Evolution of Morality Debate on Philosophy Forum, Mar 2004 This discussion eventually wanders into a debate on absolute certainty. All quotations are in red. All responses to quotations by John Donovan unless otherwise noted. Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner I much prefer Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" to Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" by the way. Dawkins is too fond of hyperboles, and his arguments are often weak. Unlike Dennett's. I enjoy both authors immensely, though it is true that Dawkins sometimes writes in a somewhat pugalistic and shall we say, exuberant tone. But it makes for entertaining reading, for example have you read this very funny piece? http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html In any case, both Dawkins and Dennett are clearly philosophical "soulmates". I can't imagine two men more in tune with each others ideas on so many issues. Just look at how Dennett has latched on to Dawkins' "memes" concept and applied it to his theory of consciousness. There is a discussion on this here for those interested in the link between language and the evolution of consciousness: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/...read.php?t=6031 Apologies in advance for the thread promotion. By Probeman (John Donovan) Quote: Originally Posted by jamespetts A characteristic, no doubt, with a strong genetic influence ;-) Seriously, I think there is something to this. Although I would say a strong "memetic" influence, instead. It makes sense to consider the idea that religious beliefs, such as the idea that we are the apple of God's eye, or the chosen people or that the universe was created just for us, etc., are all evolved memes that enhance human (social?) survival. I mean if you are wandering in the desert for 40 years, it might help your chances of survival if you believe that there is actually some purpose to it all. So I would say that we have religious beliefs, at least in part, because these ideas are how our perceptual/cognitive mental systems try to explain/predict/control a fairly random and purposeless environment, but also for the obvious benefit that they provide for the above explained "will to survive". Other religious beliefs/morals, like for example, antigay, anticontraception, antiabortion have obvious Darwinian reproductive incentives. What is so ironic to me is that so many religious people don't see the evolutionary nature of their religious beliefs. Perhaps, I would argue, because knowing that these beliefs are only beliefs, would not provide the same survival benefit. Sort of a mental placebo effect if you will. So I would say that the atheist, due to his lesser degree of belief in "purpose" and "specialness", is perhaps less will fitted to survive in the long run. On the other hand, the atheist is not about to become a martyr for any god. So maybe there is a difference in the level of "unnatural" selection between the individual (Dawkins) and the group (Gould) so far as religious belief is concerned. By Probeman (John Donovan) Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner Well, you could have warned Einstein, he still believed in God after pondering all of that . I'm glad you said it was a joke because Einstein certainly did not believe in any sort of a personal god, and could be considered rather atheistic in many ways. Besides arguments from authority are without value, so let's just leave the poor man alone. Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner The ideas above are quite simply unscientific and unproven (and bad philosophy). In other words, weak. Note how almost nothing of it follows from evolutionary theory -- though Dawkins would like us to believe that it does. There is no question that this summary of a few of Dawkins more extended ideas consists of some philosophy. But I'm surprised you dislike these ideas from Dawkins, when Dennett's position is almost exactly the same, though it's true that Dennett isn't quite as explicit about it. By the way, I couldn't agree more with the summary, very nicely written. In any case, these ideas are in part scientifically supported by the very new and growing field of evolutionary psychology. I strongly suggest you read Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" for a fascinating introduction to the field. I couldn't put it down. Finally, I'd like to know specifically what statements you disagree with most, in the Dawkins summary you posted, and why. By Probeman (John Donovan) Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner Well, it is the relationship between a philosopher that invokes science to support his theories and a scientist who believes that philosophy is silly and science suffices for any reasonable person. I agree Dawkins is a strong advocate for science- but I have never gotten the idea from him that science is all that "suffices". Quite the contrary- he is a strong advocate of how humans give "purpose" to their lives, through all kinds of altruistic and cooperative behaviors. That these behaviors might have an evolutionary basis or be capable of being studied makes no difference to their value to humans. Much as I was arguing about the evolutionary role of religious belief for humans. Just because one can understand the physics of the rainbow does not detract one iota from my appreciation of it's beauty. Dawkins uses the same metaphor and he, rightly I think, argues that a scientific understanding of these things can enhance our appreciation of their beauty. Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner I've been following it since I was a lurker. I just read Searle's "The Rediscovery of the Mind", in which he criticizes (among others) Dawkins' approach... but this is a field of which I'm nothing more than "an intelligent layman", so I don't feel comfortable in butting in. Not now at least . After all, I tend to sympathise with TecnoTut's position, and you don't need another guy like him on that thread . I understand the all too intuitively obvious dualist belief that there MUST be something more to consciousness than just neurons and complexity, but there is no scientific evidence to that belief and much scientific evidence to the contrary. As a biologist I'm sure you've studied the Vitalist debate in the 19th century. To me the current debate on consciousness is much the same, and will have the same outcome- no magic substance. Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner P.S. I've read The Moral Animal. It's quite good, too. The difference between Dennett and Dawkins is what I've said above: Dennett is aware that he is defending a philosophical position among many; Dawkins believes that his position is supported by science. Dennett (though wrong in my opinion) is not self-deluded. I think the case for Dawkins position is stronger than you think. Give me a specific example nand we can discuss it. By Probeman (John Donovan) Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner Basically, the normative statements, such as "The meaning of life is life itself" and "There is no life after death" (well, not a normative statement, but surely not a conclusion of Evolutionary theory . The point is that he confuses his theory with his metaphysics. Dennett rarely does that. And that also answers jamespetts. My point is that these two things, theory and metaphysics, are different and must be kept separate in the mind, or the result is muddled thinking. I think you are right that one has to be careful here. For example statement "The meaning of life" has two very different meanings. First there is the normal spiritual "meaning" of life that god put us here on earth for his special reasons. But then there is the "meaning" that we give our own lives individually. Dawkins (and Dennett) are saying that evolution seems to indicate that there is no evidence for a "supernatural" purpose or "meaning" of life on earth. But that does not mean that we can't provide our own lives with personal and social meaning. The field of evolution and evolutionary psychology could demonstrate (and I think it will eventually) that there is no "intrinsic" meaning or purpose to anything in the universe. But that will not reduce my personal appreciation for existing one bit. As Dennett replied when asked by Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers: ALDA: Do you suppose some people feel that there's a lack of purpose to life if life is only the way Darwin describes it? DENNETT: I think a lot of people prefer the traditional idea that we get our purpose from on high, somehow. I think that the important idea here is that you want there to be something more important than you are, to give you meaning and to make you happy. My advice if you want to be happy is, find something more important than you are and work for it. By Probeman (John Donovan) Quote: Originally Posted by Mariner Basically, the normative statements, such as "The meaning of life is life itself" and "There is no life after death" (well, not a normative statement, but surely not a conclusion of Evolutionary theory . You're not providing any analysis of the specific sort of separation for which you contend. Indeed, the first proposition, "the meaning of life is life itself", is a consequence of evolutionary theory: for it is the theory of evolution that explains not only why there is life, but why there is meaning (and for that matter, purpose and value). As to the second proposition, given a true understanding of the nature of life, there remains no reason to suppose that any such mystical and unevidenced state such as "life after death" could possibly exist.