So I went to the book signing last night for the Best American Science Writing 2006, and it was really interesting so I want to plug this book. In attendance were Jesse Cohen, the series editor, as well as authors Paul Bloom, Dennis Overbye, and Johnathan Weiner.
I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but Dennis Overbye wrote about a convention for time travelers at MIT. Johnathan Weiner wrote about a weird syndrome of combined neurodegenerative diseases that occurs in a cluster on Guam -- possibly because they like to eat bats.
My favorite, however, was Paul Bloom -- a psychology professor at Yale -- in part because he is a practicing scientist and a science writer but mostly because his essay sounds so interesting. His essay was about the science of religion -- more specifically why human beings have religion. He noted from his own research that babies and young people are particularly prone to adopting supernatural beliefs to the point that it appears that we are hardwired to do so. He argues that this propensity is a evolutionary relic. I am excited to read the essay to see if he proves his case.
I had a chance to talk with him afterwards, and I brought up the issue that many researchers -- David Sloan Wilson being one that springs to mind -- have argued that religion is evolutionary but that it is also evolutionarily beneficial. David Sloan Wilson has proposed the idea that religion arose from group selection because religion promotes in-group cohesiveness. This would differ from Dr. Bloom's ideas because Bloom is essentially arguing that religion is neutral to selection and secondary to larger evolutionary trends in human social capacity. Dr. Bloom responded that he was aware of the alternative ideas, but that he doesn't buy them because he doesn't see why supernatural belief would be necessary to promote cohesiveness -- an excellent point.
I love this stuff primarily because it skirts the issue of ID vs. evolution to get to the nitty gritty -- and more interesting in my opinion -- issue of what role religion plays in human psychology and society.
Anyway, I highly recommend picking up this book. It looks like they got a really good crew of science writers, and I am excited to read it.
(The interview yesterday was taped by some people from Seed, and once it is editted and posted I will put up the link.)
- Log in to post comments
Is Dr. Bloom really so ideocentric as to believe there are not real reasons that religion is important socially as well as intellectually. You can't have a dialectic, nor a creative and evolving intellectual argument without
a]fear and curiosity of the unknown--yes there is still a lot we do not "know" about the universe. Religion fuels that debate just as much as science does. Without the dialectic there is no progress.
b] Most people will never know tranquillity of spirit without a crutch. Do we want a majority of humans without a frame of reference?
c] Durkheim says the very basis of religion is the tendency to categorize. In category is then "better" than out category as a corollary. Without religion intellectual enterprise would never have developed. Religion remains today the Hegelian counterpoint to science and without it science suffers as well.
I found Bloom the most captivating too. But my favorite moment of the evening -- by far -- was the bemused look on Dennis Overbye's face when someone addressed him as "doctor."