Original Sin - Scripture and Reason

Firstly we need to understand the concept of the selfish gene. It is not, as some people think a, gene that causes selfish behaviour - instead it represents a gene-centred view of evolution which was formulated to explain altruistic behaviour.In a view of evolution which puts individual survival first, selfish behaviour is to be expected. And that doesn't really fit with what we see. The key insight of the selfish gene is that the survival of individuals is not the most important factor - the spread of genes is more important. A gene that acts in ways that boost it's own frequency in the population will tend to become more common - even if the effects are to the detriment of the individual carrying that copy of the gene. It can be seen as a generalisation of the earlier idea kin selection (i.e. helping close relatives helps "your" genes, therefore evolution will tend to encourage such behaviour - within limits).I don't see that this relates very closely to the Christian idea of Original Sin. Even if we reduce Original Sin to the idea that there is something in humans that encourages "bad" behaviour - selfish genes can also cause good behaviour. But reducing Original Sin that far would seem to be taking an extremely liberal view of the subject. Original Sin is - in more orthodox views - a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, not something innate to all life, and long predating human existence. In that respect there is a huge difference between the two concepts.In summary: The "Selfish gene" concept is far more than the idea that genes cause bad behaviour, and in fact includes the idea of genes causing good behaviour. Even the idea of genes causing bad behaviour is only similar to an attenuated idea of Original Sin, and contradicts the story of its origin.

quote:

---

But I don’t think that is what Dawkins is saying. I’ll repeat the quote I used in the OP.

---

Unfortunately you're misinterpreting the quote. Sure Dawkins talks of "pure unadulterated altruism" - but that's altruism that doesn't benefit the genes. The whole concept is that the "selfishness" that evolution should produce is at the genetic level and may include behaviour that is seen as altruistic at the level of the organism.Wikipedia (which you quoted in the OP) agrees: Even the first quote that you used in the OP supports this view Read it. The effects of genes can be described as if the genes themselves were acting selfishly - for their own benefit. The genes that get passed on are the ones that serve their own implicit interest - which is to get replicated. There's nothing there describing the effects as being necessarily selfish at the level of the organism. The only significant omission is that the "gene" referred to is an abstract including all the physical copies of that particular gene.

quote:

---

I understand Dawkins to be saying that genetically speaking we are born selfish but with memes or social replicators we can overcome the, selfish genes of our birth. As he says, we are built as gene machines but cultured as meme machines.

---

And your understanding is wrong - he means that our genes influence our behaviour for their benefit, but we can go against them.

quote:

---

I don’t see either Dawkins view, or the Christian view as it being something in humans that encourages "bad" behaviour.

---

What else could you mean when you talk about genes encouraging selfishness ? And what other possible connection is there between the two ideas ?

quote:

---

I agree that selfish genes can cause good behaviour in the sense that co-operation can be beneficial for the individual or for his/her gene pool. I don’t see it as being about good and bad behaviour precisely, but more about our motivations and desires. I understand Dawkins to be saying that we can develop true altruism, (benefitting others at the expense of ourselves, gene poll or tribe), and that this is done by the spread of memes.

---

THis seems to be a distinction without a difference. Motivations and desires cause behaviour. In fact in humans they would be a major means by which genes DO influence our behaviour.

quote:

---

As I said in the OP I view the creation story as inspired metaphor or myth for that matter. I believe that it in essence saying that we are born with selfish genes to use Dawkins’ language. Where we differ is that Dawkins sees true altruism being spread as a result of naturalistic memes, whereas I would see altruism being spread by the spark of God working in us and being spread in meme like fashion to others as well.

---

Original Sin isn't about the reasons why humans act altruistically. So really you ARE saying that both are about humans having an innate tendency to behave badly - which loses important parts of both ideas (or - in the case of Original Sin - important to less liberal Christians).

quote:

---

I guess I don’t disagree with the statement itself but it doesn’t address the point I’m making for reasons that I think I’ve explained in the last couple of paragraphs.

---

I don't see any substantive point of disagreement. Unless you really mean that Original Sin is the spirit of God influencing us to act altruistically !No, the only point of connection is that your attenuated view of Original Sin is very close to a misreading of the selfish gene concept. That's really not a great link.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But that is my understanding. Dawkins is saying that even though our genes influence our behaviour for our own benefit, we are able to be something more than that and his vehicle for that are the memes that he writes about.

---

No, the genes influence our behaviour for their own benefit. That's the whole point of the idea. That is the "selfishness" of the "selfish gene". And yes, he says that we can do more than that, but Original Sin is not about that!

quote:

---

The connection with original sin is that there is something, other than straightforward genetics, has allowed us to overcome our self serving genes so that we can actually in the best interests of others act against the genetics of our birth. All I’m saying is that original sin sounds very much like Dawkins phrase the selfish genes of our birth.

---

But that is not the doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin is about inherent sinfulness, supposedly the consequence of the Fall. It isn't about doing good at all.

quote:

---

Original sin is not a phrase from the Bible but a concept that we are born non-altruistic and it is something that hopefully becomes part of our natural nature. It certainly does not mean that infants are damned to hell or any other such nonsense.

---

It is the name given to a concept taken from the Bible and developed by theologians. And, as I note, you now agree that it is not about doing good. The selfish gene concept includes influences that urge us to actions that are altruistic when considered from the point of view of the organism, benefitting the genes over the individual. The central point of the idea is a dissimilarity with even your attenuated idea of Original Sin, which has lost all the distinctively Christian content leaving only the truism that people are not inherently entirely good.

quote:

---

If we then take the first two quotes and then take them in the context of your referenced quote I think we get a picture of what Dawkins is getting at.

​

He is essentially saying we are our genes, our selfish genes, and it is into that state we are born. After that we have the ability to rise above that selfish state, because we become cultured by memes.

---

No, he says that we are created by our genes for the purpose of propagating and protecting our genes.In the second quote he does NOT say that memes let us "rise above" the programming of our genes - he indicates that he thinks of memes, too, as "selfish replicators" and that we can rise above their programming, too.

quote:

---

The Genesis story is a metaphor for the understanding of our base nature which is that we are selfish or self serving

---

No, Original Sin is NOT in the Genesis story. It is an elaboration of Pauline theology which takes a rather different view of the Fall from that in the original myth. In the original myth humans, built to be God's servants, rebel, stealing the "knowledge of good and evil" and are cast out and cursed for doing so.So if we we were looking at a parallel between Genesis and Dawkins views, God would be the "selfish genes", who create humanity, and the "knowledge of good and evil" would be the understanding we have gained which allows us to defeat this unthinking "god" which seeks to use us for it's own end. Perhaps an interesting parallel (although it runs into trouble in the details) but hardly one that I think a Christian - even one so liberal as you - would like.

This discussion has really gone nowhere.Aside from the obvious misrepresentations of Dawkins the whole argument relies on a misrepresentation of the whole selfish gene concept. Even the stripped down version of Original Sin does not closely match the actual idea of the selfish gene.The argument is hopelessly weak anyway - the version of Original Sin invoked has no specifically Christian content and is so obvious that I can hardly doubt that it was known long before even the beginnings of Judaism. But that is no excuse for skimping on getting the facts right. If the argument is not worth that effort then it isn't worth presenting in the first place. True, this argument never was worth presenting in the first place, but that's still no excuse for the level of misrepresentation seen here.