What Is Your Dangerous Idea?

The existence of the soul is discussed by John Horgan and Paul Bloom. John Horgan discusses the possibility that the soul does not exist, while Paul Bloom further expands by discussing how the implication of the soul's nonexistence can have serious consequences.

In contrast [to evolution by natural selection], the widespread rejection of the soul would have profound moral and legal consequences. It would also require people to rethink what happens when they die, and give up the idea (held by some 90 percent of Americans) that their souls will survive the death of their bodies and ascend to heaven. It is hard to get more dangerous than that. —Paul Bloom [6]

Another topic many entries were based on is human behavior. J. Craig Venter discussed the genetic base of how humans act; Jerry Coyne also wrote on the idea that people are predisposed to act in certain ways because of genetics.

Several authors wrote on the morals of people, consciousness, and human values. Many authors discussed how ideas themselves can be dangerous, or the idea that ideas can be dangerous. One such author, Daniel Gilbert, states, in his entry:

"Dangerous" does not mean exciting or bold; it means likely to cause great harm. The most dangerous idea is the only dangerous idea: The idea that ideas can be dangerous. —Daniel Gilbert [7]

Several key ideas in biology were written about in the book, such as genetics, other life in the universe, and the origin of life. The origin of life was discussed by two authors, Robert Shapiro and George Dyson. Robert Shapiro believes that the origin of life will be found in the next five years, and George Dyson believes that we do not need to understand the origin of life to make progress in molecular biology.

The origin of life would be a natural (and perhaps frequent) result of the physical laws that govern the universe. This latter thought falls directly in line with the idea of cosmic evolution, which asserts that events since the Big Bang have moved almost inevitably in the direction of life. No miracle or immense stroke of luck was needed to get it started. If this turns out to be the case, then we should expect to be successful when we search for life beyond this planet. We are not the only life that inhabits this universe. —Robert Shapiro [8]

The anthropic principle was discussed by Leonard Susskind as well as Carlo Rovelli, who mentions it in his essay. The anthropic principle claims that the universe is the way it is because if it was not specifically like how we see it, we would not be here to describe it. Leonard Susskind expands by talking about the idea that the anthropic principle can be seen as a threat to the mentality that every law governing the cosmos is set in stone; thus being unalterable.

What further worries many physicists is that the landscape may be so rich that almost anything can be found - any combination of physical constants, particle masses, and so forth. This, they fear, would eliminate the predictive power of physics. Environmental facts are nothing more than environmental facts. They worry that if everything is possible, there will be no way to falsify the theory - or, more to the point, no way to confirm it. —Leonard Susskind [9]

Susskind expresses in his entry the possibility that our universe is not the only universe (also expressed in an idea labeled "The Multiverse"). This is an idea where a large amount of universes are located in "the Landscape"; he expands by communicating that each universe has different physics laws that govern each of them, as can be seen in the quote above. The anthropic principle is also present in the idea. He claims, for example, that we are only here because our universe has the precise set of laws of physics that it has, and that very few universes have the laws of physics needed for intelligent life.

Several different beliefs were mentioned in the essays such as the relationship between science and religion. Sam Harris, in his essay titled "Science Must Destroy Religion," discusses different types of reason and belief as well as the conflict between science and religion.

The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. —Sam Harris [10]