Роберт Сапольски & Co: опасный и агрессивный догматизм

Today, books by Robert Sapolsky, Francis de Waal, Dick Swaab, Bruce Hood, David Eagleman, and other natural scientists are very popular. They make bold claims about religion, cognition, morality, free will, and the nature of personality. They provide biological explanations for religion and morality, denying free will and personality. Do such claims have a scientific basis? Can, for example, a biologist deny free will based on biology or psychology? In principle, they can. But I don't find such claims well-founded. The authors named, however, are absolutely certain of their correctness. But doesn't this certainty mean they're unknowingly overstepping the boundaries of science and encroaching on ideology and religion, becoming rigid and aggressive dogmatists? I believe the position they express (using free will as an example) is pure dogmatism and intellectual intolerance. Financial support for our efforts will allow us to improve the quality of our product. Therefore, we would be grateful for your financial support for the project. Privatbank Card: 4149 4991 3111 9297 Become a channel patron:   / andriibaumeister   4314 1400 0121 8103 RUB PUMB Card 4314 1400 0121 8053 USD PUMB Card 5355 2800 0189 5323 EUR PUMB Card 5355 2800 0189 5273 UAH PUMB Card