Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:32 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Part I: Morally Evolved (Pages 1 - 58) 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Intern

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 158
Location: Austin, Texas
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 6 times in 3 posts
Gender: Female

Post 
Interbane wrote:
Kry: "However, isn’t morality supposed to be universal?"

Morality isn't universal. Cultures have a different sense of what constitutes a moral act. Neither is it absolute. Even killing can be considered a moral act in some(extreme) circumstances.


Let me rephrase myself a bit... According to de Waal, isn't the leaning toward a cultural morality a genetic universal? And if the leaning toward a cultural morality is a genetic universal, wouldn't that support the in-group protection philosophy?


_________________
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never say a common place thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..." ~ Jack Kerouac


Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:43 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5439
Location: California
Thanks: 703
Thanked: 1412 times in 1113 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
I think the way in which culture affects morality is different than how in-group vs out-group thinking affects morality. There is a large part of morality that must be learned. We have the mechanisms that influence us to behave in what we know to be moral ways, but much of that knowledge is taught to us. Different cultures have variations in what they consider moral behavior.

What do you mean by in-group protection philosophy?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:06 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4180
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1141
Thanked: 1200 times in 902 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post 
Interbane wrote:
What do you mean by in-group protection philosophy?
In Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus defines justice as helping friends and harming enemies. Socrates critiques Thrasymachus by arguing that justice should be fair. Here you have a debate about in-group protection philosophy.



Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:37 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4949
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1084
Thanked: 1048 times in 818 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Interbane wrote:
Morality isn't universal. Cultures have a different sense of what constitutes a moral act. Neither is it absolute. Even killing can be considered a moral act in some(extreme) circumstances.

Possibly, we're getting into the area of customs here, rather than of morality as de Waal defines it. He does say that every culture has evolved a sense of morality equivalent to the Golden Rule (is this a fact?), and it appears to be this sense of morality that he uses in the book.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:06 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Morality is how we draw the lines and maintain the borders of acceptable behavior: it is the matrix of values, beliefs and practices that foster the kinds of deeds that produce the kind of culture and individuals we most value....these people behaving this way produces the kind of world we want to live in: this is morality.

This includes any number of behaviors- actually, anything is possible: depending upon the kind of people required to produce the kind of world sought after. And it may be that a kind of morality is utilized to produce nothing more than one kind of person- actually one single person...the whole of a culture's beliefs and practices geared and patterned to give birth to a single human being...all manner of weeding, thinning, pruning and chopping off of unneccessary, unhealthy, undesirable portions of the population is practiced, and even celebrated: these expulsions, eliminations, eradications become moral deeds- each one a sacrifice, a sacred deed to uphold and further a holy objective.

To avoid these terrible tasks would be immoral: a shirking of one's moral duties, unacceptable acts of selfish disregard for the great and mighty goal of giving birth to the one...



Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Intern

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 158
Location: Austin, Texas
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 6 times in 3 posts
Gender: Female

Post 
Interbane wrote:
What do you mean by in-group protection philosophy?


By in-group protection philosophy, I mean the tendency to protect those inside one's group (friends, family, self) over those outside one's group. It's as if a completely different moral code arises.

I think part of that is culturally motivated - at least in some cultures. For example, I was raised in a family first environment. So, for me, protecting my family can put me in a moral dilema rather quickly. In-group and culture are combined for me.


_________________
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never say a common place thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..." ~ Jack Kerouac


Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:44 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5439
Location: California
Thanks: 703
Thanked: 1412 times in 1113 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Ahh, the use of the word protection threw me off. Conduct towards people who share your genes includes more than protection. I also think it's more of a science than a philosophy, although the ground-breaking has only just begun. People have a vested interest in relatives, since it increases the likelihood their genes(or relative genes) will be passed on.

If your culture influences you to pay attention to family first, that coincides with in-group predispositions, doesn't it? In the military, service before self was stressed, yet so was family first. Even the military gave equal weight to both family ties and discipline.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:36 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5439
Location: California
Thanks: 703
Thanked: 1412 times in 1113 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
DH: "the whole of a culture's beliefs and practices geared and patterned to give birth to a single human being...all manner of weeding, thinning, pruning and chopping off of unneccessary, unhealthy, undesirable portions of the population is practiced..."

So it would be immoral of me to say you're bonkers for wanting to kill a lot of people to weed their behavior from the gene pool so that a fictional baby superman can be born? Lay off the drugs DH.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4949
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1084
Thanked: 1048 times in 818 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
I don't take a side in a debate about whether emotion or reason is primary in us, but one thought that came to me from de Waal's essay is that, when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough. There must also be some emotional attachment, some wanting to do the right thing. We say that we don't need religion to tell us what is moral or ethical, that religion just underlines what humans have a natural sense of, and this is probably true, but is wanting to do the moral thing entirely natural, needing no intensive boost from the culture? I would say no, that some strenuous effort needs to exist on a continuing basis. Religion could serve this function, and probably does for many, but its tactics have often been not appropriate at all (fear of punishment, lure of reward). To command people to have this emotional attachment to the good might sound odd, as in the bible's Great Commandment, but perhaps it works.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:22 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Brilliant

Bronze Contributor 2

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 674
Thanks: 17
Thanked: 20 times in 15 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post 
Interesting, but supposing that Vaneer Theory (VT) was really just a metaphor...like naturalistic morality...just another perspective that cannot be observed tightly wrapped up in image. It would seem then that it is actually the notion refering to the ability for some type of relevant observation that is the problem. The tight grip of an "image redefinition across time" rather than the meaning that is the focus. Behaviorism is unfavored after all...too...inaccurate...too...open for...redefinition, in a word a sloppy method of analysis. Isn't it? Or does that not matter? The philosopher...he has yet to define the difference between the moral and the psychological - maybe because there really isn't one - splits the difference when it suits, yet everywhere else loves to pander about abstract relationship.

For me the beast in man is the feral cat, the stray who no longer returns for supper but rummages through the trash for scraps of meat and rotted milk.

:book:



Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:04 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4180
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1141
Thanked: 1200 times in 902 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post 
DWill wrote:
I don't take a side in a debate about whether emotion or reason is primary in us, but one thought that came to me from de Waal's essay is that, when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough. There must also be some emotional attachment, some wanting to do the right thing. We say that we don't need religion to tell us what is moral or ethical, that religion just underlines what humans have a natural sense of, and this is probably true, but is wanting to do the moral thing entirely natural, needing no intensive boost from the culture? I would say no, that some strenuous effort needs to exist on a continuing basis. Religion could serve this function, and probably does for many, but its tactics have often been not appropriate at all (fear of punishment, lure of reward). To command people to have this emotional attachment to the good might sound odd, as in the bible's Great Commandment, but perhaps it works.


I’ve been meaning to comment on this post from DWill, and now Grim has reminded me with his post just now, so thank you Grim. My feeling is that emotion is primarily genetic while reason is a mix between genetic, memetic and logical sources. Of course, emotion can be manipulated by reason, but raw emotions such as anger or sympathy seem to arise from instinctive reactions rather than from thought-out responses. This emotion/reason divide could well match the 98%/2% ratio of how many of our genes are common with the apes to how many are uniquely human. If our emotions are largely in common with the primates, and if emotion is a primary source of morality, then we can see how much of our morals are from monkeys. However, I do think it is possible to see reason as a veneer, a surface code that seeks to control irrational emotional instincts. The memetic and logical content of reason is seen most clearly in law codes, which evolve by precedent as a form of social control. As DWill noted, adhering to rational morality requires strenuous effort. This observation seems to me to contradict the “Russian Doll” model of human identity that de Waal proposes. Our ethics are not at the core of our genetic identity, but are a learned adaptive response to our environment.



Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:51 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Brilliant

Bronze Contributor 2

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 674
Thanks: 17
Thanked: 20 times in 15 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post 
DWill wrote:
when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough.

I not sure what this is supposed to mean, when it comes to psychology I would agree that knowing is not enough. But morality...ethics, these are both very knowledge filled forms of value. At an extremely basic level morality is no longer morality, it is something much less "knowing" it becomes the effect. Neitzsche wrote that there is no such thing as causes only effects, suggesting that you would do wrong to separate thunder and lightning as they are the same thing.

Robert Tulip wrote:
My feeling is that emotion is primarily genetic while reason is a mix between genetic, memetic and logical sources.

Genetic fallacy.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Of course, emotion can be manipulated by reason

And reason can be manipulated by emotion. Which dynamic is more important to the monkey? or man for that matter?

Robert Tulip wrote:
but raw emotions such as anger or sympathy seem to arise from instinctive reactions rather than from thought-out responses.

Would you care to start on the notion instinct? Or is it supposed to be self-evident?

Robert Tulip wrote:
This observation seems to me to contradict the “Russian Doll” model of human identity that de Waal proposes. Our ethics are not at the core of our genetic identity, but are a learned adaptive response to our environment.

More metaphor, little observation.

:book:



Last edited by Grim on Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5439
Location: California
Thanks: 703
Thanked: 1412 times in 1113 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Robert Tulip wrote:
"My feeling is that emotion is primarily genetic while reason is a mix between genetic, memetic and logical sources."

Grim: 'Genetic fallacy."

Actually, what Robert said does not commit a genetic fallacy.

Grim: "But morality...ethics, these are both very knowledge filled forms of value."

Even still, knowing is not enough.



Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:51 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4949
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1084
Thanked: 1048 times in 818 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Grim wrote:
Interesting, but supposing that Vaneer Theory (VT) was really just a metaphor...like naturalistic morality...just another perspective that cannot be observed tightly wrapped up in image. It would seem then that it is actually the notion refering to the ability for some type of relevant observation that is the problem.

I'm afaid that in your post you're talking around me, above me, everywhere but to me, but I will agree that Veneer Theory is really just a metaphor. It's too strong a metaphor, in fact, a prejudicial statement on de Waal's part. Veneer equals the surface appearance of something fine or expensive covering inferior material. I'm therefore not surprised that nobody has declared herself a veneer theorist and would see it as an accusation to deny.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:35 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4949
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1084
Thanked: 1048 times in 818 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Robert Tulip wrote:
I’ve been meaning to comment on this post from DWill, and now Grim has reminded me with his post just now, so thank you Grim. My feeling is that emotion is primarily genetic while reason is a mix between genetic, memetic and logical sources. Of course, emotion can be manipulated by reason, but raw emotions such as anger or sympathy seem to arise from instinctive reactions rather than from thought-out responses. This emotion/reason divide could well match the 98%/2% ratio of how many of our genes are common with the apes to how many are uniquely human. If our emotions are largely in common with the primates, and if emotion is a primary source of morality, then we can see how much of our morals are from monkeys. However, I do think it is possible to see reason as a veneer, a surface code that seeks to control irrational emotional instincts. The memetic and logical content of reason is seen most clearly in law codes, which evolve by precedent as a form of social control. As DWill noted, adhering to rational morality requires strenuous effort. This observation seems to me to contradict the “Russian Doll” model of human identity that de Waal proposes. Our ethics are not at the core of our genetic identity, but are a learned adaptive response to our environment.

This interesting perspective is an example of the many this topic can generate. I haven't seen any disputes about facts in de Waal's book or in the discussions we've had, I think. We are firmly in the terrirory of perspective, which is also firmly the territory of philosophy. I would hope we could agree that there isn't a correct perspective to be sought, just more conversation to be engaged in. This may smack of relativism to you, Robert, but it is a proper relativism. When you think about it, how self-explanatory that de Waal, observing primates most of his life, would so value the emotional similarities between us and them, and ground our morality in these similarities. His debate partners, all philosophers, unsurprisingly see rational thought as a far more crucial element of our morality.

In my own perspective, the element of conflict has the highest profile. We can know that situations present conflicts between what we want and what we should do. Other animals have only momentary conflicts between two desires--the chimp who holds out his food to share without even looking at the receiver, or the dog who comes to his master though she would really like to sample that delicious smell. Our, more significant, moral conflict is what often goes on on our surface, contrary to what Veneer Theory supposedly says. The surface in VT is morality, actually moral hypocrisy, since we just use morality to give a good name to our selfish goals. But that is rubbish. We obviously do resolve our conflict sometimes in favor of what we think we should do rather than what would feel best. The surface in my view is the interplay between morality and our desire to get advantage for ourselves. This is not always a conflict, though, since getting advantage for ourselves is also demonstrably a good thing. In other words, sometimes I should be selfish instead of thinking about others.

The other problem I have with moral reasoning as a veneer over our irrational emotional instincts is that I feel, as de Waal does, that it must be "down there" in some way as well as on top. I could agree with the metaphor of a flowering plant with extensive roots, or maybe a spring with its origin deep underground, to express this.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:24 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Books by New Authors



Booktalk.org on Facebook 



BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Sense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank