Dawkins is a somewhat controversial figure on many sides. Clearly extremely religious people find him, or at least his views, fairly abhorent. He's also criticised by a lot of other groups of people. It's an unfortunate circumstance of being 'mainstream', a celebrity in your field. Dawkins is to science and atheism what Bono is to charity and goodwill; undoubtedly an ambassador of its cause, but in danger of being viewed as self-serving or fuelled by public appreciation. For the record I don't believe this is true of either of them, but I do understand how eyes can roll when Dawkins' name is mentioned, particularly in theological discussion.
I can see why Dawkins can annoy some people. He's incredibly firm in his beliefs and often comes across as a trifle condescending to those who can't appreciate them. I don't believe he actually means to be that way, I think it's a circumstance of his upbringing, his success and his own frustrations at some of the cheap shots he must endure from anti-evolutionists, creationists and the staunchly religious. This is further exacerbated by his often incredible English manners. I can see how some could imagine him shaking your hand, smiling conspicuously rolling his eyes at what he would perceive as your ignorance. Anyway, I like Dawkins. He's a good human being, a fantastic scientist and an ambassador for the truth (the truth as we can find, not as some of us can hope it to be).
I've only just started 'The Selfish Gene', but today's post is about something I read in one of its many forewords and introductions (at least in my fairly new edition). I don't have the book to hand so I am not quoting, but Dawkins made an interesting point that some people actually claimed to become depressed by Dawkins view of life and its evolution.
At this point I must try and condense Dawkins' groundbreaking book into a few sentences, for those who have not read it. Basically, Dawkins argues that our genes are the unit that is selected by nature through reproduction (not our species). In other words, we're really a collection of genes that almost use our body as its protective casing. From the gene's perspective everything is about replication and we've been built to do whatever we can to ensure the survivability of our genes (not even our genes specifically, but the gene pool from which our genes originate).
In a nutshell Dawkins view of the origins and evolution of life is quite simple. Life is merely a chemical cocktail that formed out of a primeval soup millions and millions of years ago. It started when this chemical cocktail, through natural and chance combinations, developed the ability to replicate itself. These copies spread and spread and, after perhaps billions of mutations, tiny differences started to appear in the copies (after all, nothing is a perfect copy, certainly not when you copy from a copy etc.). These differences naturally meant that, over time, some of these replicators survived better and others did not. The replicators that survived better grew in number and, Bob's your uncle, were naturally selected. Some of these replicators may have started getting better protective protein shells; a trait that would have been passed on. Some may have developed the ability to consume others; a trait that would definitely improve its survivability at the expense of less accomplished replicators. If you think this through, you can see how replicators develop; how the best developments are naturally selected, and how these tiny mutations continue to advance the replicators into more complex lifeforms.
Follow this viewpoint down a long, long path and you get to modern life. Humans, therefore, are merely a bunch of genes (what replicators eventually evolved into) that work successfully. Our instinct and our bodies are designed to protect and re-produce, and that's that.
Going back to my point, many people found this viewpoint depressing, they told Dawkins. They felt futile and worthless, even angry and ashamed of themselves. What's the point, if all we are is a bunch of genes that have survived constant aggression and threat? How can we be satisfied or happy if we're built to consume, to survive at all costs, with no real compassion unless that compassion seeks to improve the chance of the gene pool's survival? And, of course, the most horrifying point for some people: how can we go on if there is no bigger plan? If all we are is a primeval cocktail of chemicals that has just evolved to this point with no thought or rationale as to where we might want to go. No God, no plan, no purpose. Our bodies aren't even really ours; they're vehicles our genes drive, looking to do nothing more than make copies of themselves.
How bleak, right?
I believe this to be fact, and the evidence is pretty compelling. We don't really know how life started, and yes, the probability of this "chemical cocktail" coming together in just the right way is staggeringly small. But it did happen, it is plausible given the time, the amount of chemicals, the sheer number of 'rolls of the dice' life would have had. And, as Dawkins so rightly points out; it only needed to happen once. Just once. Once that first replicator came onto the scene and made another in his own image (parallels there, huh?), everything was thrown into place. We became.
What the opponents of this view usually dislike the most is how random, useless and purposeless this makes everything. There's no reason to do anything. We as conscious people don't care about our genes, which are really invisible and unknown to us. Sure, we want to survive as individuals, but can we really feel comfortable in our own skin being a collection of genes looking to pass themselves on? Many people feel if there is no plan then there is no point. And that's bleak, frightening and dark to a lot of people. Most of us, perhaps.
But, here's the interesting thing. Let's look at this from another point of view entirely; the God believing perspective. Most religious people believe there is a God, he made us, he loves us and we are part of a beautiful plan; a harmony we don't ourselves understand. They usually believe there is life after death; a realm of immortality which, if we lived good lives, will be paradise and full of love and understanding.
It's a nice idea, sure. It gives us purpose; when you feel utterly without cause you can pray. You can maybe even hear God, feel him there next to you. You strive to be better because there is a reason to. You can be raised by a warmth that seems to come from nowhere. That there is always more than you can understand.
But what part of that is in the here and now? Praying, hearing God, feeling God, feeling loved; these are all things people claim to have felt. Equally some people have been told to murder and rape because they were told to by voices in their head (if you go back far enough, some historical figures were told this by their own Gods!). Similarly, I'm an atheist, but I have looked to the stars or heard a powerful piece of music and felt equally warm, amazed, overawed and endlessly curious about what it may all mean.
My rather crass murder/rape example is there to make a point: many of us feel we have relationships with things we cannot see or do not exist. Some of these relationships are loving and warm, some are deranged and dangerous. There is, however, a very good case that all are imagined and borne of human creation. I, of course, cannot prove that, and that's not what this is about.
Everybody's relationship with the universe, the way they understand their place in it, is personal. Whether you're an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Pagan, your relationship with God is personal and different to every other person labelled with the same label (even atheists have a personal relationship with God; rejection is still a conscious decision borne of weighing up the situation). Your view of God's plan is different to everybody else's. The way you feel it and interpret is unique. It's the old "describe the colour red" conundrum: your perspective and appreciation of anything can only ever belong to you. Just because we both say we're happy or in love, it doesn't mean we are feeling the same thing...
To that extent 'God's plan' is really your plan. When you feel warm and part of something, it's because you've evolved a wonderful brain to imagine what might be there. Cat's don't get excited about God's love. An amoeba doesn't wonder what the point is. But the evidence proves we're all collections of the same building blocks of life. The only difference between you and the millions of bacteria inside of you is the adventure your specific collection of genes went on to get to this point.
And yet, wow. Let's think about this. We're all capable of love, of learning, of defying our genes and doing our own thing (how many of us have used contraception, the perfect example of how we've evolved to become independent of our genes). We all have the ability to create; music, art, buildings, stories, hope and happiness. And then there is this Earth, this universe. Most of us haven't seen 5% of this Earth. Imagine how much more is out there. We may never see it personally but, man, you have to get excited about the challenge of trying, right?
So my theory for today is this: I cannot tell you not to believe in 'God's plan', but I can tell you that whatever you choose to do or believe in this life it is your choice based on your feelings. Not your friends or family, or your species. Not even God's. Yours.
So don't be disheartened by Dawkins' theory, be utterly amazed. Billions of years have gone into making you what you are; a combination of chemicals capable of doing conscious or subconscious acts independently. This entire universe is your oyster. Experience what you can; defy your genes and be loving, caring and kind to others. Next time you take a drink of water, marvel at the process you have mastered just to bring your cup to your lips. Marvel at how your body will take that liquid and replenish you with it.
In my opinion, the greatest joy about being an atheist is that this universe actually becomes more fascinating. Just because you understand biological evolution it doesn't mean you should reproduce and then not care about anything else. The whole point is that we've evolved beyond that; we're so lucky! And the mysterious are still out there: there is still so much left to create and discover and pass on. You don't have to compromise any part of your moral compass. Murder, theft; these things are so clearly wrong because we have evolved to the point that it makes sense. I don't need to be afraid of hell to know that.
So, don't be afraid of a life without God (and please don't mistake that as an endorsement or suggestion for atheism). If you cannot reconcile your hope and desire for purpose with the idea of life being so random and developed from such a hostile environment, just remember that what makes us wonderful is that we are the first species to understand that, and to be able to divorce ourselves from that methodology. That, in itself, marks a simply staggering leap in our evolution and the way we interact with nature. Who knows what lies ahead?
No comments:
Post a Comment