Religion-Bashing

[Joe Barron]

Oh, and thanks, Joe, I did appreciate the Chunga's Revenge allusion!

And "Appliantology" refers to Joe's Garage.

[Joe Barron]

Poor Florestan, he doesn't know the difference between atheism and nihilism.

This isn't even nihilism. The selfish gene has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a way of thinking about how evolution works. Ah, well, I suppose we had it coming ...

[karlhenning]

And "Appliantology" refers to Joe's Garage.

Oui.

[karlhenning]

The selfish gene has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a way of thinking about how evolution works.

With friendly respect to all, it doesn't seem to me possible to claim that this is quite so cut-and-dried.  The label selfish has ethical considerations (even, I should think, among atheists agnostics).  I don't know how it might have been possible to find a genuinely neutral label.

[Joe Barron]

What, you don't believ in ethical consideratons amiong atheists? What's the crossout for?

In any event, "selfish" in Dawkins's lexicon is at most a metaphor, though perhaps and unfortuante one. But I foresee a time when we start blaming him for the housing crisis, foreclsures and the economic collapse, the way Ben Stein blames Darwin for the Holocaust.

[DavidW]

This isn't even nihilism. The selfish gene has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a way of thinking about how evolution works. Ah, well, I suppose we had it coming ...

Well I was replying to "nothingness is at hand".

[karlhenning]

What, you don't believ in ethical consideratons amiong atheists? What's the crossout for?

Just a nod to the fact that agnostic's is a factual position (one believes there is reason for doubt) where atheism is a faith-based initiative ("I believe there is no God").

In any event, "selfish" in Dawkins's lexicon is at most a metaphor, though perhaps and unfortuante one.

Well, the adjective unfortunate might have been invented for Dawkins.  I have no doubt he is selfish to the core  0:)

[karlhenning]

Well I was replying to "nothingness is at hand".

It's a day! Let's party! 

[MN Dave]

The cheese stands alone.

[Joe Barron]

I have no doubt he is selfish to the core  0:)

Another faith-based initiative.

[Florestan]

Well I was replying to "nothingness is at hand".

Is this pushing my buttons again or do you really mean it? 

[DavidW]

Is this pushing my buttons again or do you really mean it? 

Oh I mean it.

[karlhenning]

Another faith-based initiative.

Sure, although I am not much invested in it either way.

[Daidalos]

With friendly respect to all, it doesn't seem to me possible to claim that this is quite so cut-and-dried.  The label selfish has ethical considerations (even, I should think, among atheists agnostics).  I don't know how it might have been possible to find a genuinely neutral label.

Well, the adjective unfortunate might have been invented for Dawkins.  I have no doubt he is selfish to the core   0:)

I'd just like to mention that the word "gene" is more significant than the word "selfish" in this context, because the selfish behavior of genes need not translate into the selfish behavior of individuals, a point Dawkins often stresses. Furthermore, Dawkins often emphasises the importance of altruism, and states that his personal opinion is that the evolutionary process should not be a guide to living an ethical life (he's far, far from being a Social Darwinist).

For example, the selfish gene concept explains, in evolutionary terms, how altruism could have emerged. Sacrificing for your relatives means increasing the probability that your relatives will procreate, thus spreading on the genes they share with you. In the early evolutionary history of humans, any other human we encountered were likely to be a relative, since we lived in small social groups. Therefore, anyone you met shared a significant portion of your genes, so protecting and sacrificing for those nearby would be a trait which could be selected for and subsequently spread. In modern times, it no longer holds true that anyone you'll meet is likely to be a close relative, but the genes for altruism are still there, making our behavior today a fortunate evolutionary misfiring.

So, the selfish gene does not dispense with morality, and it says nothing about how we as individuals should treat each other, not more than any other evolutionary model. I don't think there are any practical ethical considerations at all with the concept of the selfish gene, regardless of your philosophical persuasion.

And, as an addendum, despite whatever controversy Dawkins engenders, he strikes me as a thoroughly moral individual, and not selfish in the slightest. Don't let the angry atheist label confuse you.

[karlhenning]

For example, the selfish gene concept explains, in evolutionary terms, how altruism could have emerged. Sacrificing for your relatives means increasing the probability that your relatives will procreate, thus spreading on the genes they share with you.

For example, how does it explain, in evolutionary terms, sacrificing yourself for people whose procreation does nothing for your own genes?

[karlhenning]

And, as an addendum, despite whatever controversy Dawkins engenders, he strikes me as a thoroughly moral individual, and not selfish in the slightest. Don't let the angry atheist label confuse you.

I'll just quietly point out that I made use of no fewer than three emoticons against that remark.

[Daidalos]

For example, how does it explain, in evolutionary terms, sacrificing yourself for people whose procreation does nothing for your own genes?

I did explain that:

In modern times, it no longer holds true that anyone you'll meet is likely to be a close relative, but the genes for altruism are still there, making our behavior today a fortunate evolutionary misfiring.

In other words, in the context in which the genes for altruism evolved, altruism was advantageous from the view of the selfish genes, but now, in modern times, when those circumstances no longer apply, the genes are still there. Earlier, the genes treated all as relatives, since it was probable that everyone you met was a relative, something which misfires today. It can be likened to having sexual intercourse using protection, or contraceptives, something which does not benefit the genes, but the root behavior (willingness to engage in the practice) was nonetheless advantageous at the time it was selected for.

[Daidalos]

I'll just quietly point out that I made use of no fewer than three emoticons against that remark.

Yeah, I suspected that, but I don't trust emoticons. They're of the devil.

[karlhenning]

Yeah, I suspected that, but I don't trust emoticons. They're of the devil.

[Florestan]

Oh I mean it.

Do you also mean to philosophically discuss a joke, emulated after some contrary-sign jokes?