Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An Object Cannot Rise Above Itself

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In my last post I referred to Richard Dawkins’ assertion that a state organized according to Darwinian principles would be a fascist state.  In response some of the commenters alluded to Dawkins’ statement that he is “anti-Darwinian” when it comes to politics.  Dawkins, the commenters said, believes we can “rise above” our Darwinian impulses.  The problem with this assertion is that Dawkins is trying to have it both ways.  He writes:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1995), 133 (emphasis added).

In the last sentence Dawkins asserts that Darwinian determinism is absolute.  It is, therefore, incoherent for him to suggest that we can “rise above” our biological nature.  For if he is correct then we are nothing but material objects dancing to DNA’s tune, and it makes no sense to suggest that an object can rise above itself.

It is just here that O’Leary’s work in “The Spiritual Brain” comes into play.  I can rise above my material body ONLY if an immaterial “me” exists that is separate from, and superior to, my body.  

Comments
dave557: Yes, there's a relationship between behavior and genetics. But is that all there is? What is the core issue here? What it comes down to is this: is the idea of self, this "I" or "me," a product of, and therefore a slave to, the material? What many of us see from Dawkins is both "yes" and "no." He chooses the answer that fits his ideology best.Berceuse
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
What many of you are talking about has been addressed by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. EVERYONE believes in absolute standards when it comes to how people think they should be treated. However, not everyone can extrapolate the belief on how they think they deserve to be treated to the big pictureDrDan
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
dave557, "Lastly, who says that atheists base their morality on some “absolute moral law”??" Most don't. And some admit outright to subscribing to complete moral subjectivism while advancing their own (again, subjective) moral frameworks. The problem is that for a good number of atheists, there's a shell game involved: They talk about evil and morality (usually with religious believers being particularly evil or responsible for evil, and atheists being particularly moral or encouraging morality) with as much certainty as a fire-and-brimstone preacher. How many times have we heard that atheists can be just as moral as theists, and in fact may well be even MORE moral? But when pressed, there's a lot of spin, stammering, sputtering, and - if they don't storm off - a Dawkins-style admission that they're not even sure what morality is, or that there really is no good and evil after all. There's just programming, and that famous "cold, pitiless indifference". But it's hard to couple that with angry demands for change and accusations of evil, so it tends to get (purposefully, desperately) ignored for as long as possible.nullasalus
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
My favorite scence from "The Big Lebowski;" Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter? Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of. Nihilist: Ve don't care. Ve still vant ze money, Lebowski, or ve ***** you up. Walter Sobchak: No, without a hostage, there is no ransom. That's what ransom is. Those are the rules. Nihilist #2: His girlfriend gave up her toe! Nihilist #3: She thought we'd be getting million dollars! Nihilist #2: It’s not fair! Walter Sobchak: Fair! WHO'S THE NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF CRYBABIES?BarryA
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Borne: Why is it so impossible for our genomes to drive the development of our brain, and then in life a COMBINATION of instinct, drive and learned knowledge be what we live by? Just because we are "designed" by our genes, who says an element of that design is "free will" or the ability to "rise above" our primal instincts? NB I am talking about the GENES designing our bodies... Lastly, who says that atheists base their morality on some "absolute moral law"??dave557
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Everyone remarks that Dawkins wants to have it both ways. But ALL atheists want it both ways. It is the inherent contradiction of atheists to want objective morals based on an always assumed absolute moral law, all while denying the existence of such a law. Why? Because the existence of such a law implies an the existence of an absolute mind and will. A will that prefers one set of motives and actions over another. Morals or not the stuff of matter.Borne
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
"believes we can “rise above” our Darwinian impulses" The inherent contradiction here is that Dawkins is assuming there is something higher, something "above". This assumption presupposes both fundamental morality and that mind is something other than matter. Dave557 quotes “We are not necessarily compelled to obey them [genes] all our lives.” This also implies that mind and will exist beyond material causes alone. Dawkins is a bundle of contradictions mixed up in a wishful but impracticable atheism. None of his typical story telling tactics will ever release him from his intrinsic dichotomy of logic dilemma.Borne
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Ben Z: "free will is said to be possible under naturalistic framework somehow via feedback loops. It’s normally also hinted at that this free will is compatibilism and not libertarian. I don’t know what to make of this suggestion." The question you have to ask yourself is this: if you rewind the system (our universe) to it's initial state and let it run again, would it (including your brain states) be any different? If not, then we're not talking about free will the way philosophers and theologians mean it. The essence of free will is a force that can be the *first cause* in a series of events despite the current state of the system.mike1962
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
bFast: "He rejects both because he has not been convinced on the evidence." That's putting it way too mildly. He's an unobjective active agent of antagonism toward views with which he disagrees with. He's a man with a social agenda that bespeaks loudly of hidden motives. Hardly merely a matter of him rejecting this or that. Oh yeah, and he's a kook on top of that.mike1962
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
duncan: "It just so happens that these attributes have evolved to an extent whereby their effect, in combination, may supersede other motivations." I expect a cookie and some milk with that fairy tale. ;)mike1962
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
nullasalus: "But I’m done with pretending he’s a serious critic of anything outside his field of expertise." You mean you're just getting 'round to this? ;)mike1962
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Dave557 writes: “BarryA quotes Dawkins: “DNA just is. And we dance to its music”. BarryA then boldly states that this is tantamount to “[asserting] that Darwinian determinism is absolute”. Sadly not, Dawkins merely is stating that DNA/genes play a role in our behaviour.” The problem is, who is this “we” Dawkins is speaking of? According to his worldview, we are fortuitously organized blobs of matter. The mind is an illusion. All our thoughts, actions, and feelings are entirely determined by the movement of matter. There is no free will. Now how can matter rise above matter? Dawkins is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, we have no free will, but on the other hand, we can rise above this trivial shortcoming. You're correct to say Dawkins is very "inconsistent".shaner74
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
I could truly scour all of the literature Dawkin's has published and all I would get in return is that Dawkin's is "inconsistent". But as I asked, do you believe our genes play no role whatsoever in our behaviour?dave557
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Without passing any comment on the larger issue, I could understand that particular line of Dawkins without interpreting it to mean that "Darwinian determinism is absolute". The statement "DNA just is. And we dance to its music." could be interpreted with quite a wide field of meaning, and I think you need to bring out more of the context to show that Dawkins means there what you say he does. http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.htmldavidanderson
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
I thought BarryA's inferences from the quotation were pretty legitimate. It wasn't a diamond in the rough that he snatched out of context; the control our genes and mutating DNA have over us is addressed frequently in "River Out of Eden. " And in providing those other quotes in Dawkins' defense, all I'm seeing is further confirmation of his inconsistencies.Berceuse
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
This is unfair. Take a quote, out of context no less and infer a world of meaning and implication from it. Poor Dawkins. In his defense, I found these 2 quotes: “It is a fallacy… to suppose that genetically inherited traits are by definition fixed and un-modifiable.” “We are not necessarily compelled to obey them [genes] all our lives.” Taken from “The Selfish Gene” page 3. BarryA quotes Dawkins: “DNA just is. And we dance to its music”. BarryA then boldly states that this is tantamount to “[asserting] that Darwinian determinism is absolute”. Sadly not, Dawkins merely is stating that DNA/genes play a role in our behaviour. Besides for this, are you going to say our genetic heritage plays no role in our behaviour whatsoever? Look at the genetic link for depression, anxiety, schizophrenia.dave557
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
The now-standard compatibilist view, as developed by Harry Frankfurt, is that we have various desires and beliefs, arranged hierarchically. So if I want to eat a candy bar, but decide not to, it's because there's a higher-order desire to be healthy overrides the first-order desire to have a sugary snack. Then there could third-order desires (desires about desires about desires), etc. Dennett generalizes this theory into what he calls "intentional stances." And Dennett, for what it's worth, has written quite a lot on free will and morality from a naturalistic viewpoint, in both Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves. So it's not as if Darwinists have nothing coherent to say on these issues. Whether its fully satisfying is other issue.Carl Sachs
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
"DNA just is. And we dance to its music". How does DNA come have its being? Dawkins insists here that DNA is some kind of decisive ontological force. Not only is he inconsistent by declaring it possible (and ethically expedient) to transcend this "pitiless indiffference," his very logic is incoherent at the outset. Must we simply assume that DNA preexists itself in order to write the code which gives it the power to do what it does? How can something be and not be at the same time while in the same relationship -- with itself?toc
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
In my philosophy of mind class, it seems to me, in papers I read, free will is said to be possible under naturalistic framework somehow via feedback loops. It's normally also hinted at that this free will is compatibilism and not libertarian. I don't know what to make of this suggestion.Ben Z
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
If you are an honest Darwinist then there is no way you can think about "rising above" it. Darwinism is, as Dennett maintains, a universal acid that dissolves away all personhood, politics, free will, and thought. You can't just take a bite off the Darwinian sandwich. It's all or nothing, leave it on the plate or take the full meal deal along with all its consequences.StuartHarris
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
In truth, I find this and other statements that Dawkins makes to indicate that he is at least his own thinker, rather than the puppet of the masses. In addition to recognizing that darwinism naturally leads to facism, and that this is undesireable, he also contends that ID is not a-priori invalid as a scientific hypothesis. His position on ID and creationism is that if it were so, science should be able to discover it. He rejects both because he has not been convinced on the evidence.bFast
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
One of the consequences of there being no purpose in Darwinism is that not everything has to act in concert. It is perfectly feasible that Darwinism may produce one or more apparent contradictions. For example, if a parent is faced with a situation of danger where they can do something to save either their own life, or the life of their offspring, what choice would Darwinism suggest they make (on the assumption that propagation of their genes is the ultimate objective)? It seems to me that it could be either. Personally, I think our morality is a function of a combination of reason, memory and imagination. It just so happens that these attributes have evolved to an extent whereby their effect, in combination, may supersede other motivations.duncan
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Let's say it clearly: Dawkins is an embarrassment to atheists. What first struck people as a man fiercely devoted to an anti-religious ideal is more and more being revealed as a blowhard who doesn't even have his own thoughts in order. Our destiny is tied to our genes one day, and the next we're rebelling against them. We're lectured to about evil and morality, and then we're told the man isn't quite sure what to make of morals. And mixed in there is something about those powerful Jews in the US. I'm willing to accept the man has a personality cult about him. That's easy enough. But I'm done with pretending he's a serious critic of anything outside his field of expertise.nullasalus
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
I find nothing to dispute in this criticism of Dawkins. But this more about the limitations of Dawkins' own capacity for philosophy than it does about the limitations of contemporary evolutionary theory.Carl Sachs
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Actually, under Darwinian principles, you can't even infer that you *should* rise above your nature, since there's no normative component present.Mathetes
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply