Product Description

A reviewer wrote of The Selfish Gene that it was 'rich with metaphor, passionate arguments, wry humour, colourful examples and unexpected connections'. This intriguing selection of Richard Dawkins large output of articles, lectures, individual chapters and reviews demonstrates the breadth of his interests, the sheer quality of his writing and the challenging nature of his trenchantly held views. Whether writing on the many aspects of evolution or on science in general - the importance of science, the poetry of science, the fact that science is inspiring (or ought to be) - he is often provocative, sometimes outrageous, never less than highly influential.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #285003 in Books
• Published on: 2004-10-27
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 272 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
Those unfamiliar with the writings of Richard Dawkins could do worse than begin with The Devil's Chaplain-–a collection of pieces selected from the many articles, lectures, book reviews, polemics, forewords, essays and tributes written over a 25-year period.

The book is divided into seven sections containing a mixture of pieces of varying lengths covering several themes-- including Darwinism, morality, education, justice, history of science and, of course, religion. Dawkins provides a brief preamble to each of the seven sections while the pieces themselves, selected by Editor Latha Menon, show Dawkins at his captivating best and sometimes his angry, self-righteous side.

Dawkins at his best is peerless as an expositor of the wonders of science, a man for whom science is, as he put it "a source of living joy" and this shines through in many, if not most, of the essays.

He is of course Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and while he denies that scientists have special ethical qualifications he does insist that a proper understanding of our animal heritage ought to change the way we think about ourselves--in particular the way we arbitrarily draw the line between species, between, for instance, the human ape and our brothers the Great African apes. Dawkins is generous in his evaluation of his supposed scientific enemies, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, and genuinely moving when paying tribute to his own heroes, people such as Douglas Adams and WD Hamilton.

Dawkins is also the current vice-president of the British Humanist Association and, in certain moods, he turns into a savage anti-religious polemicist. Religious folk for Dawkins are, at best, intellectually irresponsible or existentially immature and, at worst, a bunch of cowardly, irrational, dangerous ignoramuses. Religion itself is likened to a disease, or, more accurately, a deadly virus for which the cure is good, clean scientific habits of mind. The aggressively atheistic side of Dawkins is, in any event, as much a call for intellectual independence as it is a call to arms and he is just as eager to take on the quackery of crystal healing, as he is to expose the pretentious verbosity of postmodernist enemies of scientific truth. But whether Dawkins is writing for his fellow professionals or for the general public, he is considered--by friend and foe alike--he's one of the most intelligent, imaginative and inspirational educators alive. As a whole this collection of pieces conveys a faithful impression of the man and his passions. --Larry Brown

Review
'there is a lovely tribute to Dawkins's friend Douglas Adams, some interesting speculations on the next few decades of genetic engineering, an explanation of what crystals really are, and some heartfelt reminiscences of Africa.' (Steven Poole THE GUARDIAN )

'his arguments sing with clear-eyed passion and conviction' (Patrick Nees THE DAILY TELEGRAPH )

'this erudite collection...... where Dawkins assesses the work of his late rival Stephen Jay Gould is essential reading.' (Travis Elborough THE SUNDAY TIMES )

'His passion collapses the notion that scientists are lab-coated androids.' (SUNDAY HERALD )

"A rare treat and it comes in seven servings, each essay will grip you at once." (NEW SCIENTIST )

"A must-read for fans and non-fans alike and for people of an independent mind everywhere." (THE HERALD ) --The Guardian

Review
'there is a lovely tribute to Dawkins's friend Douglas Adams, some interesting speculations on the next few decades of genetic engineering, an explanation of what crystals really are, and some heartfelt reminiscences of Africa.' (Steven Poole THE GUARDIAN )

'his arguments sing with clear-eyed passion and conviction' (Patrick Nees THE DAILY TELEGRAPH )

'this erudite collection...... where Dawkins assesses the work of his late rival Stephen Jay Gould is essential reading.' (Travis Elborough THE SUNDAY TIMES )

'His passion collapses the notion that scientists are lab-coated androids.' (SUNDAY HERALD )

"A rare treat and it comes in seven servings, each essay will grip you at once." (NEW SCIENTIST )

"A must-read for fans and non-fans alike and for people of an independent mind everywhere." (THE HERALD )

Customer Reviews

A Devil's Chaplain
Yet again Dawkins provides us with another book of clear, lucid arguments and great science to leave you awe inspired at the wonder of nature. This is a collection of his various writings and it includes articles, book reviews, eulogies and personal writings. In my opinion it is better than 'The Single Helix' by Steve Jones (that also provides many short scientific articles), as Dawkins is allowed enough space to develop his ideas for you to fully engage with them and appreciate his points. The fact that they are collated from a variety of sources, from over the years, means that the topics are varied and not restricted to x amount of pages per article. Something Steve Jones was unable to achieve in his book. Dawkins argues as keenly as ever and his passion comes across on every page. If you're a fan of Dawkins you won't be disappointed with this book, and if you're new to his work then this isn't a bad place to start.

Some wonderful points
Some excellent essays. A touch too close to being a bit racist here and there, but perhaps that was inaccuracy of language. For the first time I think I actually understand something about evolution. His point about the 98% figure of genetic similarity with chimps was well made. He cited the fact that if you compare two books, there will be a lot of common letters and the figure would suggest similarity. But if you were to compare them sentence by sentence, they would probably share only a tiny fraction of commonality.

What I still don't understand about theorists on evolution is how they still discuss superiority or desirability for breeding in terms of strength, speed, size etc. After many hundreds of thousands of years during which human cooperation in agriculture, shared civilisation and eventually technological change has transformed the success rate of the species, why are qualities of cooperation, constancy or intellect now not also included in the factors that influence natural selection? Perhaps they are. Maybe I should read late Darwin.

The idea that atheists just go one God further was also a point well made. Many of us would admit to being atheists when it comes to Mithras, Zeus, Thor, etc etc. Of all the Gods, most people who claim not to be atheists probably only admit a belief in one and thus reject thousands of other. It's a bit like claiming to be a vegetarian on the grounds that you don't eat duck, but do eat all the rest of the animal world.

The point about cloning and identical twins was made a few too many times, I think, but then it was a collection of essays. It is a point, however, that the non-scientist would find it hard to relate to, since for someone from that starting position the twins are "natural" and the "clone" is not, despite the fact that genetically they represent identical concepts. The position would be really interesting, however, if the twins, or triplets or quads etc arose as a result of in vitro fertilisation and then implantation, and hence were not "natural".

And in one essay we are invited to share the experience of meeting one religious leader who refused to shake hands with a woman on the grounds that she might be menstruating. If this view were expressed alone, without the religious justification, what would have been an appropriate reaction? And if it is "justified" by the religious perspective, why should that reaction be different?

Quakers aren't like this
Dawkins says that Quakers (among others) are utterly convinced that they are right and the others are wrong. I have been a Quaker for about 25 years, in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Cambridge and now Essex. In none of the Meetings that I have attended have I met anyone who remotely fits that description. Exactly the reverse, in fact.
So he appears to be guilty of perpetrating his own bête noire and repeating something that he must have heard or read somewhere without checking that it was true. Or possibly because 'Shakers and Quakers' rolls of the tongue better. Either way it raises questions about the rest of his assertions.