Re: [asa] Quoting Darwin out of context

On 8/5/06, Paul <PHSeely@msn.com> wrote:
>
> <<Dawkins continues the grand theme of this chapter leading to the
> inevitable conclusion that there is at bottom no evidence of design in
> the universe at all, just blind pitiless indifference, and an amount
> of suffering that goes beyond decent contemplation, which is a natural
> consequence of the way things are.>>
>
> Assuming this is an accurate representation of Dawkins, is he not
> contradicting himself? If there is JUST blind PITILESSNESS in the
> universe,
> how can there be "decent comtemplation"?

Paul,

Just to make sure I haven't mis-represented Dawkins, or quoted too much out
of context, I'll try and give as much of the quote as I can ...

Dawkins writes (River out of Eden - p 153 "God's Utility Function"):

To return to this chapter's pessimistic beginning, when the utility function
- that which is being maximized - is DNA survival, this is not a recipe for
happiness. So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who gets hurt in
the process. It is better for the genes of Darwin's ichneumon wasp that the
caterpillar should be alive, and therefore fresh, when it is eaten, no
matter what the cost in suffering. Genes don't care about suffering because
they don't care about anything.

If Nature were kind, she would at least make the minor concession of
anesthetizing caterpillars before they are eaten alive from within. But
Nature is neither kind nor unkind. She is neither against suffering nor for
it. Nature is not interested in one way or the other in suffering, unless
it affects the survival of DNA. It is easy to imagine a gene that, say,
tranquillizes gazelles when they are about to suffer a killing bite. Would
such a gene be favoured by natural selection? Not unless the act of
tranquilizing a gazelle improved that gene's chances of being propagated
into future generations. It is hard to see why this should be so, and wemay
therefore guess that gazelles suffer horrible pain and fear when they are
pursued to death - as most of them eventually are. The total amount of
suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals
are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with
fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites;
thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must
be so.

....

he concludes the chapter by addressing the "problem of evil" and how can God
allow it, and giving the solution that in a materialistic universe of just
electrons and forces, we should expect pointless misery and suffering to
occur. He concludes the chapter with:

In a univese of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't
find any rhyme or reason toit, nor any justice. The universe we observe has
precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no
design,no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Houseman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

-----

So from the context, Paul, I don't think Dawkins is contradicting himself.
WE can care, be horrified by the amount of suffering in the world that goes
beyond all decent contemplation. But what's really going on all the time is
the passing on of DNA, which is a blind, pitiless, and indifferent process.

What I was objecting to with what Dawkins has put there is that his quoting
of Darwin out of context really does an injustice to what Darwin actually
thought. Darwin also was troubled by the sheer amount of misery in the
world, and it led him to question the Paley-type argument of there being an
Intelligent, beneficent designer. But Darwin also came to the much less
forceful conclusion than Dawkins, that he felt the laws of this wonderful
universe were in fact purposely designed, and the working out of the details
left to chance.

To give the full story (context!) I should add that Dawkins does at least
say it wasn't just the wasp that caused Darwin to lose faith, but there were
more complex reasons. But there is no mention at all of the Darwin's idea
that the laws of the universe were purposefully designed.

Paul S
>
>
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.