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

4.11 · Rating details · 3,893 ratings · 402 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 Ecological Rift by John Bellamy Foster

The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal

The Psychology of Morality

46 books — 40 voters

How to Create the Perfect Wife by Wendy Moore

To Save Everything, Click Here by Evgeny Morozov

The Economist - book reviews 2013 Q1-2

95 books — 28 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.11 ·

Rating details

· 3,893 ratings · 402 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 52 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 24 likes · Like · see review

May 12, 2014 Dov Zeller rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, sciency-naturish

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 17 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 14 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 14 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

Dec 21, 2015 stormin rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction, science

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 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 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 25, 2015 Emily Carter 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

Sep 10, 2017 Nicky rated it really liked it

Shelves: science-fact, non-fiction, philosophy

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

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

Sep 02, 2013 John Kaufmann rated it it was amazing

Shelves: brain-cogsci-socialpsych, science

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

Aug 30, 2019 John David rated it liked it

Shelves: science, psychology

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 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 10, 2020 General Drachen 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.

flag 2 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

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 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

Apr 15, 2018 Ivana rated it it was amazing

I haven't read Frans De Waal before, but I am glad I picked up this book. As every good book does, this one left me with more questions than when I started reading it. The topic of morality, and whether it antedates religion or is a product of it has been debated and contested for ages. De Waal offers conclusive evidence that morality has evolved, and though we may not understand all the drivers behind it, moral codes are present in apes, primates, and canids, among others. De Waal very delicate ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

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

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

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 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 16, 2014 Laura rated it really liked it

Shelves: religious-studies, evolution, being-human

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 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 10, 2015 Jim Razinha rated it really liked it

Wonderful book. de Waal seems careful in not making definitive pronouncements, but he does state quite explicitly what he concludes from his research and experience with respect to apes, and other animals, possessing senses of what is right and wrong...without the "benefit" of a religious canopy. I'm primed to like this clearly and conversationally written work, in part because I read part of The Age of Empathy (must get back to it now), and in part because morality/empathy as a product of evolu ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Aug 17, 2017 Jenny rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Recommended to Jenny by: Dr. Jim Fitzgerald

Shelves: frans-de-waal

Great book, informative, humorous at times, makes you reflect on humanity and kindness. As an agnosticist myself, I agree with Frans de Waal about how there is no point to disprove religion when the need for it is rooted deeply in humanity. I enjoyed reading about all the experiments but not so much about the paintings, albeit it is largely relevant to prove the point. I also enjoyed learning how anthropologists disregarded the link between bonobos and human because the male bonobos aren't as ma ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 31, 2019 Kevin Larsen rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: atheism, anthropology

This is a great view of the "religion is necessary for morality" debate between believers and atheists from the perspective of a highly-trained primate watcher who gives light on what humans inherited from their primate ancestors. He shows the subtle inclines between religion and morality, science and morality, and evolution and morality. He describes why philosophy is probably not enough to establish morality. Numerous observations of animal behavior and experiments are in this book to show his ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 21, 2014 Rennie rated it it was ok

Shelves: read-but-skimmed-only

Disconcerting to think that benobos appear to have better instincts than many of us seem to have. Perhaps advancing the species to the point where a more comfortable life can be led (food stored instead of searched for every day and ipods)leads to materialism and selfishness but as it is unlikely that we will ever go back to a truly simple life, maybe all we can take away from this book is that buried in us there could be an inate drive to care for our fellow creatures.

flag 2 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?

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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

249 users

Nonfiction

196 users

Philosophy

88 users

Religion

77 users

Psychology

70 users

Animals

55 users

Biology > Evolution

52 users

Science > Biology

52 users

Anthropology

46 users

Religion > Atheism

32 users

See top shelves…

About Frans de Waal

Frans de Waal

1,064 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

Trend Watch: Young Adult Vampires Rise from the Dead

They’re baaaaaaack! Young adult vampires, that is. Fifteen years after Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight took the world by storm, we’re seeing a brand...

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.” — 33 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)” — 28 likes

More quotes…