Fate waved his hand again. The playing pieces appeared and started to move around the board as if they had a life of their own, which was of course the case.
Terry Pratchett Interesting Times
Charles Darwin’s original theory of evolution by natural selection was a nightmare scenario reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes (1586-1679) state of nature – the war of all against all. It transformed earth to a world of dog eat dog and every man for himself. It metamorphosized all of nature and not just a part to “nature red in tooth and claw.” A world from which we could only be saved by the power of civilisation.
It was the world that Jack London wrote about in “Call of the Wild.” The world where his dog hero Buck once in Alaska threw off the veneer of civilisation and fought to the death: the death of other dogs and later wolves.
Jack London’s understanding that the willingness of some dogs to fight to the death was a product of natural selection, and an escape from the weakening values of civilisation was the wrong way round. It takes artificial selection to produce dogs willing to do this.
In the wild winning is not everything. A dog who wins but is even slightly injured has a much greater risk of dying than the dog who hasn’t fought at all.
In nature the rule really is:
For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
Ecclesiastes Chapter 9 Verse 4
In a natural world where dogs really did fight to the death, the dog most likely to reproduce would be he who managed to avoid fighting. That is patient / sneaky male strategy would be the most effective. The natural world is not really as red in tooth and claw as Jack London imagined.
The way that Jack London and many others have interpreted the survival of the fittest is somewhat akin to what was described in the 2012 Dr Who Christmas Special as, “Victorian values meet carnivorous snow”.
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been transformed by a synthesis with Mendelian genetics, so that we now understand, “survival of the fittest,” to refer not to organisms but to genes. It is not the organisms that are in competition for survival but genes,
Of course any such competition needs to be understood in a strictly metaphorical way. Genes being without consciousness are incapable of forming or understanding goals, and are therefore incapable of literal competition or having any literal purposes.
Science historian, Peter Bowler has pointed out that the nastiness inherent in Darwin’s theory of evolution was hard to reconcile with a benevolent God. (Peter J. Bowler Evolution the History of an Idea Revised edition 1988)
The extreme nastiness of the original concept does not exist in the new synthesis.
The first chemical replicators/genes may well have made the primeval slime a war zone. But if so, this archaic war of all against all vanished with that slime. The descendants of those primeval genes have long since, and metaphorically speaking, as they have no intelligence of their own, discovered the value of a Hobbesian social contract, and collaborate to form organisms – the avatars in which they survive.
Success in the game of life goes to those who are able to successfully co-operate.
We avatars are not caught up in a war of all against all, but are individuals with a genetic stake in others of our species.
Generosity and self-sacrifice within limits are not an anomaly or an example of the power of civilisation to save us from our evil nature, they are a consequence of human nature.
This truth about human nature had been noted long before evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1964) joked that he would die for two brothers or eight cousins.
Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends.
John Chapter 15 verse 13.
Just because something is written in an ancient text does not make it false anymore than it guarantees its truth.
There is currently a fashion among some to argue that the purpose of science is to overcome religious superstition, and that evolution theory proves there is no need for God, so therefore he doesn’t exist.
This is jumping the gun. Just because we can think of a way to explain order in nature without need to refer to a superintending Creator, does not prove that He does not exist. It just means that order in nature does not give us sufficient reason to believe. Then as the philosopher David Hume pointed out it never did.
No reason to believe, is not a positive reason to disbelieve. The agnostic position is the most rational – suspend judgement until you have sufficient evidence.
For Richard Dawkins this is unsatisfactory and in “The God Delusion” he argues that he can go one better than no reason to disbelieve, by proving that God is so improbable that believing in him is unreasonable.
Given that what exists beyond this world may be infinite this is just funny. Any probability estimations that potentially include ∞, the symbol for infinity, should be interpreted with extreme caution, and Dr Dawkins notably fails to do so.
Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and should know better. The fact that he doesn’t really does require an explanation.
Richard Dawkins failure, to see that arguing that God is improbable is not an improvement on arguing there is no reason to believe, is peculiar. There is no reason to believe that he has fairies at the bottom of his garden, and it is therefore rational to assign a probability of zero to his finding them there. Why does he think that assigning a probability of greater than zero to God’s existence is better than sticking with a claim that no reason to believe is a good reason not to believe?
Just as strange is his failure to note that probability arguments really don’t work when you are dealing with the possibly infinite.
Richard Dawkins is a long way from being the only intelligent and generally rational person to fail to see flaws in arguments which support their deeply held beliefs. That people are so easily self-deluded by arguments that support their beliefs requires an explanation. One place to look is to the gene.
The original introduction to “The Selfish Gene,” Richard Dawkins 1976 book, was written by Robert Trivers. In it he introduced the notion of genes which had been selected for because they caused the organism to self delude and so gain social advantage.
Strong social bonds increase an individuals chance of successfully reproducing and raising children, who go on to do likewise. Communally held beliefs are one way that we form these bonds.
It should be no surprise to find that people who are generally capable of high levels of rationality, have difficulty seeing flaws in arguments which support their social identifier beliefs.
There are many kinds of social identifier beliefs, for example political, religious and sporting. There is no reason to expect the problem of irrationality to be limited only to religious beliefs. Any social identifier, including atheism, is a potential trigger for self-deception responses.
That he has triggered off an instinctive self-delusion response provides an explanation for Richard Dawkins rather dubious probability of God argument. His rationality has been subverted by a Selfish Gene.
“The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”