Rate this book

Bonobo Ve Ateist (2013)

by Frans de Waal(Favorite Author)

4.02 of 5 Votes: 5

languge

English

genre

Nonfiction

publisher

Metis Yayınları

review 1: 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 philoso... morephical 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.
review 2: The book really should have been titled "The Bonobo and Human Empathy". The two pillars of all philosophy are empathy and reciprocity. He completely examines the first pillar, empathy, by illustrating empathetic behavior in Bonobos (and other animals) and linking it to our behavior.He's such a good writer even when he wrote about things I completely disagreed with I would find the book thought provoking. I thought he trivialized the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and John Stuart Mill. But, I'm not bothered. I believe what I believe and I appreciated the different perspective.The narrator did a perfect job.The book is much better than most pop science books I have listened to and I'm much richer for having listened to this highly entertaining book and can definitely say because of this book I'm much closer to my goal of understanding our place in the universe. He does talk about philosophy but I enjoyed those parts as much as I did about bonobos.(P.S. Matt Ridley's book, "The Rational Optimist", fully covers the second pillar of human philosophy, reciprocity. Also, my personal take on the author he seemed like an apologetic atheist and he didn't want to offend anyone. But as I say, I wasn't bothered by this, but I disagreed with him regarding those sections. Also, he seemed to characterized the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill in a comic book fashion. Once again I wasn't bothered but I don't want to leave the impression that I agreed with him on those two points). less

Download links for: Bonobo ve Ateist

Advertising