Fwd: [asa] Quoting Darwin out of context

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2006 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Quoting Darwin out of context
To: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>

*In fact his view is quite moral - our brains have evolved to an extent that
> we have become intelligent enough to realise what is going on, so we can
> oppose it, and choose not to be the puppets of our selfish genes. *
>
> It's "moral" in the sense that he lacks the intellectual honesty to do
> what his views require, which is to abandon any concept of "morality." The
> reality is that his insistence that we can transcend our selfish genes is
> utterly incoherent if his beliefs are otherwise true. If Dawkins is
> basically right, we might *think* we've become so smart and self-aware
> that we can transcend our selfish genes, but that would be just another
> self-delusion, another games our genes are playing with us to ensure their
> survival. Any other belief is just soft-minded wish-fullfillment
> religiosity. Our delusions of morality are, as Wayne said, nothing more
> than power games. Mao was right: morality begins at the point of a gun.
>

I'm not quite getting you here, David. Can you explain just why an
atheist/materialist view requires you to abandon any concept of morality?

One could argue plausibly, I think, that the evolution of intelligence had
the unexpected side-effect that humankind gained a moral sense. This wasn't
"planned" by evolution (though of course as Christians we would say it was
planned by God, e.g. the bit in Romans Ch 2 where it says that even for
gentiles the requirements of the law are already written on their hearts).
But for a moment I want to consider whether Dawkins's views require of
necessity (as you claim) to abandon any sense of morality. I don't think
so. It may well be the case that being moral is more likely to ensure our
survival as a species, but I'm not sure you can argue that this is just a
game your genes are playing, and I don't think Dawkins does. I think the
distinction between gene-games and proposing moral behavour for survival of
the species is that gene-games involve no long term planning - an evolving
system simply searches for the first adaptation to ensure better survival in
a changing environment. However, proposing wholesale rebellion against what
our genes are doing - looking after the poor and weak, for example is a long
term plan because by our intelligence, we have had a vision of a better
society in the future. It's true that Dawkins has also argued that altruism
can be explained in evolutionary terms, but I think that this is perhaps
only when there is a long-term pay-off.

So I think Dawkins is at least consistent, and I don't believe it's right to
accuse him of intellectual dishonesty, or being deluded that he's moral.
Where he's totally missed the point is that 2000 years ago Jesus Christ's
life and death on the cross to save sinners was the ultimate
counter-evolutionary step - a long term plan to save humankind, and show us
how we ought to live.

Iain

-- 
-----------
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.