Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion: “I’ve Got Me a Moral Disposition in my Jeans!” (Part 16)

In case you haven’t noticed, I find Richard Dawkins fascinating—not exactly in a positive sense, though. What I mean is that I am genuinely mystified by much of what he says and claims. Not only does he show no real interest in actually understanding what the Bible actually is and what Christianity really teaches, but he is positively militant in his criticism of both—both of which he routinely displays a shocking lack of knowledge about. Not only that, but his attempts to give “scientific explanations” for things such as human thought, ideas, and beliefs is simply absurd.

In the previous two posts, I talked about Dawkins’ “meme theory.” In this post, I am going to briefly touch upon Dawkins attempt to argue that morality is genetic. Having jettisoned the idea of a God the one in whom exists the standard and character of morality, Dawkins puts forth a “scientific” alternative and claims that morality is genetic.

“I’m Sorry I Punched You…I’m Just Deficient in the ‘No Punching Gene’”
Apparently, there is what he calls, a “selfish gene,” a “be nice to kin” gene, and a “back-scratching reciprocity” gene. These genes “ensure their own selfish survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically” (247). Let’s put aside the fact that there is, in reality, no such thing as a “be nice to kin gene” (or “selfish gene” or “backscratching reciprocity gene” for that matter), and listen to what Dawkins says about them. Apparently, according to Dawkins, Natural Selection really, really likes these genes:

“Natural selection favors genes that predispose individuals, in relationships of asymmetric need and opportunity, to give when they can, and to solicit giving when they can’t. It also favors tendencies to remember obligations, bear grudges, police exchange relationships and punish cheats who take, but don’t give when their turn comes” (249).

There you have it. In addition to actual genes that determine hair color, body type, etc., Dawkins would have us believe that there are other genes (that science cannot study or observe) that Natural Selection simply loves and promotes within the brains of individuals. According to Dawkins, Natural Selection apparently really digs good manners. Again, let’s put aside the fact that none of what Dawkins is saying here is scientific in any way, shape or form; let’s put aside the obvious fact that he is completely making this up and that it has no basis in reality.

Hypothetically, if it were true, consider what implications this would have for morality. A murderer cannot really be held guilty for his crime on the grounds that he is just suffering from a genetic disorder—he just was missing the “don’t kill your neighbors because they might give you cupcakes if you mow their lawn instead gene.” And a soldier who throws his body on a bomb in order to save his platoon cannot really be called a “hero,” because obviously his “throw yourself on a bomb to save your platoon gene” clearly was dominant within his chemical make-up. You might as well call him a “hero” for having black hair.

Not only is Dawkins’ idea of “moral genes” ridiculous, it is also frightening and nihilistic, for such a concept completely obliterates the very concept of morality.

I also find it highly ironic that he thoroughly dismisses “religion” on the grounds there is no scientific evidence for it (which is a rather understanding of religion in the first place), but then he blindly accepts—nay, actually invents—other concepts and beliefs that have absolutely no scientific evidence either. He might ridicule someone for “believing in some sort of all-powerful spirit in the sky,” but then he believes in memes that colonize people’s brains and genes that supply moral information: but there are no such things as memes, and there are no such things as “morality genes.”

Personal Reputation…A Darwinian Trait?
But Dawkins isn’t done yet. Did you know that personal reputation apparently is just another Darwinian trait that Natural Selection promotes? Dawkins writes: “Reputation is important, and biologists can acknowledge a Darwinian survival value in not just being a good reciprocator but fostering a reputation as a good reciprocator too” (250).

I don’t even know where to start. Circular reasoning, perhaps? Dawkins’ line of reasoning is: (A) a good reputation is a good thing; it causes people to trust you; (B) if they trust you, you’re better off; (C) if you’re better off, then your chances of survival are greater; (D) Oh, survival of the fittest! It must be an evolutionary trait! Why does it have to be an evolutionary trait? Because Dawkins has already determined that everything must be explained by evolution—voila!

If the young earth creationist Ken Ham is guilty for caricaturing evolution as the root of all evil in the world, it is safe to say that Richard Dawkins is guilty for caricaturing evolution as the answer to, not just biological life, but to non-biological, immaterial things like thought, ideas, love, good reputations, morality, etc.

Dawkins eventually sums up his argument regarding morality with the following: “Do not, for one moment, think of such Darwinizing as demeaning or reductive of the noble emotions of compassion and generosity” (253). Let’s think about this for a moment: Dawkins has just claimed that altruistic behavior is nothing more than a genetic phenomenon and a Darwinian method of survival of the fittest…and he doesn’t think it reduces good morality to nothing more than just a naturalistic genetic phenomenon? Apparently he doesn’t comprehend the fact that things like nobility, compassion, and generosity are only truly noble, compassionate, or generous if they are freely chosen. Of course his line of thinking demeans these things. His line of thinking renders them utterly meaningless.

Lust! The Heart of Compassion! (…wait, what?)
Yet Dawkins has one more claim up his sleeve. According to Dawkins, what lies at the heart of generosity and compassion is…that’s right, LUST!

“Sexual lust is the driving force behind a large proportion of human ambition and struggle, and much of it constitutes a misfiring. There is no reason why the same should not be true of the lust to be generous and compassionate, if this is the misfired consequence of ancestral village life. The best way for natural selection to build in both kinds of lust in ancestral times was to install rules of thumb in the brain.” (254)

According to Dawkins, sexual lust is a built in evolutionary drive for selfish pleasure, more selfish pleasure, and more selfish pleasure. (It is strange that he never mentions the actual biological purpose of sex, namely procreation). For Dawkins, sex is just selfish, selfish, selfish…but occasionally it can have a positive effect on society. In the same way, generosity and compassion is ultimately selfish, selfish, selfish…but they also somehow have a good effect on society. Therefore, we are driven by selfish “generosity lust” that just so happens to benefit society!

Does that makes sense to anyone? Because it certainly doesn’t make sense to me. Amazingly, when Dawkins anticipates possible objections, he essentially says, “It’s a whole lot better than what ‘religion’ offers!” And what, according to Dawkins, does ‘religion’ offer in terms of morality? Dawkins writes:

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought.” (259)

All I can say is, “No, that’s not what Christianity offers, and that’s not how Christianity frames the concept of morality.” If Dawkins can’t even take the time to accurately portray what Christian morality really is, why should he be taken seriously when he tries to dismiss it with a description that would satisfy a four-year old?

Besides, the issue isn’t “What sounds better? Dawkins’ meme/gene theories or the caricature of a ‘Big Brother type God’?” The issue is: “Is what Dawkins saying true? Are there ‘memes’ and ‘morality genes’?” If not, then instead of saying, “Well, my idea at least sounds better,” we should admit that neither Dawkins’ meme/genes nor “God the Big Brother” is worthy of our time.

Let’s get on with seeking truth.