The God Gene

The American Conservative ^ | February 26, 2007 | Patrick McNamara

[Cicero]

I have had a lifelong interest in science, as well as religion.

There's no use arguing with a guy like Dawkins. Frankly, he's dumb as a rock. His scientific specialty is "Darwinian Evolution," which in fact is no science at all, but sheer speculation and academic bigotry.

"The Selfish Gene" was an interesting book, mainly because it reduces Darwinism to a reductio ad absurdum. Genes do not exist as a way of propagating and improving the species--particular plants, animals, or humans. Rather, plants, animals and humans exist merely to propagate genes. The whole purpose of evolution is to produce better genes. They are the real bosses, and we are their servants.

Oh, sure. Talk about reductive approaches to life. The whole purpose of the Universe is to produce Better Genes.

It is, in fact, pretty much what Darwinism leads to. But then, as Chesterton might have said, your ordinary farmer or inkeeper or housewife will stand up and say, "Nonsense." And these ordinary people leading ordinary lives will be right, while the Darwinists are just plain wrong.

[khnyny]

Yes. Most events are multi-causal and oftentimes, not exactly what they seem to the casual observer.

[newheart]

I always amazes me that people like Dawkins or Singer can talk of purpose at all. When everything is reduced to matter/energy and time/chance, the concept of purpose is utter nonsense.

And yet their own language belies the fact that they cannot escape the nagging feeling that all of this really does have some kind of purpose.

[RedStateRocker]

Religion or not, the common thread is that most of the harm and violence done in human society has been done by people who are sure that they are acting on Absolute Truth. Communist, Nazi, Muslim, Inquisitor; all convinced that they had 'received wisdom', knowledge of some absolute Good.

[RedStateRocker]

Nothing New:
From Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary:

MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

[attiladhun2]

Whittaker Chambers a half-century ago wrote, "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness,"

Born out by history. Among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Third Reich were academicians, along with the medical and legal professions. Of Communism, Dennis Prager once said that it is a doctrine so pernicious and illogical that only among the academic elites could it find a sizable hearing.

[khnyny]

I couldn't agree more.

"Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness,"

Great quote, bears repeating.

[khnyny]

[Religion or not, the common thread is that most of the harm and violence done in human society has been done by people who are sure that they are acting on Absolute Truth. Communist, Nazi, Muslim, Inquisitor; all convinced that they had 'received wisdom', knowledge of some absolute Good.]

So what's your excuse? After all, your tagline does recommend nuking Mecca. How ironic.

[RedStateRocker]

"So what's your excuse?"

Self Preservation.

[MirrorField]

In a different form, we are witnessing a resurgence of the same disease that devastated Soviet Union.

No. In USSR the disease was Communism, a non-functional political and economical system. Atheism was a single, non-essential only semi-related feature of that system.

To blame atheism for ravages of communism is equivalent of blaming fitness enthusiasm for ravages of National Socialism. Pure guilt by association.

[timer]

Jesus : render unto ceaser what is ceaser's, render unto god what is god's. D & D are of course just advance men for satanic state control, the wannabe god. It ties in with gaea, a god no one ever heard of before and somesuch nonsense. The wise man learns truth from both science and religion and judges for himself, in camera, what the resolution of the issue is; the fool kneejerks to extremist positions on either side. This is like demoting one's self from the judges bench/juror's box to a mere advocate of a narrow viewpoint.

Yes, D & D are just more sick liberals that infest our universities, why do we continue funding them? Cut off their funding and they slither back under their athiest rock....

[RedStateRocker]

Maybe because English is mostly derived from Greek and Latin, both cultures that have a longstanding and deep-seated belief in God/Gods/destiny? How could anyone talk about anything in any romance language, or Russian, for that matter, without using words that derive their very meaning and structure from a history infused with mythology, religion and philosophies that quest for Truth or Good. Just a guess.

[JHBowden]

Genes are not selfish, anymore than prime numbers can be sex-mad, or colors can be shy. The Darwinian New Testament is blatantly false and offends human reason.

Darwinians have to come to this conclusion because they, like Hitler, see the world as one giant struggle for existence. Of course, concrete human altruism flies in the face of this, which is why selfish genes-- demons controlling human puppets-- are postulated to do the theoretical heavy lifting.

Modification through descent is still the best description of how human life developed. But the process is so threaded with contingency to fit a simple explanation like evolution by natural selection. And how a physical world can evolve souls definitely points to the workings of Providence-- beliefs, numbers, colors, etc will always be a "problem" for physicalism in its, how should I put this, fundamentalist interpretation.

[Diamond]

Evil is a religious concept and means "that which is contrary to the Will of God" and not the secular meaning of "bad". If there is no God, then there is also no evil. They cannot argue that religion is a delusion by employing religious concepts to do so.

Very astute observation. And I would also argue that even the moral concept "bad" has no real ethical content if it is nothing but the product of impersonal biological Darwinian evolution. After all, how can mere deterministic, physical processes produce soemthing "bad"?

The moralizing atheist is foolish and self-refuting.

Cordially,

[A. Pole]

"In a different form, we are witnessing a resurgence of the same disease that devastated Soviet Union."

No. In USSR the disease was Communism, a non-functional political and economical system.

That is why is said "In a different form".

Atheism was a single, non-essential only semi-related feature of that system.

You are very mistaken. Atheism was at the core of the Soviet system and the present form of militant secularism is semi-democratic, so it is less violent, more functional but still as anti-God and as anti human.

My guess it will last similar time before West recovers - about 70 years.

To blame atheism for ravages of communism is equivalent of blaming fitness enthusiasm for ravages of National Socialism. Pure guilt by association.

It is not guilt by association by guilt by understanding of the inner meaning of the movement.

National Socialism was not atheistic, but the god of National Socialism was a pagan pantheistic god of nature. The elevation of Darwinian theory played a crucial role too.

One can agree that the movement in question has also some elements common with National Socialism.

[newheart]

"How could anyone talk about anything in any romance language, or Russian, for that matter, without using words that derive their very meaning and structure from a history infused with mythology, religion and philosophies that quest for Truth or Good. Just a guess.

And it would be my contention that that sort of primal intuition of purpose found perhaps universally in language is a kind of fingerprint of the Creator. Of course, not everyone would agree with me, but I think it would be up to them to provide an alternative explanation.

[RedStateRocker]

Respectfully, I think it would be up to the person making the claim to provide proof.

However I doubt that anyone would be convinced one way or another as we are in the realm of faith (or lack thereof).

[RedStateRocker]

"After all, how can mere deterministic, physical processes produce soemthing "bad"? "

If what it produces is inimical to the survival of the subject at hand, be it a set of genes or a country

[A. Pole]

Respectfully, I think it would be up to the person making the claim to provide proof.

The question is who is making more radical claim.

The person who asserts that the world has sense/meaning and was created by God?

Or the person who asserts that there is no meaning and the world came out of nothing by itself?

[A. Pole]

"After all, how can mere deterministic, physical processes produce soemthing "bad"? "

If what it produces is inimical to the survival of the subject at hand, be it a set of genes or a country

Are you saying that the rain is bad to the dryness and lack of rain is bad to the wetness? Why the survival would be better than destruction?