If you accept evolutionary theory, can you also believe in God? Are human beings superior to other animals, or is this just a human prejudice? Does Darwin have implications for heated issues like euthanasia and animal rights? Does evolution tell us the purpose of life, or does it imply that life has no ultimate purpose? Does evolution tell us what is morally right and wrong, or does it imply that ultimately nothing is right or wrong? In this fascinating and intriguing book, Steve Stewart-Williams addresses these and other fundamental philosophical questions raised by evolutionary theory and the exciting new field of evolutionary psychology. Drawing on biology, psychology and philosophy, he argues that Darwinian science supports a view of a godless universe devoid of ultimate purpose or moral structure, but that we can still live a good life and a happy life within the confines of this view.
Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life is a trailblazing advancement of the application of scientific values to traditionally metaphysical questions."
--Christopher Land and Todd Shackelford, Evolutionary Psychology
"This book deserves a place in every atheist's library."
--Dierk von Behrens, The Australian Humanist
"This important, well-written, incisive post-doctoral work addresses the consequences - for philosophy, religion, morals and ethics - of taking Darwin seriously."
--Australian Atheist.
"A disturbing and provocative book... refreshingly honest."
--Ian Boyne, The Gleaner.
"Steve Stewart-Williams explains how evolutionary thought challenges many deep-seated assumptions about God, morality, and human superiority and raises significant questions about such things as euthanasia, suicide, and the way we treat non-human animals. While it has become commonplace for many to equate Darwin's legacy with the stripping away of the moral and the good and to replace it with unpalatable 'Darwinist' alternatives that advocate a morality, nihilism, and a world where 'might makes right', Stewart-Williams carefully and entertainingly shows that, on the contrary, the world after Darwin remains meaningful, wondrous, and intrinsically moral."
--Stephen Hill, Massey University
"This is an important, accessible, and timely book for anyone wishing to understand the implications of evolutionary theory for standard views of human nature, morality and religion."
--Stephen Boulter, Oxford Brookes University
"....If you are a broad thinker, you will really enjoy Stewart-Williams' work...."
--David W. Boles, memeingful.com
"....Stewart-Williams leverages the "God of the gaps" argument in addressing the many models that have been put forth to explain evolutionary theory within the context of a universe directed on some level by supernatural forces.... Essential...."
--J.A. Hewlett, Finger Lakes Community College, CHOICE
"....This book is clearly written and vigorously argued. It covers a lot of ground.... This book would be fine for an introductory undergraduate course. The discussion is a bit more focused and systematic than recent New Atheist books...."
--Guy Kahane, University of Oxford, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
"...terrific tome.... If you are interested in formulating a comprehensive and defensible worldview, one that accepts our scientific understanding of how life evolved, then this book provides a sound basis for your further deliberations and quests in a wide range of disciplines.... This book deserves a place in every atheist's library." "This important, well-written, incisive post-doctoral work addresses the consequences - for philosophy, religion, morals and ethics - of taking Darwin seriously. It is the kind of holistic treatise on Darwinian (r)evolution that its author has been seeking to read."
--Dierk von Behrens
"...Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life is a trailblazing advancement of the application of scientific values to traditionally metaphysical questions. Stewart-Williams presents his arguments clearly and concisely, making the book accessible, informative, and enjoyable. While certain to spark debate, this book is a valuable step in opening up the grand questions of life to the realm of scientific inquiry and reason."
--Christopher W. Land and Todd K. Shackelford, Oakland University, Evolutionary Psychology,
"Darwin, God, and the Meaning of Life is a welcome addition to the literature on belief and disbelief. It is clearly written and highly readable."
--George Lăzăroiu, PhD /IISHSS, New York, Review of Contemporary Philosophy
--Christopher Land and Todd Shackelford, Evolutionary Psychology
"This book deserves a place in every atheist's library."
--Dierk von Behrens, The Australian Humanist
"This important, well-written, incisive post-doctoral work addresses the consequences - for philosophy, religion, morals and ethics - of taking Darwin seriously."
--Australian Atheist.
"A disturbing and provocative book... refreshingly honest."
--Ian Boyne, The Gleaner.
"Steve Stewart-Williams explains how evolutionary thought challenges many deep-seated assumptions about God, morality, and human superiority and raises significant questions about such things as euthanasia, suicide, and the way we treat non-human animals. While it has become commonplace for many to equate Darwin's legacy with the stripping away of the moral and the good and to replace it with unpalatable 'Darwinist' alternatives that advocate a morality, nihilism, and a world where 'might makes right', Stewart-Williams carefully and entertainingly shows that, on the contrary, the world after Darwin remains meaningful, wondrous, and intrinsically moral."
--Stephen Hill, Massey University
"This is an important, accessible, and timely book for anyone wishing to understand the implications of evolutionary theory for standard views of human nature, morality and religion."
--Stephen Boulter, Oxford Brookes University
"....If you are a broad thinker, you will really enjoy Stewart-Williams' work...."
--David W. Boles, memeingful.com
"....Stewart-Williams leverages the "God of the gaps" argument in addressing the many models that have been put forth to explain evolutionary theory within the context of a universe directed on some level by supernatural forces.... Essential...."
--J.A. Hewlett, Finger Lakes Community College, CHOICE
"....This book is clearly written and vigorously argued. It covers a lot of ground.... This book would be fine for an introductory undergraduate course. The discussion is a bit more focused and systematic than recent New Atheist books...."
--Guy Kahane, University of Oxford, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
"...terrific tome.... If you are interested in formulating a comprehensive and defensible worldview, one that accepts our scientific understanding of how life evolved, then this book provides a sound basis for your further deliberations and quests in a wide range of disciplines.... This book deserves a place in every atheist's library." "This important, well-written, incisive post-doctoral work addresses the consequences - for philosophy, religion, morals and ethics - of taking Darwin seriously. It is the kind of holistic treatise on Darwinian (r)evolution that its author has been seeking to read."
--Dierk von Behrens
"...Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life is a trailblazing advancement of the application of scientific values to traditionally metaphysical questions. Stewart-Williams presents his arguments clearly and concisely, making the book accessible, informative, and enjoyable. While certain to spark debate, this book is a valuable step in opening up the grand questions of life to the realm of scientific inquiry and reason."
--Christopher W. Land and Todd K. Shackelford, Oakland University, Evolutionary Psychology,
"Darwin, God, and the Meaning of Life is a welcome addition to the literature on belief and disbelief. It is clearly written and highly readable."
--George Lăzăroiu, PhD /IISHSS, New York, Review of Contemporary Philosophy
Book Description
Is religion compatible with evolution? Is religious faith intellectually flawed? Steve Stewart-Williams addresses these and other fundamental questions raised by Darwin's theory of evolution. Drawing on philosophy, biology and the exciting new field of evolutionary psychology, he makes a strong case for a naturalistic, atheistic view of the universe.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Steve Stewart-Williams is a New Zealander who moved to Canada and ended up in Wales, where he's a lecturer in psychology at Swansea University. He recently solved the riddle of the meaning of life, and wrote a book to tell the tale: Darwin, God, and the Meaning of Life: How Evolutionary Theory Undermines Everything You Thought You Knew...
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
11 of 18 people found the following review helpful
By Hilary Tait
Format:Hardcover
This is a brilliant, and thorough, analysis of the implications of evolutionary theory. It shows how atheism does not imply that we are left without morality.
23 of 47 people found the following review helpful
By Cebes
Format:Hardcover
New Atheist books are a dime-a-dozen these days. Stewart's work is not the best of this type of books, but by no means the worst. To his credit, he is more widely read in philosophy than are most of the writers in the New Atheism school (though that isn't saying much); the overriding fault in general of the genre is those who think that simply being a physicist or a biologist is sufficient to allow one to finally dispose of all the great philosophical questions, such as the nature of truth, free will, morality, and the existence of God. Stewart earns a solid `B' in that regard; he at least has read some philosophical background and tries to enter into the debate at a somewhat more sophisticated level. Still, he seems to believe that you can settle the problem of evil or free will or moral objectivism in just a few pages, thanks to Darwin. But Darwin's theory does not solve philosophical problems; nor does science in general resolve metaphysical problems. Those who think that it does simply end up doing bad philosophy.
Consider his argument against moral objectivism. Stewart believes, following the predictable pattern in these books, that since ethics is the product of evolution, then morality has no objective basis, and we can do whatever we want. Let us leave aside the fact that, contra Stewart, there is no solid evidence that ethics is the product of evolution (at most there is a series of mutually inconsistent, speculative theories about how morality might have evolved). Also leave aside that even Stewart himself admits that morality is only partly a product of evolution, at best. But even if morality were a product of evolution, it is a logical non sequitur to hold that ethics cannot be objective. After all, science is a product of evolution too. Stewart makes an effort to address this argument (again, unlike most writers in this genre), but it is misguided to think that one can resolve this profound philosophical problem by reading a few books and then announcing that the problem has been solved. Further, Stewart can't fully bring himself to accept the implications of this conclusion. He can't admit outright that he is really a moral nihilist; the book is interspersed with claims of nihilism, but also frequent expressions of moral outrage, for instance at the way we treat animals (as well as a half-hearted attempt to demonstrate that utilitarianism is the best moral theory -- which doesn't even make sense, since if morality is subjective, then there is no basis to value one theory over another). But you can't have it both ways: if there is no morality, then there is nothing wrong with the Holocaust or with factory farming. As so often, the attempt to have it both ways gives you the worst of both.
Or consider one of his arguments against religion. Again, to his credit he insists that he won't commit the typical New Atheist tactic of refuting only the most crudely anthropocentric conception of a deity. However, he inexplicably proceeds to do just that, rejecting a more philosophical, non-anthropocentric conception of God because it violates the "original" meaning of the idea of God, which he claims is essentially anthropomorphic. Let's consider this argument.
1. What could "original" possibly mean in this context? Was there a date, time, and place when the idea of God was first established?
2. Even if there were (absurdly) such an "original" meaning, why should it have a claim to be the TRUE meaning? For instance, the original meaning of "atom" is "indivisible" (and in this case we really DO know the original meaning!). But that hardly entails that scientists are currently misusing the term.
3. Stewart adds (126)that the non-anthropomorphic conception of God is not "in all probability" what the "authors of the worlds' sacred texts" believed. Leaving aside what he could possibly mean by "in all probability," or his belief that the "authors" of all the world's diverse sacred texts all shared a single meaning (perhaps they were all present at the "origin" of religion??), still the claim is demonstrably false. In fact, even the most cursory knowledge of world religion reveals that many religions have an abstract, non-personal notion of God: e.g. Taoism, Hinduism, Zen Buddhism. And even in Christianity, there is a long tradition of rejecting crude literalism about God (did he really "walk" in the Garden of Eden?).
As with so many New Atheism books, Stewart has not done his homework in purporting to give us a final refutation of religion, and ends up attacking a straw man (straw God?).
Consider his argument against moral objectivism. Stewart believes, following the predictable pattern in these books, that since ethics is the product of evolution, then morality has no objective basis, and we can do whatever we want. Let us leave aside the fact that, contra Stewart, there is no solid evidence that ethics is the product of evolution (at most there is a series of mutually inconsistent, speculative theories about how morality might have evolved). Also leave aside that even Stewart himself admits that morality is only partly a product of evolution, at best. But even if morality were a product of evolution, it is a logical non sequitur to hold that ethics cannot be objective. After all, science is a product of evolution too. Stewart makes an effort to address this argument (again, unlike most writers in this genre), but it is misguided to think that one can resolve this profound philosophical problem by reading a few books and then announcing that the problem has been solved. Further, Stewart can't fully bring himself to accept the implications of this conclusion. He can't admit outright that he is really a moral nihilist; the book is interspersed with claims of nihilism, but also frequent expressions of moral outrage, for instance at the way we treat animals (as well as a half-hearted attempt to demonstrate that utilitarianism is the best moral theory -- which doesn't even make sense, since if morality is subjective, then there is no basis to value one theory over another). But you can't have it both ways: if there is no morality, then there is nothing wrong with the Holocaust or with factory farming. As so often, the attempt to have it both ways gives you the worst of both.
Or consider one of his arguments against religion. Again, to his credit he insists that he won't commit the typical New Atheist tactic of refuting only the most crudely anthropocentric conception of a deity. However, he inexplicably proceeds to do just that, rejecting a more philosophical, non-anthropocentric conception of God because it violates the "original" meaning of the idea of God, which he claims is essentially anthropomorphic. Let's consider this argument.
1. What could "original" possibly mean in this context? Was there a date, time, and place when the idea of God was first established?
2. Even if there were (absurdly) such an "original" meaning, why should it have a claim to be the TRUE meaning? For instance, the original meaning of "atom" is "indivisible" (and in this case we really DO know the original meaning!). But that hardly entails that scientists are currently misusing the term.
3. Stewart adds (126)that the non-anthropomorphic conception of God is not "in all probability" what the "authors of the worlds' sacred texts" believed. Leaving aside what he could possibly mean by "in all probability," or his belief that the "authors" of all the world's diverse sacred texts all shared a single meaning (perhaps they were all present at the "origin" of religion??), still the claim is demonstrably false. In fact, even the most cursory knowledge of world religion reveals that many religions have an abstract, non-personal notion of God: e.g. Taoism, Hinduism, Zen Buddhism. And even in Christianity, there is a long tradition of rejecting crude literalism about God (did he really "walk" in the Garden of Eden?).
As with so many New Atheism books, Stewart has not done his homework in purporting to give us a final refutation of religion, and ends up attacking a straw man (straw God?).
