Letter To Richard Dawkins

[Springer 5]

The following is an email I sent today to Richard Dawkins...

 

RE: inquiry regarding donation to RDF

 

Dear Mr. Dawkins:

 

I recently came across your website after reading a number of your articles on the Internet. I intend to donate several thousand dollars this year to charitable causes, and would be willing to contribute $10,000 to your foundation if I felt it was worthy. I love science and the quest for truth.

 

I am not an atheist, but have been in discussions with an atheist acquaintance from Brisbane, Australia. He has explained to me that altruism, like everything else, is a product of evolution and that ultimately one's desire for selflessness can be traced to self-serving causes. He hypothesized that there is a base instinct somewhere to perpetuate one's genes. Hence, whenever one reaches out to someone else or attempts to do something to improve humanity, he is following some evolutionary instinct to ultimately benefit himself.

 

I will be happy to part with the ten grand if you can enlighten me as to how donating this is going to benefit me. After all, you seem to believe that this is what motivates altruism. I already have seven children, and feel no need to perpetuate my genes further. You believe that I am nothing more than a peculiar assemblage of molecules, the posterity of bacteria. You say that there is no life after death, and therefore I will cease to exist in two or three decades. Thus, whatever motivation you give me has got to benefit me now more than the extra $10,000 will. Please refrain from using such words as "good" or "evil", "right or wrong" , or "duty", as these words are mere human perceptions and have no absolute meaning in terms of evolutionary theory.

 

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

 

H.T. Springer, M.D.

Kalamazoo, Michigan USA

 

I don't know if Dick will respond, but I'm curious to know how an atheist can expect anyone to do anything that will not at least indirectly benefit himself.

[ikester7579 20]

I hate to say it, but to what point do you write a letter to a guy who says this:

 

“Controversial scientist and evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, dubbed ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler,’ calls religion a ‘virus’ and faith-based education ‘child abuse’. Criticizes conservative U.S. evangelicals and warns his audience of the influence of ‘Christian fascism’ and ‘an American Taliban.’ In part two of his series entitled ‘The Virus of Faith,’ Dawkins attacks the teaching of ‘religion’ to children, calling it child abuse. Dawson said: “The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, and racist.’ Dawkins compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament ‘St. Paul’s nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin.’†(WorldNetDaily. 1/8/06.)

Only prayer can break a hateful reprobate mind like this. All he will do is laugh at you, imply that you are uneducated, ignorant, all because you believe in God and will not conform to his views. After all, look what he allows to go on on his forum:

 

Thread name: Bible burning event.

 

The thread starter says: For a while now I've been considering organizing some type of Bible-burning event; basically, I want to gather as my Bibles, Korans, and other religious nonsense material as I can, inform the local religious institutions and media, set a date, invite them out, and try to make as public a display as I can of it. My goal isn't simple destruction and spite, but to demonstrate a general protest of religious faith, and possibly to organize and mobilize existing atheists and people opposed to the dangers of religion. Now, I've never really been involved in much civic action, and have very little knowledge about how to carry out such a plan, so, a few questions:

 

What are the legal issues involved with such an event? Do I need to have the fire department supervise the event?

 

Any suggestions on how to (legally!) obtain lots of religious material without spending piles of cash?

 

How ought I go about contacting local institutions/media in order to get as big of a turnout as possible?

 

Should I do more than just burn books? Refreshments and atheist bumper stickers for all!!!

 

And, in general, I'm asking for any other ideas, suggestions, or info anyone could share on how I could make such a thing happen. I'm still wondering how I can reach out to the local non-believer population and if I should request people coming to bring their own material for burning.

 

I live around Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; I'm actually not sure on the demographics of how many religious fundies we have here but I don't think it's as bad as some of the deep red states, but I'm still wondering if this type of demonstration might actually result in the threat of violence.

There's is no reasoning with people who promote the same hate as Hitler did.

[Springer 5]

I received the following reply from Dick's staff: I haven't as yet responded to it, but will next week. If any of you have any thoughts, please let me know...

 

Dear Dr. Springer,

 

Richard is on the road at the moment - but if I may, I would like to take the opportunity to clarify some misconceptions noted in your email of the selfish gene concept.

 

You write, "Hence, whenever one reaches out to someone else or attempts to do something to improve humanity, he is following some evolutionary instinct to ultimately benefit himself"

 

This is a misunderstanding of selection at the level of the gene, which is what Richard’s book ‘The Selfish Gene’ is about (it could have just as well been titled ‘The Altruistic Gene’). The unit of selection in evolution is key to understanding how traits, behaviours, speciation evolve over time.

 

Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on very simple premises (1) individuals differ, (2) some of these differences are heritable, and (3) some individuals out-reproduce other individuals and (4) pass on their genes to future generations. In other words, if a particular trait (physical or behavioural) benefits the individual – and that trait is heritable – then those individuals who possess said trait will out-reproduce others and their offspring will also likely inherit the beneficial trait and out-reproduce others who do not possess the trait.

 

Darwin did not have the benefit of the modern synthesis and did not know of genes or, of course, Watson and Crick’s brilliant discovery of DNA. Prior to the modern synthesis, Darwin’s theory gathered dust because no one understood how it could truly work – how could selection occur? And at what level did it occur – the level of the individual or the level of the group (aka ‘for the benefit of the species’)? However, we now understand that the level is at least at the level of the gene (and possibly even deeper – but that is beyond the scope of this email).

 

Despite the understanding of genes and DNA, there were still behaviours that baffled evolutionary scientists – particularly when it came to altruistic behaviour. The brilliant scientist William D. Hamilton helped to solve that riddle – however, when he first published his work on altruism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton) the maths were beyond most. Richard helped the scientific world to understand Hamilton’s work and some consider his book The Selfish Gene to be one of the most important books in biology since Darwin’s own works were published. It truly revolutionized an entire generation (or two) of scientific thinking within biology. Unfortunately, some individuals chose to divine their own meaning of Richard’s work by reading ONLY the title (thus the many misunderstandings of what ‘selfish gene’ actually means).

 

With Hamilton’s theory, we can begin to understand why individuals are willing to sacrifice in order to benefit others. It is not because we want to benefit ‘ourselves’ it is because we are driven to increase the opportunities for our genes to survive and continue into the future. This is why we are nearly always more likely to give resources to our own children and grandchildren than to friends or distant kin. Belding ground squirrels will sound alarms when a potential threat is detected, even at risk to self… the work by Paul Sherman found that females stay in the territory – and are for the most part all related – so sounding an alarm will save the genes of all her sisters (males emigrate into the group and don’t sound alarms). We all act in ways to benefit our own genes, not necessarily with any benefit ourselves. How can this happen?

 

Let’s say an individual has a gene that codes for squeeking when a hawk flies over head. If the individual lives alone or lives within a group of non-related kin – that gene could not benefit copies of itself – because related individuals with the copy of the same gene would not be within earshot to take advantage of the warning. However, if that gene happened to exist in an individual who lived among closely related kin – then that gene could in fact benefit copies of itself because other individuals with that gene would be within hear shot and could scamper to safety. Even if the individual is caught by the predator – the gene(s) coding for the alarm call still remain within the others who survived – thus the gene continues to be passed on.

 

You, however, are talking about a different sort of altruism when it comes to charity. As Richard has often discussed, humans are unique among species in that we can break the bonds of our selfish genes and act in ways that benefit people and indeed other species through our own sacrifices. There are many explanations why people are willing to do this. In part it could be due to reciprocal altruism – a theory proposed by Robert Trivers that suggests we will act in positive ways when we interact with individuals on a regular basis because if we do not, it will negatively influence future interactions. Another factor is that humans have the ability to consider how others might feel – we are capable of empathy – so seeing people devastated by a Tsunami could evoke deep sympathy. Theory of mind is the name given to the concept that we can interpret some of what people are thinking (feeling) through observation of their actions, facial expressions, etc. This empathy allows for human compassion, but unfortunately can also be used to inflict harm upon or take advantage of vulnerable individuals.

 

A book you might find of interest is ‘Humanity’ by Jonathan Glover – it discusses a great deal about the human ability for both incredible kindness as well as unspeakable cruelty.

 

If you are truly interested in discovering the power of natural selection and the concept of the selfish gene, I strongly recommend checking out a copy of The Selfish Gene from the local library. Richard has laid out beautifully all the answers to your questions – and more so.

 

While your offer is quite generous, it would be more rewarding to those of us who are truly passionate about science and in particular evolutionary science if you would read The Selfish Gene. If you do, please let us know what you think of it by sending an email to web.master@rdfrs.org

 

Whatever motivates your generosity, we hope you come by it through reason. There are so many important causes – it would be disingenuous of us to justify why RDFRS is more worthy than other organizations – that decision must be yours.

 

Best regards,

RDFRS Staff

[Fred Williams 0]

I received the following reply from Dick's staff:  I haven't as yet responded to it, but will next week.  If any of you have any thoughts, please let me know...

 

12292[/snapback]

Not that it would do any good, but I would point out to Dawkins that mother nature cannot select genes, it can only select individuals. As Dr Stanford said in his book “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”, evolutionists have cleverly concealed the problem of the pea under the princess’ mattress, by entirely removing the mattress! In the response from Dick’s lackey, he talks of a “squeaking when a hawk flies over head”. How does he know this animal will be selected, given that genetic noise will mask that particular trait. In other words, this “squeaky” animal, due to genetic deterioration elsewhere due to the vast majority of mutations ranging from nearly neutral to harmful, might also be slow, have a heart disease, is an ugly duckling, or is a liberal. So why would it get selected given all these other problems due to its genetic load, or noise? It can only be selected randomly, the “squeaky gene” cannot be recognized for selection. It is buried under layers and layers of mattresses and the princess will never feel the pea.

 

Fred

[chance 1]

Hmmm, Springer, what do you make of the RDFRS, reply? The “reciprocal altruism†mentioned is actually documented in vampire bats, where if an unsuccessful hunt (due to circumstances) may leave certain individuals without a meal for the night, unrelated neighbours cough up a bit of blood when the hungry individual begs for a feed, if the situation is reversed and the individual does not share when asked, that member becomes ostracised.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v308/...s/308181a0.html