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:
From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene.
Even the first quote that you used in the OP supports this view
In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.
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.
And your understanding is wrong - he means that our genes influence our behaviour for their benefit, but we can go against them.
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.
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.
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.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
OK but I understand Dawkins to be saying that genes can only generate behaviour that appears selfless. Genes on their own only function in order to best support their survival.
No, I don't think he's saying that genes can only generate behaviour that appears selfish (I assume you meant selfish). AS one of your quotes notes:
quote: The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.
emphasis added. It might harm the doer of good, even as it helps increase the frequency of the gene within the doer of good. As long as the gene is being selfish, the phenotype can be being selfless.
Genes function through mindless natural selection and primarily function as genetic replicators. Dawkins view is that there are social replicators that have naturally evolved over time that enable us to overcome our selfish genes.
Yes they have. But our selfish genes made us into social primates. Social primates do apparently selfless things. Often going to extreme lengths for close family members. This helps increase the frequency of that gene (as other members of the family that are being helped probably also have that gene).
Memes have allowed us to expand those we cooperate with as we consider all of humanity as 'one big family', but it doesn't completely override our lowered opinion of 'others'.
I don’t see that in what I have read. I only see that selfish genes can give rise to behaviour that appears to be selfless but in actuality isn’t. Can you give me a quote that supports that statement?
Well, that'd kind of one of the points the book makes as a whole. It's about how selfish replicators can build cooperative phenotypes. Here is a relevant quote from an interview about the book in 2006:
quote:...if you have selfish genes then you may have altruistic individuals and that's what the book's about.
quote:...people think it means that we are selfish or that individual organisms are selfish and it doesn't mean that...and as a consequence of genes being selfish individuals like us may be very altruistic. So a great deal of the book is explaining why individuals are altruistic because genes are selfish...one of the ways {genes} work is to make individuals altruistic, nice, cooperative - it's not the only way...
If you actually have a copy then I suggest Chapter 12, 'Nice guys finish first', and well the rest of the book too.
Further more in 'Memes: the new replicators' he says, regarding 'true altruism':
quote:It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other...even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight...could save us from the worst self excesses of the blind replicators...we have...the mental equipment to foster our long-term interests rather than...our short term interests.
He's not going to argue whether the altruism that people actually exhibit is genuine altruism, or driven by some selfish desires. It doesn't matter whether it is genuine altruism or just apparent altruism.
I would agree that our memes have made us more altruistic, but we would never have generated those memes had we not had the genes that encouraged cooperative behaviour.
I agree with your statement on genes but I’m not at all clear as to what the substrate would be for memes.
They use the physical substrate of the brain to replicate, but their physical substrate can be any number of things. Have you ever worn a tie? There is the physical tie itself, representing the meme as well as the idea in your brain - composed of neuron states etc.
If it is ok with you I’d like to leave that alone for now as I see it just dragging us off topic.
I'm not trying to discuss that issue - just saying what the real problems of original sin are. That we are flawed beings has never been a difficulty I think anyone has ever had.
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.
I have to agree with Paul and Mod; you have mangled the concept of the Selfish Gene here. Perhaps an applied example would help. The example I was taught at school was of a rabbit and its warning signal.
When a rabbit spots danger, say a buzzard overhead, it drums its foot on the ground. This drumming acts as a signal to the other rabbits, who, alert to the danger, can flee for the safety of their burrows. For the individual rabbit that drums however, the action is a risk. It opens itself up to added danger, as instead of immediately running for safety itself, it takes that time to warn its fellows, time that from an individually selfish point of view, would have been better spent running. The rabbit is, in effect, sacrificing its own safety for a moment in order to benefit its fellow rabbits.
This is an innately altruistic act. From the individual point of view, the rabbit is being selfless. From a wider point of view though, the rabbit's genes are being selfish, as the drumming behaviour benefits the whole group and thus the rabbit gene pool as a whole. The selfishness of the gene is taking place at the expense of the individual rabbit.
The whole point of the Selfish Gene idea is to explain why evolution would compel a creature to act against its own survival.
Dawkins is saying that even though our genes influence our behaviour for our own benefit,
No. That is totally wrong.
Dawkins is saying that genes influence our behaviour for their benefit, not for our own individual benefit.
The connection with original sin is that there is something, other than straightforward genetics, has allowed us to overcome our self serving genes
No. That's backwards again. Take the rabbit example; the Selfish genes compel the rabbit to stand in one place and make a lot of noise when it sees a predator. That is not a selfish behaviour from an individual point of view.
Original sin is not a phrase from the Bible but a concept that we are born non-altruistic
And the Selfish Gene is a concept used to explain why we are born altruistic. You have got this completely backwards.
It certainly does not mean that infants are damned to hell or any other such nonsense.
Well it does mean exactly that to millions of people. All you are doing here is equivocating to make the phrase "Original Sin" mean something that it was never intended to mean. Given that you are well aware that the concept is non-Biblical, I can't see why you are so keen to rescue this vile notion. Original Sin is a grossly offensive concept. It belongs in the dark Ages. Let's leave it there. That way you don't have to mangle the science and a bit of bad theology can be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Mutate and Survive
On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
quote:...people think it means that we are selfish or that individual organisms are selfish and it doesn't mean that...and as a consequence of genes being selfish individuals like us may be very altruistic. So a great deal of the book is explaining why individuals are altruistic because genes are selfish...one of the ways {genes} work is to make individuals altruistic, nice, cooperative - it's not the only way...
If you actually have a copy then I suggest Chapter 12, 'Nice guys finish first', and well the rest of the book too.
Further more in 'Memes: the new replicators' he says, regarding 'true altruism':
quote:It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other...even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight...could save us from the worst self excesses of the blind replicators...we have...the mental equipment to foster our long-term interests rather than...our short term interests.
OK, I have gone right through Chap 12. It focuses on the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The point he is making is that in the long run we are selfishly better served by co-operating. Yes, he talks about genes behaving selfishly without regard to the organism, but as we are our genes, he also extends this natural selfishness to the organism himself. He talks about the cooperation between German and British troops in the trenches in WW I.
The point I see it is this. Essentially, we are selfish, but in that selfishness we can find benefit from co-operating. That is how I understand the Christian concept of original sin. We are born selfish. That is where I see agreement between Dawkins proposal, which is the fundamental understanding behind the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It is understood that I will be trying to determine what will work out best for me and it might be by co-operating.
However, he also acknowledges when he talks about blood donors in the UK, (by the way we aren’t paid for donating blood in Canada either), that people do this without any perceived benefit. He agrees that we can move beyond that. Actually, I don’t think his blood donor example is particularly strong, as by donating blood it could be perceived as encouraging others to donate blood so that there will be a supply available in case I need it.
I think a better example is when someone in the developed world donates money to aid starving families in relatively undeveloped countries. For the individual it means less money for him/herself. From a societal point of view we would be better off without them as they are still consuming resources which would be available to us if they were to cease existing.
Modulous writes:
He's not going to argue whether the altruism that people actually exhibit is genuine altruism, or driven by some selfish desires. It doesn't matter whether it is genuine altruism or just apparent altruism.
I would agree that our memes have made us more altruistic, but we would never have generated those memes had we not had the genes that encouraged cooperative behaviour.
Well, I think it does matter but that isn’t the point. I agree that Dawkins concept is primarily about bringing about cooperation because of our basic nature, but he would agree with you that memes would also be the medium through which we can behave altruistically.
Dawkins point is that our natural nature, born out of our genealogy is to be selfish, even though this can and should promote co-operation. He does however agree that there is such a thing as altruism. (You might agree to play the cooperate card with the knowledge that I will play the deficit card out of your concern for me.) Dawkins has come to this conclusion through reason.
When I read the Bible we have the Genesis story telling us that we gained the knowledge of good and evil. We then have the Cain and Abel story where it is clear that we chose evil or selfishness. (Original sin) The Bible is an on-going narrative of how God wants us to rise above that selfishness. That is the story that is in the scripture but that becomes a much clearer picture when we overlay the reasoning of Dawkins on top of that scriptural story to give it a much fuller meaning.
I'm pretty much tied up for the rest of the day but I think that this covers, to a degree, the other responses.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
And the Selfish Gene is a concept used to explain why we are born altruistic. You have got this completely backwards.
I don't agreee. The Selfish Gene is a concept that is used to explain our actions that can appear to be altruistic. However, as Dawkins says:
quote:We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.
Granny Magda writes:
Well it does mean exactly that to millions of people. All you are doing here is equivocating to make the phrase "Original Sin" mean something that it was never intended to mean. Given that you are well aware that the concept is non-Biblical, I can't see why you are so keen to rescue this vile notion. Original Sin is a grossly offensive concept. It belongs in the dark Ages. Let's leave it there. That way you don't have to mangle the science and a bit of bad theology can be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
I suppose in trying to give a different understanding to the term, (one in which I feel is consistent with the Biblical story), that I am repudiating the "vile notion".
AbE - I decided to look up Original Sin in wiki. It has over the years meant a number of things in different traditions. I don't think my understanding is anything new.
Edited by GDR, : Added last bit
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Yes, he talks about genes behaving selfishly without regard to the organism, but as we are our genes, he also extends this natural selfishness to the organism himself.
Selfish genes can and do give rise to selfish behaviours. But those same genes can give rise to selfless behaviour. We might see this at its extreme in kamikaze bees. My primary point was that memes are not necessary in fostering selfless behaviour, and the selfish genes can create (at least occasional) selfless phenotypes.
The point I see it is this. Essentially, we are selfish, but in that selfishness we can find benefit from co-operating. That is how I understand the Christian concept of original sin.
I agree that in part, the Christian 'solution' to 'original sin' is to make people act in their own self-interest by proposing heaven/hell.
Original sin, as I understand it, proposes that we are inherently sinful or born into sin or what have you. I do not regard the selfishness of a baby to be in any way, sinful, but original sin would suggest otherwise. I understand that being born into selfishness is not usually considered a moral statement about a person.
Could you support your notion of original sin being about selfishly benefiting through apparently self-less acts? And remember, the entity that selfishly benefits does not have to be the selfish organism - that's built into the Selfish Gene idea, and I'd like to see any kind of analogous concept in Original Sin.
However, he also acknowledges when he talks about blood donors in the UK, (by the way we aren’t paid for donating blood in Canada either), that people do this without any perceived benefit. He agrees that we can move beyond that. Actually, I don’t think his blood donor example is particularly strong, as by donating blood it could be perceived as encouraging others to donate blood so that there will be a supply available in case I need it.
I agree there may be some selfish rewards for blood donation (the reinforcement of the belief 'I am a good person', the fact that blood donors sometimes advertise their good deed to get social kudos and probably some others too), I always enjoyed the bit just after that where he talks about vampire bats.
I think a better example is when someone in the developed world donates money to aid starving families in relatively undeveloped countries. For the individual it means less money for him/herself. From a societal point of view we would be better off without them as they are still consuming resources which would be available to us if they were to cease existing.
Personally I think selfish memes and selfish genes successfully explain this apparently selfless behaviour. In this, I might be more Dawkinsian than Dakwins Actually, in many of his recent talks he has said more or less what I'm saying here, but probably better.
Selfish genes tell us to look after our own. That's because the selfish genes that tell us to do this have multiple copies so actually the genes are helping themselves while the organisms help each other. If there were no other forces at play that may be sufficient to explain giving foreign aid.
However, there are forces at play which cause us to distrust foreigners as they are potential threats regarding the control of essential resources.
So memes come in, and give us the notion that all of humanity is one big family and so everyone should be helped just as much as other members of family. This meme has not yet advanced to the point where we do this fully. However, the wiring that tells us 'help out our allies' is being co-opted by the idea that 'everyone not explicitly an enemy is an ally'. So we help out famine sufferers, or flood victims, or whoever.
Dawkins calls it a
quote:misfiring by-product of our Darwinian past when we lived in small villages...which meant we were surrounded by close kin...one good pre-requisite for the evolution of altruism...we would have been surrounded by people who we are likely to meet again and again throughout our life - which provides the basis for the other main Darwinian reason to be moral or altruistic...although we no longer live in small bands, the same rule(s) of thumb...are playing themselves out under the alien conditions of modern urban society...
...it has become modified and refined through culture...
When I read the Bible we have the Genesis story telling us that we gained the knowledge of good and evil. We then have the Cain and Abel story where it is clear that we chose evil or selfishness. (Original sin) The Bible is an on-going narrative of how God wants us to rise above that selfishness. That is the story that is in the scripture but that becomes a much clearer picture when we overlay the reasoning of Dawkins on top of that scriptural story to give it a much fuller meaning.
I don't think it's possible to rise above the selfishness that our genes have given us. I think at best, we can delude ourselves that we are overcoming our selfishness. In the end, when we ask ourselves, Cui bono?, we'll find that there is some selfish entity that is benefiting. Whether its a selfish individual, a selfish gene or a selfish meme.
I don't think it's possible to rise above the selfishness that our genes have given us. I think at best, we can delude ourselves that we are overcoming our selfishness. In the end, when we ask ourselves, Cui bono?, we'll find that there is some selfish entity that is benefiting. Whether its a selfish individual, a selfish gene or a selfish meme.
You may think that, I know otherwise.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I don't agreee. The Selfish Gene is a concept that is used to explain our actions that can appear to be altruistic. However, as Dawkins says: {quote}
But all he's saying there is that as rational creatures, we can create a form of altruism based on rationality rather than instinct. That does not change for a moment the fact that the Selfish Gene concept is intended to explain unselfish behaviour.
Think about it; selfish behaviour needs no explanation. Being selfish would promote one's own chances of evolutionary success, but being selfless would, at first glance, seem to reduce the chances of evolutionary success. That required an explanation; the Selfish Gene. Actual selfishness requires no such explanation.
One paragraph of musings taken out of context does not trump the fact that the idea is used to explain how altruism can evolve. The concept is a very poor fit for your notion of sin. I mean, exactly where in the rabbit scenario above does the sin occur?
I suppose in trying to give a different understanding to the term, (one in which I feel is consistent with the Biblical story), that I am repudiating the "vile notion".
You're not. You're rehabilitating it.
I decided to look up Original Sin in wiki. It has over the years meant a number of things in different traditions. I don't think my understanding is anything new.
Well of course your understanding is new. You are the first to try and shoehorn this particular piece of science into it. I understand that you regard some scripture as inspired, but do you really believe that this extras-Biblical concept is inspired by God? Because that's what it would have to be to incorporate Twentieth century science into Second Century theology. Is that what you're telling us? If so, God seems to have made a bit of a mess of it.
You claimed to 'know otherwise'. So what you could try is explaining what it is you know, and then describing how it is that you know it - along with any supporting evidence and argument.
Actually, in many of his recent talks he has said more or less what I'm saying here, but probably better.
™ Version 4.2
(1)