Sample text for A devil's chaplain : reflections on hope, lies, science, and love / Richard Dawkins.

Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog

Copyrighted sample text provided by the publisher and used with permission. May be incomplete or contain other coding.


This book constitutes a personal selection, made by the Editor Latha Menon,
from among all the articles and lectures, reflections and polemics, book
reviews and forewords, tributes and eulogies that I have published (or in a few
cases not previously published) over 25 years. There are many themes here,
some arising out of Darwinism or science in general, some concerned with
morality, some with religion, education, justice, history of science, some just
plain personal.
Though I admit to occasional flames of (entirely justified) irritation
in my writing, I like to think that the greater part of it is good-humoured,
perhaps even humorous. Where there is passion, well, there is much to be
passionate about. Where there is anger, I hope it is a controlled anger.
Where there is sadness, I hope it never spills over into despair but still looks
to the future. But mostly science is, for me, a source of living joy, and I hope
it comes through in these pages.
My contribution to the book itself has been to write the preambles
to each of the seven sections, reflecting on the essays Latha has chosen
and the connections between them. Hers was the difficult task, and I am
filled with admiration for the patience with which she read through vastly more
of my writings than are here reproduced, and for the skill with which she
achieved a subtler balance of them than I thought they possessed. Her own
Introduction gives the reasoning behind her choice, and behind her sorting of
the essays into seven sections with a carefully crafted running-order within
each section. But as for what she had to choose from, the responsibility is,
of course, mine.
It is not possible to list all the people who helped with the
individual pieces, spread as they are over 25 years. Help with the book itself
came from Yan Wong, Christine DeBlase-Ballstadt, Anthony Cheetham,
Michael Dover, Laura van Dam and Catherine Bradley. My gratitude to
Charles Simonyi is unabated. And my wife Lalla Ward continues to lend her
encouragement, her advice and her fine-tuned ear for the music of language.
—Richard Dawkins


It took quite a while for me to get round to reading The Selfish Gene. My love
had been for the elegance, the philosophical profundity, the exquisite
simplicity of the world as revealed by physics. Chemistry seemed messy,
and as for biology – well, my brief acquaintance with it from school had
suggested a dry field, full of dull collections of facts, much learning by rote,
and little in the way of organizational principles. How wrong I was. Like many,
I had thought I understood evolution, but it was through the books of Richard
Dawkins in particular that I was introduced to the astonishing depth and
grandeur of Darwin"s (and Wallace"s) idea, to its astounding explanatory
power and its profound implications for ourselves and our view of the world.
The narrow domestic walls that habit, tradition and prejudice had erected
between the fields of science in my mind fell away.
I was delighted, therefore, to be able to repay the debt in some
small measure when I was asked by the publishers to put together this
collection of Richard"s writings. Richard is an academic scientist, but this
volume does not include his academic papers. Instead it brings together a
number of his shorter articles and columns intended for a wider audience.
The task was not an easy one. The composing of this volume has involved
some difficult choices and has sadly entailed leaving behind much which
must await a future collection. In selecting the pieces included here, I have
sought to reflect the range of Richard"s interests and concerns, and
something of his life too; indeed, almost inevitably, the volume contains an
autobiographical element. It is divided into seven sections, moving broadly
from science, through memes and religion, to people and memories. The first
six sections contain mixtures of pieces of varying lengths and moods, written
in different contexts.
There is plenty here, of course, on evolution, and more generally
on the nature of science, on its unique ability to seek out truth, contrasted
with the muddled thinking of New Age mysticism and spirituality, the
superficially more impressive "metatwaddle" of postmodernism, and the
closed, authoritarian, faith-based beliefs of revealed religion. This would not
be a representative volume without some of Richard"s writings on religion. I
have an especially pertinent personal reason for sharing the urgency and
passion of his words on the subject: I was born in India – that country which
has been so dragged back by its superstitious baggage, where religious
labels have been used to such widespread and horrific effect.
So much for the necessary and principled stand. Being a scientist
and rationalist does not mean a life of soulless grind, of misery and
meaninglessness, but one that is immensely more enriched, more precious.
Gathered here, too, then, is a selection of warm memories – of an African
childhood, of inspiring mentors, of departed friends, much loved. And books
and love of learning weave their way throughout the whole, with forewords,
reviews and critical commentaries (including a section on the works of the
late Stephen J. Gould).
The final section, "A Prayer for My Daughter", in many ways sums
up the key themes of the volume. It expresses an earnest hope that future
generations will continue to strive for an understanding of the natural world
through reason and based on evidence. It is a passionate plea against the
tyranny of mind-numbing belief systems.
My main task has been the selection and arrangement of
Richard"s writings. The articles appear much as they did in their original form,
with occasional deletions and minor word-changes to fit the context of the
collection, and the addition of further explanatory footnotes. Richard himself
has been a model of patience and generosity throughout the preparation of
the volume, as well as a constant inspiration. My thanks also go to Lalla
Ward for her valuable comments and suggestions, Christine DeBlase-
Ballstadt for her assistance with the textual material, and Michael Dover and
Laura van Dam for their encouragement and support for the project.
A final word. For me as editor, working on this collection has been
a particularly special experience, so closely do my own views accord with
those of the author on many things. Above all, this volume is about the
richness of the world when viewed in the light of scientific understanding.
Science reveals a reality wondrous beyond the imaginings of tradition. Look
again at that entangled bank.


The first essay in this volume, A Devil"s Chaplain (1.1), has not previously
been published. The title, borrowed by the book, is explained in the essay
itself. The second essay, What is True? (1.2), was my contribution to a
symposium of that name, in Forbes ASAP magazine. Scientists tend to take
a robust view of truth and are impatient of philosophical equivocation over its
reality or importance. It"s hard enough coaxing nature to give up her truths,
without spectators and hangers-on strewing gratuitous obstacles in our way.
My essay argues that we should at least be consistent. Truths about
everyday life are just as much – or as little – open to philosophical doubt as
scientific truths. Let us shun double standards.
At times I fear turning into a double standards bore. It started in
childhood when my first hero, Doctor Dolittle (he returned irresistibly to mind
when I read the Naturalist"s Voyage of my adult hero, Charles Darwin), raised
my consciousness, to borrow a useful piece of feminist jargon, about our
treatment of animals. Non-human animals I should say, for, of course, we are
animals. The moral philosopher most justly credited with raising today"s
consciousness in this direction is Peter Singer, lately moved from Australia
to Princeton. His The Great Ape Project aims towards granting the other
great apes, as near as is practically possible, civil rights equivalent to those
enjoyed by the human great ape. When you stop and ask yourself why this
seems so immediately ridiculous, the harder you think, the less ridiculous it
seems. Cheap cracks like "I suppose you"ll need reinforced ballot-boxes for
gorillas, then?" are soon dispatched: we give rights, but not the vote, to
children, lunatics and Members of the House of Lords. The biggest objection
to the GAP is "Where will it all end? Rights for oysters?" (Bertrand Russell"s
quip, in a similar context). Where do you draw the line? Gaps in the Mind
(1.3), my own contribution to the GAP book, uses an evolutionary argument
to show that we should not be in the business of drawing lines in the first
place. There"s no law of nature that says boundaries have to be clear-cut.
In December 2000 I was among those invited by David Miliband
MP, then Head of the Prime Minister"s Policy Unit and now Minister for
School Standards, to write a memo on a particular subject for Tony Blair to
read over the Christmas holiday. My brief was Science, Genetics, Risk and
Ethics (1.4) and I reproduce my (previously unpublished) contribution here
(eliminating Risk and some other passages to avoid overlap with other
Any proposal to curtail, in the smallest degree, the right of trial by
jury is greeted with wails of affront. On the three occasions when I have been
called to serve on a jury, the experience proved disagreeable and
disillusioning. Much later, two grotesquely over-publicized trials in the United
States prompted me to think through a central reason for my distrust of the
jury system, and to write it down as Trial By Jury (1.5).
Crystals are first out of the box of tricks toted by psychics,
mystics, mediums and other charlatans. My purpose in the next article was
to explain the real magic of crystals to the readers of a London newspaper,
the Sunday Telegraph. At one time it was only the low-grade tabloid
newspapers that encouraged popular superstitions like crystal-gazing or
astrology. Nowadays some up-market newspapers, including the Telegraph,
have dumbed down to the extent of printing a regular astrology column, which
is why I accepted their invitation to write Crystalline Truth and Crystal Balls
A more intellectual species of charlatan is the target of the next
essay, Postmodernism Disrobed (1.7). Dawkins" Law of the Conservation of
Difficulty states that obscurantism in an academic subject expands to fill the
vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity. Physics is a genuinely difficult and profound
subject, so physicists need to – and do – work hard to make their language
as simple as possible ("but no simpler," rightly insisted Einstein). Other
academics – some would point the finger at continental schools of literary
criticism and social science – suffer from what Peter Medawar (I think) called
Physics Envy. They want to be thought profound, but their subject is actually
rather easy and shallow, so they have to language it up to redress the
balance. The physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated a blissfully funny hoax on the
Editorial "Collective" (what else?) of a particularly pretentious journal of social
studies. Afterwards, together with his colleague Jean Bricmont, he published
a book, Intellectual Impostures, ably documenting this epidemic of
Fashionable Nonsense (as their book was retitled in the United
States). "Postmodernism Disrobed" is my review of this hilarious but
disquieting book.
I must add, the fact that the word "postmodernism" occurs in the
title given me by the Editors of Nature does not imply that I (or they) know
what it means. Indeed, it is my belief that it means nothing at all, except in
the restricted context of architecture where it originated. I recommend the
following practice, whenever anybody uses the word in some other context.
Stop them instantly and ask, in a neutral spirit of friendly curiosity, what it
means. Never once have I heard anything that even remotely approaches a
usable, or even faintly coherent, definition. The best you"ll get is a nervous
titter and something like, "Yes I agree, it is a terrible word isn"t it, but you
know what I mean." Well no, actually, I don"t.
As a lifelong teacher, I fret about where we go wrong in education.
I hear horror stories almost daily of ambitious parents or ambitious schools
ruining the joy of childhood. And it starts wretchedly early. A six-year-old boy
receives "counselling" because he is "worried" that his performance in
mathematics is falling behind. A headmistress summons the parents of a
little girl to suggest that she should be sent for external tuition. The parents
expostulate that it is the school"s job to teach the child. Why is she falling
behind? She is falling behind, explains the headmistress patiently, because
the parents of all the other children in the class are paying for them to go to
external tutors.
It is not just the joy of childhood that is threatened. It is the joy of
true education: of reading for the sake of a wonderful book rather than for an
exam; of following up a subject because it is fascinating rather than because
it is on a syllabus; of watching a great teacher"s eyes light up for sheer love
of the subject. The Joy of Living Dangerously: Sanderson of Oundle (1.8) is
an attempt to bring back from the past the spirit of just such a great teacher.

Copyright © 2003 by Richard Dawkins. Reprinted by permission of Houghton
Mifflin Company.

Library of Congress subject headings for this publication: Evolution (Biology)Science Philosophy, Religion and science