geo wrote:Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, Robert. But I think what Dawkins is saying is that the concepts of universal love and true altruism do not make evolutionary sense in respect to survival. But Dawkins has mentioned already in the introduction (to the 30th anniversary edition) that we are capable of rising above our instincts:

Our brains have evolved to the point where we are capable of rebelling against our selfish genes. The fact that we can do so is made obvious by our use of contraceptives. The same principle can and should work on a wider scale. pg. xiv

This is why I think I think it's crucial for people to understand evolution because it gives us a chance to know ourselves (just as the Greeks said), understand our motives and make choices to override our primitive hardwiring.

The question of what makes ‘evolutionary sense’ is immensely complex, and has been radically changed by the evolution of human language. As I see it, if humanity does not work out how to cooperate on a planetary scale we are headed for extinction, and all our fine genes will be dead. Language has enabled us to transfer subterranean carbon into the air at a pace that will transform our planet into a dead Venus hothouse if unchecked. Language also gives us the capacity, as Dawkins notes in your quote, to rebel against instinct. The deep irony is that this rebellion goes well beyond his example of birth control, and picks up our ability to determine behaviour by reason. The irony is that it is precisely the concepts of universal love and true altruism, with their origins in the Christianity that he detests, that seem most needed to guide a planetary transformation. It is the inner instinctive ape within us that is destroying the planet by following irrational instincts to expand consumption. The key original human mutation, the emergence of a rational higher consciousness coded in words, is the only thing that will save us from our destructive animal genes.

Robert Tulip wrote:As I see it, if humanity does not work out how to cooperate on a planetary scale we are headed for extinction, and all our fine genes will be dead. Language has enabled us to transfer subterranean carbon into the air at a pace that will transform our planet into a dead Venus hothouse if unchecked. Language also gives us the capacity, as Dawkins notes in your quote, to rebel against instinct. The deep irony is that this rebellion goes well beyond his example of birth control, and picks up our ability to determine behaviour by reason. The irony is that it is precisely the concepts of universal love and true altruism, with their origins in the Christianity that he detests, that seem most needed to guide a planetary transformation. It is the inner instinctive ape within us that is destroying the planet by following irrational instincts to expand consumption. The key original human mutation, the emergence of a rational higher consciousness coded in words, is the only thing that will save us from our destructive animal genes.

I would say just the opposite, Robert. That our instinctual drive towards religion is precisely one of the things we should rebel against if we ever hope to get anywhere. If anything religion is an impediment to a more enlightened state of spirituality. It serves to divide us, not unite us.

But since you brought it up, what are these Christian concepts that would guide a planetary transformation?

geo wrote:our instinctual drive towards religion is precisely one of the things we should rebel against if we ever hope to get anywhere. If anything religion is an impediment to a more enlightened state of spirituality. It serves to divide us, not unite us. But since you brought it up, what are these Christian concepts that would guide a planetary transformation?

Hi Geo, your comment is an accurate critique of the low quality of most religious thought. Dawkins notes in a later chapter that religious faith often insists that people believe false claims despite evidence of their falsity. I agree with him that this attribute of religion is harmful for planetary survival. However, faith in true claims is also possible. Dawkins’ observation that faith often justifies error does not really perform the work he asks of it, namely to fully exclude faith as a legitimate motive.

The Selfish Gene invites us to consider how human evolution can be compared to the evolution of the social insects - bees, wasps, ants and termites. Considering human society as a social organism on the model of an insect colony, religion is a big part of the glue holding the organism together by supporting the shared values of the community. Religious beliefs are like the instincts that enable genetic cooperation among insects, with conventional rituals providing cohesion, rather like how bees tell each other where to find food. Like insect genes, many shared religious values support economic segmentation by caste and gender, and are pretty dubious, although the longevity of practices is an evolutionary indicator that they have met some real need.

The Selfish Gene assesses all behaviour against the remorseless logic of long term survival. Genes that survive are adaptive, while genes that go extinct are not adaptive. Whether religious practices are genetic or memetic, they can still be assessed against this Darwinian logic. You are right that religion is an impediment to a more enlightened state of spirituality, but this begs the question of whether a non-religious spirituality is possible. We can read religious texts as recognising this problem, and providing a critique of religious practices. For example the Biblical prophet Amos says God despises ritual sacrifice and seeks only pure justice, and the prophet Micah says that all God requires is justice, mercy and humility. These prophetic values seek a moral transformation of society to place those who are at the margin at the centre of importance. This emphasis on ethical values is sometimes disregarded by religious convention, but cannot really be ignored as a central part of Christian faith. The gospel concept of universal love is another example of a transformative value, suggesting that elites should be in solidarity with the poor and oppressed of the world.

The Selfish Gene asks how genetics can indicate a coherent way of living that can make the world a better place. Dawkins’ focus on evidence as the basis of opinion, the scientific method, is directly hostile to blind faith as a motive. Yet his suggestion that all faith is intrinsically blind – that the prophetic calls of the Bible lack vision – seems to me to be an invalid logical step that ignores visionary faith as a main theme in human life.

Robert Tulip wrote: Considering human society as a social organism on the model of an insect colony, religion is a big part of the glue holding the organism together by supporting the shared values of the community. Religious beliefs are like the instincts that enable genetic cooperation among insects, with conventional rituals providing cohesion, rather like how bees tell each other where to find food. Like insect genes, many shared religious values support economic segmentation by caste and gender, and are pretty dubious, although the longevity of practices is an evolutionary indicator that they have met some real need.

Robert -

Do you feel that religion is the only glue that can hold societies together? Why is religion considerred the default enabler of social values?

I understand Dawkins position that social values might not be embedded in our DNA, but they can be embedded in our society. Society wasn't born at a moment in time and it's members don't die at one time. Isn't it possible that social values evolve in society and then are passed down from generation to generation? It could be no different than scientific knowledge that is passed down (so to speak).

Each new scientist doesn't start at square one, he takes the known information that is taught to him and then builds on it. In the same way, each new citizen doesn't start from square one. He is taught the values that have succeeded in evolving society, and he builds on that.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position. I feel like a Yugo on a freeway full of Ferraris, I'm just trying to keep up.

CWT36 wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote: Considering human society as a social organism on the model of an insect colony, religion is a big part of the glue holding the organism together by supporting the shared values of the community. Religious beliefs are like the instincts that enable genetic cooperation among insects, with conventional rituals providing cohesion, rather like how bees tell each other where to find food. Like insect genes, many shared religious values support economic segmentation by caste and gender, and are pretty dubious, although the longevity of practices is an evolutionary indicator that they have met some real need.

Robert -

Do you feel that religion is the only glue that can hold societies together? Why is religion considerred the default enabler of social values?

I understand Dawkins position that social values might not be embedded in our DNA, but they can be embedded in our society. Society wasn't born at a moment in time and it's members don't die at one time. Isn't it possible that social values evolve in society and then are passed down from generation to generation? It could be no different than scientific knowledge that is passed down (so to speak).

Each new scientist doesn't start at square one, he takes the known information that is taught to him and then builds on it. In the same way, each new citizen doesn't start from square one. He is taught the values that have succeeded in evolving society, and he builds on that.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position. I feel like a Yugo on a freeway full of Ferraris, I'm just trying to keep up.

Hi Colin, good questions.

Religion means 're-binding' in the sense of connection to ultimate truth. However, it is pretty obvious that most religions believe myths that are not true. This is a paradox which Dawkins touches on later in The Selfish Gene where he discusses the meme for blind faith. This book invented the idea of the meme, which is what you are describing with your suggestion that social values evolve in society.

Religion has a default enabling status because it provides a meaningful explanation for life and death, or at least an explanation that people find meaningful. Dawkins points to an emptiness at the centre of religions, with the Christian dogmas of heaven and salvation exposed as false since the rise of science. But science has not yet provided a narrative to rival religion, and in my view will not do so until it addresses the deep 're-binding' agenda of religion.

I think social values are embedded in our DNA, operating at instinctive pre-conscious levels. Dawkins' example of how some bees instinctively remove diseased babies and some don't shows how automatic repugnance has a genetic base. Actual morality is only partly rational. Dawkins is arguing to tilt the playing field in favour of morality based on reason.

RT: "The irony is that it is precisely the concepts of universal love and true altruism, with their origins in the Christianity that he detests, that seem most needed to guide a planetary transformation."

Moral values needed to sustain life on earth which encompass more than each of our in-groups may have a loud voice in religion. However, I think it is merely the case that the authors of bibles have come across the necessity of these morals based on reasoning.

Said another way, I think you're playing detective to what may be universal morals and truths and stopping at a book, but the trail of bread crumbs leads on, past the book, past it's authors, to groups of other humans hundreds or even thousands of years earlier, who came across these truths using reason.

What is problematic is that along with the best guesses to our best morals being written in the book, there are flaws as well. These flaws have had terrible side effects throughout history. Any re-binding that will be accomplished will be done by scrapping the book due to it's manipulative characteristics, and focusing on the good parts that were divined using reason by it's authors or it's authors ancestors.

RT: "Yet his suggestion that all faith is intrinsically blind – that the prophetic calls of the Bible lack vision – seems to me to be an invalid logical step that ignores visionary faith as a main theme in human life."

I think you're a tad confused on this point, at least in how you've worded it. If the authors of the bible instilled their vision into their writing, there may be some truth to their writings on social values. However, to accept these blindly is the problem, since it presents the very problem you continue to claim will be solved. Religion cannot be re-bound unless the book is rewritten. Blind faith is having faith in the visions of others, who lived thousands of years ago. Memetic evolution is short circuited in this case, and we will not evolve beyond the writings until we discard them.

RT: "A reasonable postulate is therefore that the 'universal ideals' of morality are encoded into the anthropic nature of the universe, at least as manifest in our stable planet, and so make biological sense."

If the universe has just the right variables for life to evolve, the process is still called evolution. If the universe has just the right variables for that same life to arrive at 'universal ideals', they will be arrived at by ideological(memetic) evolution. Neither of these two cases requires a higher being.

Interbane wrote:RT: "The irony is that it is precisely the concepts of universal love and true altruism, with their origins in the Christianity that he detests, that seem most needed to guide a planetary transformation."Moral values needed to sustain life on earth which encompass more than each of our in-groups may have a loud voice in religion. However, I think it is merely the case that the authors of bibles have come across the necessity of these morals based on reasoning.

Interbane, you are right that wider values based on reasoning have a voice in religion. However, the theme of necessity picks up Dawkins’ observation of genetics as the context of morality. The moral authors saw that our instincts did not deliver adequate values, and that our cultural identity, grounded in rational capacity for language, could deliver a more encompassing vision.

Said another way, I think you're playing detective to what may be universal morals and truths and stopping at a book, but the trail of bread crumbs leads on, past the book, past its authors, to groups of other humans hundreds or even thousands of years earlier, who came across these truths using reason.

Yes, reason is the basis of universal morals, but reason is a broader theme than modern scientific method, encompassing a mythic sense of the place of humanity in the universe. The trail of breadcrumbs leads through ancient texts, not past them.

What is problematic is that along with the best guesses to our best morals being written in the book, there are flaws as well. These flaws have had terrible side effects throughout history. Any re-binding that will be accomplished will be done by scrapping the book due to its manipulative characteristics, and focusing on the good parts that were divined using reason by its authors or its authors’ ancestors.

’Scrapping’ is a strong word. I would prefer that we attempt to reinterpret the meaning hidden in ancient ideas against the findings of modern genetics.

RT: "Yet his suggestion that all faith is intrinsically blind – that the prophetic calls of the Bible lack vision – seems to me to be an invalid logical step that ignores visionary faith as a main theme in human life." I think you're a tad confused on this point, at least in how you've worded it. If the authors of the bible instilled their vision into their writing, there may be some truth to their writings on social values. However, to accept these blindly is the problem, since it presents the very problem you continue to claim will be solved. Religion cannot be re-bound unless the book is rewritten. Blind faith is having faith in the visions of others, who lived thousands of years ago. Memetic evolution is short circuited in this case, and we will not evolve beyond the writings until we discard them.

Memetic evolution builds on precedent. Kicking away the ladder after we have climbed it is at the opposite extreme from slavish adherence to authority. It is better to look at how the ladder of moral thought that produced modern social values contains good and bad, in the effort to retain the good and discard the bad. For example the strong themes in Biblical theology of love, truth and forgiveness can be examined against the genetic context of morality, and should not be discarded because they are associated with other values that are now seen as obsolete.

RT: "A reasonable postulate is therefore that the 'universal ideals' of morality are encoded into the anthropic nature of the universe, at least as manifest in our stable planet, and so make biological sense."If the universe has just the right variables for life to evolve, the process is still called evolution. If the universe has just the right variables for that same life to arrive at 'universal ideals', they will be arrived at by ideological (memetic) evolution. Neither of these two cases requires a higher being.

And yet, the universal ideals are formed in order that our lives may represent a higher more universal truth. I agree with Dawkins that to anthropomorphise this vision of universal truth is a basic error of religion, but the problem raised is how our ethics function as evolutionary genetic sources for life. The evolutionary process of memetic evolution has emerged from the mutation of purposiveness into human consciousness.

RT: "The moral authors saw that our instincts did not deliver adequate values, and that our cultural identity, grounded in rational capacity for language, could deliver a more encompassing vision."

Such insight was had by people. Who then wrote parts of the bible. This indicates that the trail of breadcrumbs does indeed lead past the bible and to it's authors, and of course beyond, to whatever educational experiences the authors had.

RT: "Yes, reason is the basis of universal morals, but reason is a broader theme than modern scientific method, encompassing a mythic sense of the place of humanity in the universe. The trail of breadcrumbs leads through ancient texts, not past them."

What does the word "meaning" mean to you? If you think there is meaning to life, what is it? Do we, or even, should we, know the answer? To search for the meaning of life may very well be a useless pursuit. The only way the search would be relevant is if the searcher first believed in some religious ideology. You think the trail of breadcrumbs stops at the bible because beyond that is the land of no meaning. I think you're ignoring the trail of breadcrumbs and instead searching for an answer you won't find. You're focused more on finding 'meaning' rather than 'truth'.

RT: "’Scrapping’ is a strong word. I would prefer that we attempt to reinterpret the meaning hidden in ancient ideas against the findings of modern genetics."

Reinterpretation will work for some people, such as yourself. It won't work for all people. As long as there is the written word, there will be people who interpret it literally. You cannot change this fact.

RT: "Kicking away the ladder after we have climbed it is at the opposite extreme from slavish adherence to authority."

We only need the ladder if we wish to descend back to where we started. The effort it would take to retain the good while discarding the bad would be gargantuan. You would have to educate millions on the proper interpretation of their bibles, people of all religions. Even then, there will be factions who interpret it literally against that education. It's a slippery slope. The values that will help us grow toward a (perhaps unachievable) utopia will be reinforced on their own merits, not because a book tells us to. We see these values as good for the same reasons that the authors of the bible saw them as good, because they are good. Such a conclusion is based on reasoning, and requires no divine intervention to achieve. The question is then why are these values good? Perhaps it is anthropic, as you say. Yet if this is the case, it is categorically identical to the evolution, which requires no hypothesis of divinity.

This idea raises many questions. If there is some anthropic principle involved in the evolution of morality, what would the selection pressures be? Write this down as a question for Dawkins perhaps.

I would be more willing to call such morals "global morals" rather than universal. Meaning, they apply to cohabitation of the planet with no in-group favoritism(reasoned morals versus evolved morals?).

My first inclination as to how such global morals would evolve is the combination of empathy and reason. This is of course vastly overarching, but it serves as a starting point. Empathy gives us our evolved morals, and reason is applied to extend these morals to all people. Such morality would still require against the grain discipline of the same type as suicide and contraceptives.

Interbane wrote:What does the word "meaning" mean to you? If you think there is meaning to life, what is it? Do we, or even, should we, know the answer? To search for the meaning of life may very well be a useless pursuit. The only way the search would be relevant is if the searcher first believed in some religious ideology. You think the trail of breadcrumbs stops at the bible because beyond that is the land of no meaning. I think you're ignoring the trail of breadcrumbs and instead searching for an answer you won't find. You're focused more on finding 'meaning' rather than 'truth'.

Evolutionary meaning emerges in the ideas that promote the flourishing of genes. Whatever supports a gene is meaningful for it. You misunderstood my comments on the Bible, as I fully agree with you that the trail does not stop there but extends to all human thought.

RT: "’Scrapping’ is a strong word. I would prefer that we attempt to reinterpret the meaning hidden in ancient ideas against the findings of modern genetics."Reinterpretation will work for some people, such as yourself. It won't work for all people. As long as there is the written word, there will be people who interpret it literally. You cannot change this fact.

But you are suggesting a polarised strategy of opposing the entirety of Biblical thought just because some people use the Bible badly. It is better to pick and choose, retaining those parts that are useful and discarding those that are not.

RT: "Kicking away the ladder after we have climbed it is at the opposite extreme from slavish adherence to authority."We only need the ladder if we wish to descend back to where we started. The effort it would take to retain the good while discarding the bad would be gargantuan. You would have to educate millions on the proper interpretation of their bibles, people of all religions. Even then, there will be factions who interpret it literally against that education. It's a slippery slope. The values that will help us grow toward a (perhaps unachievable) utopia will be reinforced on their own merits, not because a book tells us to. We see these values as good for the same reasons that the authors of the bible saw them as good, because they are good. Such a conclusion is based on reasoning, and requires no divine intervention to achieve. The question is then why are these values good? Perhaps it is anthropic, as you say. Yet if this is the case, it is categorically identical to the evolution, which requires no hypothesis of divinity.

Interbane, here I think you are ignoring one of the main features of memetic evolution, that it has emergent continuity with its precedents. Looking at moral thought as a ladder that humanity has climbed, the options now are to use Biblical ideas to reinforce current views, or to leave Biblical ideas as the domain of people who have constructed an obsolete theory with them. The path of dialogue suggests that comparison of contemporary ideas with older claims is useful to help assess the parental lineage of current theory.

This idea raises many questions. If there is some anthropic principle involved in the evolution of morality, what would the selection pressures be? Write this down as a question for Dawkins perhaps.

As I see it, the switch of humanity from a merely animal existence to a civilised society brings the requirement to base morals on reason. Anthropic selection pressure in society could include the need for values to be fair and transparent. As well, there is an anthropic pressure towards balance and incremental change, correcting extremes just as genetic evolution builds upon what went before.

Older instinctive values are often unfair and secretive, suitable for life at the clan scale but inadequate to legal needs of modern states. Living in society brings a need to define an objective anthropic rational basis for values, able to ground morality in universal ideas, such as Kant’s injunction to treat people as ends rather than as means.

I would be more willing to call such morals "global morals" rather than universal. Meaning, they apply to cohabitation of the planet with no in-group favoritism(reasoned morals versus evolved morals?).

In Ptolemy’s day, the cosmos was the world. Universal and global mean the same thing.

My first inclination as to how such global morals would evolve is the combination of empathy and reason. This is of course vastly overarching, but it serves as a starting point. Empathy gives us our evolved morals, and reason is applied to extend these morals to all people.

Excellent point, but reason also critiques our evolved morals as well as extending them. There is honour among thieves, meaning that empathy can put loyalty above the law. The law says there are higher values than empathy, for example making it illegal to help criminals. Some of our evolved morals are in fact rational and do not proceed solely from empathy.

RT: "Whatever supports a gene is meaningful for it."

What supports a gene is useful for it, not meaningful. We are unique in our ability to find meaning in things. To find meaning is a subjective endeavor, and does not equal a search for the truth.

RT: "You misunderstood my comments on the Bible, as I fully agree with you that the trail does not stop there but extends to all human thought."

Then you'll agree that the bible is nothing more than a book containing the wisdom of men, interlaced with fairytales. If it is men who arrive at such wisdom by use of their brain, there is no longer any need to consider the fairytale portions of the book they wrote.

RT: "But you are suggesting a polarised strategy of opposing the entirety of Biblical thought just because some people use the Bible badly. It is better to pick and choose, retaining those parts that are useful and discarding those that are not."

The polarized strategy I suggest is the only way. If you think you can make millions across the world pick and choose what to believe of the written text, you're delusional.

RT: "The path of dialogue suggests that comparison of contemporary ideas with older claims is useful to help assess the parental lineage of current theory."

If the parental lineage for a global morality were more similar to say, the works of Aristotle, then I would agree with you. Such work could be studied for the merits of it's content. Instead, the moral parental lineage as you see it is dogma with absurd claims, and demands you believe it.

RT: "The law says there are higher values than empathy, for example making it illegal to help criminals. Some of our evolved morals are in fact rational and do not proceed solely from empathy."

There will always be a situation or circumstance where what we deem as moral will actually be in reverse. This is the problem with absolute morality. It's an unattainable ideal that ignores the complexities of us and our world.