Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

Nick,

" not fine if it's trying to imply that our genes are specifically prepared for each particular circumstance and can thus bring about a behaviour that to deal with it that is best for the propagation of the gene (which in all likelihood is likely to mean the individual too)."

I don't intend to suggest anything as nonsensical as that.

"I haven't read the interviews, but from what you say you still seem to be missing the point. There is no gene or set of genes that equal the code for 'self-propagate at any cost'. Yes, successful genes are by definition those that self-propagate successfully (and of course they can have no notion of 'cost'), but that's just the mechanics of replication. The type B behaviour you cite relates to the behaviour of the individual, not the gene. Our brains are part of our phenotype. The genotype behind them has evolved because it allowed the genes to be passed through generations successfully, but in the relatively short-term, in unadapted-for environments, those same genes can see us ending up exhibiting behaviours that if exhibited consistently in the past would have led those genes to die out."

Well, apart from predictably not agreeing that I am "missing the point" I don't find anything to disagree with here. I flagged up in advance that the illustration was crude. Where Dawkins gets into trouble is that he suggests that there is behaviour that is gene-driven the more "instinctual" behaviour I illustrated by type A behaviour) and behaviour that defeats that instinct by conscious choice. My point is that there are no grounds for saying the second type of behaviour is any less genetically predermined than the first, and that it is a false dichotomy. I am not suggesting that there is any set of genes that say "self-propogate at any cost". The whole concept of "purpose" is problematic here. Looked at in close up, we try to survive but the bigger picture is that our genes have survived because in a contingent universe they happen to have turned out to be the things that survived. Intentionality is neither here nor there.

"Like I said before, the human brain is a very powerful organ - on balance it must have been a good thing that it evolved that way - we survive and produce children with it well because it allows us to direct our behaviour in v.complex ways. But the 'bad' flipside of this for our genes is that it gives us very free rein to do crazy things that decrease our chances of our genes being passed on."

Well it is pure chance that a powerful brain has turned out to be a "good thing" so far. Part of the way that genetic mutation works involves "wrong paths" that decrease survival chances. If an animal species adapts its behaviour in a way that mean it is less well adapted to its environment we don't take this as evidence that genetic tendencies can be transcended. Our sophisticated brains may yet turn out to be a "wrong path" from a large enough historical perspective."

I don't think is really going anyway. I think you're setting up some myth-making Dawkins straw man that I find it hard to believe he has begun to resemble. I'd need you to show me the interviews you're talking about if this is to go any further. Evolutionary theory is fraught with semantic difficulties, whenever expedient words like 'purpose', 'lead', 'design' or 'transcend' are employed. I really doubt you'd have any argument with Dawkins if you were to speak to him.

"We alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of our genes, the selfish replicators"

"Our destiny, our better fate, is to be passionately Anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and human affairs".

Much of which Dawkins says is unexceptionable, but the basic concept I object to - similar to the one you outline above - is that our conscious mind can evolve a "purpose" which is different from genetic "purpose". (There is some confusion here because he did argue that the notion of a genetic purpose was man-made/illusory but nevertheless goes on to differentiate between that purpose and a conscious purpose which rebels against it. I'm happy to acknowledge that this isn't Dawkins fault, he can hardly do justice to the subtleties in a short radio interview.) Nevertheless my objection to his basic premise stands - I DON'T believe we can develop some kind of conscious purpose that rebels against our genes. If we decide to blow ourselves up because we are an evil race and the world will be better off without us, that will be an act as much determined by our genetic make-up as any other.

This (without the 'our genes' bit) is from the 2nd (late 80s) edition of The Seflish Gene. It's not a new quote.

Rebels against the tyranny in the sense that we end up doing things that are very much at odds with the primary goal of genes, to replicate. The general result of genetic makeup is to act in selfish ways to those that don't share a significant number of those genes that differentiate a individual from others (ie. those who aren't close family). And to act even more heartlessly to creatures from other species, who share even fewer genes. He's just saying, in the face of people misunderstanding the title of his most famous book, that we don't have to act selfishly. That our genetic inheritance is not a licence for acting selfishly or denying the existence of true altruism in humans (he doesn't think any other species can manage this).

Your last sentence almost got me arguing again, but yeah, let's leave it.

I think it's time those who are intelligently without conviction became, er, stupidly brash and convinced of their own, er, intelligence.

(Actually I quite like the geneticist's explanation of religion, basically that there might be an evolutionary advantage in short circuiting your intelligence in this specific area. I've certainly met plenty of very conventional Christians who, with the whole "meaning of life" problem conveniently taken care of in a couple of hours on Sunday morning, are able to be much more single minded about getting on with career, family etc. But if these people are brain surgeons or nuclear physicists you're not going to impress a lot of people describing them as the unbrights).

x-post

I hate the "brights" thing because it smacks of the same bullshit that I would happily criticism in dumb religious people. Speaking as an atheist myself, I'd rather be around an humble believer than a smug atheist any day.

Moreover, I've never seen the benefit of trying to proselytize atheism or "spread the meme." Seems to me that dumbass atheists are just as capable of causing havoc as are dumbass believers. While I'd like American culture to be more hospitable to atheism, I don't think that acting superior is a way to achieve that result.

That's not an insult to an animist. The penis is venerated in our religion.

Um, no I'm not. As noted above, I am an atheist--I just hate smug people in general. I suppose you're an exception, Nick!

a) be smug
b) put the humble on a pedestal, which risks being seen as
c) smug and
d) patronising

Whereas being unabashedly smug is merely:

a) smug.

Nick, are you familiar with Madeline Murray O'Hare?

Nick, what you've outlined above makes no sense, and certainly doesn't apply to anything I've posted. I DO mind the smugness of those devout Christians who RUB IT IN MY FACE. I WOULDN'T mind it if Dawkins was being smug ABOUT BEING A WORLD-CLASS BIOLOGIST, since he seems to me to be perfectly entitled to be smug about that! What I mind is that Dawkins ADVOCATES smugness about SOMETHING UNRELATED TO HIS WORLD-CLASS BIOLOGISTNESS for what seems to me to be NO GOOD REASON!

Hur hur considering some of Dawkins' comments I'm not worried there

N.B. I still wouldn't want to hang out with him, tho!

I don't think it's unrelated at all. Dawkins is a follower of Darwin, who lost his religious faith when his daughters died. Darwinism is the main intellectual enemy of Christianity, and sees itself as the only rational, post-Enlightenment way to treat the fallacy of Creationism. It is necessarily at odds with the religious worldview. 'Brights' is a word which makes direct reference to 'the Enlightenment'.

WRONG

WRONG

Nick, you're accepting the devout Christian's version of Darwinism! I don't believe any smart Darwinist would define the doctrine in such silly terms!

Relativism is what prevails in those American schools which teach Evolution only as 'one of several different ways of explaining how we got here'. And I think science has a right to feel threatened by this outlook, and to say, look, some explanations are better than others, and even 'brighter'.

Hmm, I think that depends on a number of other factors. The smugness of your boss, the smugness of the vulgar rich etc etc can all get very grating, notwithstanding a secret conviction of superiority.

x-post

On that you have a small point. However, it begs the question of whether, in this context, it is necessary/sufficient/justifiable/helpful to merely be "provacative." And that just gets us back to the question of whether smugness is "good" or "bad" in this context, doesn't it?

That's a good point. But humanism has its roots in the renaissance. It is a movement which replaces worship of gods with worship of Man. It has its differences with science. For instance, the Krokers say we are in a period they call the 'post human'. It may be that we are already being superceded by genetech and computers. It may be perfectly consistent with the science of evolution that humans should now be displaced from the centre of the picture, having forged more effective lifeforms.