Monday, January 1, 2007

Religion = BAD? (part 2)

If religion is thriving then it must have been selected by natural selection. If it was selected by natural selection it must help us propogate our selfish genes. This is at least true -- look at Catholic overall reproductive rate.

So, religion was obviously created and is being used by the selfish gene in order to propogate itself. If it is the case that our only moral obligation is to our selfish genes (which doesn't tell us why we should be moral in the first place -- why not REBEL AGAINST EVOLUTION; we are encouraged to rebel against everything else), then we should all do what is necessary to propogate our selfish genes. Anything done to oppose that creed would be immoral.

Furthermore ...

?Dawkins has boasted that his work brings home the reality of the ruthless, mechanistic explanation of human existence. “You are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life” (Bass, 1990, p. 60). And, Dawkins has admitted, he is gratified that in reading his book, people are “losing religious faith” (Bass, 1990, p. 60). According to Dawkins, “religion is very largely an enemy of truth” (Bass, 1990, p. 87). He has characterized the idea that
God was created by man as a “blasphemy” that atheists “have to fight against” (as quoted in Watson, 1987, p. 11).

-Taken from:

If Dawkins version of the truth is that our only “purpose” in life is to propagate our selfish genes, then whomever reproduces the most, or the highest “quality,” is in touch with the highest and only real purpose in life. Furthermore, the ends would justify the means, since there can not be any true morality. Unless, of course we allow that our idea of morality could be gauged by whatever allows “propagation of our selfish genes.”

Of course, Dawkins says that reproduction is our only purpose, since that is really the only thing that keeps us existing – continues the supposed chain of random chance evolution and keeps humanity from disappearing. Therefore, according to Dawkins, whatever allows our species and more specifically the evolution of life to continue is the highest purpose.

So, is any idea that allows more reproduction and the further evolution of our species a “moral” idea, and any idea that contradicts the reproduction and the further evolution of our species an “immoral” idea?

How then can a religion which promotes close family units and love and which has as one of its first commands to be “fruitful and multiply,” and “love others as you love yourself” as its greatest command, be something so horrible and blasphemous to Dawkin’s truth that reproduction and cooperation for the purpose of survival and supposed evolution is our highest purpose? What if cooperative religions were just a product of evolution that allowed the further survival of our species? This religion would definitely further survival and evolution, and would therefore be “moral.”

As a side note, the religious people that I know are deeply focussed on the upkeep of the family unit, which is key to instilling principles of cooperation, love, and in the end furthering reproductive success through these very principles. However, it also seems that many non-religious people treat sex as mostly entertainment and want to worry about as few children as possible, and use the means available to make sure this happens. (This is just my personal opinion however I would like to check into the stats)

Furthermore, look at the Roman Catholic religion which frowns upon birth-control. Is this religion not doing its utmost to propagate their genes in fashion with Dawkin’s highest purpose in life?

Therefore, it is obvious that Dawkins has either an illogical or a deeper grudge with any religion than he is letting on.

Additionally, according to Dawkin’s view of morality, birth control and even abortionists are some of the most evil people in the world since they impede the highest purpose in life by obstructing the “propagation of the selfish gene.”

As a result, Dawkin’s should come to embrace those religious groups, particularily Roman Catholics, who say that birth control is not to be used and that abortion is wrong.

If, however, the best plan for the ultimate propagation of the selfish gene and the furtherance of evolution, is to limit our population, then the argument may be able to be made that abortions may be necessary to curb our population and allow it to ultimately survive and continue to evolve.

If this is true, though, laws should be mandated that require a certain quota of abortions to keep our population in check, if other birth control methods do not work well enough. Then, in this case, propagation of the selfish gene is not necessarily the highest purpose. It would be a second rate purpose to the ultimate purpose of survival and the evolution of our species. Of course this would require the propagation of our selfish genes, but would not be the be all and end all, since some measures may have to be taken to eliminate a specific ratio of selfish genes in order to limit our population.

Therefore, in this scenerio, Dawkin’s synopsis is wrong and “propagation of the selfish gene” is not the highest purpose to which we can aspire, since that may need to be put aside for the higher purpose of survival and evolution of only a percentage of selfish genes in existence through whatever methods of “population check” are necessary. Or, it could be that he is just being inconsistent and illogical in his assessment that religion is an enemy to his supposed truth that the propagation of the selfish gene is the highest purpose in life, since some religions, especially Roman Catholics deem as wrong any birth control which kills the sperm or the fetus "unnaturally," thus opposing that which reduces the propagation of the selfish gene.

No comments: