Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates

Frans de Waal

4.13 · Rating details · 4,565 ratings · 465 reviews

In this lively and illuminating discussion of his landmark research, esteemed primatologist Frans de Waal argues that human morality is not imposed from above but instead comes from within. Moral behavior does not begin and end with religion but is in fact a product of evolution.

For many years, de Waal has observed chimpanzees soothe distressed neighbors and bonobos share ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 289 pages

Published March 2013 by W. W. Norton Company

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Bonobo and the Atheist, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The Bonobo and the Atheist

Lists with This Book

The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker

The Psychology of Morality

77 books — 53 voters

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot

The Emperor of All Maladies by Siddhartha Mukherjee

The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert

Best Nonfiction Biology books on Goodreads

414 books — 64 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.13 ·

Rating details

· 4,565 ratings · 465 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates

Apr 16, 2013 Darrel rated it liked it

I am a fan of Frans DeWaal's and have read much of his work. I think he has been instrumental in opening up our view and making us less homocentric. Unfortunately, this book seems like something his editor asked him to write so as to catch the current secular wave. There is so much he could have written but didn't and so much he did write and should not have. His incessant focus on the art of Hieromimous Bosch is inexplicable. Why spend so much time discussing a piece of art (even if it is a mas I am a fan of Frans DeWaal's and have read much of his work. I think he has been instrumental in opening up our view and making us less homocentric. Unfortunately, this book seems like something his editor asked him to write so as to catch the current secular wave. There is so much he could have written but didn't and so much he did write and should not have. His incessant focus on the art of Hieromimous Bosch is inexplicable. Why spend so much time discussing a piece of art (even if it is a masterpiece), when there is so much he could have told us about primates and human ethics, etc. I cannot and do not see how Bosch contributes anything to his argument. Through out the book I felt like things were just getting interesting when he would revert back to art criticism.

On the other hand, his explication of bottom up morality and ethics is important and there is no doubt that religion has usurped our natural desire for harmony and fairness, and taken credit for it. It is a good argument and demonstration by way of his and other's research with primates and I applaud him for that.

When he gets into discussing the new atheists, he seems a bit out of touch. He criticizes them, but seems unaware of the driving force behind much of the movement - church state separation, religious child abuse, political control of school boards, etc. Yes, he makes passing reference to some of these issues and to the anti science of many religionists, but he seems to need to throw a bone to the religious while ignoring much of what is done in the name of their religion. He is probably correct, that religion is not going to disappear any time soon, but I see no need for pandering to patriarchal religions.

While critical of the new atheists, he observes that Humanism is not anti religion and was not in its beginning. That may be a bit loose with the facts, but even if correct, the reason Humanism has become more aggressive of late if largely because the accommodationist approach has done nothing but emboldened the religionists. Playing nice with the Catholic Church does not stop child rape. Playing nice with evangelicals does not stop preachers preaching politics from the pulpit. Playing nice with Pentecostals does not stop religious child abuse. Playing nice with the Black Church does not stop ministers from taking the last dime from a single mom for the promise of prosperity or heaven later. Sure, we may get our ethics from natural tendencies in our species, but it is not enough to simply make that argument and then lay low on the whole issue of religion and its impact on our species.

He seems unaware of the real emotional, psychological and social damage that religion does to millions of people even as they proclaim religious morality and ethics. He duly notes that we are a hierarchical species, but fails to show how such hierarchies can be high jacked by religion and used to oppress and distort our natural fairness instincts.

I wish he had done a more complete analysis of religion and morality rather than constantly giving religion a pass or the benefit of the doubt. If he is going to talk about religion, it seems to me that he needs to be a good deal more interested in how it actually works in our species. His only attempt seems to be in the last chapter where he tries to look through the eyes of the bonobo. It doesn't work.

I will not recommend this book. I struggled to get through it because there is insufficient information or argument to be worth the time investment. If you have not read any of his other works, this may be worth your time that is why I give it three stars, but why not just read his best stuff and let this one pass. There are far better authors to read on morality and ethics. ...more

flag 62 likes · Like · see review

Nov 30, 2020 Michael Perkins rated it really liked it

This is a wonderful, beautiful book. As the subtitle suggests, the author was in search of humanism as an inbred trait in primates. Most of the discussion is documenting this reality. He connects this to the origin of morality in humans. In the process, he rightly challenges the dark portrayals of humans that are advanced by the likes of Augustine and Thomas Hobbes and the unsubstantiated portrayal of evil in Lord of the Flies. These notions were the basis of social darwinism, which was a direct ...more

flag 32 likes · Like · see review

Mar 23, 2013 Taede Smedes rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science-and-religion, popular-science, philosophy-of-religion

A book about religion from one of the foremost primatologists in the world. In this brilliant book, De Waal defends his thesis that morality is not an invention of religion, but that religion is a cultural scaffolding that builds upon and enhances biologically innate moral rules. Even more, De Waal acknowledges that religion is so deeply engrained in human nature that it has become one of the defining characteristics of humanity. Interestingly, De Waal’s conclusions resonate deeply with the find A book about religion from one of the foremost primatologists in the world. In this brilliant book, De Waal defends his thesis that morality is not an invention of religion, but that religion is a cultural scaffolding that builds upon and enhances biologically innate moral rules. Even more, De Waal acknowledges that religion is so deeply engrained in human nature that it has become one of the defining characteristics of humanity. Interestingly, De Waal’s conclusions resonate deeply with the findings of the cognitive science of religion (De Waal hints to this resonance himself in the final chapter). I am curious to see where this will go in the future.

Moreover, even though De Waal explicitly admits he is an atheist himself, he argues against the militant new atheists (whose behavior he describes as having a religious zealousness), that religion should perhaps not be done away with before atheism is able to come up with an equally solid and generally convincing scaffolding. Not surprisingly, some of these atheists, such as Sam Harris, have already responded to De Waal’s view with ridicule.

This is a highly interesting multi-layered book: it is a book about the biological and evolutionary roots of human morality; it also is a book with numerous anecdotes showing how moral behavior is already displayed by non-human primates and even other animals like elephants and dogs; and it is a philosophical meditation on what it means to be human.

De Waal is an optimist. He dismisses the idea that humans are born evil and that morality is meant to keep our evil tendencies in check. He believes that humans are social animals, being born to cooperate and support each other. But De Waal is also a realist in that he recognizes that such cooperation and support is extremely volatile and difficult to maintain.

I found this book a delightful read. And as a philosopher of religion and a theologian, taking science very seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with De Waal’s analysis and conclusions.
...more

flag 28 likes · Like · see review

Jul 16, 2014 Çağrı Mert Bakırcı rated it really liked it · review of another edition

It is certainly a great book in terms of animal behavior and about the quest to find the scientific basis of morality. I really enjoyed the first-hand experiences de Waal delivers, as well as the examples from the field about the relationships between the primates and even some elephants, dogs, etc. It is not up to me to criticize his knowledge in the field of ethology.

However... I am shocked by how naive he is and how much information and insight he lacks about atheism debates. He is so unfamil It is certainly a great book in terms of animal behavior and about the quest to find the scientific basis of morality. I really enjoyed the first-hand experiences de Waal delivers, as well as the examples from the field about the relationships between the primates and even some elephants, dogs, etc. It is not up to me to criticize his knowledge in the field of ethology.

However... I am shocked by how naive he is and how much information and insight he lacks about atheism debates. He is so unfamiliar or simply uninterested about these debates that he can ask "I understand why religious people try to spread their religion, but why does atheists debate against religious people? For what they do this?" Seriously? Is this de Waal's vision about atheism and theism debates? Should not having an imaginary friend prevent us from fighting against the modern day religious crusades against secularism, education, science? I think de Waal sits too much in his office with his cute and very interesting chimpanzees, that he forgot why atheists are angry about religious right and their actions, as well as simply religious people who claim we will burn in hell since we do not agree with them.

Also, de Waal deeply disappointed me when he said that we really need something to fill the space that removing religion creates and this simply cannot be done. Are you sure? He presents no evidence for his claim, other than demonizing communism trials in the past. Can the terrible outcomes of communism be because of the dictators of those countries, rather than the communism itself or removal of religion? I don't want to go into the topic of politics; however, I strongly disagree with the idea that removal of religion would require something else that would be just like religion again. I double, even triple strongly disagree that science cannot be something that can fill the space of religion. It sure can. If you need a subject that managed completely to do that, I would love to be a subject for such research. Science can and does fill the "need to believe". It is about the education and proximity to science during development. Religious belief does not have a special space in us. I don't see a research that shows that. I know it might be useful (especially for politics), but it is not a must.

I believe de Waal wanted to play nice to "both sides" in this debate, but I find his explanations deeply poor and they lack the power to reflect the intellectual background of the author. That deeply saddened and concerned me. I am strongly against what he calls "neo-Atheism" and I also strongly agree that these topics must not be made a field of war. Yet, his softness and naiveness about this topic is very peculiar.

Still, I tried to ignore these disturbing so-called "explanations" of de Waal about atheism and religion. When you remove those simply unnecessary and uninteresting (and mostly debatable or obciously wrong) sections, the book is a masterpiece for science of morality and ethology. ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

May 12, 2014 Dov Zeller rated it really liked it

Shelves: sciency-naturish, non-fiction

Frans De Waal makes a well researched and eloquent argument about the source of human morality.

He is not feverishly opposed to organized religion, though he is an atheist. He is opposed to the kind of violence that any kind of fundamentalist mind-set can bring.

He describes empathy, and, by extension, morality as a mammalian and certainly a primate thing. He sees its formulation as a'bottom up' rather than 'top down' approach, arguing that morality doesn't come from religion but from the mammal ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Sep 04, 2013 Sara rated it it was ok

There are things I liked about this book, and things I can't agree on. I learned a lot about primatology that I didn't know before, I feel he is quite an objective expert in this. It surprised me to learn bonobo had a sense of consequence, or played pranks on each other. This was well written and I learned quite a bit.
I couldn't agree with De Waal's perspective on human issues. He opposes a "top down" morality imposed by religion but not religion. He talks about Genital mutilation and circumcis There are things I liked about this book, and things I can't agree on. I learned a lot about primatology that I didn't know before, I feel he is quite an objective expert in this. It surprised me to learn bonobo had a sense of consequence, or played pranks on each other. This was well written and I learned quite a bit.
I couldn't agree with De Waal's perspective on human issues. He opposes a "top down" morality imposed by religion but not religion. He talks about Genital mutilation and circumcision here in the US as if it is exactly the same yet treated differently. He talks about Atheist evangelicals who proselytize as much as Christians, giving the analogy that it like "sleeping furiously". It is a fair criticism to say that some atheists go out and try to convert others. It is a hotbed of an issue here, but I think he is looking in and not understanding there is a lot of infringement. He was raised in a country where religious people are a minority and are not pushing their beliefs on others, an ideal situation where it is very peaceful. He has nostalgic, and sentimental feelings toward these religious groups who are a minority in Holland, this is totally understandable.
Here unfortunately there is a vocal number of religious people who can't respect people with different beliefs or none at all. They are on TV, in government, and taking the schools to court over not teaching creationism or intelligent design. A month ago a public school librarian pulled my daughter aside and told her about Jesus, she is one of many. I am not angry about it but I do wish people would keep their beliefs to themselves and I kindly told her that. Last week a protest took place in Texas because intelligent design was trying to make its way back into the curriculum. These people that oppose this receive plenty of criticism and its easy to see how an outsider could describe it as "sleeping furiously".
He also compared female genital mutilation to circumcision in the US, seeing us a hypocrit on the issue. While I can't imagine how these trends ever started and don't agree with them they are not comparable. FGM removes sexual pleasure for a lifetime, the clitoris as twice as many nerves as the penis. Circumcision removes the outside skin, and not the ability to have an orgasm.
My last thought on this book is that he really displays a superior air throughout the book no matter the issue. When he talks about these issues he seems to put himself above them. He is a good writer and explains the issues and discoveries in Primatology well. They are very well studied and thought out, his personal perspectives not nearly as much. ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Sep 20, 2016 Jimmy rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: atheism, animals

De Waal begins with a famous Nietzsche quote: "Is man only a blunder of God? Or is God only a blunder of man?"

The central question of the book seems to be: "Where does morality come from? Does it come from above or from within us?" As someone who thinks scientifically, I believe it obviously comes from within, but how and why?

De Waal speaks of apes holding a door open for another ape to get food even if it means they will eat less. And capuchin monkeys would rather play a card that gets food f ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2017 Rossdavidh rated it really liked it

Shelves: red

Frans De Waal is the sort of guy who, even within an alternative subculture, is fond of espousing alternative viewpoints. For example, he's a scientist (specializing in primates, especially chimpanzee and bonobos), and it's not much of a surprise to discover he's an atheist, but he also seems to think that Dawkins, Harris, and their ilk get too worked up about it. He doesn't like the term "brights" that some atheists wish to use for themselves, and says "what good could possibly come from insult Frans De Waal is the sort of guy who, even within an alternative subculture, is fond of espousing alternative viewpoints. For example, he's a scientist (specializing in primates, especially chimpanzee and bonobos), and it's not much of a surprise to discover he's an atheist, but he also seems to think that Dawkins, Harris, and their ilk get too worked up about it. He doesn't like the term "brights" that some atheists wish to use for themselves, and says "what good could possibly come from insulting the many people who find value in religion?"

Another quote: "to know what morality would look like without religion...would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause."

But, de Waal is not writing this book primarily to defend religion. In fact, he is intending to look at the idea that we need religion to keep us moral. If we cannot find human societies that are not either highly religious (most of the world), or were highly religious until within living memory (parts of Europe), then we can look at our close relatives. Chimpanzees and bonobos are the species most closely related to homo sapiens, and they do not have anything we could call "religion" unless we stretched the meaning of the term so much as to make it not very useful. What does their morality look like?

He also looks at questions that bear on the idea of the inner lives, such as whether they are aware of death, whether they feel guilt, whether they are outraged at moral offenses, what they think is happening when they cooperate, and so forth. One repeated point is that in order to learn about what kinds of tasks they are capable of doing, you have to construct the test in such a way that they want to do it, and it makes sense for their abilities. For example, he mentions a study which looked at the ability of chimpanzees to do facial recognition, that tested them using the same pictures of human faces that had been used on human subjects. Not surprisingly, chimpanzees did not do as well, but when given pictures of chimpanzees instead they were equal to humans.

When explaining experiments on, for example, whether or not elephants can think ahead to use tools, or chimpanzees can understand the concept of money, or so on, he often provides us with his own illustrations. There is something about his simple but entertaining and informative style of illustration that mirrors and complements very well his writing style.

There has been a bit of a pendulum effect over the centuries, in the attitude of scholars towards the inner lives of other animals, from thinking them similar to ourselves and then as mindless automatons (or reasonless and driven by emotion only). Frans de Waal does a great job of guiding us through the last few decades of research, which have gradually swung opinions back towards the idea that the inner lives of humans and other mammals exist on a continuum, rather than two separate worlds. It is also clear that a great deal of our own morality predates religion, and is shared with many other species, where we can see cooperation, punishment of cheating, adoption of infants who are not closely related, and many other behaviors that are hard to explain if you have Skinner as your model for the way in which animals think.

On the other hand, de Waal does not shrink (too much) from showing us the very real limits which our biological heritage provides us in regards to morality. First and foremost, it doesn't scale very well to large societies. The behavior of chimpanzees towards monkeys, or even other groups of chimpanzees, is sometimes pretty gruesome. The behavior of bonobos, though often portrayed as like flower children from the 1960's, is pretty violent compared to most human societies. If religion is an imperfect way of scaling up morality, it is at least clear that there is a real need which it is attempting to fill, and simply removing it does not solve the problem.

To his credit, de Waal does not try to answer every question for us. It is clear, though, that a career in studying our close relatives has given him a better perspective for thinking about them, and with this book he has done a great job of sharing that perspective with us. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Dec 21, 2015 Nathaniel rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, non-fiction

The must frustrating thing about this book was how much of it was quotable. I listened to it as an audiobook, and I use the bookmark feature of Audible regularly, but that means I have to go back after the fact and transcribe all the passages that I liked into Evernote. I probably have literally 30-40 passages I'm going to have to do that for with this book because it was just so tense with stories I want to capture, pithy lines, or surprising scientific findings. (OK, I don't really "have to,"- ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 30, 2013 Lucsly rated it liked it

A well written and at times fascinating explanation of the author's views on similarities between humans and mammals, with other primates taking center stage (obviously as De Waal is a primatologist).

He also has interesting things to say about the origin of morality in primates, including in humans but the book falters a bit in my opinion when he tries to invent a conflict between his views and atheists' in order to give his book a problem to solve.
Not only does he generalise atheists heavily ( ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Apr 28, 2018 Ioana Vasi rated it it was amazing

If you would like to get some insight into ethology and more specifically primate behavior, this looks like a good start.

Bonobos’ society is governed by strict hierarchical rules that can even pertain to ostracising the most rebellious members.
More surprising than anything, the Alpha male/female is often times a skilled mediator.
The majority of the tell tale signs of almost proto-spiritual features documented in the book are mostly highlights that were collected by observing captive bonobos, bu ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Apr 25, 2015 Emily Van Herik rated it it was amazing

I highly recommend this book to anybody who is passionate about religion and science, particularly the intersection of the two. The central argument is that morality predated religion, and that religion would not be such a strong force in the world without our species having evolved from other community minded creatures. My personal favorite point, however, is peripheral. He asserts that atheists who are vehemently opposed to religion likely grew up in fundamentalist religions, and they simply r ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Dec 14, 2019 Udit Nair rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: 5-stars, non-fiction, wildlife, atheism, religion-god, evolution, morality

Frans de waal presents an eloquent and well researched argument claiming that human morality comes from within and is not a result of top down approach as it is envisaged to be. At the start of the book he offers insights into bonobo behaviour and how it starkly differs from chimpanzees. Meanwhile in the book he also refers to issues like fundamentalism of any dogma. He equally criticizes religious authorities for imposing their beliefs and well neo atheists too for rampantly assaulting the reli ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Sep 10, 2017 Nicky rated it really liked it

Shelves: philosophy, non-fiction, science-fact

If you’ve ever wondered about the evolution of morality and whether humans are the only moral creatures, this is a good exploration of the idea. Frans de Waal posits that we have an innate sense of morality, and like Jonathan Haidt, suggests that this sense dictates what we do – the emotional tail wags the rational dog, rather than the other way round, in Haidt’s terminology.

The main attraction for me is not the ideas, which I’ve come across plenty of times before, but the anecdotes about the be ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jun 22, 2015 Clifford rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophyandreligion, reading-liberally

De Waal should stick to biology, because he's weak on philosophy and logic. I found the discussion of "morality" in bonobos and chimps interesting and compelling. It's absolutely clear that morality doesn't depend on religion. And he seems to acknowledge that religion is just a comforting lie, but that doesn't seem to bother him. Atheists are rude to point this out, he says. No, they aren't. Aren't we all obligated to speak the truth? ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 13, 2014 Steve Wiggins rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Frans de Waal is one of the most sensible biology writers alive. This the third book of his I've read and he has never failed to please. Cogent observations and ultimate good sense. See more at: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 30, 2019 John David rated it liked it

Shelves: psychology, science

This is an awkwardly named book, partially because it has nothing to do with humanism, per se. de Waal seems to think that “humanism” seems to be roughly definitionally coterminous with “secular morality,” but there are plenty of humanists who don’t subscribe to secular morality and many secularists who aren’t humanists. The book could have been better had that word not been in the title at all.

“The Bonobo and the Atheist” presents a pretty uncontroversial thesis, even for someone like me whose This is an awkwardly named book, partially because it has nothing to do with humanism, per se. de Waal seems to think that “humanism” seems to be roughly definitionally coterminous with “secular morality,” but there are plenty of humanists who don’t subscribe to secular morality and many secularists who aren’t humanists. The book could have been better had that word not been in the title at all.

“The Bonobo and the Atheist” presents a pretty uncontroversial thesis, even for someone like me whose grasp of the scholarly literature in primate ethology is virtually nonexistent: humans aren’t the only animals that display moral behavior. In fact, de Waal’s book is a great sourcebook of just these kinds of behaviors across a wide range of species, mostly culled from anecdotes relating to his personal research at various institutions over the last several decades. (He’s currently the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior in the Department of Psychology at Emory University.) There are plenty of examples of chimps and bonobos showing prosocial behavior all over the book, and even behavior that we could call moral, like expressing frustration or anger at a perceived lack of fairness.

If you are a reader whose curiosity was piqued by the word “atheist” in the title, and were looking for another Hitchens- or Dawkins-inspired dime store screed on how religion will be the end of humanity as we know it, you will be disappointed as well. In fact, the thesis of this book presented no reason whatsoever to even discuss the relatives merits and drawbacks of religion, but I guess throwing in a buzzworthy word into the title can’t harm sales. As is pretty clear from the summary of the book, the main idea he’s trying to present is that moral behavior is present in all of the higher apes (other animals too, but being a primatologist, his focus is mostly the bonobo and the chimpanzee). Consequently, it should come as no surprise that the moral tendencies we share with these animals predates any idea of God, and certainly predates any attempts at formal institutions built to worship said God. The big take-away from the book is that morality, no matter which animal it occurs in, is a product of biology, not of divine revelation or supernatural intercession.

Being originally from the Netherlands, de Waal was at first very perplexed at the popularity, not to mention the fundamentalism, of American life. He moved to the states at in 1981, when he was 33 years old, and has spent more than half of his life here. It’s understandable why European atheists look at American atheists with bemusement, because they seem to be so passionate about something so obvious. However, despite all his time in the U.S, de Waal still seems to think that popularizing atheists with a broad American audience (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris – he thinks Dennett is by far the most rational and thoughtful of the bunch) are “sleeping furiously” – that is to say, since atheism is essentially the rejection of a proposition, they’re making a big deal out of the existence of essentially … nothing. He drives this point home repeatedly in the book, and it’s somewhat befuddling. Here’s a scientist, an open atheist, and yet he doesn’t seem to see the value in doing the yeoman’s work of getting bullshit like “creation science” out of the classroom where it most certainly doesn’t belong.

Are the Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris sometimes grating and strident? Sometimes, tin-eared interlocutors for the ideas they’re trying to promote? Most certainly. But when he refers to them as sleeping furiously, he seems to be criticizing them for more than their stentorian shrillness. In a country where one out of three Americans still believe that the creation account(s) in Genesis hold the authority of science, we need to learn how to walk before we can run. We need more public education about science, and at their best, most effective and most appealing, that’s what they’re doing. Only then can we get the buffoons who think the world was created in six days kicked off of school boards and out of Congress. But to say they are sleeping furiously is akin to calling their work in vain. Perhaps it’s the optimist in me (it occasionally peeks out), but I hope that’s not the case. I’m convinced that a world that makes its decisions based on evidence, weighted consideration of the facts, and rational criticism of ideas is the best possible world that we have to offer future generations. But that kind of world doesn’t just pop into existence ex nihilo. It has to be worked for, and that’s what I’ve always imagined as the most important role for the “public atheist.” ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 08, 2013 Iz rated it liked it

Shelves: science, nonfiction

I finished this a few months ago so I can't find the exact passages that stuck with me the most. While I definitely appreciate the defense of humanist morality (and this book really is an important, well-written read, though not necessarily new - see The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology), I can't help but think that the skeptic/humanist world is too saturated with the old white male perspective.

Perhaps this is what lies behind de Waal's critici I finished this a few months ago so I can't find the exact passages that stuck with me the most. While I definitely appreciate the defense of humanist morality (and this book really is an important, well-written read, though not necessarily new - see The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology), I can't help but think that the skeptic/humanist world is too saturated with the old white male perspective.

Perhaps this is what lies behind de Waal's criticism of the "dogmatic" atheist and scientific community. In what appeared to me to be a rant against these men, de Waal seems to think that the worst negative effects of religion currently are merely preaching creationism and a flat earth. Let me then reply-rant: this completely ignores the groups of people who are the most damaged by religion in the western world, namely women and non-Christian people of colour, whose lives are actually, literally, endangered by religious dogmatism. And let's remember these are not fringe groups, but people with considerable political power.

In the last chapter, de Waal mentions a certain "Dr. Benjamin Carson," probably unknown to most people when this book was written, but you'd have to be living under a rock to not know who he is now. In the past few months, Dr. Carson has provided us with an tremendous assault on anything related to reality, truth, rationality and logic. He can only do this because he is able to appeal to the only group of people who appreciate this rhetoric of absolute ignorance, the religious extremists. Regardless of religion, throughout history, extremists have waged wars against knowledge and inquiry - and this is what is at the heart of the problem with religion.

It's not enough to show with rational arguments that morality is innate and doesn't come from religion. You can't win an argument using logic with someone who is completely irrational. However, I do get where he's coming from in defense of spirituality, and if anyone who is an atheist/skepting has an interest in appreciating the benefit of the search for spiritual meaning and traditional knowledge, I highly suggest reading The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World. May I suggest as well searching for humanist ethic books written by women and PoC, because while I respect de Waal's views tbh I'm getting bored of this same old tired perspective. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Apr 26, 2013 Dick Zeeman rated it it was ok

The subject of the book is very interesting. Frans de Waal has a very nice style which makes for an easy read.
However, he does not convince me of his opinions, even though I share many of them. Mainly he does himself what he accuses other scientists of: cherry picking, confirmation bias and even stating his opinion as fact.

For example (I don't say I don't agree with some of the below, the point is the way he presents his ideas and opinions):
"Such behaviour is sure to be selected against" (page 7 ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Mar 16, 2014 Laura rated it really liked it

Shelves: evolution, being-human, religious-studies

For the most part, this book was lovely. A loving and critical exploration of the roots of morality in the whole brain itself, not just the little veneer of cells that characterizes us smug humans. He recounts many well documented stories of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, whales, rats, and dogs being better than they had to be; showing compassion, empathy and insight.

The sour note was his discussion of atheists. He clearly doesn’t like most of us. He keeps accusing us, sometimes in the voice o ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 02, 2013 John Kaufmann rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, brain-cogsci-socialpsych

Despite its title, this book does not trash religion or espouse atheism. The main premise is that morality is not the stepchild of religion - on the contrary, morality predates religion and comes from within (i.e. human nature). de Waal discusses how morality is grounded in emotions and social interaction, citing various "pre-moral" behaviors among primates, bonobos, and even other animals. In small groups, these behaviors can be enforced by shunning and other direct punishment. But as societies ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jun 25, 2017 Cheri rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nonfiction, science, religion

In an area fraught with ill will and name calling, Frans de Waal offers a warm, optimistic and peaceable view of the "conflict" between science and religion. The real conflict is with dogma, which can appear on both sides. This beautifully written book is the product of a lifetime of studying primates, whom he sees as natural moralists -- as are humans, who share an evolutionary past with them. His stories of bonobos gave me a feeling of kinship with other living creatures and a better understan ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Mar 10, 2020 ⚧️ Nadienne Greysorrow ⚧️ rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

Very much worth the read, particularly if you love reading about stories of how intelligent animals are and how very much like them we still are, in spite of our continued insistence that we are not (an idea to which I do not subscribe).

To sum up, "morality" is not uniquely Human, and in fact, what we consider morality is, in fact, simple evolved and learned behavior that our closest animal cousins, as well as many other social animals, have developed to help them survive, adapt, and thrive. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 16, 2014 Melissa Choi rated it really liked it

Frans de Waal is a very accomplished primatologist, and in addition, he also possesses the rare gift for elegant prose. This book reinforces the growing scientific perspective that morality is not the exclusive domain of homo sapiens, and instead is a result of evolution. Indeed, the study of animal behavior has revealed that primates and apes exhibit rudimentary forms of morality such as reciprocal altruism, co-operation, and a sense of fairness/justice. Although the book title features the bon Frans de Waal is a very accomplished primatologist, and in addition, he also possesses the rare gift for elegant prose. This book reinforces the growing scientific perspective that morality is not the exclusive domain of homo sapiens, and instead is a result of evolution. Indeed, the study of animal behavior has revealed that primates and apes exhibit rudimentary forms of morality such as reciprocal altruism, co-operation, and a sense of fairness/justice. Although the book title features the bonobos prominently, it actually discusses the ethology of other animals including elephants and capuchin monkeys, representing a rather comprehensive view of the building blocks of moral behavior throughout the animal kingdom.

While I appreciate his attempts to weigh in on the philosophical and sociocultural implications of a bottom-up morality especially in the vein of humanism, I find it somewhat puzzling that he inveighs a tone of stridency towards the so-called New Atheists. For one, he shares a lot in common with Richard Dawkins. Both of them are zoologists/ethologists by training and both have an uncanny ability to traverse effortlessly between highbrow cultural analysis and the technical minefield of scientific discourse.

Although chimpanzees are the most well-studied human relative, it turns out that bonobos are at least as phylogenetically equidistant from our species as the chimps are. I couldn’t help but extrapolate and think of the implications of De Waal’s insight into bonobo behavior with respect to the spectrum of human political tendencies: you have the lefty hippie types who believe in free love (bonobos) and then you have the hawkish war-mongering conservatives (chimpanzees). One thing that I took away from the bonobos is that sex can and does serve positive non-reproductive functions.

Besides impassioned diatribes against the New Atheists, as and when he can, De Waal also takes a stab at Dawkin’s genes-eye view of evolution, especially in light of nature and morality. I find this somewhat perplexing as it is quite clear to anyone who has read Dawkin’s Selfish Gene that descriptions of genes as being conscious and intentional agents is at best, metaphorical. I’m sure that ultimately, Dawkins would agree with De Waal that humans and other primates need not be consciously motivated by selfish desires, even if the outcomes of moral evolution were shaped by selfish means.

The older I get, the more I find myself subscribing to the Humean as opposed to the Kantian school of thought. Recent advances in cognitive science and neurobiology corroborate with that of animal studies, further cementing the idea that Descartes wasn’t quite on the right side of the rationality argument.

I agree with De Waal that understanding the need for religion is a far superior goal to bashing it. However, even if the existence of God isn’t provable, unlike him, I do find that question rather important and interesting. Works by the likes of Dr. Andy Thomson show us why religion needs to be studied as a phenomenon that has co-evolved with humanity and its cultures. I also think that it’s important to figure out why, as De Waal discusses in this book, communities based on secularism disintegrate much faster than those based on religious principles. Why is it that sharing a religion dramatically raises trust? The question is not so much whether religion is true or false, but how it shapes our lives, and what might possibly take its place if we were to get rid of it.

The Dutch scientist may have grown up with a milder religious upbringing in Europe. And in a sense he’s probably right that a harsh childhood fomented by religious indoctrination is related to the extent of bitterness and contempt for religion after deconversion. But De Waal completely fails to even objectively probe or discuss the negative externalities of religion; invariably, his views are commensurate with that of the typical liberal academic apologist and relativist. For one, I am tired of the argument that the crusades/inquisition was just a front for political or colonial ambitions, and that religion had no role in it.

I like how we’re slowly beginning to build up a story of how religion came to be. When our ancestors lived in small groups, similar to primate groups, everyone knew everyone. When surrounded by an intimate community, we had reasons to follow the rules and get along with each other; there were personal reputations to uphold.

It was only when our human ancestors aggregated in ever-larger societies, that these face-to-face mechanisms fell apart. With bigger groups came the need for bigger gods. This framework is highly satisfying from an intellectual standpoint, analogous to when Dawkins explained how replicating machines arose from a “primordial soup,” such that one could so clearly see and understand the continuity of life. In this case, the study of animal behavior has revealed a continuity in moral evolution and the latest insight into the enigmatic bonobos have shed much light on the foibles and triumphs of the human condition.
...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 08, 2020 Sanjay rated it it was amazing

Religion augments an innate morality that allows social creatures to create and maintain harmonious groups while dealing with scare resources and power structures. This morality is innate to humans because we see similar moral qualms and normative positions in our closest relatives, the apes. This seems to imply that religion is not what prevents us from acting like immoral brutes but is instead a later addition to supplement our innate tendencies in a world that involved interactions with stran ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Aug 03, 2013 John rated it really liked it

A strong 4.5

A real thinker of a book. Right from the beginning I was challenged by de Waal’s approach to religion and atheism. He is very passive. Dogma on either side does not help. People’s minds are not changed by dogma. And both science and religion have a horrible track record of justifying atrocious acts in the name of the greater good. Both religion and science are imperfect.

In chapter 4 the author dives deeper into the ideas of religion and atheism. I went back and reread this chapter t A strong 4.5

A real thinker of a book. Right from the beginning I was challenged by de Waal’s approach to religion and atheism. He is very passive. Dogma on either side does not help. People’s minds are not changed by dogma. And both science and religion have a horrible track record of justifying atrocious acts in the name of the greater good. Both religion and science are imperfect.

In chapter 4 the author dives deeper into the ideas of religion and atheism. I went back and reread this chapter to try and digest more of it. I agree that religion and science are not in a war with each other, as most Americans seem to think. Much of the rest of the world seems to have figured out that they can coexist. He had a couple of comparative lines on pages 100 and 101 that blew me away.

“Science is a collective enterprise with rules of engagement that allow the whole to make progress even if its parts drag their feet.”

“In comparison, religion is static. It does change with a changing society, but rarely as a result of evidence.”

A second big take away for me is rethinking my views on anthropomorphism. Due to my religious upbringing, I kept a huge gap between man and the beasts of the earth. Though I am no longer religious, I have mostly kept this gap, despite trying to look at the world and humanity through the lens of our evolutionary history. I have mostly ignored the similarities between animal behavior and human behavior. But I realize I have been prejudiced to do so, and have ignored the facts. After the evidence presented in this book, I can see how obvious it is that social animals (especially primates) act like humans. Or rather we act like them since we have mostly the same brain and genes, and have been shaped by a shared evolutionary experience.

This is not to downplay the impact of the main point of the book; that morality stems not from religion, but rather is prevalent in societies of social animals. Since losing my religion, I have not fretted over where that leaves me (and humanity) morally. Without being able to explain it, I have felt confident that moral footing can exist absent god. This book gave me plenty of tools and provisions to build a logical moral platform. By the many examples of animal morality and their sense of fairness, we know that morality predates religion by eons and epochs. In that sense it was nice to find something I did not feel I was lacking.

Although it is more passively presented than thrust upon the reader, I agree with the author that society needs to have morals that help us all do what is good for society, as opposed to a top down model where getting away with what is morally deplorable, yet legal, is accepted. It might be legal for big banks to make billions off of poor people’s mortgages and bank account fees, but that does not mean it is morally right. A top down morality seems to encourage behavior that is morally questionable (or outright wrong) because it fits between the cracks of what is specifically ruled out. The thinking becomes: If god (or the government) did not specifically make something illegal, than my actions must be ok, even if they seem questionable and I am taking advantage of others.

My only small complaints are about the writing style and organization of the book. It was far from horrible, but could have been improved. Some sections felt a bit jumpy, and trains of thought meandered.

I highly recommend this book to either people who claim to be an atheist, or are religious. I found the author’s approach fresh, thought provoking, and non-combative. I would be very surprised if it did not make you think.
...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 31, 2020 Halli Lauren rated it liked it

I read and enjoyed De Waal’s “Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are”, so when I saw this book was written by him, I was pretty intrigued! As a baby atheist myself, and someone who is interested in studying bonobos, this seemed like the perfect book for me. Unfortunately, De Waal spent way more time talking about chimpanzees than bonobos. He also spent way more time talking about Heironymus Bosch than was necessary. What was the point of that??
I was pretty on board with the author’s I read and enjoyed De Waal’s “Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are”, so when I saw this book was written by him, I was pretty intrigued! As a baby atheist myself, and someone who is interested in studying bonobos, this seemed like the perfect book for me. Unfortunately, De Waal spent way more time talking about chimpanzees than bonobos. He also spent way more time talking about Heironymus Bosch than was necessary. What was the point of that??
I was pretty on board with the author’s broader points about religion:
1. Trying to “convert people to atheism” is a waste of energy
2. Religion isn’t going away any time soon, and if it did, we’d need to find something to replace it because of all the important things it does for us as humans (ie: community building)
But here are my qualms:
1. Why did he spend so much time condemning Neo-Atheists and so little time condemning the abuse and manipulation in so many religions? Toward the beginning, De Waal pointed out that he came from a much more casual religious background, so leaving his religion wasn’t as big of a deal. But the thing is, so many religions are extremely dogmatic which can lead to much more harm than good. De Waal definitely condemned dogmatism, which I agree with, but he didn’t seem to realize how inescapable dogmatism can be. Maybe that’s just my point of view coming from a high demand, very dogmatic religion.
2. So yeah, religion is important and isn’t going away any time soon. Then what should atheists do? De Waal spent so much time saying how important religion is, and even though he is an atheist himself, he didn’t share any of his ideas of how to get the benefits of religion elsewhere. I guess that’s what I wanted out of the book, and I didn’t get it.
Then of course there’s the main subject matter of the book: the evolution of morality and altruism. This was all well and good, but while reading I didn’t have any “Aha!” moments- nothing felt very fresh to me.
Overall a disappointing read. Not good, not bad. Just meh. Oh also I’m just sick of reading books by old white men… if anyone has recommendations of nonfiction science books by women or people of color?? Definitely would love to hear those. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 16, 2013 Adam S. Rust rated it liked it

This book is a mixed bag. Its best contribution involves its rebuttal of the "scientific Calvinism" of more dour interpretations of Darwinian theory advocated by early evolutionary popularizers like Huxley. De Waal labels this view as the "the veneer theory" of human morality. Basically it comes down to the belief that any moral action is "really" about looking out for ones own benefits. De Waal's critique based on recent scientific research into the moral reasoning of primates and other mammals This book is a mixed bag. Its best contribution involves its rebuttal of the "scientific Calvinism" of more dour interpretations of Darwinian theory advocated by early evolutionary popularizers like Huxley. De Waal labels this view as the "the veneer theory" of human morality. Basically it comes down to the belief that any moral action is "really" about looking out for ones own benefits. De Waal's critique based on recent scientific research into the moral reasoning of primates and other mammals does an admirable job of defeating this thesis. These sections are far and away the best parts of the book.

Unfortunately, these sections are lost in a sea of side ruminations that vary from irrelevant to wrong-headed. The irrelevant sections involve reflections on the art work of Hieronymus Bosch that de Waal only tenuously connects to the main thesis. The wrong-headed sections involve an over-simplified critique of the New Atheists. The over simplification leads to some speculations that don't line up with the facts. At one point de Waal hypothesizes that militant atheism arises from a bitterness about ones profoundly conservative religious background. Unfortunately the two major examples he offers, Dawkins and Hitchers are both products of that lackadaisical branch of the most the limpid manifestation of the Christian tradition: the Church of England.

While de Waal has a point when he critiques the New Atheists for not being more friendly with the religiously liberal he carries this criticism too far. This leads to an unwillingness to acknowledge that certain types of religiously motivated metaphysical thinking are the biggest barrier to wider acceptance of his arguments in favor of morality emerging from our natural inclinations as opposed to from divine dictates that keep our savage nature in check. If you're looking for a book to introduce you to the thinking of this important primatologist and evolutionary thinker, try one of his earlier works. This lackluster performance, for all its virtues, lacks the focus on his area of expertise that made earlier books like "Good Natured" worthwhile reads. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 09, 2017 Phelecia Odima rated it really liked it

Frans de Waal brings forth a beautiful display of the intersection between primatology and humanity in "The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates". This book will prove a mind-blowing piece of literature for the modern human being catching flights around the globe, enjoying advancements in technology and perhaps understandably, forgetting that we are just animals-primates-and we have a lot in common with our closest relatives, the bonobos. De Waal seeks out to answer t ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 25, 2017 Kusaimamekirai rated it really liked it

What is the role of religion in determining our personal moral codes as well as how we treat others? Is religion the source of morality to such an extent that without it we all would just do whatever we want without regard for anyone else (the theory of the entertaining if not always wise Ben Carson)? Or does religion reinforce pre-existing ideas we've always held about fairness and empathy?
In "The Athiest and the Bonobo", Frans De Waal comes down on the side of the latter by looking at our ne ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Videos About This Book

Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals

1 comment

Genres

Science

292 users

Nonfiction

226 users

Philosophy

103 users

Religion

88 users

Psychology

83 users

Animals

67 users

Science > Biology

66 users

Anthropology

57 users

Biology > Evolution

54 users

Religion > Atheism

37 users

See top shelves…

About Frans de Waal

Frans de Waal

1,358 followers

Frans de Waal has been named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People. The author of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, among many other works, he is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University’s Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

Books by Frans de Waal

Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are

Mama's Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us about Ourselves

The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society

Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes

More…

News & Interviews

6 Great Books Hitting Shelves This Week

Need another excuse to treat yourself to a new book this week? We've got you covered with the buzziest new releases of the day. To create our...

Trivia About The Bonobo and th...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from The Bonobo and th...

“Perhaps it's just me, but I am wary of any persons whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior.” — 43 likes

“Friedrich Nietzsche, who famously gave us the ‘God is dead’ phrase was interested in the sources of morality. He warned that the emergence of something (whether an organ, a legal institution, or a religious ritual) is never to be confused with its acquired purpose: ‘Anything in existence, having somehow come about, is continually interpreted anew, requisitioned anew, transformed and redirected to a new purpose.’

This is a liberating thought, which teaches us to never hold the history of something against its possible applications. Even if computers started out as calculators, that doesn’t prevent us from playing games on them. (47) (quoting Nietzsche, the Genealogy of Morals)” — 30 likes

More quotes…