This is a significant mischaracterization of what Dawkins meant. It misconstrues what he wrote, and what he meant, in 1976. Worse, it ignores his comments and qualifications made in the 4 decades since. There are controversies and criticisms surrounding The Selfish Gene. “Postulating words to be selfish” is not one of them, not even close.
1 Like
Well … my understanding of the “royal we” is that the plural is expressed when really the singular is what is meant. The British queen has often been quoted as saying “we are not amused” ostensibly on behalf of her entire consort even though everybody understands that she really means “I am not amused.” She is only presuming that her opinion would (of course!) speak for all who are present. So that has somewhat humorously become known as the “royal we”.
But when singular is expressed (or allowed for by an ambiguous word like ‘you’) when really the plural is unequivocally intended is a common and very real problem of clarity. Our English language falls down on the job by using ‘you’ both ways. People could say ‘you all’ or ‘both of you’ or such when multiple people are meant, but the lazy and more common (perhaps safer?) translation was just to enlist that catch-all word ‘you’ which covers all of it. One of my sons actually spent a bit of time teaching himself Esperanto – a language engineered to try to dispense with unfortunate ambiguities and haphazard ‘rules’. But our more organically-sourced languages are just an eclectic mess. And that’s the world we live in! It makes communication fun and frustrating.
But enough about my lay impressions of linguistics! I like your insistence that the ‘as you would treat thyself’ should be heard in a communal sense. Maybe it’s just me finding that conveniently aligned with my already very ‘community-centered’ theology and even politics. As such perhaps this is no more than eisegesis. Or more charitably, it may be a well-intentioned and biblically-informed application of Jesus’ admonition. As long as the spirit of the command to love others well does not get lost or somehow dismissed, I think we do well to apply it as widely as possible.
Thank you for this post. This is the crux of the problem addressed by this thread – how to apply and live out the moral life demanded by Jesus, in day-to-day life, as embodied, biological beings who possess certain behavioral dispositions as a result of our evolutionary background. I do not have an answer, although I think various contributors to this blog thread have offered helpful ideas. Do you have any thoughts?
I agree with you that this is the crux of the question of practicing ethics and a righteous life. I need to add however, that I do not think evolution in whatever guise it is currently presented is relevant. On a rare occasion I agree with another post in that genes are not selfish, they are just genes.
and we are made of the same material that constitutes the earth and all in it.
So what is the answer to an interesting question? It must begin with our carnal, or natural nature that is often stated biblically as ‘in Adam’. This nature is subject to sin and we commence an ethical life by acknowledging this, and accepting the Law as a beginning, or to teach us, what to avoid in pursuit of a righteous life.
The Gospel shows us that in order to cast of the ‘old self’ we must grown into the attributes of Christ. This constitutes acts (works) and spiritual disposition (faith). The attributes are clearly taught in the Gospel and Epistles, and we are told that God sends us His help in this mighty enterprise.
I need to be brief, but I think I have shown how we lose our carnal self and find our true human self in Christ.
2 Likes
GJDS,
Thanks for your response.
I agree with you about the so-called “selfish gene.” As you know, this is Dawkins’s famous phrase from his 1976 book by that name (2nd edition, 2006). Dawkins, ever the showman, used this to be provocative, and it worked beautifully. (Perhaps his success in popular markets shows that he knows as much about human nature as he does about genetics.) But Dawkins did not originate the idea. It goes back at least to papers written twelve years earlier by W. D. Hamilton who used a heuristic idea, sometimes called the “genes-eye view,” to formulate his theory of kin selection (a.k.a. inclusive fitness) (W. D. Hamilton, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior,” J. Theoretical Biology, 7 [1964]). My view is that, while the “genes-eye view” idea has been useful, Dawkins’s “selfish gene” is not of much help in understanding selection, heredity, evolution, behavior, or morality.
Second, I have to respectfully disagree that “evolution in whatever guise it is currently presented is [not] relevant” to Christian moral or spiritual life. If we are embodied, biological beings, then we are evolved beings, and, like all animals, we possess traits and behavioral dispositions as part of our evolutionary heritage. Thus, to understand ourselves as we actually are in real, day-to-day life (as you say), we will have to integrate information from biology and its core theory of evolution into our understanding of ourselves and our “mighty enterprise” of seeking to live out the gospel and character of Jesus Christ in our real, day-to-day lives.
The various terms/concepts of Christian psychology and spirituality that you refer to – “carnal nature,” “old self,” etc. – must somehow be integrated with biological realities. Furthermore, another scientific field, neuropsychology, is advancing rapidly and is in the process of working out how our brain, bodies, and behavior actually work. Christian theologians, ethicists, and laypeople face massive challenges in coming decades as neuropsychology begins to delineate the actual neuropsychology of things like hope, faith, reason, free choice, and religious experience. While I recognize that these sciences are young and imperfect, I believe we are far better off to engage them now rather than later. Besides, if God is truly God the Creator of all things, and all truth is God’s truth, then we have a duty to learn about science and seek integration of theological and scientific knowledge (somehow). This will be (is) a very difficult task.
I recognize that evangelical Christianity has traditionally ignored or repudiated evolution. Biologos represents a much needed effort to correct this mistake. Christian ethics, in my view, is not exempt from this correction. If we take our bodies seriously, then we have to take evolution seriously, and we will have to begin the tough, hard struggle of working out how our evolved biology (and our neuropsychology) relates to our moral and spiritual lives. It’s a huge, difficult, but very important problem. I have no answers. That’s way I started this blog thread.
Again, thank you for your comments.
Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting response.
I will begin with this in an attempt to make a point that seems difficult on this site. I agree wholeheartedly that knowledge of ourselves, our bodies, brains and environment are important and as Christians we should welcome all useful knowledge and understanding the Physical/Natural Sciences bring to us.
By the same token, if we seek what is true, we must make the effort to avoid what is error and often speculation in any branch of science. The truth is not given to us as in a high school text book - it requires great effort, even greater experience of life, and a deeper understanding of ourselves.
I have been interested in this site more because to my Orthodox outlook, and my perception of a lot of theological novelty expressed here - I find this curious because, as you say, evangelists are considered very biblically oriented and resist novel doctrines. But clearly my understanding of evangelicals has been inadequate. As an Orthodox Christian (and scientist) I have spent a great deal of time and effort on the faith/science question (and I do not see any great conflict) - so my remarks on evolutionary biology should be seen in this context, not as part of a warfare outlook of for or against ToE.
Thus, to continue with your theme, Christianity (and many other cultures and faiths) is concerned with what we are as human beings. This matter has occupied the minds of many thinkers, and ordinary people, for thousands of years. We have many schools of thought on this, and on ethics, morality, and on what we think of as good and evil.
As a Christian I need to understand, and also as a reasoning human being, what is well tested and has a basis for claims of truthfulness and relevance. Thus, I commence with trying to understand what has been discussed in and outside of the natural sciences. I also investigate what is taught in the Bible, and what has been thought by secular thinkers and philosophers.
Truth claims are very important - but so is faith, and from your comments, I agree with you that selfish/unselfish, communal and the general welfare as against evil and destruction of communities, are central questions. If natural sciences can clarify the causes for evil acts and inclinations, than I would welcome such knowledge. Experience has shown us that these sciences (and psychology) have a mixed history - this means we should test and examine all of these areas, within our context of goodness, and causes of good and evil acts by us as human beings.
I give these ‘off the cuff’ remarks as ‘background’ in regards my position, which is that truth comes from God, the Gospel message is that we must avoid and denounce all evil acts and inclinations within ourselves, as this amounts to our effort to be and live God’s goodness, grace and mercy within our community. This effort may be beyond us in toto, but we must have faith that Christ can make such outcomes possible. Once this understanding has become part of our soul/spirit/psychology, all other knowledge, if free from ideology and error, is most welcome as it will surely enable us to be better people.,
that the questioning of selfishness in the context of words is not a criticism made in the connection to Dawkins deluded ideas about selfishness of genes is more embarrassing for those who failed to criticize him than to my comment to mention it.
From the summary:
"In his book River out of Eden, Dawkins coins the phrase God’s utility function to explain his view on genes as units of selection. He uses this phrase as a synonym of the “meaning of life” or the “purpose of life”. By rephrasing the word purpose in terms of what economists call a utility function, meaning “that which is maximized”, Dawkins attempts to reverse-engineer the purpose in the mind of the Divine Engineer of Nature, or the utility function of god. Finally, Dawkins argues that it is a mistake to assume that an ecosystem or a species as a whole exists for a purpose. He writes that it is incorrect to suppose that individual organisms lead a meaningful life either; in nature, only genes have a utility function – to perpetuate their own existence with indifference to great sufferings inflicted upon the organisms they build, exploit and discard."
seems to agree with my understanding of his selfishness. It completely disregards the fact that Genes can only exist in context, like words, and strive to maximise their context. His interpretation of selfishness is completely coherent with his lack of coherent thinking when it comes to God and his lack of understanding the concept of “self” to begin with, and with his intellectual failure to understand the concept of suffering.
The odd thing is that if you truly are with God and Jesus, suffering does not exist any more, only thankfulness for being.
It is apparent from these quotations and your responses that you have not read The Selfish Gene or any of Dawkins’ own commentary on it in the 40 years since it was first published. When you wrote “It completely disregards the fact that Genes can only exist in context, like words, and strive to maximise their context,” you revealed that you are, like most Christian critics of Dawkins’ ideas, unaware of what he has written. It’s a shame, because the actual ideas are controversial for different reasons. For scientific reasons. The ad hominem preferred by so many of Dawkins’ Christian critics is not only an embarrassing reflection of intellectual incompetence. It is also a persistent distraction from the real scientific questions still percolating in evolutionary biology. Sometimes it almost looks like an effort to avoid discussing actual science.
2 Likes
Hi John
If you look back at the most significant steps in evolution you will find the breakthroughs to come from symbiotic interaction, most pronounced in the endosymbiotic step from the procaryotes to the eucaryotes as in giving up your individual self for the benefit that comes from cooperation with the one that is different, something also seen in the concept of sexual reproduction to allow recombination.
I postulated here a number of times that the law that governs evolution is to love thy neighbour like thyself, e.g. to serve others as much as your own folks. Jesus showed us explicitly how to do that to the point of showing that neither suffering nor physical death can hurt you once you have given away your self to God, as it is only our selfishness that makes us suffer.
As I once wrote in a funeral poem:
To live forever is the art to learn to live in every heart.
I have to admit that I have only read his book “the God delusion” but took his interpretation of genetic selfishness from public statements about his work. Considering his arrogance towards Christianity and Religion in general I have however no problems to criticise his lack of critical thinking in his work.
The whole concept of genetic survival without considering genetic context is a sign of scientific ignorance and we slowly start to appreciate the idea of the contribution of the microbiome to each higher species showing the interaction with host independent genomes. I guess if I would look at the purpose of humans in the eyes of materialists like Dawkins I would have to conclude it to be the production of heaps of microbiomes to propagate genes 
That “whole concept” is not to be found in any of Dawkins’ writings. He explicitly states the opposite, over and over and over and over.[quote=“marvin, post:92, topic:35331”]
we slowly start to appreciate the idea of the contribution of the microbiome to each higher species showing the interaction with host independent genomes.
[/quote]
That’s interesting stuff that is completely compatible with the gene-centric view advocated in The Selfish Gene. Whole chapters of Dawkins’ books, including The Selfish Gene but most especially The Extended Phenotype, are devoted to these kinds of interactions, long before the microbiome became hip.
2 Likes
from the summary available it is indeed an excellent appreciation of that diversity and indeed very much ahead of his time. The question is: why did he not immediately realise that the whole system is geared for maximum cooperation and selfnessless?
Because…it’s not. Since you are not familiar with Dawkins’ work, you wouldn’t know that he was writing about cooperation and “altruism” right from the beginning. One major theme of The Selfish Gene is the concept (from John Maynard Smith) of an evolutionarily stable strategy, or ESS. An ESS can and often does result in what we might call “selflessness.” And so the book involves extensive discussion of altruism, kin selection and related topics. Of course, an ESS can and often does result in what appears to be ruthless self-interest and cruel manipulation. Neither is precluded by Dawkins’ outlook, which is important since neither is precluded in reality.
Now, I have a question that I don’t expect you to answer. Is it not just a little inappropriate to dismiss ideas that you haven’t read?
1 Like
If Evolution responds to both cooperation and to competition, isn’t that consistent with what we see as the human response to God’s call? There is the noble response and there is the impaired moral response.
Evolution seems very much in tune with the imperfect human condition…
So why do you think it is not? After all it seems to serve the propagation of something other than itself, e.g. the propagation of life - or does it not.?
do you imply evolution to have personhood?
No. I certainly am not implying that.
But the YEC position emphasizes original sin, and Evolution certainly has morally impaired Natural Selection pushing it along. And some of the most interesting cases of Evolution are produced when two life forms that humans wouldn’t expect to have much to do with each other join forces to become a new kind of surviving creation.
The only other Personhood in that equation is God.
Because “maximum cooperation and selflessness” is not a stable strategy.
2 Likes
can you give some evidence for that?
What do you think of with “morally impaired natural selection”?
The most progressive advances have always been when opposites come together. It is interesting to observe that out of the interaction of love and hate only stronger love emerges.