Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Christians believe the words of Jesus and not the words of Darwin (survival of the fittest.)
The concept that nature is not a “0 sum game” proves that Jesus is right and Malthus and Darwin were wrong. Evolution is based not on conflict, but on cooperation, so survival of the fittest is false.
Dawson would you provide the math? I really want to see it.
Maybe the simplest way to understand the first part of the argument is to read the chapters in Dawkins’ book “the selfish gene” where he discusses the hawk and dove argument. I don’t like his patronizing tone all that much, but if you look beyond that, his explanation is textbook and he does a far better job than I could ever do. That explanation requires a minimal self-interpretation of the math.
Now, exchange the terms “hawk” with robber, adulterer, or whatever highly questionable behavior you like. Likewise, exchange “dove” for just, fair, considerate, decent, self-sacrificing (when necessary), flexible (i.e., willing to change behaviors according to conditions or circumstances), empathetic behavior. **
Now take the limit. If the society were composed entirely of people of just, fair, considerate, decent, self-sacrificing (when necessary), flexible (i.e., willing to change behaviors according to conditions or circumstances), empathetic behavior, would that society ever become dysfunctional? [It is surely not an example of the US, but I cannot think the US would be harmed if most of the people behaved even a small fraction more that way.]
Contrariwise, consider the limit as the entire “social” society becomes entirely composed of robbers, adulterers, or whatever questionable behaviors you like.
That latter (as a society) is absurd. Trust is fundamental to a functional society. Trust is clearly something that is severely lacking currently in a lot of the political spectrum. The consequences are very predictable, and that is not even over matters of robbery, murder, adultery, etc. — at least not directly so.
Therefore, whereas a society can function with a few jerks abusing it, it cannot function for very long as a society if all the people are jerks. Moreover, it is not a scale-able concept.
I’d also point out that even in evolution, which is largely amoral, you don’t find a lot of examples of this. Even anti-social animals like bears or pandas have to cooperate at some level to survive.
by Grace we proceed,
** [Note I don’t just say mere “law abiding”. Laws can be pernicious, but decent, considerate, empathetic, people will see right through that. This was the challenge that Jesus raised against the pharisees. It is the challenge that we Christians also suffer from when we judge other people, thinking we are somehow better than them and not people redeemed under the same grace.]
Actually, I just noticed that the link @Christy posted (game theory) has an example of the hawk/dove model – though a little different from what I described. In that game, 100% hawks has as survival expectancy of zero. The optimal condition where both compete is 20% hawks 80% doves. … there is some parameter dependence, of course.
There are a variety of predator- prey simulations out there that are sort of interesting to run, Here is one:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/10699259/
You cannot call something amoral, that is, where morality does not make a difference, when it does make a difference. The proof is in the fruit of the tree as Jesus said.
Therefore Dawkins refutes his own Selfish Gene theory as well as survival of the fittest. Too bad he is unable to accept this and refute his whole false understanding of evolution.
I wonder if a community’s long term survivability isn’t somewhat enhanced by having the great majority of people be empathically normal but with a small population of individuals who are willing to act immorally. Perhaps this would help the community to avoid its extinction through docility in the face of a hostile force? Perhaps this would be something very recessive like sickle cell anemia where the subgroup with a disadvantageous deformity, in catastrophic conditions, is able to rebuild the population of normals again after their normalcy had led to their demise.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m pro-empathic, but I like to consider the practical use of subgroup deformities.
I was wondering that, too. I read something about ADD and bipolar like Churchill, ( with social extremists like extreme paranoia and conspiracy theorists maybe also being among those?) being necessary to a group’s survival. But Pinker’s description does indicate that overall, we’re leaning towards a less violent society. I can find those articles–just not able at this point in work
That’s an interesting speculation! …Sort of like the moral / ethical equivalent of vaccination or healthy immune response? We all know that innocent societies don’t/won’t fare so well when met by exploring, perpetually hostile-minded societies, and sci-fi has often explored those themes. So are the evil people among us forcing us to be more robust? What has happened instead, I think it’s safe to say, is that we actually caught the disease itself and the full rigor of all its symptoms.
Well, since psychologically we’re influenced culturally as much or more than we are in an inheritable structural way you could well be right.
Where are the Jesuits when you need them?
I agree with this in the real world we live in. In the example, this was a place where everyone (everyone) was like that.
On a similar frame as you describe, I speculate that cold blooded murders with no compunction about what they do could have been a “selective advantage” in a society where marauding hoards could demolish a city in a short time. It takes a lot to build civilization, it takes next to nothing to blow it up. I might guess that the ruthless slaughter of people who band in hoards makes the “price” of such a way of making a living too expensive.
There probably is a little bit of a tension between empathy and getting things done. However, I did add “self-sacrificing (when necessary), flexible (i.e., willing to change behaviors according to conditions or circumstances)”, in the mix. It isn’t just about being empathetic, we need to be willing to do what is wise for the situation at hand.
Anyway, whereas maybe heaven operates this way, this place is more “interesting”.
by Grace we proceed,
You’re right, science qua science can only say what is, not why, what purpose it has (other than some facile point like “converting energy of a more complex form into energy of a less complex form”). For lack of a better word though, I selected “amoral” with the implication that science does not make moral judgments about outcomes, it describes processes (how they happen, why they happen, when they happen, what happened, etc.). It is too simple to play the solemn role of arbitrating what is right.
I guess by this you mean maybe something akin to the fruits of the spirit? … that when we live as Jesus leads and advises us, we live according to purpose and meaning that is right.
I am not much of a fan of Dawkins. I can understand his distaste for religion and maybe even Christianity. It has been the means of justifying many very rotten things in history, though that is the fault of the rottenness of man, not because Jesus told mankind to be scoundrels. It is wise to be careful to reflect that we can all become like the Pharisees that Jesus attacked for their sanctimonious hypocrisy.
What I simply cannot agree with Dawkins on is his reckless notion that the world will magically become a wonderful place if only we could purge it of that pesky religion – maybe lop it out of the brain. The former Soviet Union is a good example of where moral depravity became prevalent in the gulag (Among the Disbelievers), and where “faith in something more” was a source of genuine grit. In this context, the only thing worse than an intellectual with a “bright idea” is the scoundrels who would have the nerve to go about implementing it. A sobering thought, as I am basically also an intellectual. …
I don’t see where you reason that evolution is false.
The thing we Christians who accept evolution most differ on with Dawkins et al is that we recognize that evolution on its own simply goes from where it is to where it is not with no consideration of what ought to be. We believe that somehow God was involved, though exactly how we cannot precisely say (or at least some of us see that we lack an adequate explanation to satisfy people like Dawkins).
It is not wrong to say I have faith there is something more, even as a scientist. To find the “ought” in life, we know we have to look to the heavens for advice because we cannot see clearly without the guiding light of Christ and the good Lord’s rod and staff to help us through that valley of darkness. Moreover, we recognize our own vulnerability to doing right in this world and turn to the One who can help perfect us in that way. Finally, we depend on his Grace because we know we cannot do it on our own and we will fall sometimes in our walk.
by Grace we proceed,
I haven’t read Pinker, though I did listen to one of his discussions. I’m more of a pessimist, but I hope he is right. At least in that respect, a pessimist is never disappointed. 
Hah! that reminds me of James Herriot, the vet–he said that if he put a bleak picture on it for the patient’s owner, he wouldn’t be disappointed if the animal died, and if he did well, he looked like a hero. I only listened to one of his Youtube discussions, too.
I really appreciate this post especially about Dawkins and Russia.
In the first half of the 20th century there was a French Jesuit (Teilhard de Chardin) who taught that Humankind recently ushered in a totally new sphere in the Universe–a sphere of transmissible ideas which he called the Noosphere (long before Dawkins proposed his concept of memes). It was the Noosphere that could support the complex human culture we live in today. I have proposed that evolution operates in the Noosphere as well as in the biosphere but probably according to similar but different rules. IMHO, we humans find it so difficult to come up with a universally acceptable Rule of Morality is because we have a foot in each of two spheres (Paul Gal.5:17) --one (the Noosphere with the New Testament) which teaches: "the meek will inherit the earth; the other (Darwinian evolution operating in the biosphere) teaches: “only the fittest will survive.”
So there was a Jesuit who used science to help guide us to the Truth that Christ first proclaimed. And what was the result? The Vatican did not want him teaching the heresy (?) of Original Blessing to naive French school kids, and so they banished him to China where he could do little harm. Some years later a Dominican priest, Mathew Fox, began teaching this path around the ‘roadblock’ of Original Sin and was met with the same response from the Vatican; he was eventually defrocked.
It is sad but true that organized religions tend to proclaim dogmas (to present a united front?) that can close the door to the ‘open mind’ that science treasures. Einstein has been quoted as asserting: “Religion without Science is blind; Science without Religion is lame”. Beginning with Pope John Paul II, the Vatican seems to be trying to follow that advice, but it is always difficult to dislodge entrenched conservatives in both religion and politics.
Al Leo
Cool!. Difficult to make a long term sustainable equilibrium … The default settings do not guarantee even one cycle!
In a sense I would agree that science does not make moral judgements. I think that it does make value judgements, because we are humans and make value judgements from our human perspective.
We see global climate change today. It is caused by natural and artificial factors. The question is not whether climate change is morally good or evil, but if the effects of human activity have effected our environment in a good or negative way, and what to do about it? The tack of science is to make that determination, ant task of faith to do what we need to preserve God’s green earth as a home for us humans.
Humans know through science that our planet evolved from a large mass of molten rock into the home of humans and many other living beings. We know that this is good. We know that this was done in an orderly, rational fashion and this is good. We know that humans have extensive control over this planet and this is good. Thus we must say that evolution is moral and good in the best sense of the word.
You can read some new books, A World from Dust by Ben McFarland, and A New History of Life by Peter Ward and Joe Kirschvink, which illustrate the complex path that the earth has taken to make this journey. This is not done by chance, but by design.
Matthew 7:17-20
17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
We are good when we are human in the best sense. Nature is good when it fulfills its nature in the best sense.
I do not think this is the motivation behind Dawkins. That is not his reasoning, but he uses Darwin to deny that God is responsible for nature, even by going so far as to say that nature has no meaning and purpose, so that logically the universe is not rational. He said that Darwin made atheism intellectually respectable.
The problem with the USSR is that it put a false ideology in the place of God. The problem with US conservativism is that it too put capitalist ideology in the place of God. i am concerned that Commentary contained articles that defended Kavanaugh’s White “double standard.”
Christianity must not become an ideology that enables people to maintain privilege. God created a universe that depends on people working together to help each other, not on survival of the fittest. God made the universe and humans to be good, but this does not mean that we can’t be evil and we can’t mess up the universe through sin.
Roger, thank you for fleshing your point out. I think I understand it a little better.
Certainly values are important in doing science. The trouble for me is, valuation is (at least) somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. You can maximize or minimize, and in that way show that it is consistent with what we see in nature.
For example, take some term like “survivability”. Whereas this is the outcome that is needed to sustain life on this planet, and that is something that I would certainly prefer myself (my valuation) and would seek to find ways to achieve and maximize, science does not say (in of itself) that it is good for life to be sustained on this planet. We can perish with our science, all forgotten.
Or take, for example, climate change. Whereas the degree of our wanton stupidity (willful indolence), hubris, greed, lust for power (avarice), and selfishness may be describable in terms of quantifiable parameters and might even express the probability of our demise to a high degree of reproducible certainty, the fact that these willful actions are all sin is a valuation we make as receivers of its assessments. Science doesn’t say whether it is good or bad that we perish, it can only offer assessments of the likelihood of our demise. We have to decide if we want to live or not.
It seems like the valuation is independent of the science. Science is the tool for producing the valuation.
He clearly appears to have an ax to grind. However, where I have decided to follow Jesus, why he is determined to follow his direction is something between God and him.
I largely agree with you. On Kavanaugh, I don’t know what the truth is and still would prefer to know before I say anything. I didn’t find their podcast (or articles) on the matter particularly persuasive (to pull me out of this ambiguity), though at least I see their reasoning.
I am not particularly conservative in my views and would be more likely to cite NYT. However, the editors and readership of NYT are not generally all that tolerant or thoughtful in their attitudes toward religion, whereas the article I cited was excellent and accurately amplified my point. NRO and Commentary are clearly partisan and right-leaning. NYT/WP have their problems in the opposite way though maybe a little less left-leaning. At least they all have some intelligent things to say, even when I don’t necessarily agree with any of them.
by Grace we proceed
Roger, I always enjoy your posts, just as I enjoyed your book. However, I do not know if you find any merit in my view that, as Teilhard proposed, the history of the Universe has witnessed three different Spheres, each created by an evolutionary process that operates by different rules that philosophers, theologians and scientists rarely, if ever, take into consideration. Dawkins, following Darwin, draws the conclusion from evidence provided by biological evolution. That evidence–Nature “red in tooth and claw”–emphasizes “survival of the fittest”. You have correctly pointed out that biological evolution has also developed some characteristics of cooperation (e.g. insect societies) and unselfish love and sacrifice (especially in some avian species), but not in the majority of creatures, and obviously not through the operation of free choice that God may find desirable. As I proposed in my post of an hour or so ago, much of this 'conundrum" disappears if humankind were the first creatures to enter the Noosphere where the brain could act as Mind and Conscience to tell us what we ought to do, and not merely what our biological genes urge us to do. I see this as God’s gift to humankind. The other side of the coin sees Sin entering the world–with humans now being so proud that we are able to ignore God and, figuratively, throw his gift back in his face.
Does this view have any merit in your eyes? I do value your insights and opinions.
Al Leo
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
