Tweet
This is a question which has been going around in my mind for some time. And this has nothing to do with "The God Delusion".
I've just picked up "The Selfish Gene" (reading right now) and "The Ancestor's Tale" (will start as soon as I finish TSG).
I have previously read "River Out of Eden". I loved it, because it made a lot of things much clearer, answered a lot of questions about why we are the way we are, and gave me a better understanding of the world around me, and why it works the way it does.
I am also enjoying immensely what I have read so far of TSG, because it explains a lot of things which were left open in ROoE. The explanation of the gene-centred view of evolution, and how our instinctive behaviours correspond with what is in our genes' interest instead of our own - and how this is the basis of altruism at the level of individuals and everything above genes - is stunningly well-presented.
The next book on my list is "The Red Queen", about evolutionary psychology.
I know that the people who have invested time and energy into their worldview will welcome these books. One of my friends, who is an expert Advaitin, will be completely unruffled by this. So will all the others who have bothered to study any Indic philosophy in detail, because most of them don't deny the nature of the world. The more well-read a Hindu/Buddhist/Jain you are, the less this will affect you or your ideas adversely. We pretty much take it for granted that the world is as it is, and to harbour illusions about it is foolish and counterproductive.
(An excellent quote, and a favourite of mine, comes to mind here:
अहस्तानि सहस्तानामपदानि चतुष्पदाम्।
फल्गूनि तत्र महतां जीवो जीवस्य जीवनम्।।
(श्रीमद्भागवतमहापुराण, १.१३.४६)
Translation: Those who are devoid of hands are prey for those who have hands; those devoid of legs are prey for the four-legged. The weak are the subsistence of the strong, and the general rule holds that one living being is food for another. [Srimadbhagwat Mahapuran, 1.13.46])
I am no idealist, and I have no overarching ideology, as such. However, I've noticed that many people of my age (19 or 20) are idealists, and they actually believe in things like the triumph of good over evil, and in noble causes, and stuff like that.
Now, these people are, in a sense, happy in their constructed little world. It's a comforting place, where reality does not intrude too much. Probably it's because they've been completely supported by their parents throughout, and still are (well, so have and am I, but my case is extremely atypical, so we'll leave that aside for the moment), and probably, have been much less exposed to the world outside their immediate environment, and further, have journeyed through life on the backs of institutions which are supposed to prevent such contact and provide an insulated little world to all those who pass through them.
They have also not given much thought to their philosophy of life - they have absorbed most of it osmotically from their environment, contradictions included. It will, therefore, shatter catastrophically if it receives a big enough shock, because it is not based on personal conviction.
The effect of these books on some people is dramatically illustrated by one Amazon review (quoted in the 30th anniversary edition which I just bought):
***** Fascinating, but at times I wish I could unread it.
August 7, 1999
By Michael J. Edwards (Healesville, Victoria, Australia)
I wish I could rate this book at 5 stars and 0 stars at the same time. It is a fascinating book, very well-written, and it conveys a real sense of how life works on the biological level, how all sorts of diverse factors interact with each other to create an incredibly complex system (the evolution of life, in this case); it also just as vividly conveys a sense of how scientists come to understand these processes.
I started it many years ago at the suggestion of a friend, thinking I wouldn't find it very interesting, and not much liking the kind of philosophy of life that (on the basis of my friend's description) seemed to lie behind it. But only a chapter or two in, I was completely hooked, and wanted to read more Dawkins.
On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly complex world we live in.
But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago.
(Review continues, but I've quoted only the relevant part.)
Given that it can have such an effect, is it ethical to recommend books like TSG and ROoE (and "The Red Queen" and "The Ancestor's Tale", to a lesser extent) to someone who has a worldview which I know will most probably shatter when exposed to the ideas contained in them? Whose (naive) belief in God (or equivalent source of comfort) will die a slow (the implications don't hit all at once), violent (they will resist it), and painful (for them) death, and they will lose that source of solace?
I've just picked up "The Selfish Gene" (reading right now) and "The Ancestor's Tale" (will start as soon as I finish TSG).
I have previously read "River Out of Eden". I loved it, because it made a lot of things much clearer, answered a lot of questions about why we are the way we are, and gave me a better understanding of the world around me, and why it works the way it does.
I am also enjoying immensely what I have read so far of TSG, because it explains a lot of things which were left open in ROoE. The explanation of the gene-centred view of evolution, and how our instinctive behaviours correspond with what is in our genes' interest instead of our own - and how this is the basis of altruism at the level of individuals and everything above genes - is stunningly well-presented.
The next book on my list is "The Red Queen", about evolutionary psychology.
I know that the people who have invested time and energy into their worldview will welcome these books. One of my friends, who is an expert Advaitin, will be completely unruffled by this. So will all the others who have bothered to study any Indic philosophy in detail, because most of them don't deny the nature of the world. The more well-read a Hindu/Buddhist/Jain you are, the less this will affect you or your ideas adversely. We pretty much take it for granted that the world is as it is, and to harbour illusions about it is foolish and counterproductive.
(An excellent quote, and a favourite of mine, comes to mind here:
अहस्तानि सहस्तानामपदानि चतुष्पदाम्।
फल्गूनि तत्र महतां जीवो जीवस्य जीवनम्।।
(श्रीमद्भागवतमहापुराण, १.१३.४६)
Translation: Those who are devoid of hands are prey for those who have hands; those devoid of legs are prey for the four-legged. The weak are the subsistence of the strong, and the general rule holds that one living being is food for another. [Srimadbhagwat Mahapuran, 1.13.46])
I am no idealist, and I have no overarching ideology, as such. However, I've noticed that many people of my age (19 or 20) are idealists, and they actually believe in things like the triumph of good over evil, and in noble causes, and stuff like that.
Now, these people are, in a sense, happy in their constructed little world. It's a comforting place, where reality does not intrude too much. Probably it's because they've been completely supported by their parents throughout, and still are (well, so have and am I, but my case is extremely atypical, so we'll leave that aside for the moment), and probably, have been much less exposed to the world outside their immediate environment, and further, have journeyed through life on the backs of institutions which are supposed to prevent such contact and provide an insulated little world to all those who pass through them.
They have also not given much thought to their philosophy of life - they have absorbed most of it osmotically from their environment, contradictions included. It will, therefore, shatter catastrophically if it receives a big enough shock, because it is not based on personal conviction.
The effect of these books on some people is dramatically illustrated by one Amazon review (quoted in the 30th anniversary edition which I just bought):
***** Fascinating, but at times I wish I could unread it.
August 7, 1999
By Michael J. Edwards (Healesville, Victoria, Australia)
I wish I could rate this book at 5 stars and 0 stars at the same time. It is a fascinating book, very well-written, and it conveys a real sense of how life works on the biological level, how all sorts of diverse factors interact with each other to create an incredibly complex system (the evolution of life, in this case); it also just as vividly conveys a sense of how scientists come to understand these processes.
I started it many years ago at the suggestion of a friend, thinking I wouldn't find it very interesting, and not much liking the kind of philosophy of life that (on the basis of my friend's description) seemed to lie behind it. But only a chapter or two in, I was completely hooked, and wanted to read more Dawkins.
On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly complex world we live in.
But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago.
Given that it can have such an effect, is it ethical to recommend books like TSG and ROoE (and "The Red Queen" and "The Ancestor's Tale", to a lesser extent) to someone who has a worldview which I know will most probably shatter when exposed to the ideas contained in them? Whose (naive) belief in God (or equivalent source of comfort) will die a slow (the implications don't hit all at once), violent (they will resist it), and painful (for them) death, and they will lose that source of solace?
Comment