Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is fed up. He is fed up seeing Creationism hoo-ha gaining grounds, especially in the American school system. It's been more than 40 years that he has been a biologist (at the time of publishing, that is) never, he claims, he had to face such pseudo-science creeping its way into our classrooms as it has recently, from the USA then governed by Bush to the UK (his motherland) where faith schools have been multiplying. The problem, for him, is bluntly simple: it's not only about show more superstitious beliefs being considered as valid as scientific ones, it's, also, about unbelievers bowing down out of 'tolerance' and 'respect', allowing thus for such idiocies to gain momentum... and credibility. It has reached such a point, he says, that critics are now being silenced.

Well: Dawkins won't shut up. Refusing to bow down, he throws here a brick in the wall and launches a polemic. If, until then, he was merely content to write books about popular science, with 'The God Delusion' the gloves are now off and he goes onto the attack. He doesn't only targets creationists and their mumbo jumbo, but, also, atheists, whom he accuses to have been misled in the name of Reason. Churches are trying to discredit free-thinkers (it's convenient: to each his own faith, his own truth, his own rules and laws) he, on the contrary, refuses to yield.

He demolishes the silly idea according to which, in the name of 'tolerance', we ought to accept everything and anything, from the clearly bonkers to the, far more concerning, ideologies threatening of freedom itself. Institutionalised religions have, indeed, a massive power, and they don't hesitate to use it to their own advantage to infiltrate the political field. We must react.

He retells how such power relies on nothing but dogma, at best irrational, at worse, falsely dangerous. He explains the origins of religions in Darwinian terms. He reasserts the classical arguments in favour of atheism. He quotes the Bible to better ridicule it. He focuses both on history and our contemporary world to show how dangerous bigotry has been and still is, especially when 'tolerance' allows it to spread. He discusses moral, in long yet fascinating chapters where he nails a point that needs to be nailed over and over: no, to deny the existence of God is not to embrace nihilism.

It's well-argued, perfectly written and structured, absolutely relevant and necessary, and yet: who is its target audience?

Religious followers? I don't think that addressing them with such contempt (even if it's a contempt that appears only between the lines) will encourage them to question themselves and their beliefs. On the contrary, it might just make them even more defensive (and indeed, that's what happened when the book was published....). Atheists? I am one, and I have learnt nothing new here. The only thing I got was the relief that, at long last, someone dared to tell aloud what many think to themselves. Those trapped in between? Well, they can keep to their 'tolerance' of the intolerant, in the name of political correctness, a liberalism gone mad, 'respect' having no sense of self-respect anymore, cultural relativism, or what-not again; personally, I don't see how such tone can convince them of joining the campaigning field. And here lies the problem: Dawkins strikes, and he strikes hard, but... But, by being haughty, self-righteous, and arrogant as he is, he shows himself guilty of the same sins he is reproaching to his enemies. Can he do any good?

It's a punch, and I for one am glad that it was thrown. But will it land? show less

To begin with, for someone who laments all the misconceptions and misunderstandings of the book, Richard Dawkins should bear most of the blame in choosing what is probably the worst imaginable choice for the title. As Dawkins would admit later, three better alternatives would have been The Cooperative Gene, The Immortal Gene, or The Altruistic Vehicle.

In the title The Selfish Gene, the emphasis should be on “gene,” not on “selfish,” as in a gene that codes for selfishness. But show more Dawkins should have anticipated the confusion and the tendency for critics to use this against him without even reading the book. Nothing screams social darwinism more than the title The Selfish Gene, even though the book is clearly anti-social darwinism in content.

There’s even a passage Dawkins wrote that, as he states in the introduction, he wishes he could remove: “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” This again conveys the wrong idea.

I can’t help but think this should have all been anticipated, and so this detracts from the otherwise brilliant ideas in the book. Here are what I take those ideas to be.

The main idea represents a new way of thinking about evolution in terms of “replicators” and “vehicles.” The replicators are strands of DNA that are housed, copied, and transmitted by and through bodies, which act as vehicles for the replicators.

While it’s natural to think of an animal body as using DNA to reproduce and replicate itself, Dawkins reverses this and claims that a better, more accurate way of depicting the situation is as replicators using bodies to replicate and transmit themselves.

And so the unit of natural selection is at the level of the gene, not the individual. And this shouldn’t be controversial because it’s not even possible for an individual to act as a replicator. A replicator must be copied with high levels of accuracy to be passed on, and an individual cannot copy itself with any degree of accuracy at all. An individual is a unique assortment of genes in specific arrangements, and during reproduction only half of his/her entire genome is transmitted to offspring, and even in this half the genes are shuffled and reconfigured in different arrangements. The only things that live on in the same arrangement are particular genes, the immortal strands of DNA that pass through the vehicles known as animals and plants.

You can say that natural selection works at the level of the individual, not the gene, because genes are shielded from the environment. This seems to be a contradiction of the selfish gene theory, but it isn’t. Here’s why: genes provide the instructions for building bodies, and so have phenotypic effects (a phenotype is an observable characteristic resulting from genetic instruction). Natural selection works on individual bodies, but the bodies are constructed based on instructions from the genes. So in a sense natural selection is working at both levels, but it is only the gene that is acting as a true replicator.

For example, if a hard shell protects an animal and offers a reproductive advantage, this animal will survive and reproduce at higher rates. Natural selection has operated at the level of the individual. But the genes for producing a hard shell are what’s being passed on to other bodies during reproduction, so it’s really the level of the gene where evolution is taking place and it’s really the gene that is being selected for.

It’s important to remember that evolution by natural selection is a mechanical, physical process, and “viewing” the process at different levels is just a matter of pedagogical convenience. This clarifies another misconception: genes are not consciously “trying” to replicate themselves, it just helps to understand the phenomenon through personification. If we think of genes as selfishly acting to perpetuate themselves, we can understand the process more clearly.

The final misconception I want to cover is the connection between biological evolution and morality or politics. As Richard Dawkins clearly states in the book, there is no necessary connection between evolution and how we should structure our behavior or organize our society. Evolution has crafted our brains, but our brains have long taken over the process of everyday living. As Steven Pinker reminded us, he has chosen to not have children, instead dedicating his life to teaching, writing, and friends, and if his genes don’t like it they can go jump in the lake. Dawkins also thinks it should be obvious that our brains can override our selfish genes, using the obvious example of contraceptives.

A good rule of thumb is, if you hear someone make a moral claim based on evolution, they probably don’t understand how evolution works. And if they do, they’re making the obvious mistake of not noticing how our consciousness has allowed us to escape the dictates of our biology. More than likely, they’re just using biology to justify an archaic and dogmatic social arrangement in which they stand to benefit.

The last thing I’ll mention is the connection between evolution and human meaning. Some people have commented that reading this book has sent them into a state of depression, as it paints a rather bleak and mechanical view of the world. I have three responses to this:

1. Truth is truth, whether we want to believe it or not. The universe is under no obligation to conform to our wishes. We must have the courage to face reality, wherever the evidence and our reasoning leads. Anything else is childish self-delusion.

2. Most people do not derive life satisfaction based on the ultimate fate or nature of the material world anyway. Even if the arguments from the book are true, what does this have to do with family, friends, hobbies, music, art, positive emotions, and everything else that makes life worth living?

3. Scientific knowledge is never complete or certain. Our limited senses capture only portions of reality, our scientific knowledge is incomplete, and future discoveries are presently unforeseeable. I’m not suggesting anything supernatural here, only that we have both knowledge and ignorance about the world. Turning ignorance into knowledge via religion, superstition, mysticism, etc. leads only to confusion and inaccuracy, but at the same time we cannot close our minds to thinking our knowledge is complete. If this is enough for you to hold out hope for deeper meaning infused into the universe, then that is a legitimate position. show less

This book is so well known, it seems almost pointless to review it. If you are a believer, you will not like it, though you're probably aware of that.

Dawkins' explicit aim is that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down” and that unbelievers shouldn't be ashamed to say so, to which end he presents a detailed and cross-referenced set of arguments, examples, discussions and thought experiments, touching on science, philosophy, psychology etc. Many of his show more points are familiar (e.g. where did god come from, how do we explain suffering?), but some are fresh and intriguing. He does have a tendency to repeat himself and be annoyingly strident, but in general he makes a very good case.

Dawkins knows the Bible well and relishes exposing its grisly (genocide, gang rape, innocent sacrifices) and contradictory aspects (omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory – how can god have the power to change is his mind?), asking if you pick and choose only the nice bits, who decides which to follow and which to ignore? With a background in evolutionary biology, he is particularly incensed at and fearful of the rise of creationism, under the guise of “intelligent design”, giving considerable time to debunking irreducible complexity, the “god of the gaps” and the idea that evolution is the same as chance.

There are two themes he keeps harking back to. One is the injustice of the way we are expected to be tactfully respectful of people's religious beliefs in a way that does not apply to other irrational beliefs, yet it’s the doubters who are expected to provide “proof” (even though it’s impossible to prove a negative), coupled with the injustice of the need to appear religious in some circles, especially US public life (George Bush Sr doesn’t think atheist should be citizens or considered patriots). I’m sure it’s no coincidence that a pertinent Douglas Adams quote is on page 42. The other hobby horse is the wickedness of "indoctrinating" children in a religion, which he even likens to actual abuse: "there is no such thing as a Muslim child", just as there is no such thing as a Conservative or Republican child. He mentions that only about one in twelve British children break away from the religious beliefs of their parents as evidence of the power of such indoctrination.

He is sneakily arrogant at times, quoting big names such as Einstein and where the quote doesn’t appear to say quite what he wants it to, he assumes they expressed themselves badly and actually meant something else (“I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote”)!

Marx was snappier, but Seneca or Gibbon (see comment #14), quoted by Napoleon, had the same idea rather earlier when he said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the ruler as useful”.

Overall, Dawkins confirmed and clarified my unbelief, which is what I was wanting.

MAIN POINTS

BIBLE

Dawkins knows the Bible well and relishes highlighting the brutality of the Old Testament god, then says that’s too easy a target so he will focus on a more generic god, but still harks back to OT examples at regular intervals.

He makes the obvious, but often overlooked point that the Bible was written a very long time ago, but long after the events it describes, in a very different culture and translated through multiple languages. Chinese Whispers. Also, some of the writers probably had motives of which we are unaware but which are pertinent to interpreting what they wrote. On p118 he compares the different nativity accounts to show how contradictory they are both with each other and known historical facts. He also points out that earlier translations, the adjective for Mary meant “unmarried”, rather than “virgin”.

If the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic, where does original sin come from? And why was Jesus painfully and humiliatingly killed for a symbolic sin?

Some examples of the “immorality” of the Bible:

• Lot offered his daughters to a nasty gang (to be raped) in place of the angels they had wanted.

• Bloodthirsty ethnic cleansing, e.g. Joshua in Jericho.

• Abraham being willing to sacrifice his young son, Isaac.

• God punishing everyone by flood, including babies and animals.

• Leviticus 20 lists numerous sins for which the penalty is death, including cursing your parents, working on the Sabbath and adultery.

• Jesus exhorted people to leave the families (as cults do today).

• What is the moral message of spilling the blood of an innocent (whether an animal or Jesus) to atone for the sins of others?

• Is the inconsistency of anti abortionists supporting the death penalty and gun ownership in a similar vein? Which life is sacred? And why is euthanasia wrong if they’re going to a better place?

But if you pick and choose only the nice bits, who decides which to follow and which to ignore? You can’t claim Biblical authority if it’s subjectively selective. Morality comes from elsewhere.

We can still enjoy the Bible as literary and cultural heritage in the same way as we enjoy the Greek myths and Chaucer.

RELIGIONS

If religion is so good for our moral wellbeing, why is atheist antipathy restricted to words, whereas religions often resort to violence to gain support?

It’s often assumed that moving from polytheism to monotheism is some sort of progress – so Ibn Warraq suggested the logical progression is to subtract one more god and end up with atheism!

Surely Roman Catholicism is polytheistic? A trinity, Mary in multiple forms (“Our Lady of Fatima” and “Our Lady of Lourdes” etc), saints as demi-gods, ranks of angels etc.

Religion is expensive: building shrines, supporting priests and ultimately leading to death in some cases, yet it appears across the globe, so there must be some evolutionary advantage to its existence, even if there is a parasitic aspect. Human survival is complex and our babies are born very immature. They need to believe and obey parents about dangers around, so they’re equally credulous of irrational beliefs. Also, children are inherently dualist (mind and body are separate, so the mind can be a disembodied spirit) and teleological (inferring purpose in everything): both make fertile ground for superstition of all kinds.

Religious beliefs are collective memes, that evolve in context with each other, echoing human psychology (dualism and teleology), further tweaked by priests.

The “cargo cults” on the Pacific islands (e.g. re John Frum) are similar, but arose independently on different islands. Each rewrote their own history to fit events.

Religion does not correlate with “good” morals: the US is more religious than the UK, but has more crime, murder, abortion and divorce – and Republican states are worse than Democrat ones.

As Steven Weinberg said “with or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion.”

Tamarin paraphrased the story of Joshua’s destruction of Jericho to Jewish children. When it was a Jewish story they fully approved of the genocide; when it involved Chinese names, they didn’t.

PRAYER

Ambrose Bierce defined “pray” as “to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy”.

He quotes an experiment where some patients were prayed for and some not and of the former, some were told. The ones who knew they were being prayed for fared slightly worse than the others. The methodology wasn’t rigorous, but if it had shown that prayer worked, few would question it.

PROOF AND FAITH

Personal experience is the most convincing proof to those that have it, but the least convincing to anyone else.

If lots of people believe something, it’s religion; if one person believes it, it’s madness. So what’s the difference between god, an imaginary friend and MPD?

In general, religious belief is correlated with lower education, lower IQ and less interest in science.

We look for patterns: in marks on a page, clouds in the sky etc and our brains are especially attuned to see faces. Thus we easily interpret other things as faces, voices and visions and we’re more likely to think a shadow is a burglar than the other way round.

Temporal lobe epilepsy, and direct stimulation of the temporal lobes, can induce visions very similar to those described by some religious people.

Arthur C Clarke observed that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, so would aliens be viewed as gods?

If we accept arguments from personal incredulity, then we should accept Derren Brown actually has supernatural powers, even though he denies it.

George Bernard Shaw said “The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober one.” Even if it’s comforting, that doesn’t make it true.

Science can be proved or disproved, debated and, if necessary, revised; scientists are prepared to change their minds. Believers are unquestioning and no amount of evidence will change their minds.

CREATION AND EVOLUTION

It doesn’t matter if life is improbable; it only needs to happen once. But in fact, if the odds are 1 billion to 1 against, that still means there should be life on 1 billion planets.

The reason the Earth is perfect for us is that we have evolved here, to our environmental niche.

Improbability and complexity are not “solved” by intelligent design; evolution is the answer.

Evolution does not say that things happen randomly, by chance, but rather, by natural selection.

Just because something is so complex it seems improbable doesn’t mean it’s a case of “irreducible complexity”. He answers the oft cited question of “what’s the use of half an eye/wing?” on page 149.

Irreducible complexity does exist, but only if there are interim stages that are no longer there, e.g. an arch that will collapse if you remove a single stone.

Young Earth creationists believe the universe began after the domestication of the dog! This is a scale error equivalent to saying New York to San Francisco is 7.8 yards.

PHILOSOPHY

If complex things can only be explained by the existence of a designer, that designer must the most complex of all, so who designed him?

“God of the gaps”: why do people assume god is the answer? Such an approach accepts ignorance, rather than driving scientific progress.

Does the fact that suffering (including the holocaust) provides opportunity for bravery, sympathy and generosity make it OK from a loving god?

Omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory – how can god have the power to change is his mind?

What sort of god values belief (which is outside one’s control) over kindness and good works?

Altruism either ensures the continuation of one’s genes (aided by the consequent trust and prestige) or is reciprocal/symbiotic, to a similar end. It was especially important in small kinship groups and is not diminished by our knowledge of that, just as our desire for sex is not diminished by contraception.

Hauser’s and Singer’s thought experiments (train tracks) find similar responses from everyone, regardless of their religion or lack of it, so you can be moral without god.

If we need the threat of eternal damnation (or promise of heaven) to be good, then we are without morals and only worthy of the fires.

Morality shifts externally and religions catch up, so again, morality is not coming from religion. Christians had slaves; liberal Lincoln (who freed the slaves) was nevertheless racist by today’s standards; civilian casualties in Iraq cause outrage, but they’re far fewer than those in WW2. We think of Hitler as worse than Caligula or Genghis Khan, but was he, or is it just that he was more recent and we have film footage?

GLOSSARY

• Theist: believes in a supernatural intelligent creator who still supervises and intervenes.

• Deist: believes in a supernatural creator who doesn’t subsequently intervene, so it’s “watered-down theism”.

• Pantheist: a non-supernatural synonym for nature and natural laws, so really just “sexed-up atheism”.

• Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP): i.e. where there is a definite answer, but we don’t have the evidence to settle it. Disbelief in god should fall into this category because it is conceivable that it could be proved and even if not, you can consider probability.

• Permanent Agnosticism on Principle (PAP): only relevant for things that are impossible to prove, such as whether my experience of the colour green is the same as yours.

• Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA): saying science and religion are separate is a cop-out, to sideline the creationist/Darwinian divide.

• Teleology: everything has a purpose, including weather, coincidences etc.

• Dualism: mind and body are separate, so the mind can be a disembodied spirit. show less

What makes a good book, in my opinion, is one that changes the way you view the world. It offers another way to think about how things are and why. It challenges you and amazes you. The Selfish Gene altered the way I see life on earth.

Dawkins is a fantastic writer and he does a superb job at describing complex operations using metaphors that are simple and connectable. It helped tremendously when he described the inner workings of DNA structure and the minute process of meiosis. I'm not too show more familiar with Game Theory but the examples he used made it easy to follow and understand for the most part.

The Selfish Gene shines most when Dawkins describes how certain animals behave in the wild, whether 'selfishly' or 'altruistically'. He uses real world studies which I found captivating. The fact that the female praying mantis rips the head off of her mate and then eats it either during or after copulation is wild!

By the end of the last chapter, I feel like I walked away with a fairly good understanding of his theory. The adage 'survival of the fittest' was never clear of who exactly benefits being the fittest. Is it the entire species? Is it the group of species? Is it the individual? Or is the answer found deeper inside the individual at the microscopic level?

Life arose as simple organisms but came to grow into extreme intricacy and complexity. The ancient single celled organism 'wanted' to proliferate and continue its existence. It came that through teamwork, or altruism, it (the replicating cell) could benefit itself, hence the selfishness. So I can see how this theory can have truth to it. I'm not a biologist however so of course I can be mistaken, but that's what I took away from this book.

Highly recommended to anyone interested in evolution and how life started on our beautiful planet. show less