question for evolutionists

Hi i'm new and from England. I mention the latter because over here there doesn't seem to be a very open debate about creationism versus evolutionism - so the whole thing is a bit new to me.......I'll get to the point first and then give you a bit of background to it if you are inclined to read it all.The point is a question for evolutionists. How does one come to terms with a theory like selfish gene theory?Okay here's the background:I am wondering about how all this makes people FEEL as well as what they think - cos i know how it made me feel when i first came across it............pretty depressed, like life had become futile and meaningless.I don't have a problem with evolution otherwise, i can even deal with the possibility that there is no God or no soul or spirit - but to me there was always MEANING. Don't ask me to explain this because i cannot, it's what they refer to as ineffable. Sitting out in nature amongst the trees, seeing the sunset, seeing an innocent face of a baby animal, looking at a rose,........all these things just seemed so profound and like within everything there was the key to the meaning of it all......then i came across Richard Dawkins and the selfish gene idea! and i cannot criticise this man's quest for what's true as opposed to what could be delusion - but neither can i sit comfortably with his theory.Perhaps i'm sounding all ridiculous and twee - that's not really me, but it's late here and i just wanted to get this post done quickly.It's just become that now when i look at nature, which was always my sanctuary, i can only see how all it's beauty has arisen from cut throat competition!Anyway i'm curious as to other's perspectives on this, particularly evolutionists, as i am not really religious - though perhaps i had pantheist leanings before (seeing a divinity within the physicality of nature)Thanks for reading and glad to have found this site! I've read loads of your posts nowthe cat{Moved, per originators request, to "Evolution" forum - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-06-2003]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by the cat:Ah.... yes, young jedi! The Dark Night of the Soul.I don't get it. What is there that is so threatening about the selfish-gene idea, assuming it is correct?You cheer at sports events, yes?[/B][/QUOTE]Thanks for your reply! the Jedi bit - could you explain and sorry to be thick but i've never seen Star Wars!Yes i do cheer at sports events and yes there is something good about competition for all of us, never had a problem with competition - but in nature, competition is the fight for life! What i find threatening about selfish gene theory is that, competition aside, the theory is not just about 'selfishness' but about the development of a disregard for life in all organisms unless it is kin - ie unless that life has the same or similar genes to itself. I find that threatening as i always thought we evolved from natural systems and were very similar to the animals - kill for food but that's it, now it would appear that animals kill the babies of others so that their own offspring will perpetuate. I know people will now say that they are not concious of this - but if life is the result of intelligent design (not necessarily a God in the religious sense, but divine nature) - what sort of intelligence is that?! Whether or not the animal is concious of this - it does it and this is what maintains the balance of life on earth - so to me the threat is that i cannot 'escape' to nature anymore, it's not the thing i thought it was - the theory of which i speak appears to suggest that there is no inherent morality in nature, therefore no matter how beautiful it all looks..........i'm lost, it may not be what i always thought it was.......anyway i'm rambling. I did like the 'sports events' metaphor though - there is something great about competition and struggle and challenge as well!the cat

Primordial Egg and Peter Borger - thanks for your replies and for suggesting the 'Unweaving the Rainbow' book. I have literally avoided anything written by Dawkins - thinking it would only bother me further, but actually have also thought that i should re-read Selfish gene and other books and really get my head round it and come to grips with it.So as you have both suggested the same book then perhaps i should take a look - thought the title 'unweaving the rainbow' doeasn't sound too promising!Peter i will also look at the other information that you have suggested and thanks!the cat

Just had a thought - if we were merely 'gene machines' and selfish ones at that, wouldn't we embrace the theory rather than feel uncomfortable with it? surely we would never experience 'existential angst', as long as our genes were passed on?'Does the fact that we wonder mean that there is something else or at least a transcendence of our biology?

Primordial Egg - thanks again. Peter who? Peter Bonnetti - no i'm definitely not him. Don't blame you for asking though if something i said seemed like something someone had said before - and someone that people have been upset by, by the sounds of it.No, i'm female anyway. I guess over time it'll become clear that i'm not anyone else who may have visited this site. This really is my first time here.Yes - epectations shattered i guess. There are far reaching implications to selfish gene theory - i always thought nature was right about everything and that if we look at what happens in nature that gives us a guide for our own lives - but if at the root of nature is selfishness and dog eat dog - then can i continue with my philosophy? No!............but then nothing makes sense........Also my political and social views have always been very liberal, i've always believed in sharing and people contributing according to ability and receiving according to need. Now it seems there are people who argue that this is wrong that it has been shown to be wrong in the fall of communist countries (not that i'm necessarily communist - i haven't got strong political views really, they were more personal orientations). It seems the more competitive, capitalist systems 'match' human nature - if selfish gene theory is anything to go by - and believers in this theory have suggested this.I always thought everything in life was about balance.I'll work through it eventually.I'll give another example. a woman i was chatting to at christmas, we were talking about the population problem, or over population of our planet. She was saying how wonderful having children was and how she thinks people should have more children. I said i think they should have less because of using up the planet's rescources. She said it's the people being kept alive with drugs and machines and civilised living that's the problem. that we should all be far more natural in our living, that the death rate would be higher if we were living more 'natural' lives. Well i take issue with this - but at the same time feel it fits in far more with a Dawkins theory of what life is about. To me nature provided us with the brains to create the treatments to help people to live longer! and once we know how to, how can we possibly deny people such treatments? but selfish gene theory would say that keeping people alive with genetic problems, such as diabetes, or in my case thyroid problems, actually leads to those faulty genes being spread in the population! Thus compassion can lead to the demise of our population.We talk of mother nature, of nature being compassionate. I take herbal remedies and things, always thinking of 'natural' being 'good.' but some of these theories suggest that 'good' and 'compassion' go against nature...........I think i flicked through a book recently, probably that 'genome' book (not sure) and at the back it said that scientists are worried about the future of the human population because harmful mutations happen far more often than beneficial ones and because we look after each other and keep each other alive (with these harmful mutations) we are spreading them far quicker...............so, yeah i don't know what to think now. Goes against all my values and yet i always valued and revered nature.Anyway sure i'll work it out eventually. Thanks again for your reply and i'm interested if anyone has any comments to this.the cat (please tolerate my ignorance, i'm quite bright for a cat!)[This message has been edited by the cat, 01-07-2003]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
"The Dark Night of the Soul" is a book by Saint John of the Cross in which he describes the collapse of hope. It is a trip through utter darkness and despair.Consider. Pretend we have an utter disreguard for life and slaughter everything to feed our kids, and clear cut the forests for shelter. What happens? We die soon thereafter. The bacteria eat us and life continues. The system is self balancing. We happen to be smart enough to know how to not commit suicide in such manner, but I am not sure if we are smart enough to actually do so.Inherent morality? I propose to you that what you consider 'morality' is drawn from nature, from experience, from life. Though you may not realize it. It is a shift of perspective really. We are taught, I was anyway, that morality is an absolute thing, an essense. When actually, it is just behavior codified.[/B][/QUOTE]Thanks again John - i must read the Dark Night of the Soul! - or get a flavour for it anyway. I have always been comfortable with the idea that the system on earth is self balancing - probably because to me that suggest some kind of 'intelligence.' - but again i mean within nature itelf rather than a being resembling a human or whatever. Self balancing suggests that conservation and respect for life other than oneself is better than greed and selfishness.I have a book called 'When Elephants Weep,' cannot think of the author now - but it gives many examples of where in the animal kingdom, animals would help out other animals from different species. This doesn't makes sense according to selfish gene theory - but perhaps it makes sense if we consider that all life thrives on other life. We need the diversity on the planet to be able to live ourselves - so perhaps we have some natural programming to be interested in and help out other species - not just humans but animals generally.................i'm rambling againcat

By the way has anyone heard of the primatologist Frans de Waal? He works with chimps and studies their social behaviour and believes that the roots of morality - human morality can be seen in their social systems - he doesn't deny that they can be viscious and cruel - just that there are other traits, suggesting there is a natural basis to morality.just thought i'd share - i believe he has a website, think i found it on google - looking up the name.cat

Just had another thought........yeah i do go on!questions really:-1) Can one believe in evolution without believing the selfish gene theory? ie without believing that ultimately all living things are selfish?2) How would the above theory explain our love of beauty, not of people (i expect i know how it would explain that!) but of other things like flowers, etc - and of our love of music - and of the insights and feelings gained from music, as well as insights gained from quiet contemplation? If passing on our genes was our sole purpose - why would any of this be necessary? or is it that when we become fully concious, we really do transcend our biology?3) also how does it explain our use of contraceptives? if we really are automatons here to perpetuate our genes, why do we use contraception? Why do we choose not to have children?4) why do we ask questions beginning with 'why?' - if science can only explain the 'how'?the cat (with an existential crisis..........)

Peter Borger - thanks for your reply, could you explain what the GUTorB is - sorry if i've spelt it wrong!- or point me in the direction of this theory?Peter - thanks for your reply. I prefer the use of contraception as going against the selfish gene idea, but i take your point. I'd say then that the instinct is not that strong in dictating our behaiour and that this would suggest reason overrides instinct quite easily. In which case this suggests that the cognitive abilities of animals must be quite limited, for example when lions kill off the babies in a pride and then mate with the female to produce their own offspring.still thinking................the cat

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Cat, maybe your problem lies in how you perceive the 'ought' from the 'is'. Even if we are here thanks to our precursors who were all survival machines, it does not mean that we should be like them. Humans have the ability to refuse the urge of selfish genes.[/B][/QUOTE]I agree totally with this - it's just that nature was my sanctuary, away from the madness of the world of human beings! - so to think that nature isn't the perfectly designed place i thought it was is a bit hard to swallow!Nonetheless i've gone back to the selfish gene book and i realise now much more so that the 'selfish' aspect is a metaphor - afterall the genes are mere molecules, all of which replicate, the fact that some get passed on and some don't does not make those that do 'selfish' just successful............comments anyone?cat