A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Writings

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

Reader Reviews:

A Devil's Chaplain (5/5 people found this helpful)

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 (5/6 people found this helpful)

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 (1/2 people found this helpful)

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.

Praise be (9/10 people found this helpful)

Richard Dawkins is a national treasure and this collection of essays and articles is a delight. There is a great variety of material here, ranging from dense chapters on evolution to a letter to his ten-year-old daughter. I must admit I loved this one as it's simple and clear and makes its points beautifully. The evolution stuff gets pretty complicated and a grounding in science may help, although Dawkins is more accessible on this subject than many others scientists would or could be.
Certain phrases and descriptions stick with you. Certain arguments he uses are wonderful for their lucidity. We are so lucky to have a scientist who can WRITE as well as he can think. I recommend this book heartily for anyone of rational mind.

Like having an old friend round again. (19/20 people found this helpful)

After reading the god delusion and thoroughly getting engrossed in it;reading the devil's chaplain(written by Richard Dawkins)was like having an old friend back over for a chat.
The book is made up of high quality 'bite size'chapters which you can devour and get totally charmed with.I found my self actually putting the book down and thinking for up-to twenty minutes about the possibilities behind some of the essays and philosophy in the book;before taking another delicious bite.
I would almost go so far as to say that Richard gets close to working out some sort of world piece!,in some of the essays.
I particularly enjoyed chapter 3.2(viruses of the mind)it talked about similarities between the human mind and a computers CPU,in relation to viral influences.
If you are a fan of Richard Dawkins and enjoy his writings popping round for a visit?,please buy the book.

A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Writings

Richard Dawkins

Editorial Review: