New Franz de Waal book: "The Bonobo and the Atheist"

[william.scherk]

Amazon features Franz de Waal's new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates

From the blurb and from editorial reviews:

For many years, de Waal has observed chimpanzees soothe distressed neighbors and bonobos share their food. Now he delivers fascinating fresh evidence for the seeds of ethical behavior in primate societies that further cements the case for the biological origins of human fairness. Interweaving vivid tales from the animal kingdom with thoughtful philosophical analysis, de Waal seeks a bottom-up explanation of morality that emphasizes our connection with animals. In doing so, de Waal explores for the first time the implications of his work for our understanding of modern religion. Whatever the role of religious moral imperatives, he sees it as a “Johnny-come-lately” role that emerged only as an addition to our natural instincts for cooperation and empathy.

But unlike the dogmatic neo-atheist of his book’s title, de Waal does not scorn religion per se. Instead, he draws on the long tradition of humanism exemplified by the painter Hieronymus Bosch and asks reflective readers to consider these issues from a positive perspective: What role, if any, does religion play for a well-functioning society today? And where can believers and nonbelievers alike find the inspiration to lead a good life?

“The perpetual challenge to atheists is that moral behavior requires religion—all that prevents tsunamis of depravity is a deity or two, some nice hymns, and the threat of hellfire and damnation. De Waal shows that human morality is deeply rooted in our primate legacy, long predating the invention of that cultural gizmo called religion. This is an immensely important book by one of our most distinguished thinkers.” (Robert Sapolsky, author of Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers and Monkeyluv )

“De Waal’s decades of patient work documenting the ‘building blocks’ of morality in other animals has revolutionized not just primatology but moral psychology. By revealing our commonalities with other species, he gives us more compassion for them and also for ourselves. It’s impossible to look an ape in the eye and not see oneself, de Waal tells us, and this beautifully written book is one long riveting gaze.” (Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion )

“Frans de Waal offers us a wealth of inspiring observations from the animal realm, combined with thoughtful reflections on the evolution of morality. He makes a convincing case for the natural foundations of a secular ethics that is fully independent of religion without being dogmatically against it.” (Matthieu Ricard, Buddhist monk, scientist, and author of Happiness and The Quantum and the Lotus )

“Frans de Waal’s new book carries the important message that human kindness is a biological feature of our species and not something that has to be imposed on us by religious teaching.” (Desmond Morris, author of The Naked Ape )

[Xray]

Thank you William for the info about de Waal's new book.

http://www.amazon.co...g=vglnkc4830-20

“Frans de Waal offers us a wealth of inspiring observations from the animal realm, combined with thoughtful reflections on the evolution of morality. He makes a convincing case for the natural foundations of a secular ethics that is fully independent of religion without being dogmatically against it.” (Matthieu Ricard, Buddhist monk, scientist, and author of Happiness and The Quantum and the Lotus )

What makes the case for the secular ethics advocated by de Waal so strong: it is supported by empirical research.

[George H. Smith]

Thank you William for the info about de Waal's new book.

http://www.amazon.co...g=vglnkc4830-20

“Frans de Waal offers us a wealth of inspiring observations from the animal realm, combined with thoughtful reflections on the evolution of morality. He makes a convincing case for the natural foundations of a secular ethics that is fully independent of religion without being dogmatically against it.” (Matthieu Ricard, Buddhist monk, scientist, and author of Happiness and The Quantum and the Lotus )

What makes the case for the secular ethics advocated by de Waal so strong: it is supported by empirical research.

Do we really need to do research on primates to understand that ethics does not require belief in God? More to the point would be to look at human behavior.

Ghs

[Xray]

Do we really need to do research on primates to understand that ethics does not require belief in God? More to the point would be to look at human behavior.

We too are primates, sharing more than 95% of our genetic material with our chimp and bonobo 'cousins'.

More to the point would be to look at human behavior.

In that context, I'm not so much interested in disproving false premises based on religious tenets; my focus is on collecting 'evidence' suitable for building a secular ethics.

Not to be misunderstood: I'm not an advocating a reductionist 'biologism'. But what is biologically hardwired cannot be disregarded if an ethical system is going to work. Aquiring a productive balance between our (often conflcting) biological impulses is among the challenges any ethics has to deal with.

Which is often a tightrope walk. I don't envy those who sit in ethics commissions and have to struggle over decisions that have far-reaching consequences, like for example allowing doctors, under certain circumstances, to put a patient off life support, or in decisions concerning 'genetic engineering'.

To get back to our 'animal cousins': if they too show forms of empathic behavior, imo it allows the inference that the capacity for feeling empathy is biologically hardwired in them as well as in us humans. Mirror neurons seem to play a crucial role.

[anthony]

Xray,

You have to go to the biologists to prove empathy? Evidently you experience it, introspectively.

OF COURSE it's hard-wired in animal and man - with all their other specie-survival mechanisms, including fear

and savage hatred for outsiders and interlopers (er, racism) procreative rape, subservience to the stronger leaders of the clan, loss of individualism to the tribe - and on and on. What's startling about this revelation?

And now, the rational animal has to learn his secular morality from the irrational animal. (No prizes for guessing which morality). What a joke that it is even taken slightly seriously. It makes one wonder if F de Waal recognizes that some modicum of rationality is required to invent a God and religion.

With all this romantic anthropomorphic monkey-business, let's not forget how mean and nasty they are too.

I'm sure it's a warming and charming book ~ about animals ~ but as with Dawkins, biologists are out of their depth in ethics and should stay clear.

[Xray]

Xray,

You have to go to the biologists to prove empathy? Evidently you experience it, introspectively.

But mere introspective experience is not sufficent when it comes to issues dealing with proof. Proof also requires elements of objectivity, like observation and analysis from an 'outside' standpoint,

And now, the rational animal has to learn his secular morality from the irrational animal. (No prizes for guessing which morality). What a joke that it is even taken slightly seriously.

Collecting scientific data and making detailed observations is not irrational at all. On the contrary, it can prevent the construction of an ethics built on false premises.

I'm sure it's a warming and charming book ~ about animals ~ but as with Dawkins, biologists are out of their depth in ethics and should stay clear.

Why not advocate a constant exchange between philosophers, biologists, neurologists, etc.?

With all this romantic anthropomorphic monkey-business, let's not forget how mean and nasty they are too.

Exactly. The 'kind' and the 'mean', we all have it in us as 'survival equipment'. Ethics deals with how to handle that equipment.

[anthony]

With all this romantic anthropomorphic monkey-business, let's not forget how mean and nasty they are too.

Exactly. The 'kind' and the 'mean', we all have it in us as 'survival equipment'. Ethics deals with how to handle that equipment.

That's it then. Our morality must descend to the lowest common denominator: our instincts to survive? So, hopefully, kindness will

then triumph over all our other savage instincts - somehow - I

suppose?

Are you forgetting that these instinctual survival tools are 'designed' by nature for the furtherance of a species - any and every species, without partiality?

Never concerned with the single entity or individual, but exclusively for

the species in its entirety? Perhaps not: here in a nutshell is the basis for the myth of the collectivist/altruist morality. The 'good'

of the whole, at the cost of the one.

Kindness (more specifically, acts of kindness) are self-evidently

of worth, for benefactor and beneficiary, to any reasonably mentally healthy person. He knows this from early childhood from observance and introspection. It doesn't take a biologist, referencing bonobo behaviour to tell us what we know. Men have always been as kind as they choose to be, and are able to be. How much has kindness affected the course of history? So what's new?

But when it has been institutionalized (i.e, enforced) through religion or Statism, it has only brought about the worst in humanity.

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm sure it's a warming and charming book ~ about animals ~ but as with Dawkins, biologists are out of their depth in ethics and should stay clear.

True. Biology is science and Ethics is opinion. The two should not be mixed. The are biological facts. There are no ethical facts. Only ethical judgements.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

I'm sure it's a warming and charming book ~ about animals ~ but as with Dawkins, biologists are out of their depth in ethics and should stay clear.

True. Biology is science and Ethics is opinion. The two should not be mixed. The are biological facts. There are no ethical facts. Only ethical judgements.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But what about "ethical judgments" which are founded upon facts?

There are ethics and there are ethics, most of which are pie in the sky.

All one needs to know is does a moral system relate to reality or not? Does it

pertain to the attributes, limitations and needs of the organism? Facts of reality

are congregated into concepts, concepts into principles, principles into a rational morality. Ethics are - simply -a package of numerous facts, hierarchically organised. The test of validity is its ongoing application to fresh facts.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al Chatzaf

But what about "ethical judgments" which are founded upon facts?

There are ethics and there are ethics, most of which are pie in the sky.

All one needs to know is does a moral system relate to reality or not? Does it

pertain to the attributes, limitations and needs of the organism? Facts of reality

are congregated into concepts, concepts into principles, principles into a rational morality. Ethics are - simply -a package of numerous facts, hierarchically organised. The test of validity is its ongoing application to fresh facts.

Two people can look at the same set of facts and come to different ethical conclusions based on those facts. Facts are firm. Judgements are fickle.

Ba'al Chatzaf