Putney Passions

A friend of mine bought me A Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins. I'm not liking how it started…

After reading the first essay "A Devil's Chaplain", I found myself disagreeing with much of the basic thinking of the author.

T. H. Huxley's statement:

'Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but combating it.'

He says

'(man is) the only potential island of refuge from the implications of the Devil's Chaplain: from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste.'

There are four reasons why this is preposterous.

First is that the declaration of something as cruel is a moral one. It is an assigned opinion of 'good' or 'bad' about something. Dawkins can have a view about the nature of evolution, but cruelty isn't a true nature. Evolution's nature includes this assessment but also includes all other opinions (like beautiful, engenius, and loving). In this Dawkins confuses opinions with reality of nature.

Second is that 'clumsy', 'blundering' and 'waste' are all comparisons to some standard. Some sort of 'right way'. Against what standard is Dawkins comparing evolution? A separate standard can't exist as everything is involved in evolution. It reaks of an assumed standard of perfection, which itself is an opinion.

Third is that Dawkins seems to assign levels of consciousness inappropriately. 'Cruel', 'clumsy', 'blundering' and 'wasteful' are all creations in human thinking. This does not exist in living things that do not have the same level of consciousness that humans do.

A bit of evolution needs to be discussed in explanation. After creation developed the physical world to stability, life emerged in a delicately balanced environment. After creation developed the biological world to stability, thinking emerged. These eras have been called (by Wilber and others) as physiosphere, biosphere, noosphere. Dawkins essay is a noosphere argument which doesn't exist in biological evolution.

This misplacement is similar to someone trying to discuss sexual reproductive behaviour in molecules. Sex is a reality that exists only for that part of creation that is part of the biosphere. Thinking and morality (which give rise to 'cruelty', and other judgements) is a reality that only exists in that part of creation that is part of the noosphere.

Fourth and finally (at the moment) is the ridiculous separation of man from 'the cosmic process'. Man is one and the same as 'the cosmic process.' Man is an expression of this process, not an external observer. Man cannot 'imitate', 'run away from' or 'combat' the 'cosmic process' any more than he can combat the fact that he is made of molecules, is a living thing and thinks.

So, biological evolution is NOT a cruel clumsy blundering waste – it most certainly is SOMETHING. But the something that somebody says evolution is says more about the sayer than what it REALLY is. The truth is that evolution unquestionably happening and it's dynamics inspire us.