładzie, że NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) jest cudem techniki i powinno się tłumaczyć ten skrót jako „No More Radiology” – bo jak powszechnie wiadomo, promieniowanie rentgenowskie wykorzystywane w aparatach diagnostycznych, nie jest zbyt dobre dla naszych organizmów, szczególnie w większych dawkach).
Wracając do Dawkinsa – z te części jego autobiografii wyłania się człowiek o nieprzeciętnej inteligencji, ogromnym zapale do nauki w ogóle, nie tylko biologii (również matematyki, informatyki ale też innych dziedzin), o otwartym umyśle i wielkim poczuciu humoru. Z chęcią zapoznam się z drugą częścią tej historii.
7/10
„Apetyt na cuda” to pierwsza część jego autobiografii, którą postanowił napisać z okazji swoich siedemdziesiątych urodzin, obejmująca mniej więcej połowę jego życia – okres od narodzin do wydania „Samolubnego genu” (książka została wydana, kiedy Dawkins miał 35 lat).
Początek książki trochę przynudza – niewiele się dzieje poza poznawaniem drzewa genealogicznego autora, jego pierwszych lat życia w Afryce oraz szkolnych, mniej lub bardziej zabawnych, przygód. Dawkins rozkręca się, kiedy przechodzimy do fazy akademickiej. Ewidentnie łapie wiatr w żagle, kiedy wchodzimy na tak dobrze znaną mu ścieżkę szeroko pojętej nauki, a obraz wyłaniający się z jego wspomnień jest wręcz urzekający. I tak bardzo odmienny od moich doświadczeń z uczelnią wyższą, że aż mnie skręciło z zazdrości :)
Nie wiem, jak wygląda sytuacja na innych polskich uczelniach, ale moje doświadczenie z 5 lat studiów obejmuje bycie traktowanym przez wykładowców jak robak (przez większość czasu, może na 5 roku było trochę lepiej, ale wtedy byliśmy pogrążeni w amoku próbując jakoś ogarnąć milion egzaminów końcowych z wyrobieniem norm na pacjentach, więc niewiele z tego roku pamiętam). A, niestety, profesorów z pasją mogę wyliczyć na palcach jednej ręki. Jednym z nich był uroczy starszy pan wykładający nam biofizykę na pierwszym roku – do dziś pamiętam jak wykrzykiwał rozradowany na wykładzie, że NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) jest cudem techniki i powinno się tłumaczyć ten skrót jako „No More Radiology” – bo jak powszechnie wiadomo, promieniowanie rentgenowskie wykorzystywane w aparatach diagnostycznych, nie jest zbyt dobre dla naszych organizmów, szczególnie w większych dawkach).
Wracając do Dawkinsa – z te części jego autobiografii wyłania się człowiek o nieprzeciętnej inteligencji, ogromnym zapale do nauki w ogóle, nie tylko biologii (również matematyki, informatyki ale też innych dziedzin), o otwartym umyśle i wielkim poczuciu humoru. Z chęcią zapoznam się z drugą częścią tej historii.
7/10
March 1, 2023
Fans of Richard Dawkins will enjoy An Appetite for Wonder. This is the first of two installments of his published autobiography, and covers the first 35 years of his life, up until the time he published his first book The Selfish Gene. I listened to the audiobook, which was read by Richard.
Richard is a brilliant scientist and science communicator, a great writer, and an elegant speaker; and I thoroughly enjoyed this book and will jump right in to his second autobiography, Brief Candle in the Dark. I wish I had read this prior to meeting and chatting with him in Dallas in 2018, I could’ve asked him some relevant questions like if he was still infatuated with Elvis rather than blathering like a fan-boy.
Anyone familiar with Richard’s tone in his science and atheist published works will be surprised how pleasant his tone is in this one - very warm and witty. He talks lovingly of his parents, who brought him to Africa where he spent a great deal of his childhood, and of other relatives he was close to growing up. His parents and a number of relatives were also scientists and inspired him to be a scientist. Richard includes a number of his mother’s diary entries about his youthful antics in this book, all read by his wife (now separated), Lalla Ward. His experiences in Africa were fascinating as one might imagine. What a place to grow up. He and his family eventually find their way back to England and he is sent an all-male boarding school at age seven, which prepares him for eventual acceptance in to Oxford. Some of his boarding school anecdotes are charming and some are rough like teen age boys can be. The story I thought was particularly entertaining was his discovery and love of the music of Elvis. His father once caught Richard dancing and singing along to an Elvis album playing loudly in the house, thinking his parents were both out. Another story I enjoyed was his rebellion against religion and attending church service at his Anglican school at a young age. You see the origin of Richard the non-believer and he explains how his rejection of faith and the supernatural started. That being said, he talks very little about his atheism in the rest of the book.
During the recollections of his Oxford days, Richard talks about his research work and gets a little deeper in to the science which I thought was less interesting. Later, he goes in to detail of his writing experience with his first published book, the massively successful The Selfish Gene, in which he also does a dive in to the science behind it. I enjoyed this book very much but would’ve rather heard about more life experiences during this period of his life.
In the last chapter he looks back upon his first 35 years and goes through some “what-if” scenarios pertaining to major decisions he made and experiences he had during his life up to this point. Finally, he talks about his greatest scientific hero, Charles Darwin, and how he and every other biologist treads in Darwin’s footsteps. Richard goes on to copy what Darwin did at the conclusion of his autobiography – list his personal faculties lacked or possessed, and how his life experiences shaped the person he became.
I’m giving this five stars as I learned a lot about Richard and it was a joy to listen to. Going in to this I knew relatively little of his formative years, probably only what he's talked about in the live speaking events I've attended.
Richard is a brilliant scientist and science communicator, a great writer, and an elegant speaker; and I thoroughly enjoyed this book and will jump right in to his second autobiography, Brief Candle in the Dark. I wish I had read this prior to meeting and chatting with him in Dallas in 2018, I could’ve asked him some relevant questions like if he was still infatuated with Elvis rather than blathering like a fan-boy.
Anyone familiar with Richard’s tone in his science and atheist published works will be surprised how pleasant his tone is in this one - very warm and witty. He talks lovingly of his parents, who brought him to Africa where he spent a great deal of his childhood, and of other relatives he was close to growing up. His parents and a number of relatives were also scientists and inspired him to be a scientist. Richard includes a number of his mother’s diary entries about his youthful antics in this book, all read by his wife (now separated), Lalla Ward. His experiences in Africa were fascinating as one might imagine. What a place to grow up. He and his family eventually find their way back to England and he is sent an all-male boarding school at age seven, which prepares him for eventual acceptance in to Oxford. Some of his boarding school anecdotes are charming and some are rough like teen age boys can be. The story I thought was particularly entertaining was his discovery and love of the music of Elvis. His father once caught Richard dancing and singing along to an Elvis album playing loudly in the house, thinking his parents were both out. Another story I enjoyed was his rebellion against religion and attending church service at his Anglican school at a young age. You see the origin of Richard the non-believer and he explains how his rejection of faith and the supernatural started. That being said, he talks very little about his atheism in the rest of the book.
During the recollections of his Oxford days, Richard talks about his research work and gets a little deeper in to the science which I thought was less interesting. Later, he goes in to detail of his writing experience with his first published book, the massively successful The Selfish Gene, in which he also does a dive in to the science behind it. I enjoyed this book very much but would’ve rather heard about more life experiences during this period of his life.
In the last chapter he looks back upon his first 35 years and goes through some “what-if” scenarios pertaining to major decisions he made and experiences he had during his life up to this point. Finally, he talks about his greatest scientific hero, Charles Darwin, and how he and every other biologist treads in Darwin’s footsteps. Richard goes on to copy what Darwin did at the conclusion of his autobiography – list his personal faculties lacked or possessed, and how his life experiences shaped the person he became.
I’m giving this five stars as I learned a lot about Richard and it was a joy to listen to. Going in to this I knew relatively little of his formative years, probably only what he's talked about in the live speaking events I've attended.
June 11, 2017
Spoken book are a great. Spoken books read by the Author are usually better. Prof. Richard Dawkins has a very pleasant voice, he sounds much younger than he is. The additional readings from his mother's diaries , as read by Lalla Ward adds a nice touch. That said, Prof. Dawkins is far more fascinated with his childhood years than many readers are likely to be. As such I found volume one of his memoirs, An Appetite for Wonder to be disappointing.
He was born in an interesting place, Nairobi, Kenya in 1943. This would be an interesting place during the War Years, but not much of a part of his memory. At age eight his family moved back to England where his coming of age included a large if poorly restored estate and English public school experiences much like other English public school experiences. Ultimately he would eke his way into Oxford and by the end of the book launch himself into scientific stardom with the publication of his first book; The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author
For much of this book the interesting stuff is just outside of the frame. Too much of these years are about the very young Richard. Out of 7 CD's he has just begun to read in disk 4.
Some of the made up songs of his father sound interesting, we get very little more than the tittles. Richard's earliest attempts to speak and his baby babble gets old fast. The ongoing battle between Richard's speculations that as a young child he was too credulous or too hard to fool is not that interesting. If Professor Dawkins had to make volume I cover so many pages, the events and people around him could have better illuminated our understanding of the man. As a Child, I understand him to have been very much a child of his class and time.
Of his Public school years we do get to learn about the people who were educators, or to mark time in teaching positions. That he gives credit to those who inspired and guided was a nice touch. Teachers rarely get this kind of recognition, by name, from those who have taken what was offered and become more than the next generation of clock punchers.
In the last part of the last two disks, we begin hear from Professor Hawkins the researcher and community activist. His association with the California Aquarius days and associated political movements was news to me. More time on this topic and less on baby talk, please. Ultimately we get some behind the scenes look at the preliminaries and genesis of the The Selfish Gene.
Having finally reached the topics that brought me to this book , the book ends.
I hold in my hand the CD jacket. The back cover does almost hint that this is a first book and completes its discussion of his childhood in 3 lines. The balance of the back cover is on other topics and the usual blurbs used to sell a book.
If only Prof. Dawkins had used a similar ratio. Less time on Richard in his nappies and more time of Student, later Professor Dawkins at his computers and early research.
He was born in an interesting place, Nairobi, Kenya in 1943. This would be an interesting place during the War Years, but not much of a part of his memory. At age eight his family moved back to England where his coming of age included a large if poorly restored estate and English public school experiences much like other English public school experiences. Ultimately he would eke his way into Oxford and by the end of the book launch himself into scientific stardom with the publication of his first book; The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author
For much of this book the interesting stuff is just outside of the frame. Too much of these years are about the very young Richard. Out of 7 CD's he has just begun to read in disk 4.
Some of the made up songs of his father sound interesting, we get very little more than the tittles. Richard's earliest attempts to speak and his baby babble gets old fast. The ongoing battle between Richard's speculations that as a young child he was too credulous or too hard to fool is not that interesting. If Professor Dawkins had to make volume I cover so many pages, the events and people around him could have better illuminated our understanding of the man. As a Child, I understand him to have been very much a child of his class and time.
Of his Public school years we do get to learn about the people who were educators, or to mark time in teaching positions. That he gives credit to those who inspired and guided was a nice touch. Teachers rarely get this kind of recognition, by name, from those who have taken what was offered and become more than the next generation of clock punchers.
In the last part of the last two disks, we begin hear from Professor Hawkins the researcher and community activist. His association with the California Aquarius days and associated political movements was news to me. More time on this topic and less on baby talk, please. Ultimately we get some behind the scenes look at the preliminaries and genesis of the The Selfish Gene.
Having finally reached the topics that brought me to this book , the book ends.
I hold in my hand the CD jacket. The back cover does almost hint that this is a first book and completes its discussion of his childhood in 3 lines. The balance of the back cover is on other topics and the usual blurbs used to sell a book.
If only Prof. Dawkins had used a similar ratio. Less time on Richard in his nappies and more time of Student, later Professor Dawkins at his computers and early research.
September 20, 2013
A disappointing book of a life full of events, but short on what they mean to the author. It sheds little to no light on how Dawkins came to be the intellect he is, and fails as both conventional autobiography and memoir.
The purpose of writing is to illuminate what is hidden, and this book is far off the mark.
See my full review of Richard Dawkins' Appetite for Wonder in The New York Journal of Books.
A list of recent reviews can also be found on Richard Cytowic's profile page at the NY Journal of Books reviewer page.
The purpose of writing is to illuminate what is hidden, and this book is far off the mark.
See my full review of Richard Dawkins' Appetite for Wonder in The New York Journal of Books.
A list of recent reviews can also be found on Richard Cytowic's profile page at the NY Journal of Books reviewer page.
July 31, 2018
"An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist" is an autobiography of Richard Dawkins, from his childhood upto when he wrote the Selfish Gene, Dawkins is mostly known for his harsh critic on religions, so most people do not know that he's also a prominent evolutionary biologist. The tone in this book is quite different from the God's Delusion, and people may find the two books were written by different authors. I personally like both versions of Dawkins although I disagree with some things he said.
It is fascinating to learn about his childhood and what contributed to his love of biology. From the book, we can learn about the people who influenced Dawkins, his first experience with religions, and his journey through education and work. There are also science contexts embedded in this book, but it is a bit dense for me to digest properly.
Overall, it's an enjoyable read.
It is fascinating to learn about his childhood and what contributed to his love of biology. From the book, we can learn about the people who influenced Dawkins, his first experience with religions, and his journey through education and work. There are also science contexts embedded in this book, but it is a bit dense for me to digest properly.
Overall, it's an enjoyable read.
April 2, 2016
Richard Dawkins as he recalls his early life
I am an admirer of Richard Dawkins because he has written some books debunking God. So I was attracted to this book because I was curious about is personal history. He was born in Africa two parents who were in service to the global domination of England. He grew up a fairly privileged life with his education culminating at Oxford. I experienced the book in its audible format read by author Dawkins himself with his wonderful English accent. You should probably read his book The Selfish Gene. This book is really more about Richard Dawkins the scientist rather then Richard Dawkins the atheist.
I am an admirer of Richard Dawkins because he has written some books debunking God. So I was attracted to this book because I was curious about is personal history. He was born in Africa two parents who were in service to the global domination of England. He grew up a fairly privileged life with his education culminating at Oxford. I experienced the book in its audible format read by author Dawkins himself with his wonderful English accent. You should probably read his book The Selfish Gene. This book is really more about Richard Dawkins the scientist rather then Richard Dawkins the atheist.
August 13, 2020
This is not typical Dawkins. This is a memoir, mostly focusing on the younger part of his life, and really, young English boys growing up in the 60s at Hogwarts-type schools without the magic are just not that interesting. Dawkins is at his least abrasive here, though, and there is little for anyone to find offensive, but not that much happens. Dawkins is at his best as a researcher, but he is an excellent writer.
March 26, 2017
132 - 2017
September 15, 2019
Did it change my opinion on Richard Dawkins? Yes, it kinda did. And I am very happy about it. I met Dawkins the man, and through the book I realized I have many traits in common with him. His tendency for philosophy, and for the Popperian way of doing science are amazing to me. I found this autobiography really honest.
One of the things I really enjoyed was the depiction of the life at Oxford. He described so well the atmosphere of those times, and made such great combinations of stories and science, it makes you wish to be in Oxford for your whole life.
Really, his life is great. Although there are a lot of differences in the admission process at Oxford, Cambridge, etc (which was a decisive point in his life), and the admission was based on completely other points, he is definitely a word-class scientist. It's so great to read about his projects, and see what happens in the mind and life of such a productive scientist. I also appreciated his interest in other fields, and how his love for genetics and behavioral zoology, and his scientific path, was completely defined by his character and traits. He made the best out of himself.
Overall, a great, enjoyable read.
“Shouldn’t children be taught critical, sceptical thinking from an early age? Shouldn’t we all be taught to doubt, to weigh up plausibility, to demand evidence?”
One of the things I really enjoyed was the depiction of the life at Oxford. He described so well the atmosphere of those times, and made such great combinations of stories and science, it makes you wish to be in Oxford for your whole life.
Really, his life is great. Although there are a lot of differences in the admission process at Oxford, Cambridge, etc (which was a decisive point in his life), and the admission was based on completely other points, he is definitely a word-class scientist. It's so great to read about his projects, and see what happens in the mind and life of such a productive scientist. I also appreciated his interest in other fields, and how his love for genetics and behavioral zoology, and his scientific path, was completely defined by his character and traits. He made the best out of himself.
Overall, a great, enjoyable read.
“Shouldn’t children be taught critical, sceptical thinking from an early age? Shouldn’t we all be taught to doubt, to weigh up plausibility, to demand evidence?”
October 13, 2013
The title changed from what is written above to what is shown on the book jacket.
A different kind of autobiography. For one, it is intended to be just part 1. Part 2 is to come out in a couple of years, if all goes well. Part 1 takes us from childhood through the publication of Dawkins' first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. Although called "an intimate memoir" on the book jacket, the book skirts a lot of what I'd call "intimate". For example, his marriages are mentioned in passing, with no information about how Dawkins met the women, what led up to the weddings, anything about their lives together.
Similarly, we learn about previous generations of his family, about elementary school and something about the way Dawkins' parents raised Richard, and we learn that the family moved from Africa to England and why, and which schools Richard attended, but really very little about day-to-day life. Instead, we learn how Richard felt about different things that happened in his life, some of which he regretted or could not understand, while others led to his future thinking on evolution.
Really, it's a book about how Dawkins came to think as he does, and why he thinks Charles Darwin is really the father of science as we now know it, and certainly why Darwin is Dawkins' hero. The title is revealing in this way. The book explains how Dawkins developed and maintained his appetite for wonder.
For those who have not read his other books, this one provides an introduction to The Selfish Gene, offering a brief explanation of the theme of that book. It also lays the foundation of Dawkins' atheism.
A different kind of autobiography. For one, it is intended to be just part 1. Part 2 is to come out in a couple of years, if all goes well. Part 1 takes us from childhood through the publication of Dawkins' first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. Although called "an intimate memoir" on the book jacket, the book skirts a lot of what I'd call "intimate". For example, his marriages are mentioned in passing, with no information about how Dawkins met the women, what led up to the weddings, anything about their lives together.
Similarly, we learn about previous generations of his family, about elementary school and something about the way Dawkins' parents raised Richard, and we learn that the family moved from Africa to England and why, and which schools Richard attended, but really very little about day-to-day life. Instead, we learn how Richard felt about different things that happened in his life, some of which he regretted or could not understand, while others led to his future thinking on evolution.
Really, it's a book about how Dawkins came to think as he does, and why he thinks Charles Darwin is really the father of science as we now know it, and certainly why Darwin is Dawkins' hero. The title is revealing in this way. The book explains how Dawkins developed and maintained his appetite for wonder.
For those who have not read his other books, this one provides an introduction to The Selfish Gene, offering a brief explanation of the theme of that book. It also lays the foundation of Dawkins' atheism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 435 reviews