|
fauny fergus wrote: I think the problem with Dawkins is that he's totally out of his depth when he steps beyond evolutionary biology and comes across as a bit clueless. Mary Midgley always used to provide a useful and informed counterbalance (as opposed to swivel-eyed evangelicals):
Hopefully she has become informed since penning those articles, I could scarcely believe my eyes when reading that old fallacy yet again that has been put to bed long, long ago. Midgely does not grasp the metaphor of the selfish gene, Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett etc have all written widely read refutations of this red herring. Dawkins even included a whole chapter in subsequent editions of the selfish gene dedicated to pointing out the flawed anaylsis demonstrated by Midgely and others.
Selfish genes do not specify selfish people, just as blue prints do not specify blue buildings (I think this is Pinker's neat phrase). Genes that favour the best survival tactic of the body that carries them are not literally selfish but the way they promote the survival of individuals (the only entity they can actually influence directly) resembles "behaviour" that our socially directed minds would identify perhaps as 'selfish'.
There is no concious decision making by genes (they have no minds - duh!) they simply surive and thrive or don't. The tactics used by the bodies containing successful genes are in no way destined or designed to be 'selfish', perhaps the best survival tactic is to be merciful, just, loving and giving. Entities with genes for this behaviour will thrive in an enviornment where this kind of behaviour leads to more offspring surviving to reproduce. Genes for selfish, mean, unjust behaviour may thrive under different enviornmental or social conditions. Regardless of the tactics of the resulting being, genes can only act on the body they are in and can only have become part of that body if their ancestor genes promoted the optimum survival tactic in their predecessor, hence Dawkins sly labelling of them as 'selfish'.
This is why Dawkins metaphor of 'selfish genes' is very useful, meaningful and allows our social brains to get to grips with evolution in the light of genetics. It says absolutely nothing however about the type of social behaviour tactics used by beings built in major part by genes.
In the article about science and psychology she bizarely finishes her analysis just where behaviourism crashes and burns, whats with that? There's been massive inroads into human psychology and interaction between genes, enviornment and Dame Chance since then that don't even get a mention. Odd, very, very odd.
On a side note, I didn't like Dawkins 'God Delusion', just because religious beliefs are ludicrous doesn't necessarily mean they are an anomalous part of our psychology. We are a bunch of apes on a damp rock and dont live our lives white coated in a lab. Trying to stamp out religion is possibly like trying to stamp out our sweet tooth. Dennett's 'Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' was a much better effort if only those dreaded memes didn't keep cropping up.
On the one hand, atheism does have a good point that our moral decisions are better in our own hands in a rational mode of thought rather than in foam-mouthed religious frenzy or irrational doctrines, but on the other these religions are massively successful and must have some accrued benefit for groups that use them that may only become fully apparent when our fairly dodgy grip on relatively peaceful, democratic and secular lifestyle is loosened.
|
