The true nature of morality is one of the most-pondered concepts in human history, so it's pretty hard to say anything about it in the 21st century that isn't trite, repetitive, or wrong. Shedding the religious baggage from morality is all well and good, the difficulty is then having something interesting to say about where moral concepts come from, what they mean in daily life, how they inform what actions people should take, or how they should be judged against each other. Shermer provides a capable overview of non-religious theories of morality and free will, with a basis in recent research into evolutionary psychology, social dynamics, and neuroscience. The title inevitably promises too much, but he actually succeeds at adding to an already crowded conversation. ( )

I agree with almost everything Michael Shermer says in this book but he says it in such an annoying way that I’m almost tempted to join up with the other side.

First off, despite the title, this isn’t really a book about science; it’s about philosophy, specifically ethics, and more specifically Shermer’s personal ethics. There’s nothing wrong with Shermer’s ethics: he’s an advocate of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology or whatever you’d like to call it; he’s in favor of the Golden Rule or the Categorical Imperative or whatever you want to call that; he likes a moderate amount of situational morality, and is in favor of moderate libertarian economics. What’s not to like?

Well, for one thing there’s very little scientific rigor in any of this stuff. I personally think evolutionary psychology is the most powerful tool ever devised for explaining human behavior, but while it looks good on paper it’s practically impossible to actually do any scientifically controlled studies on humans in support of the theory. The book is full of the sort of things that Stephen Gould dismissed correctly as “just so stories”; plausible accounts of how altruism and various other virtues could have arisen among Homo erectus without the slightest way of proving or disproving that this is what happened. Shermer also adopts the popular but entirely unsupported (and, in fact, entirely unDarwinian) belief that the “human race” is “improving” through natural selection - first we were “nice” to our kin, then to our tribe, then to our nation, and finally to our planet. Right.

Although Shermer isn’t as blunt in his rejection of religious belief as, say, Richard Dawkins, the tolerance he advocates for everybody else isn’t in evidence. There’s the usual characterization of Christians as abortion-clinic bombing yahoos, there’s a couple of quotes from Hitler in favor of religion, and there’s a particularly aggravating attempt to show that religious people are no more moral than atheists. The reason this gripes me so much is that it’s a common Creationist tactic to take some ancient work by a scientist - Louis Agassiz or George Macready Price, say - and cite it as if it were current science. Well, the first two studies Shermer mentions in his comments on religious morality were done in 1934 and 1950, and Shermer quotes them as if the discussion ended right there.

This isn’t science, it’s a polemic. A very mild and tolerant and generally agreeable one, true, but if you’re interested in this sort of thing you’re much better off with Dawkins or Pinker. Not recommended. ( )

Worthwhile reading, but not one of Shermer's best. ( )

This was the first book that I've read that attempted to take a scientific and statistical approach to understanding morality and Good and Evil. I really enjoyed the first chapter and the last chapter of this book. The middle was hit or miss for me just because I wanted more statistical information and less description. Michael Shermer definitely knows his stuff and presents some plausible ideas on where human morality came from and where it must go for our species to survive. I also really liked the suggested reading list and list of basic human traits that exist in all cultures around the world. Definitely a good read. ( )

A really seriously beautiful look into this huge and well travelled subject.

What can Shermer add to the huge pile of debate and polemic already out there on this topic? Rational inquiry based upon evidence. This makes his contribution very different to most. Evolutionary theory, morality and determinism are examined thoughtfully.

Next he examines the religious claims on this topic and develops "provisional ethics" as a rational alternative to blind faith and obedience.

If only more folks would prefer thinking about morality rather than judging others based on the morality they think has been dictated to them, then I think the world would be a far better place.

So go and read this, and then think about it. ( )

A scientific examination of moral and immoral behaviour.

very nicely done and researched. shermer poses some very interesting theories on why human's treat each other the way they do. much of it is from an anthropological sense. i got a lot out of it.. ( )

Shermer can unravel a great story while upholding the Standards of scientific inquiry. This is the third volume in his trilogy on the power of belief.
Carefully laying out the evidence for bio-cultural evolution, Shermer presents a "science of provisional ethics" which he applies to specific controversial concerns -- such as lying, adultery, cloning, abortion. Like Teilard de Chardin (the directional orthogenetic Phenomenon of Man) and more recently, Matt Ridley (the circular causality of nature via nurture), Shermer shows that our species is on a vector toward "more amity" among people. ( )