DWill wrote: Dawkins says, we need to be strict anti-Darwinists when it comes to morality.

I fear you are extrapolating your own views into Dawkins here. As I recall, in The God Delusion, Dawkins expresses support for neoliberal economics, on the basis that it is Darwinian. Hardly an anti-Darwinist moral theory.

The old fashioned Social Darwinism of the nineteenth century was a fascist movement, proposing eugenics and similar Nazi type policies which were actually implemented by Hitler. This whole context poisoned the well for discussion of the relation between evolution and ethics.

You don't have to advocate murder of the weak to be a Darwinist in morality. Indeed, I would argue that the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus Christ in Matthew 5 is an utterly Darwinian text, in its inner meaning, in that it argues that humanity has to evolve from an instinctive basis for morality to a basis in reason, recognising universal love as a driver for social organisation.

If our world wants to obtain the economic resources to protect the weak, it needs to apply that other Christian Darwinian text, 'to those who have will be given', from the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, recognising that evolution rewards success. The dialectic of the creation and distribution of wealth is at the center of morality, and can only be properly understood against a Darwinian evolutionary framework.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote: Dawkins says, we need to be strict anti-Darwinists when it comes to morality.

I fear you are extrapolating your own views into Dawkins here. As I recall, in The God Delusion, Dawkins expresses support for neoliberal economics, on the basis that it is Darwinian. Hardly an anti-Darwinist moral theory.

I don't recall him mentioning economics in that context. I was under the impression that he is something of a leftist when it comes to politics.

But he certainly isn't claiming that morality comes from evolution. This is from the essay "A Devil's Chaplain," and he says a similar thing in The Selfish Gene:

I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs.

I don't understand your last bit about economic resources.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote: Dawkins says, we need to be strict anti-Darwinists when it comes to morality.

I fear you are extrapolating your own views into Dawkins here. As I recall, in The God Delusion, Dawkins expresses support for neoliberal economics, on the basis that it is Darwinian. Hardly an anti-Darwinist moral theory.

The old fashioned Social Darwinism of the nineteenth century was a fascist movement, proposing eugenics and similar Nazi type policies which were actually implemented by Hitler. This whole context poisoned the well for discussion of the relation between evolution and ethics.

You don't have to advocate murder of the weak to be a Darwinist in morality. Indeed, I would argue that the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus Christ in Matthew 5 is an utterly Darwinian text, in its inner meaning, in that it argues that humanity has to evolve from an instinctive basis for morality to a basis in reason, recognising universal love as a driver for social organisation.

If our world wants to obtain the economic resources to protect the weak, it needs to apply that other Christian Darwinian text, 'to those who have will be given', from the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, recognising that evolution rewards success. The dialectic of the creation and distribution of wealth is at the center of morality, and can only be properly understood against a Darwinian evolutionary framework.

Try as you might, Robert, I don't think you can yoke Darwinism to some point where humanity needs to evolve. Darwinism has to be restricted to to natural selection as laid out by Darwin, modified by Mendel. Your position has something in common with Julian Huxley's, cited by Dawkins. I see it as a God substitute.

Dexter wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote: Dawkins says, we need to be strict anti-Darwinists when it comes to morality.

I fear you are extrapolating your own views into Dawkins here. As I recall, in The God Delusion, Dawkins expresses support for neoliberal economics, on the basis that it is Darwinian. Hardly an anti-Darwinist moral theory.

I don't recall him mentioning economics in that context. I was under the impression that he is something of a leftist when it comes to politics. But he certainly isn't claiming that morality comes from evolution. This is from the essay "A Devil's Chaplain," and he says a similar thing in The Selfish Gene:

I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs.

I don't understand your last bit about economic resources.

Dawkins certainly is on the left when it comes to religion, as he is a caustic critic of conservative traditions. Yet, in economics he expresses sentiments that are right wing. From The Selfish Gene, we find the argument that evolution proceeds by individuals doing what is best for their own genes, with any higher apparent harmony emerging as an evolutionarily stable strategy out of the confluence of individual behaviour. In The God Delusion (p215) he states "The logic of Darwinism concludes that the unit in the hierarchy of life which survives and passes through the filter of natural selection will tend to be selfish." This exactly mirrors the invisible hand discussed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations as the operation of market forces to deliver results that are motivated by private interests.

In A Devil's Chaplain, Dawkins makes this point (p226):

As Adam Smith understood long ago, an illusion of harmony and real efficiency will emerge in an economy dominated by self-interest at a lower level. A well balanced ecosystem is an economy, not an adaptation.

In The God Delusion Dawkins says (p197), in discussing how genes cooperate,

"we have here something more like a free market than a planned economy... The invisible hand of natural selection fills the gap. That is different from having a central planner... the invisible hand will turn out to be central to our understanding of religious memes..."

On Darwinian economics, Dawkins says "Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste" (TGD 163). Here we see the neoliberal focus on efficiency and effectiveness as grounded in the science of evolution. Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek used this Darwinian philosophy as the basis for his neoliberal thought, arguing that in society as in nature, a free market where individuals seek their own advantage will produce a superior outcome compared to a society where the state seeks to plan centrally. This makes sense if you think about it, as private incentive to maximise production is the best way to create surplus value that becomes available for distribution. A centrally planned approach provides no incentive for the individual, so overall resources will be less, and under socialism the economy will be more stagnant and retarded.

This is the basis of my comment on economic resources as a dialectic morality of Christianity from Matthew 25, that using our talents to maximise production provides the wealth that then becomes available for works of mercy.

Hayek observes that law that builds on precedent is evolutionary in nature, and suggests that all economic theory should seek to be evolutionary. In courts as in nature, law works through the evolutionary principle of cumulative adaptation.

On morality, Dawkins says "the origin of moraliy can itself be the subject of a Darwinian question" (TGD 207). We should note that Dawkins specifically refutes the traditional distortion of evolutionary thinking as 'survival of the fittest', where fitness is defined in some way different from adaptivity. But the misuse of Darwin for a moral theory by Spencer and others does not suggest there is no moral theory inherent in the theory of evolution. Dawkins says (TGD 219) that there are four good Darwinian reasons for altruism, namely kinship, reciprocity, reputation and conspicuous generosity.

We do have capacity to rise above instinct, and in this sense politics should not be Darwinian when evolution is equated with instinct. This does not mean Dawkins is saying we should rise above evolution, because evolution is an omnipotent natural law. It is rather that he promotes a deliberate cultural evolution, taking adaptive moral memes and building on them, especially as regards the shift from authority to evidence as a basis for moral reasoning. The moral theory of evolution sets facts as the highest value.

And now, actually having read this chapter I would like to add some comments on it, here just on the first essay, A Devil's Chaplain.

Dawkins cites Darwin's claim that nature is cruel and indifferent, and suggests morality consists in human rejection of selectionist pressure towards cruelty. However, while this idea of the indifference of nature may be true in aggregate, considering how much of the universe is inhospitable to life, it is not true for our planet, which is apparently unique in its kindness towards life. By maintaining liquid water for four billion years, earth has enabled the spectacular flowering of life.

Dawkins quotes TH Huxley:

Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.

I disagree entirely with this claim. The idea that the cosmic process is hostile to life is refuted by the existence of life on earth.

Dawkins then quotes TH's grandson Julian Huxley

The Universe can live and work and plan, At last made God within the mind of man.

Dawkins sees Darwin's grandeur in this observation. Could he not also see a kindness in nature, in enabling our existence? He quotes geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky

In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself.

This succinctly presents a real meaning for the traditional myth that man is made in the image of God. Dawkins expands on this idea:

We are blessed with brains which, if educated and allowed free rein, are capable of modelling the universe, with its physical laws in which the Darwinian algorithm is embedded.

This capacity to represent reality accurately, understanding percepts with concepts, is a unique (as far as we know) human trait that is enabled only by the kindness of the cosmos in giving us a safe and hospitable place to live. Nature is not cruel and indifferent, it is very hospitable to us. This observation of a local cosmic benevolence does not require any anthropomorphism, but it does help to explain the origin of religious sentiment.

Robert Tulip wrote: In The God Delusion Dawkins says (p197), in discussing how genes cooperate, "we have here something more like a free market than a planned economy... The invisible hand of natural selection fills the gap. That is different from having a central planner... the invisible hand will turn out to be central to our understanding of religious memes..."

Robert Tulip wrote:Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek used this Darwinian philosophy as the basis for his neoliberal thought, arguing that in society as in nature, a free market where individuals seek their own advantage will produce a superior outcome compared to a society where the state seeks to plan centrally...

Hayek observes that law that builds on precedent is evolutionary in nature, and suggests that all economic theory should seek to be evolutionary. In courts as in nature, law works through the evolutionary principle of cumulative adaptation.

I'm quite familiar with Hayek, but I think his and other economists' notions of evolutionary adaptation are really just an analogy to biological evolution, and Dawkins' use of "the invisible hand" seems to be analogy to Adam Smith's usage -- he is using it to describe the facts of evolution, including those of memes, not to make a normative claim. I see no logical reason, nor anything from Dawkins, for why an understanding of Darwinian evolution would preclude an argument for economic central planning (even though I think those economic arguments fail). I still think you're reading claims into Dawkins that aren't there -- I don't see him making any normative claims resulting from Darwinism, and he explicitly states his "anti-Darwinian" views.

Robert Tulip wrote:Dawkins quotes TH Huxley:

Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.

I disagree entirely with this claim. The idea that the cosmic process is hostile to life is refuted by the existence of life on earth.

I think you're reading Dawkins uncharitably here, I don't see how he would disagree with your observation that the universe and Earth in particular is hospitable to life and that this is quite fortunate for us -- he's talking about the struggle for survival among organisms, given these background conditions.

Robert, I know you're more than up to the challenge, but you can see that Dexter and I don't agree with your tendency to shift Darwinian evolution, more or less unchanged, over to the cultural side. Even the inventor of memes, Dawkins, doesn't believe this should be done. There are parallels, opportunities for analogy, between a selection of genes that occurs when the environment favors some organisms over others, and the selection of cultural mental models that propels history, but the mundane fact that sex and death don't account for changes in culture appears to be a distinguishing, inconvenient truth.

Robert Tulip wrote: Dawkins cites Darwin's claim that nature is cruel and indifferent, and suggests morality consists in human rejection of selectionist pressure towards cruelty. However, while this idea of the indifference of nature may be true in aggregate, considering how much of the universe is inhospitable to life, it is not true for our planet, which is apparently unique in its kindness towards life. By maintaining liquid water for four billion years, earth has enabled the spectacular flowering of life.

The indifference of nature is is felt, by organisms capable of this type of feeling, on the individual level. It is also on the individual level that humans would need to act in order to counter the indifference of nature for the individual. There is nothing in this statement to refute a "life is good" sentiment, and Dawkins often expresses that. We are capable of feeling that way toward both life and "our life" because of the evolved state of our brains. So we might feel the universe is indifferent and even hostile to us? We have evolved many good defenses against being overcome by that.

Robert Tulip wrote:Dawkins then quotes TH's grandson Julian Huxley

Quote:
The Universe can live and work and plan, At last made God within the mind of man.

Dawkins prefaced his quotation of the poem by saying that it said some things he didn't want to say, and I'm pretty sure this would be one.

I was guessing that if you give Dawkins scope to talk about different things that interest him, you'd find a lot to think about, and I was right. I agree with his view in the second essay, "What is True?" Arguments about what we know, and how, tend to give me a headache, and I probably don't understand them well, either. So it was reassuring to hear him say that, essentially, that these arguments don't matter very much. Especially in the case of science, we have facts, results, we can rely on as not merely relative to some cultural outlook. Dawkins has little patience for relativism, though I think that one has to be a relativist to some degree in matters non-scientific.

In the next essay, I picked up on his use of the term "discontinuous mind." He must have discussed this at more length somewhere else. I'm not completely sure what he means by this, but judging by the context of how organisms speciate, I assume he's saying that our classifications are not to be taken as corresponding to a physical reality in which there are actually neat distinctions between organisms, as if the state in which we see them defines essentially what they are and have been. They should be seen as always emerging from something and sliding into something else. That's not how the discontinuous mind sees things, though, which explains in part the problem people have in believing that humans can be such near descendents of a common ancestor of chimpanzees. I also wonder if the discontinuous mind has a broader relevance to our habit of typing in all sorts of ways, but especially regarding people. We talk about psychological types and mental disorders as if they exist as discrete categories, when the other (i.e., continuous) view is that they are not, but just result from our habit of classifying phenomena that show difference. Everything is, more essentially, a variant of something else, the manic-depressive someone who simply has more of the neurochemistry that we all have, a Borderline Personality just somebody whose neediness has crossed over a line of social acceptability.

DWill wrote:. . . In the next essay, I picked up on his use of the term "discontinuous mind." He must have discussed this at more length somewhere else. I'm not completely sure what he means by this, but judging by the context of how organisms speciate, I assume he's saying that our classifications are not to be taken as corresponding to a physical reality in which there are actually neat distinctions between organisms, as if the state in which we see them defines essentially what they are and have been. They should be seen as always emerging from something and sliding into something else. That's not how the discontinuous mind sees things, though, which explains in part the problem people have in believing that humans can be such near descendents of a common ancestor of chimpanzees. I also wonder if the discontinuous mind has a broader relevance to our habit of typing in all sorts of ways, but especially regarding people. We talk about psychological types and mental disorders as if they exist as discrete categories, when the other (i.e., continuous) view is that they are not, but just result from our habit of classifying phenomena that show difference. Everything is, more essentially, a variant of something else, the manic-depressive someone who simply has more of the neurochemistry that we all have, a Borderline Personality just somebody whose neediness has crossed over a line of social acceptability.

Looks like we're on the same essay: (3.1–Gaps in the Mind). I'm very impressed with how presciently relevant my previous post about Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee is to this essay.

Regarding the "discontinuous mind," I would say it's our tendency to try to see the world in black-and-white when, in fact, it's grayscale (or even full spectrum color). Dawkins uses the example of courts in South Africa trying to adjudicate whether people of mixed parentage count as black or white or "coloured." We want to place arbitrary labels on everything to make it easier to think about them and/or to regiment them. As you say many human illnesses are points on a continuum, but our medical system is set up to make diagnoses and a patient who meets certain criteria can be diagnosed with such and such, but it's a somewhat subjective process. An illness can manifest itself very differently with different people. My wife has done some clinical work at a mental health clinic and she says they would rarely diagnose a child with bipolar disorder or borderline personality for many different reasons, primarily because such a diagnosis is a huge stigma and would stay with the child for the rest of his/her life. Also, such a diagnosis would make it impossible for the child to get health insurance which ultimately means the clinic won't get paid.

Interesting essay. I wasn't going to read this book right now, but now that I've started I might as well continue with it.

Dexter wrote:economists' notions of evolutionary adaptation are really just an analogy to biological evolution, and Dawkins' use of "the invisible hand" seems to be analogy to Adam Smith's usage -- he is using it to describe the facts of evolution, including those of memes, not to make a normative claim. I see no logical reason, nor anything from Dawkins, for why an understanding of Darwinian evolution would preclude an argument for economic central planning (even though I think those economic arguments fail). I still think you're reading claims into Dawkins that aren't there -- I don't see him making any normative claims resulting from Darwinism, and he explicitly states his "anti-Darwinian" views.

I disagree. Dawkins says evolution is a free market not a planned economy. This suggests that other replicative complex systems that grow and adapt to circumstances, reacting in the same way as genes, will be most attuned to nature if they also follow evolutionary principles.

Hayek suggested the role of government is to steer not row, to set the rules of the game and then allow competitive markets to let the most adaptive firms grow to their capacity, while less competitive firms will go bust. It aligns directly to Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction, that intervening to prevent market systems from operating entrenches stagnation.

There is very much a normative moral lesson here, that public policy should assume a default position that competitive markets are the best way to produce economic growth. Yes there are cases of market failure that justify state intervention, but these should be justified on the basis of rigorous cost benefit analysis, and the preferable form of state intervention is to shift the rules of the game to achieve explicit public objectives. If the state sets incentives that have consequences of promoting dependency, the overall impact is a smaller economy, with less profit to flow through the economy and lift incomes.

The World Bank has observed that growth is good for the poor, with evidence showing that incomes of the poorest rise in line with the overall economy. So by targeting growth, government can achieve sustainable reduction in poverty. By targeting equality of outcome, a non-evolutionary strategy, governments promote situations like Mao's iron rice bowl, where the Chinese people were equal in dire poverty.

Only when Deng Xiao Ping adopted the capitalist evolutionary road with his key policy statement 'to get rich is glorious' did China escape from the tyranny of socialist planning.

Economics is at the center of moral theory. Economic policy decisions impact the lives of everyone. Good decisions, aligned to evolutionary theory, on balance make things better for everyone, while bad decisions, ignoring evolutionary principles, create stagnation and entrench poverty.

The surplus generated by a free market enables social protection of the weak. This is the dialectic lesson of Matthew 25, where the apparently paradoxical ideas of the parable of the talents 'to those who have will be given' and the Last Judgment 'what you do to the least you do to Christ' are directly juxtaposed. The evolutionary reward for talent is the only sustainable way to provide the resources for works of mercy.