Many have suggested that the Danish cartoons lampooning Muhammad should not have been printed – and should not be reprinted – out of respect to the Islamic religion. Such views are deeply misguided and threaten the most fundamental institutions of enlightened democracy.
Free speech is not merely some hollow, mindless ideology to be cast aside in the name of “not hurting feelings,” but represents the vital political right to criticise and challenge authority – be it political, secular or religious authority. Those who are most “offended” by these cartoons are the same people who routinely engage in the most violent and derogatory attacks against points-of-view divergent from their own, threatening – and frequently enacting – violent retribution against anyone who challenges their mediaeval dogmas. They cultivate an aura of fear intended to oppress and silence their critics. The satirical critique expressed within the Danish cartoons are not only legitimate forms of political expression, they also level well-taken criticism at the founder of Islam, a political leader whose values are fundamentally inconsistent with the values that underpin western democratic society.
Islam is not just an innocuous religion. It is a comprehensive political system that can not be separated from the religious dogma that underpins it. Muhammad was not merely a spiritual mystic who founded a religion, as is the case with the Buddha or Jesus. He was also a ruthlessly Machiavellian political ruler and military commander. Both Jesus and the Buddha renounced political power. Muhammad, on the other hand, founded a political dynasty that is inseparable from his religious ideology. In a free democracy all political systems are open to critique, criticism and debate regardless of whether they derive their ideological foundation from economic theory, rational philosophy or metaphysical mysticism. Islam is in dire need of close intellectual scrutiny!
Muslims hold up Muhammad as the supreme role-model. Given the dramatic importance that the Islamic political paradigm plays in the world today (at least one Islamic nation possess nuclear weapons, with others clamouring to join the nuclear club) it is vitally important for those who value tolerance, liberty and democracy to examine the value-system that this man displayed during his life. In many parts of the world where Islam holds sway it is a capital offence to “blaspheme” the Prophet. Luckily those of us who live in a liberal democracy have the right to challenge all value systems without being killed by the state, and if we take a moment to scrutinize the values and actions of Mohammad we quickly discover that he is not a benign pacifist like the Buddha or Jesus. Instead we discover a historical figure who could in good faith be described as a violent megalomaniac conqueror comparable with Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte or Joseph Stalin, with values that most of us would find reprehensible and whose actions would today constitute war crimes. Here is a brief sampling:
• In 622 CE Muhammad married Aisha at age 6 or 7, and had sex with her at age 9. Aisha was one of 11 wives. Most people today would consider sex with a 9 year old girl rape, sexual abuse or paedophilia.
• In 622-624 CE Muhammad lead his followers in raids against civilian merchant caravans from Mecca, killing innocent merchants unconnected with his political quarrel in Mecca and stealing from others to prop up his exiled political regime based in Medina. He employed violence to impose his revolutionary political projects, and his caravan raids precipitated a war between Mecca and Medina.
• In the ensuing war, in 627 CE he ordered the slaughter of every adult male member of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, whose leaders refused to submit to his leadership during the Battle of the Trench; between 600-900 men were beheaded by his order and the women and children awarded as spoils of war. Similar actions within the former Yugoslavia are today labelled ethnic cleansing and genocide.
• From 622 CE until his death in 632 he aggressively invaded his neighbours, killing and subjugating those who refused to submit to his rule. Such actions by a head of state today would rightly be considered a threat to global peace and security.
Some have suggested, rightly or wrongly, that Muhammad was an outlaw thief and pirate, that he was a misogynist paedophile, or that he was a military conqueror and genocidal war criminal. These are disputable value judgments. What can not be disputed, however, is that the questions raised are valid points of political debate. The charges levelled against Mohammad are anachronistic value judgments, to be sure; if Mohammad’s values were relegated to history then this would be a valid retort. But today’s Islam has not abandoned his values – they remain front and centre of a political paradigm rooted firmly in the 7th century. From Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, Algeria to Iran, Afghanistan to Chechnya, New York to London to Bali to Madrid – modern Islam is bent upon foisting the values of Muhammad upon the world. The Islam of today stagnantly clings to a mediaeval world-view, adhering to the violent role-model of the Prophet. If Muhammad is the model of behaviour for Islam it should come as no surprise that faithful Muslims adopt the methods and values of their beloved Prophet. This is precisely the criticism of Islam conveyed by the Danish cartoonists – and it is entirely valid.
There were no riots or deaths corresponding to the release of Monty Python’s Life of Brian or The DaVinci Code. The widespread violent response to the Danish cartoons (dramatically less “blasphemous” towards Muhammad than either movie) once again reveals Islam as a radical, reactionary, violent and medieval ideology that threatens the most fundamental principles of tolerance, democracy and freedom of thought and speech. It does so not just hidden within the totalitarian confines of far-off theocracies, but reaches into the heart of western democracy to threaten our most cherished political rights and institutions by exporting values of violence and hatred into our midst.
Those who suggest that liberal democracies should “tolerate” the violent political ideology of Islam are profoundly ignorant of the inherent intolerance at its root. It is past time that enlightened thinkers shed the veil of politeness and denounce Islam for what it so obviously is: a political ideology rooted in violent metaphysical dogma with a tradition that is inherently inconsistent with democracy, freedom, peace and tolerance.
For a deeper discussion of the violence inherent in Islam please see:
Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, (particularly chapter 4)
For more information about the life of Muhammad please visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
For more information about the cartoon controversy please visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
THE KORAN = HATE SPEECH?
Violence and Hatred at the Root of Islam
Should the Koran be defined as “hate speech” under Canada’s hate crime legislation? Does the Koran incite hatred and violence against identifiable groups? Muslim apologists and religious “moderates” would have us believe that Islam is a “religion of peace” and dismiss criticism as mere “Islamophobia”. Such arguments are ridiculous and display stunning ignorance of the hatred and incitement to violence that litters the Koran. The word ‘Islam’ is properly translated as ‘submission’ not ‘peace’. The only ‘peace’ Islam offers unbelievers, pagans and apostates is the peace that Hitler offered the French in 1940 – the ‘peace’ of abject slavery.
But is the Koran hate speech? Section 318 and 319 of the criminal code of Canada bans the incitement of hatred against an “identifiable group,” defined in s. 318 as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
“319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of” an offence.
Bearing this legal definition in mind lets see what the Koran actually says. Even a casual perusal reveals that the Koran is dripping with incitement of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists, apostates (former Muslims who have renounced the faith) and pretty well anyone else who is a non-Muslim. But don’t take my word, read from the Koran for yourself….
“This Book is not to be doubted. (2:1)
“Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Surely Allah is mighty and wise. (4:56)
“Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends. (4:145)
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
“You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and pagans. (5:82)
“The Jews say: ‘Allah’s hand is chained.’ May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! (5:64)
“Had the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] accepted the Faith, it would surely have been better for them. Some are true believers, but most of them are evil-doers. (3:111)
“Men have a status above women. (2:228)
“Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please. (2:224)
“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. surely Allah is high, supreme. (4:34)
“Do not befriend [apostates] until they have fled their homes in the cause of Allah. If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. (4:90)
“The true believers fight for the cause of Allah, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
“Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. (2:98)
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. (9:123)
“Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it. (2:216)
“The unbelievers are your inveterate foe. (4:101)
“Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. (2:192)
“Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (8:12)"
Now, tell me again how Islam is the religion of "peace?" Casually open a copy of the Koran and randomly flip pages – I dare you. The only thing saving Muslim Mullahs from prison under Canadian hate laws is section 319(3) of the criminal code, a clause that specifically exempts religion as a hate crime. However this exemption does nothing to mitigate the obvious conclusion that if not for 319(3) the Koran would constitute hate speech.
But why is religion entitled to special status? Why is it illegal to incite hatred and violence against Jews or Women in a classroom (as with Keegstra) but perfectly legal in a Mosque? On what rational basis are the teachings of the Koran morally distinguishable from Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is it not time that rational men and women fight the intolerance and violence that oozes from the Koran and challenge Islam for the violent, racist, misogynist, dark-age savagery that it so obviously is?
Further Reading: the Koran; the Hadith; Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Why I Am Not A Muslim, by Ibn Warraq.
Should the Koran be defined as “hate speech” under Canada’s hate crime legislation? Does the Koran incite hatred and violence against identifiable groups? Muslim apologists and religious “moderates” would have us believe that Islam is a “religion of peace” and dismiss criticism as mere “Islamophobia”. Such arguments are ridiculous and display stunning ignorance of the hatred and incitement to violence that litters the Koran. The word ‘Islam’ is properly translated as ‘submission’ not ‘peace’. The only ‘peace’ Islam offers unbelievers, pagans and apostates is the peace that Hitler offered the French in 1940 – the ‘peace’ of abject slavery.
But is the Koran hate speech? Section 318 and 319 of the criminal code of Canada bans the incitement of hatred against an “identifiable group,” defined in s. 318 as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
“319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of” an offence.
Bearing this legal definition in mind lets see what the Koran actually says. Even a casual perusal reveals that the Koran is dripping with incitement of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists, apostates (former Muslims who have renounced the faith) and pretty well anyone else who is a non-Muslim. But don’t take my word, read from the Koran for yourself….
“This Book is not to be doubted. (2:1)
“Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Surely Allah is mighty and wise. (4:56)
“Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends. (4:145)
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
“You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and pagans. (5:82)
“The Jews say: ‘Allah’s hand is chained.’ May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! (5:64)
“Had the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] accepted the Faith, it would surely have been better for them. Some are true believers, but most of them are evil-doers. (3:111)
“Men have a status above women. (2:228)
“Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please. (2:224)
“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. surely Allah is high, supreme. (4:34)
“Do not befriend [apostates] until they have fled their homes in the cause of Allah. If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. (4:90)
“The true believers fight for the cause of Allah, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
“Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. (2:98)
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. (9:123)
“Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it. (2:216)
“The unbelievers are your inveterate foe. (4:101)
“Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. (2:192)
“Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (8:12)"
Now, tell me again how Islam is the religion of "peace?" Casually open a copy of the Koran and randomly flip pages – I dare you. The only thing saving Muslim Mullahs from prison under Canadian hate laws is section 319(3) of the criminal code, a clause that specifically exempts religion as a hate crime. However this exemption does nothing to mitigate the obvious conclusion that if not for 319(3) the Koran would constitute hate speech.
But why is religion entitled to special status? Why is it illegal to incite hatred and violence against Jews or Women in a classroom (as with Keegstra) but perfectly legal in a Mosque? On what rational basis are the teachings of the Koran morally distinguishable from Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is it not time that rational men and women fight the intolerance and violence that oozes from the Koran and challenge Islam for the violent, racist, misogynist, dark-age savagery that it so obviously is?
Further Reading: the Koran; the Hadith; Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Why I Am Not A Muslim, by Ibn Warraq.
SAM HARRIS ATTACKS "ATHEISM"
Ok folks, Sam is without doubt the beacon guiding our path, and this amazing keynote address to the Atheist Alliance International conference will show you why. Sam goes into the lions den, and in the process stands head and shoulders above the other "New Atheists" even as he rejects the title of "Atheist".
Main Lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c
Q&A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrtOZdJitA&NR=1
In the Q&A we have an amazing sight when Dan Dennett stands up and defends Sam and still asks an insightful question. Here you also see in stark terms how many "atheists" can be just as dogmatic as fundamentalists, and why that is argument enough to not identify with the word. Keep this debate in mind the next time someone calls Carpe Diem the "atheist club"!! ;)
Playing God
Today, Thursday, October 23, 2007 I exceeded my natural lifespan. Had the year been 1907 rather than 2007 my abscessed appendix would have ruptured, and I would have died shortly thereafter.
During my stay at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria I was truly awestruck on a personal and visceral level by what I already knew on an abstract and theoretical level – the human beings who work to keep others alive in our health care system and associated support and research endeavours represent the highest pinnacle of our great golden age of human civilization. It is well known that their work frequently takes a toll on their emotional, social and family lives, but there is scarcely a single person among us who does not owe their own life to these champions of human dignity. We owe them our deepest reverence.
It is for this reason that when I hear morons and idiots malign advances in biomedical research as “playing God” I have to suppress a shudder at the medieval barbarity of their ignorance. I beseech all who read this to fearlessly and forcefully challenge such asinine specimens of non-thinking wherever they occur! The only solution that such fools have for my appendicitis – a certain death sentence for almost all of human history – is to blame the victim for not being sufficiently pious and try to save my soul for the fabricated “next” life. While in my case impiety is most assuredly a true charge, the causal connection between impiety and disease is clearly false. Here I remain, successfully living a happy life in defiance of an omnipotent God’s alleged punishment.
By contrast how many pious clergy have succumb to appendicitis? What does this say about the “intelligent design” of the human intestine? No better example then the appendix exists for how the human body was designed by a gradual process of piecemeal evolution, with no planning of forethought and riddled with potentially fatal and clearly sub-optimal features. Those who argue that biological creatures “are so well designed that only God could have done it” are going beyond arguing to ignorance and inventing a new logical fallacy: the argument to wilful stupidity. God certainly must work in mysterious ways to have designed the appendix… or simply be mind-numbingly incompetent in his error-prone role of galactic puppet master in training.
When these same nuts who spout nonsense about “playing God” or “intelligent design” also obstruct stem cell research, for instance, it makes me wonder how many people will die in the intervening period of time between when stem cell therapies come to fruition and when they MIGHT have come to fruition BUT DID NOT because of such asinine exercises in Dark Age “thinking.” If a stem cell based cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or Multiple Sclerosis is delayed even a year because of such people this would represents a twisted crime against humanity, and yet another example of why I am not merely an atheist but an anti-theist.
As Christopher Hitchens says, “religion poisons everything” and does incalculable harm in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. The belief system responsible must be held accountable for the harm it does. We must move beyond being tolerant and respectful of religion, for it is currently high amongst the most destructive and harmful forces on the planet. Sam Harris is fond of pointing out that just as the KKK is today rightly maligned as both ridiculous and extremely harmful, it was once treated with considerable social respect in the American south. In a similar way religion ought to be mocked and ridiculed until the absurd stupidity of religious claims is laid bare and can no longer hide behind the veneer of societal respect. When it comes to harmful ideas we need to practice “conversational intolerance.” Those who foist barbarous beliefs upon their neighbours must be held accountable for the consequences of those beliefs, and the rest of us must stop tolerating or respecting them just as we do not tolerate those who espouse Nazism or racism. Those who warn against “playing God” must be high on our priority list for the conversational intolerance of Sam Harris.
The simple fact is that any old surgeon in a modern hospital is far more deserving of the right to “play God” than any of the genocidal, misogynistic bastards vying for supremacy among our mid-eastern spawned scourge of despotic monotheistic deities. Why? Here are the Happy Heretic’s top 20 reasons why doctors are better qualified at “playing God” than Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah:
Your average doctor…
20. rejects cannibalism – be it literal (Catholic) or symbolic (Protestant) – as a valid or efficacious treatment for saving people from suffering.
19. prescribes drugs and treatments that work for verifiable medical conditions, not prayers and rosaries designed to exercise thought control of victimless “sins” confessed in secret.
18. will diagnose someone hearing voices in their head as mentally disordered and commit them to hospital, not take someone hearing voices telling them to murder their child and promote them as a paragon of virtue. (ie. Abraham)
17. encourages second opinions, rather than stoning, for those who disagree with their assessment. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
16. never threatens to taketh away what they giveth, even if you don’t pay your bill. (may not apply in the U.S.A.)
15. makes rational decisions based on inductive logic and observational evidence, not based on petty, psychological character flaws such as jealousy, possessiveness, ego, vainglory, rage or vindictiveness derived from low-self esteem.
14. seeks to halt genocide, not incite it.
13. will treat anyone – friend or foe – and doesn’t pick favourites between who they will or will not save on the basis of race, belief or loyalty.
12. isn’t perfect, but statistically if you want to be healed your best bet is at least one order-of-magnitude improved if you visit a doctor rather than pray.
11. seeks to alleviate or prevent plagues, not cause them.
10. treats women as human beings equal to any other, not as chattel. (Koran 4:34)
9. treats homosexuals as human beings equal to any other, not as abominations deserving death
8. doesn’t punish patients who disobey doctor’s orders by killing their firstborn infant sons.
7. chooses actions based on the consequences of a given set of circumstances, not arbitrary inflexible laws.
6. uses their abilities to alleviate suffering, not to inflict it as a tool to enforce obedience. (Koran 4:56)
5. seeks to promote good behaviour for its own sake, not on the basis of arbitrary rewards or punishments.
4. unquestionably and unconditionally helps those in need, rather than claiming to love everyone unconditionally on the condition that they do his bidding in abject slavery.
3. doesn’t go around trying to steal all other doctor’s patients and pretending competitors don’t exist, even while referring to such rivals by name.
2. knows the correct value of pi.
1. is real.
As Dan Dennett says, “thank goodness” for the knowledge and scientific skills of human doctors, and for all the organs of science, medicine and biomedical research. Human standards of morality have long since surpassed those of the barbaric, bronze-age Abrahamic religions. May our standards of healing likewise continue along the accelerating march towards conquering death itself, when humans will become truly immortal and banish the ridiculous gods of our intellectual infancy to the graveyard of history alongside other bad ideas such as alchemy, astrology, phrenology and dousing.
During my stay at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria I was truly awestruck on a personal and visceral level by what I already knew on an abstract and theoretical level – the human beings who work to keep others alive in our health care system and associated support and research endeavours represent the highest pinnacle of our great golden age of human civilization. It is well known that their work frequently takes a toll on their emotional, social and family lives, but there is scarcely a single person among us who does not owe their own life to these champions of human dignity. We owe them our deepest reverence.
It is for this reason that when I hear morons and idiots malign advances in biomedical research as “playing God” I have to suppress a shudder at the medieval barbarity of their ignorance. I beseech all who read this to fearlessly and forcefully challenge such asinine specimens of non-thinking wherever they occur! The only solution that such fools have for my appendicitis – a certain death sentence for almost all of human history – is to blame the victim for not being sufficiently pious and try to save my soul for the fabricated “next” life. While in my case impiety is most assuredly a true charge, the causal connection between impiety and disease is clearly false. Here I remain, successfully living a happy life in defiance of an omnipotent God’s alleged punishment.
By contrast how many pious clergy have succumb to appendicitis? What does this say about the “intelligent design” of the human intestine? No better example then the appendix exists for how the human body was designed by a gradual process of piecemeal evolution, with no planning of forethought and riddled with potentially fatal and clearly sub-optimal features. Those who argue that biological creatures “are so well designed that only God could have done it” are going beyond arguing to ignorance and inventing a new logical fallacy: the argument to wilful stupidity. God certainly must work in mysterious ways to have designed the appendix… or simply be mind-numbingly incompetent in his error-prone role of galactic puppet master in training.
When these same nuts who spout nonsense about “playing God” or “intelligent design” also obstruct stem cell research, for instance, it makes me wonder how many people will die in the intervening period of time between when stem cell therapies come to fruition and when they MIGHT have come to fruition BUT DID NOT because of such asinine exercises in Dark Age “thinking.” If a stem cell based cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or Multiple Sclerosis is delayed even a year because of such people this would represents a twisted crime against humanity, and yet another example of why I am not merely an atheist but an anti-theist.
As Christopher Hitchens says, “religion poisons everything” and does incalculable harm in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. The belief system responsible must be held accountable for the harm it does. We must move beyond being tolerant and respectful of religion, for it is currently high amongst the most destructive and harmful forces on the planet. Sam Harris is fond of pointing out that just as the KKK is today rightly maligned as both ridiculous and extremely harmful, it was once treated with considerable social respect in the American south. In a similar way religion ought to be mocked and ridiculed until the absurd stupidity of religious claims is laid bare and can no longer hide behind the veneer of societal respect. When it comes to harmful ideas we need to practice “conversational intolerance.” Those who foist barbarous beliefs upon their neighbours must be held accountable for the consequences of those beliefs, and the rest of us must stop tolerating or respecting them just as we do not tolerate those who espouse Nazism or racism. Those who warn against “playing God” must be high on our priority list for the conversational intolerance of Sam Harris.
The simple fact is that any old surgeon in a modern hospital is far more deserving of the right to “play God” than any of the genocidal, misogynistic bastards vying for supremacy among our mid-eastern spawned scourge of despotic monotheistic deities. Why? Here are the Happy Heretic’s top 20 reasons why doctors are better qualified at “playing God” than Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah:
Your average doctor…
20. rejects cannibalism – be it literal (Catholic) or symbolic (Protestant) – as a valid or efficacious treatment for saving people from suffering.
19. prescribes drugs and treatments that work for verifiable medical conditions, not prayers and rosaries designed to exercise thought control of victimless “sins” confessed in secret.
18. will diagnose someone hearing voices in their head as mentally disordered and commit them to hospital, not take someone hearing voices telling them to murder their child and promote them as a paragon of virtue. (ie. Abraham)
17. encourages second opinions, rather than stoning, for those who disagree with their assessment. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
16. never threatens to taketh away what they giveth, even if you don’t pay your bill. (may not apply in the U.S.A.)
15. makes rational decisions based on inductive logic and observational evidence, not based on petty, psychological character flaws such as jealousy, possessiveness, ego, vainglory, rage or vindictiveness derived from low-self esteem.
14. seeks to halt genocide, not incite it.
13. will treat anyone – friend or foe – and doesn’t pick favourites between who they will or will not save on the basis of race, belief or loyalty.
12. isn’t perfect, but statistically if you want to be healed your best bet is at least one order-of-magnitude improved if you visit a doctor rather than pray.
11. seeks to alleviate or prevent plagues, not cause them.
10. treats women as human beings equal to any other, not as chattel. (Koran 4:34)
9. treats homosexuals as human beings equal to any other, not as abominations deserving death
8. doesn’t punish patients who disobey doctor’s orders by killing their firstborn infant sons.
7. chooses actions based on the consequences of a given set of circumstances, not arbitrary inflexible laws.
6. uses their abilities to alleviate suffering, not to inflict it as a tool to enforce obedience. (Koran 4:56)
5. seeks to promote good behaviour for its own sake, not on the basis of arbitrary rewards or punishments.
4. unquestionably and unconditionally helps those in need, rather than claiming to love everyone unconditionally on the condition that they do his bidding in abject slavery.
3. doesn’t go around trying to steal all other doctor’s patients and pretending competitors don’t exist, even while referring to such rivals by name.
2. knows the correct value of pi.
1. is real.
As Dan Dennett says, “thank goodness” for the knowledge and scientific skills of human doctors, and for all the organs of science, medicine and biomedical research. Human standards of morality have long since surpassed those of the barbaric, bronze-age Abrahamic religions. May our standards of healing likewise continue along the accelerating march towards conquering death itself, when humans will become truly immortal and banish the ridiculous gods of our intellectual infancy to the graveyard of history alongside other bad ideas such as alchemy, astrology, phrenology and dousing.
Towards A Generalized Functional Account of Evolutionary Theory
ABSTRACT
Do evolutionary processes, strictly speaking, occur in non-biological contexts, or is ‘evolution’ purely confined to living entities? Can evolutionary processes be distinguished from the contingent details of biology and abstracted into a more generally applicable theory? Are apparent evolutionary patterns in culture truly ‘evolution’, and how are we to know?
In this paper I explore the necessary criteria for a generalized theory of evolution that will apply beyond the biological sciences and enable a cohesive account of diverse phenomenological observations that appear prima facie to follow evolutionary processes. In order to adequately provide an evolutionary account of candidate processes external to biology it is necessary to uncouple the functional process of evolution qua ‘evolution’ from that very medium within which it was first understood – biology. Evolution as a process must therefore be defined in terms of the functional characteristics that govern the process, independent from the medium or substrate within which that process occurs.
To do this we must draw upon our knowledge of biological evolution while being careful not to confuse the particular details of the substrate with the functional characteristics of the process itself – not an easy task when only one instantiation of the evolutionary process is well understood. It is as if we were being asked to extrapolate a theory of fluid dynamics from studying only liquid water. Yet just as fluid dynamics can apply to different forms (e.g. gases, oils, plasma, etc.) that are composed of different substances (e.g. liquid nitrogen, mercury, ethanol, etc.) so too there is no reason to suppose that the evolutionary process itself need be tied to the particulars of biology. In fact evolutionary theory seems to be committed to the necessity of pre-biotic processes of chemical evolution if it wishes to provide a coherent and internally consistent naturalistic account of the origin of life that avoids the inexplicable evolutionary leaps known as saltationism.
Maynard Smith’s account of the pre-biotic origins of life in a purely chemical evolutionary phase provide a theoretical basis for a generalized evolutionary theory. If we are to reject saltationism and intelligent design then evolutionary theory seems indeed to be committed to non-biological manifestations of the evolutionary process, and these different functional forms are not merely analogous to the evolutionary process in biology, but are in fact functional instantiations of more broadly applicable principles.
My aim then is to investigate a general theory of evolution that applies to any and all contexts. However such a task is well beyond the scope of this paper, and as a consequence I will limit my discussion primarily to that of cultural evolution, as this is the area that has received considerable recent attention. I contend that before a coherent evolutionary account of human cultural or behavioural traits can be successfully advanced – regardless of what form that account may eventually take – a comprehensive, functional account of the essential elements of ‘evolution’ must be described. Such principles of generalized evolutionary theory can then be applied to a host of non-biological contexts where evolutionary processes appear to occur, and in the process we will undoubtedly learn something essential about questions relating to the nature, origin and development of life on Earth.
Application of Evolutionary Theory to Human Culture
Evolutionary theory developed out of the study of biological phenomena, and it is of course not surprising then that evolutionary theory has been intimately tied to the details of biology. However the past few decades have seen increasing attention paid to the application of evolutionary theory to the context of human behaviour and culture. Researchers, theorists and philosophers have called attention to patterns in various realms of study that appear to display key characteristics of evolution: Popper, E.O. Wilson, Dawkins, Dennett, Skyrms, Axelrod, Ruse, Richerson, Boyd, Tooby and Cosmides, Pinker, Buss and many others have made various attempts to apply evolutionary theory to understanding human behaviour and culture in fields such as sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary ethics and memetics, to name but a few. Dennett has famously gone so far as to describe Darwinism as a “universal acid.” Some of these programs have met with more acceptance than others, however all remain controversial. A central problem is how much can biology – and therefore by extension biological evolution – account for observed phenomenon within human behaviour and culture?
To answer this question we need to examine the sorts of explanations that evolutionary theory is capable of deploying. Clearly biology plays a vital role in setting the parameters of what expressions of culture and behaviour are possible, but how can evolutionary theory rooted in genes begin to offer explanations for why some cultures bury their dead while others burn them, as the problem of moral relativism classically posed by Herodotus?
The Problem of Specificity
Such questions highlight what Allan Gewirth calls the problem of specificity. Gewirth deploys his objection primarily against the evolutionary ethics of Michael Ruse, but versions of his criticism cut against any project that seeks to derive explanatory power from evolutionary theory rooted in biology. Gewirth demonstrates there is a critical gap in what such theories can actually explain in their attempt to derive moral facts from evolutionary explanations.
Difficulties arise when it becomes clear that natural selection can produce biological adaptations in favour of aggression, violence, theft and other anti-social behaviours just as readily as it does for altruism and cooperation. How then is evolutionary theory at the biological level to differentiate the truth of moral or immoral claims? While biological evolution may provide necessary conditions for moral truth (eg. a moral proposition must be contained in language, which requires a brain, which requires a host of necessary biological adaptations) it can not provide sufficient causal explanations at the level of biological or genetic evolution; biological evolution is not sufficiently specific to normatively differentiate between the possible versions of right and wrong behaviour.
Gewirth’s objection raises serious impediments against all attempts to apply biologically rooted evolutionary explanations to culturally diverse phenomena. An appeal to biological predispositions will generate little or no traction on questions of cultural diversity because such an explanation would have to demonstrate a significant hereditary component to diverse cultural phenomena. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the behaviour of “dancing waltz” or “dancing hip-hop” are phenotypes coded for in the genes by different alleles. Clearly any explanation of why some people dance one style and not another does not reside in an appeal to biological evolution.
Yet why then do many phenomena seem to demonstrate processes that prima facie appear evolutionary in nature, such as when grandma’s apple pie recipe gets better and better over the years, or “evolves” into something entirely new – a delicious rhubarb meringue pie perhaps?
At best biologically rooted evolution can offer only necessary but not sufficient causes to questions such as these. To see this clearly we need to recall in more detail what we mean by a causal explanation. If we seek to understand the causes of a house fire we can say that the fire was caused by the oxidization of gasoline in the immediate presence of combustible furniture. The presence of gasoline near combustible furniture is a necessary condition of that particular fire, however it is not sufficient to explain why the fire happened. A complete explanation – a sufficient explanation – of the fire would also require an account of how the combustion process began, in this case the striking of a match by an arsonist in the presence of the gasoline. It is obvious that any purported causal explanation of the fire that failed to highlight the central role of the lit match applied by the arsonist to the gasoline would have failed to provide the salient sufficient cause of the fire. Such an analysis would suffer from a lack of explanatory specificity of the variety proposed by Gewirth; it is true that rapid chain-reaction oxidation is a cause at the chemical level, but the chemical level of causation is not the level that is explanatorily salient in this particular case.
Similarly, the evolutionary process shaping the brain is a necessary and vital aspect for any explanation of human behaviour, however it can not – on its own – offer a sufficiently specific account of why some behaviours occur (eg. dancing waltz) and not others (eg. dancing hip hop) in a particular instantiation given a particular environmental context. Such sufficient causes would require an additional level of explanation based upon analysis appropriate to the level of specificity required to produce the sufficient cause. In the case of the arson fire it will require an analysis at something resembling the level of criminal psychology.
An account of human cultural behaviour that is based upon evolutionary principles in some form is needed for a sufficient and salient causal account of where grandma’s rhubarb meringue pie “came from”. However the appropriate level of analysis necessary to provide sufficient salient causes will vary: in some rare cases a biological/genetic account will be sufficient (as perhaps with rooting behaviour in infants), in others an account at the level of social or cultural dynamics will be dominantly salient (eg. why hip hop and not waltz), while still other cases will require a complex web of interacting necessary causes at many levels of analysis (biochemical, cultural, cognitive, behavioural, etc.) no one of which can be construed as salient alone, and only taken together producing a sufficient explanation of the observed phenomenon (eg. why grandma’s apple rhubarb pie is so prevalent and popular in the family but not in the wider community).
Clearly most individual behaviour is not coded in the genes. Human culture is a complex aggregate of human behavioural interaction, and if the behaviour of an individual is not coded in the genes then it is transparently ridiculous that large scale aggregates of human behaviour – in the form of culture – can be biologically determined. What then should we make of research in evolutionary psychology showing a species-wide human aversion to incest, or increased likelihood of infanticide by step-fathers, for instance?
At best genes provide necessary parameters that constrain or shape human behaviour. Those research programs that seek to provide salient sufficient accounts of human cultural or behavioural patterns through an application of evolutionary theory require a generalized evolutionary theory that can operate at levels of abstraction not dependent upon biology. Isolating the necessary functional characteristics of an evolutionary process will lend insight to prominent questions within the philosophy of biology and will powerfully shape the growing application of Darwinian thinking in other spheres.
Higher-Order Evolution and Gewirth’s Specificity Problem
While the problem of specificity is a significant stumbling block for any project that seeks to tie aspects of human behaviour or culture to biologically based evolutionary processes, it also suggests a solution posed by the puzzle of evolving pie recipes and other examples of apparent cultural evolution. Various non-biological phenomena may operate according to independent evolutionary principles, thus creating a hierarchy of abstraction between first- and second-order evolutionary processes. For this model to meet Gewirth’s specificity challenge it would need to provide evolutionary details that are at least partially independent of lower level biological processes.
For example, one could conceivably provide the following evolutionary account for the development of grandma’s apple rhubarb pie recipe that is internally independent of biological evolution:
Her “famous” apple pie recipe is subjected to social selection pressures in the form of praise and approval. The pie pattern is replicated each time a new pie is baked based upon her recipe, regardless if the replicating agent is grandma herself, one of the grandkids learning to bake, or someone from the bridge club who got their filthy hands on her “famous” recipe.
If a replicating agent changes the template – perhaps by adding some extra rhubarb that was “laying around going to waste” – then a ‘mutation’ is formed and selection pressures will determine the success of the new form. The pie may not ‘turn out’ properly in the oven, leading to a failed mess that does not even deserve the name ‘pie’ and gets culled to the garbage before it is tasted. Or it may ‘turn out’ but taste horrible, smell bad or in some other way receive strong selection pressures that also cull it to the garbage. Or perhaps the pie will be welcomed and praised, receiving considerable approval as tasting even better than the original – such an outcome could well lead to a permanent modification of the recipe itself, in which case future “apple rhubarb” pies will bear the phenotype traits of the mutant strain of pie.
Such an account of the ‘evolution’ of apple rhubarb pie employs the functional form of an evolutionary process but operates on a higher-order level of abstraction in which biological mechanisms are not the salient factors at work. We may call this level of abstraction “cultural evolution,” or provide some other suitable moniker to distinguish it from biological evolution. Whatever we call it we must be clear that the salient processes governing the evolutionary functions do not refer to the replication and lineage of some biological entity such as DNA but to stable patterns of culture.
When considering such a higher-order evolutionary account as caricatured above it is important to remember that first-order evolutionary processes will necessarily constrain and in many ways direct the higher-order evolutionary processes. Making a recipe requires memory and the ability to write and read – clear products of a brain shaped by biological evolution; dyslexics may well produce quite a different pie from that intended by grandma. Taste is constrained by what the taste-buds are capable of sensing. If the pie contains toxic substances that make the recipient sick this will be governed by first-order biological processes. However within the parameters constrained by biological level first-order selection is a vast terrain of potential second-order “evolutionary space” within which higher-order evolutionary processes can shape patterns of human behaviour and culture.
What is ‘Evolution’?
In advocating for a higher-order evolutionary analysis of cultural phenomenon I have focused on the need for a generalized evolutionary theory functionally independent of the peculiarities of biology. I now wish to propose the following functional definition of ‘evolution’, with the goal of capturing the essential elements that shall distinguish all true evolutionary processes, regardless of the substrate within which they manifest:
It is beyond the scope of the present paper to defend all of the elements of the definition I have here proposed. Instead I will direct my current discussion towards an analysis of the goal of evolutionary theory and will defend the principle of adaptive complexity as the most salient core property of evolution that functionally distinguishes evolutionary from non-evolutionary processes.
In his paper entitled “Universal Darwinism” Richard Dawkins sets out to advance a universal theory of evolution applicable to all forms of life, wherever they may reside in the cosmos. While he does not specifically attempt to develop abstract principles of evolution that can apply to non-biotic substrates he does provide us with a useful starting point by abstracting principles of evolution away from purely terrestrial biology and into the realm of what he calls ‘evolutionary exobiology’. By asking how extraterrestrial life might theoretically evolve he is required to disentangle the idiosyncratic details of terrestrial biology from the functional principles that define ‘evolution’.
At the root of his functional definition Dawkins follows John Maynard Smith in highlighting adaptive complexity as the explanatory goal of evolutionary theory and, significantly, the key diagnostic principle of what constitutes ‘life’ itself. “The main task of any theory of evolution is to explain adaptive complexity, i.e. to explain the same set of facts which Paley used as evidence of a Creator.”
The question of just what constitutes life elsewhere in the universe – where the basic biochemical components may be radically different from our own – is far from a trivial question, as the Viking spacecraft demonstrated when they landed on Mars and ran experiments to detect alien life. Interestingly Dawkins abstracts the definition of ‘life’ through a functional interpretation of evolutionary processes – if an entity displays properties that indicate adaptive complexity then he contends that entity is either alive, a relic of life, or an artefact of something that was alive. In so doing he has given us a useful start to our functionally generalized definition of evolution.
In advancing adaptive complexity as the defining characteristic of evolution Dawkins argues that evolution as an explanatory theory is only of value if we are confronted with adaptive complexity. Such an approach grapples directly with the question of saltationism that underlies many of the debates in philosophy of biology, from Stephen J. Gould’s ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to Michael Behe’s ‘irreducible complexity’ arguments for intelligent design theory. The debate concerning ‘macro-mutations’ or saltationary jumps in evolutionary history extends back to debates between Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Such issues go to the heart of evolutionary theory itself.
For Dawkins the key factor is one of probability – how likely is a particular change to occur through random chance alone? Adaptive complexity can only arise through a process of differential selection compounded over time. As such evolution properly understood is driven only by the selective retention of randomly occurring changes – if a phenomenon fails this criterion then it is not evolution. Small changes are far more likely to occur than large changes, particularly large numbers of changes that occur simultaneously. Calculating probabilities for such things as random mutations is no simple task, however it is helpful to at least distinguish functional principles governing the process.
Changes must be small and incremental, lest they become so improbable as to effectively be impossible. However even very improbable changes may occur on occasion, given the vast periods of time which evolutionary change can operate in and the ability of selection to retain advantageous changes when they do occur. Thus, dramatic and complex changes that are retained by selection pressure may occur gradually through a process of cumulative change, whereas such dramatic and complex changes are vanishingly less likely if construed as happening simultaneously or as a single event.
The classic example here deployed by all sides of the debate is the evolution of the eye, advanced by fundamentalists and intelligent design advocates from Paley onward, and also featured prominently in Darwin’s The Origin of Species. The eye is clearly adaptive, in the sense that it is highly tailored to perform a certain function in accordance with the laws of optics that are imposed by the external environment. It is also vanishingly improbable to propose that the eye just “formed itself” by random chance, as fundamentalists rightly assert. How then to explain such a clear case of adaptive complexity? Fundamentalists argue that “only” a designer could be responsible, however evolutionary theory proposes a more likely process with a series of small, incremental steps, accumulating over countless ages, each step providing a selective increase in adaptive advantage and complexity.
It is then a simple matter to take such principles and apply them to non-biological context, and from there derive the basis for our functional account of evolutionary theory. If we return to pie recipes as a guiding example, how can we explain the existence of lemon meringue pie today? What was to stop a member of Homo sapien sapiens from inventing lemon meringue pie during the Upper Paleolithic era?
Lemon meringue pie is a highly tasty treat that generates strong behaviour reinforcement. By this virtue it produces strong selective pressures to retain and replicate such recipe patterns within human culture and therefore we may consider it to be a well adapted entity filling a cultural niche. But what of the question of complexity?
Such a dessert showing up during the Upper Paleolithic seems vanishingly improbable. There are many numerous components necessary to make a lemon meringue pie, and most of these are difficult to notice for us today because we take them for granted. We first must assume the development of flour as a baking ingredient, cream of tarter as a binding agent, or the best means of producing pie crusts. Each necessitates long periods of development.
The meringue itself seems like a highly counter-intuitive and unlikely product that requires significant independent development. We must know how to separate and beat egg whites, and must know how to cultivate and process caster sugar and cream of tarter. All together, the act of producing a lemon meringue pie is positively overloaded with a succession of small baking innovations that have accumulated over time, and which are retained and propagated through the processes of imitation and social teaching in which human beings uniquely excel.
Our Homo sapien sapien ancestors in the Upper Paleolithic would have been hopelessly incapable of producing a lemon meringue pie because it is deeply improbable that all the necessary baking innovations could have arisen at once. Lemon meringue is a highly complex pattern, and therefore highly unlikely to arise fully developed in a sudden leap.
It is even more unlikely that biological evolution can explain this observation, given that there is little biological difference between modern H. sapiens and our Upper Paleolithic ancestors. No one would argue that pie-making ability is a phenotypic trait coded by the genes.
How then should we explain the existence of such a dessert in today’s world? Did the recipe for lemon meringue pie – including the notion of how to make meringue and how to make a pie crust from “scratch” – just jump into some ingenious baker’s head many hundreds of years ago? I am unaware of any factual historical data concerning the origin of lemon meringue pie, but such a proposal seems highly improbable in precisely the same way that it is unlikely for the eye to jump into existence by random chance all at once in one generation.
Instead we must seek another explanation for how lemon meringue pie came into existence. Our pie is an example of adaptive complexity, and our alternate explanation must be an evolutionary explanation. I could easily substitute any other product of technological development for our pie example: the steel of Spanish swords, the internal combustion engine, sailing ships, the plow, Euclidian geometry, agricultural irrigation systems, space flight, firearms, smelting, quantum mechanics… all of these entities are adaptively complex patterns that did not leap into existence in one highly improbable step but were instead the culmination of a series of small and successively more adaptive improvements.
If a medieval Spanish smith tried a technique for forging steel that produced a better sword he remembered it and taught it to his apprentices. If the technique failed the experiment was discarded and forgotten. Over time a succession of such innovations lead to the technological improvement of Spanish weapon smithing by a process of differential selection. Notice that this second-order evolutionary process is completely divorced from whether or not the cultural pattern in question had a positive, negative or entirely negligible impact upon the underlying biological fitness of the first-order evolutionary process. Strong Spanish swords may increase biological fitness by increasing the likelihood of success in battle, or it may decrease fitness by increasing the potential appeal for invasion and subjugation of societies containing such technology. Or it may act like our rhubarb meringue pie and merely be an oddity with no appreciable effects upon biological fitness – except perhaps the ‘fitness’ around the waistline.
I must hasten to add that such a process is not limited to technological innovation, which is merely the case study I have chosen to follow. This process of cumulative selection can be deployed to offer explanations for observed moral phenomena, including the near-universality of adaptively complex ethical norms such as the ‘golden rule’ or taboos against incest and cannibalism. It can be deployed to explain the successful ‘fit’ of scientific theories to the world. Computer viruses may display similar patterns, as may dances, fashion, word etymologies, music, religion or many other cultural patterns. Such a model is generally applicable across human culture and can offer precisely the sort of second-order evolutionary account of human behavioural phenomena that is needed to overcome Gewirth’s problem of specificity. However we must be careful not to be too cavalier in our application of such a model, for it ought to be clear that not every trait arose by adaptation through differential selection.
Adaptationism and Genetic Drift
How then do we demarcate the boundaries between an evolutionary process and simple non-evolutionary change? The answer must again return to the principle of adaptive complexity. Any process that does not display the properties of adaptive complexity is by definition not ‘evolution’. Change may occur, but if it is not the product of selection pressure then it can not be adaptive, in which case the process that generated it can not be considered an evolutionary processes. Determining what traits are adaptive is no easy task in biology, and is a source of much vitriolic controversy which leads us to grapple with one of the central debates in philosophy of biology: adaptationism.
Much philosophical blood has been spilled over to what degree existing biological traits constitute products of selection pressure and hence adaptations, as opposed to mere qualities that have arisen by some other mechanism. For the purposes of developing a generalized theory of evolution I wish to sidestep the particulars of the various debates over concrete biological cases. Instead I wish to examine the process of genetic drift, a concept that has been advanced as a counter example to adaptationism within biology and will be most helpful to illuminate the boundary between true evolutionary processes and those that merely constitute some form of undirected change.
Genetic drift occurs within a reproducing population when the frequency of a particular trait changes over time by pure random chance, and hence without adaptive direction. For random chance to drive the frequency shift it is necessary that the trait in question have negligible fitness ramifications, else selection pressure would cull less fit varieties, thereby re-establishing the direction of trait frequency towards more adaptive versions. Thus, traits upon which there are weak or negligible selection pressures may experience drift. As a consequence such traits may well be complex, but will most certainly not be adapted and hence the process of drift ought not be considered evolutionary.
In biological settings genetic drift is usually only considered an ecological factor in small populations where the effects of chance variation are more able to have a lasting effect. If only a small number of individuals carry a particular trait it is far more possible for the trait to be eliminated from the gene pool due to random happenstance, whereas with a larger number it is more likely that the trait can re-establish itself in the pool from a small number of carriers, even in the event that a large percentage of the carriers are culled by chance. However for the purposes of examining genetic drift within the context of cultural evolution this need not be the case.
In order to disentangle the concept of genetic drift from the idiosyncrasies of biological factors we must describe the functional characteristics of the process in abstract form. The key principle that distinguishes the process of drift is a shift of trait frequency within the population that occurs entirely by chance; selection plays a negligible role with the result that the change of trait frequency over time occurs in a random direction. To distinguish drift in the biological context from a generalized abstract context I will therefore redesignate the generalized form of genetic drift as ‘frequency drift.’
‘Frequency drift’ may then be defined as a random change of extant trait frequency relative to the larger population of equivalent trait alternatives in the absence of selection pressure strong enough to overcome random forces and thereby direct the course of trait frequency shift in a non-random direction.
Let us return to our pie baking examples. Grandma could choose to bake her pie in a round pan and serve wedge shaped pieces, or a square pan serving square pieces. It is possible that some may dislike one method of serving versus the other, in which case selection pressure would act upon the two baking “styles”. However, the key question that must be resolved is whether the preference for one style over another is strong enough to overcome random factors.
Imagine that grandma has a very busy kitchen (she has a large extended family to bake for!) and a limited supply of baking sheets. Sometimes the square sheets are in use and so she must use the round sheets to bake her pies, and sometimes the situation is reversed. Which situation presents itself is essentially random. If her round pies are devoured, but the square pies go to waste then we may say that there is selection pressure against square pies. If this selection pressure results in grandma limiting the frequency with which she bakes square pies then we can say selection pressure has shifted the frequency of round versus square pies, and as a consequence round pies have ‘evolved’ because they are more adaptive to the fussy preferences of the grandkids.
However, if both square and round pies are eaten when they are served, we can say that there is no significant selection pressure favouring one “style” of pie shape over another. If then by random chance it happens that most of grandma’s round pie sheets disappear (perhaps donated to a niece who is moving out on her own) and replaced by square sheets the frequency of square pies may increase dramatically. Square pies would not have ‘evolved’ because squareness is not the subject of selection pressure and thereby not an adaptive trait – the propensity for square pies in the family arose merely by chance through frequency drift, not a process of ‘evolution.’
We can think of many similar examples of cultural traits where selection pressures are low. Any time we speak in common parlance about “fashion,” “preference,” “style,” “taste,” or other such words we are often indicating a situation in which choices are fickle and selection pressures are weak. Hair styles, hem lengths, musical preferences, dance styles, food tastes and a host of other cultural characteristics that are known to fluctuate randomly over time can be described as cases of ‘frequency drift’ within a cultural milieu. Such traits are not products of selection, hence they are not adaptive, and hence can not be described or explained according to evolutionary principles.
CONCLUSION
The goal of this paper has been to provide a preliminary sketch for a generalized functional account of evolutionary principles that can apply evolutionary theory to non-biological contexts. In the process I argue that Gewirth’s problem of specificity suggests the need for a second-order evolutionary analysis of cultural phenomena that display apparent evolutionary patterns. I then propose a functional definition of evolution that is founded on the notion of adaptive complexity through differential selection, and suggest the concept of ‘frequency drift’ as a process to distinguish evolutionary from non-evolutionary change.
The clear implications that can be drawn from this analysis of generalized evolutionary theory is that a great deal of cultural phenomena are likely to be non-evolutionary in nature, and thus beyond a strictly selectionist evolutionary account except in-so-far as to say that the phenomena in question arose as a consequence of random frequency drift or some other as-yet-undescribed phenomenon. This itself is not a trivial conclusion lacking in explanatory power; other fields such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory infuse random occurrence with explanatory power to great profit, and criterion are needed for the demarcation of evolutionary and non-evolutionary processes. Clearly not all change is evolutionary in nature.
However it is equally clear that a great deal of cultural change can be described and given explanatory weight through an appeal to the sort of generalized second-order evolutionary account demonstrated above. Any time a form of differential selection shifts the frequency of cultural phenomena in a particular non-random direction an evolutionary account will be explanatorily potent. The dividing line that distinguishes which cultural phenomena are evolutionary and which are not is an empirical question that can only be resolved through a case by case investigation of each phenomenon, but it is increasingly clear that a great deal of human culture is accessible to such an investigation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Robert and Peter J. Richerson. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Boyd, Robert and Peter J. Richerson. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Cziko, Gary. Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1989.
Dawkins, Richard. “Universal Darwinism.” In Evolution from Molecules to Man by D.S. Bendall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 403-25.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Touchstone, 1995.
Gewirth, Alan. “The Problem of Specificity in Evolutionary Ethics.” Biology and Philosophy I (1986): 297-305.
Maynard Smith, John and Eors Szathmary. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: W.H. Freeman and Company Limited, 1995.
Maynard Smith, John and Eors Szathmary. The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origins of Language. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1999.
Sterelny, Kim and Paul E. Griffiths. Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
I argue that before a profitable account of evolution can be successfully applied to non-biological processes a generalized functional theory of evolution must first be developed. Biological first-order evolutionary accounts of cultural traits are unlikely to account for cultural phenomenon because of the intrinsic lack of specificity as described by Gewirth, however second-order evolutionary processes independent of biological mechanisms have the power to move beyond providing trivial necessary biological explanations. Finally, I offer a preliminary attempt to sketch a generalized functional evolutionary theory that is predicated upon the existence of adaptive complexity as a defining character of all bona fide evolutionary processes, against which I distinguish random ‘frequency shift’ as a key characteristic of non-evolutionary change.
Do evolutionary processes, strictly speaking, occur in non-biological contexts, or is ‘evolution’ purely confined to living entities? Can evolutionary processes be distinguished from the contingent details of biology and abstracted into a more generally applicable theory? Are apparent evolutionary patterns in culture truly ‘evolution’, and how are we to know?
In this paper I explore the necessary criteria for a generalized theory of evolution that will apply beyond the biological sciences and enable a cohesive account of diverse phenomenological observations that appear prima facie to follow evolutionary processes. In order to adequately provide an evolutionary account of candidate processes external to biology it is necessary to uncouple the functional process of evolution qua ‘evolution’ from that very medium within which it was first understood – biology. Evolution as a process must therefore be defined in terms of the functional characteristics that govern the process, independent from the medium or substrate within which that process occurs.
To do this we must draw upon our knowledge of biological evolution while being careful not to confuse the particular details of the substrate with the functional characteristics of the process itself – not an easy task when only one instantiation of the evolutionary process is well understood. It is as if we were being asked to extrapolate a theory of fluid dynamics from studying only liquid water. Yet just as fluid dynamics can apply to different forms (e.g. gases, oils, plasma, etc.) that are composed of different substances (e.g. liquid nitrogen, mercury, ethanol, etc.) so too there is no reason to suppose that the evolutionary process itself need be tied to the particulars of biology. In fact evolutionary theory seems to be committed to the necessity of pre-biotic processes of chemical evolution if it wishes to provide a coherent and internally consistent naturalistic account of the origin of life that avoids the inexplicable evolutionary leaps known as saltationism.
Maynard Smith’s account of the pre-biotic origins of life in a purely chemical evolutionary phase provide a theoretical basis for a generalized evolutionary theory. If we are to reject saltationism and intelligent design then evolutionary theory seems indeed to be committed to non-biological manifestations of the evolutionary process, and these different functional forms are not merely analogous to the evolutionary process in biology, but are in fact functional instantiations of more broadly applicable principles.
My aim then is to investigate a general theory of evolution that applies to any and all contexts. However such a task is well beyond the scope of this paper, and as a consequence I will limit my discussion primarily to that of cultural evolution, as this is the area that has received considerable recent attention. I contend that before a coherent evolutionary account of human cultural or behavioural traits can be successfully advanced – regardless of what form that account may eventually take – a comprehensive, functional account of the essential elements of ‘evolution’ must be described. Such principles of generalized evolutionary theory can then be applied to a host of non-biological contexts where evolutionary processes appear to occur, and in the process we will undoubtedly learn something essential about questions relating to the nature, origin and development of life on Earth.
Application of Evolutionary Theory to Human Culture
Evolutionary theory developed out of the study of biological phenomena, and it is of course not surprising then that evolutionary theory has been intimately tied to the details of biology. However the past few decades have seen increasing attention paid to the application of evolutionary theory to the context of human behaviour and culture. Researchers, theorists and philosophers have called attention to patterns in various realms of study that appear to display key characteristics of evolution: Popper, E.O. Wilson, Dawkins, Dennett, Skyrms, Axelrod, Ruse, Richerson, Boyd, Tooby and Cosmides, Pinker, Buss and many others have made various attempts to apply evolutionary theory to understanding human behaviour and culture in fields such as sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary ethics and memetics, to name but a few. Dennett has famously gone so far as to describe Darwinism as a “universal acid.” Some of these programs have met with more acceptance than others, however all remain controversial. A central problem is how much can biology – and therefore by extension biological evolution – account for observed phenomenon within human behaviour and culture?
To answer this question we need to examine the sorts of explanations that evolutionary theory is capable of deploying. Clearly biology plays a vital role in setting the parameters of what expressions of culture and behaviour are possible, but how can evolutionary theory rooted in genes begin to offer explanations for why some cultures bury their dead while others burn them, as the problem of moral relativism classically posed by Herodotus?
The Problem of Specificity
Such questions highlight what Allan Gewirth calls the problem of specificity. Gewirth deploys his objection primarily against the evolutionary ethics of Michael Ruse, but versions of his criticism cut against any project that seeks to derive explanatory power from evolutionary theory rooted in biology. Gewirth demonstrates there is a critical gap in what such theories can actually explain in their attempt to derive moral facts from evolutionary explanations.
Difficulties arise when it becomes clear that natural selection can produce biological adaptations in favour of aggression, violence, theft and other anti-social behaviours just as readily as it does for altruism and cooperation. How then is evolutionary theory at the biological level to differentiate the truth of moral or immoral claims? While biological evolution may provide necessary conditions for moral truth (eg. a moral proposition must be contained in language, which requires a brain, which requires a host of necessary biological adaptations) it can not provide sufficient causal explanations at the level of biological or genetic evolution; biological evolution is not sufficiently specific to normatively differentiate between the possible versions of right and wrong behaviour.
Gewirth’s objection raises serious impediments against all attempts to apply biologically rooted evolutionary explanations to culturally diverse phenomena. An appeal to biological predispositions will generate little or no traction on questions of cultural diversity because such an explanation would have to demonstrate a significant hereditary component to diverse cultural phenomena. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the behaviour of “dancing waltz” or “dancing hip-hop” are phenotypes coded for in the genes by different alleles. Clearly any explanation of why some people dance one style and not another does not reside in an appeal to biological evolution.
Yet why then do many phenomena seem to demonstrate processes that prima facie appear evolutionary in nature, such as when grandma’s apple pie recipe gets better and better over the years, or “evolves” into something entirely new – a delicious rhubarb meringue pie perhaps?
At best biologically rooted evolution can offer only necessary but not sufficient causes to questions such as these. To see this clearly we need to recall in more detail what we mean by a causal explanation. If we seek to understand the causes of a house fire we can say that the fire was caused by the oxidization of gasoline in the immediate presence of combustible furniture. The presence of gasoline near combustible furniture is a necessary condition of that particular fire, however it is not sufficient to explain why the fire happened. A complete explanation – a sufficient explanation – of the fire would also require an account of how the combustion process began, in this case the striking of a match by an arsonist in the presence of the gasoline. It is obvious that any purported causal explanation of the fire that failed to highlight the central role of the lit match applied by the arsonist to the gasoline would have failed to provide the salient sufficient cause of the fire. Such an analysis would suffer from a lack of explanatory specificity of the variety proposed by Gewirth; it is true that rapid chain-reaction oxidation is a cause at the chemical level, but the chemical level of causation is not the level that is explanatorily salient in this particular case.
Similarly, the evolutionary process shaping the brain is a necessary and vital aspect for any explanation of human behaviour, however it can not – on its own – offer a sufficiently specific account of why some behaviours occur (eg. dancing waltz) and not others (eg. dancing hip hop) in a particular instantiation given a particular environmental context. Such sufficient causes would require an additional level of explanation based upon analysis appropriate to the level of specificity required to produce the sufficient cause. In the case of the arson fire it will require an analysis at something resembling the level of criminal psychology.
An account of human cultural behaviour that is based upon evolutionary principles in some form is needed for a sufficient and salient causal account of where grandma’s rhubarb meringue pie “came from”. However the appropriate level of analysis necessary to provide sufficient salient causes will vary: in some rare cases a biological/genetic account will be sufficient (as perhaps with rooting behaviour in infants), in others an account at the level of social or cultural dynamics will be dominantly salient (eg. why hip hop and not waltz), while still other cases will require a complex web of interacting necessary causes at many levels of analysis (biochemical, cultural, cognitive, behavioural, etc.) no one of which can be construed as salient alone, and only taken together producing a sufficient explanation of the observed phenomenon (eg. why grandma’s apple rhubarb pie is so prevalent and popular in the family but not in the wider community).
Clearly most individual behaviour is not coded in the genes. Human culture is a complex aggregate of human behavioural interaction, and if the behaviour of an individual is not coded in the genes then it is transparently ridiculous that large scale aggregates of human behaviour – in the form of culture – can be biologically determined. What then should we make of research in evolutionary psychology showing a species-wide human aversion to incest, or increased likelihood of infanticide by step-fathers, for instance?
At best genes provide necessary parameters that constrain or shape human behaviour. Those research programs that seek to provide salient sufficient accounts of human cultural or behavioural patterns through an application of evolutionary theory require a generalized evolutionary theory that can operate at levels of abstraction not dependent upon biology. Isolating the necessary functional characteristics of an evolutionary process will lend insight to prominent questions within the philosophy of biology and will powerfully shape the growing application of Darwinian thinking in other spheres.
Higher-Order Evolution and Gewirth’s Specificity Problem
While the problem of specificity is a significant stumbling block for any project that seeks to tie aspects of human behaviour or culture to biologically based evolutionary processes, it also suggests a solution posed by the puzzle of evolving pie recipes and other examples of apparent cultural evolution. Various non-biological phenomena may operate according to independent evolutionary principles, thus creating a hierarchy of abstraction between first- and second-order evolutionary processes. For this model to meet Gewirth’s specificity challenge it would need to provide evolutionary details that are at least partially independent of lower level biological processes.
For example, one could conceivably provide the following evolutionary account for the development of grandma’s apple rhubarb pie recipe that is internally independent of biological evolution:
Her “famous” apple pie recipe is subjected to social selection pressures in the form of praise and approval. The pie pattern is replicated each time a new pie is baked based upon her recipe, regardless if the replicating agent is grandma herself, one of the grandkids learning to bake, or someone from the bridge club who got their filthy hands on her “famous” recipe.
If a replicating agent changes the template – perhaps by adding some extra rhubarb that was “laying around going to waste” – then a ‘mutation’ is formed and selection pressures will determine the success of the new form. The pie may not ‘turn out’ properly in the oven, leading to a failed mess that does not even deserve the name ‘pie’ and gets culled to the garbage before it is tasted. Or it may ‘turn out’ but taste horrible, smell bad or in some other way receive strong selection pressures that also cull it to the garbage. Or perhaps the pie will be welcomed and praised, receiving considerable approval as tasting even better than the original – such an outcome could well lead to a permanent modification of the recipe itself, in which case future “apple rhubarb” pies will bear the phenotype traits of the mutant strain of pie.
Such an account of the ‘evolution’ of apple rhubarb pie employs the functional form of an evolutionary process but operates on a higher-order level of abstraction in which biological mechanisms are not the salient factors at work. We may call this level of abstraction “cultural evolution,” or provide some other suitable moniker to distinguish it from biological evolution. Whatever we call it we must be clear that the salient processes governing the evolutionary functions do not refer to the replication and lineage of some biological entity such as DNA but to stable patterns of culture.
When considering such a higher-order evolutionary account as caricatured above it is important to remember that first-order evolutionary processes will necessarily constrain and in many ways direct the higher-order evolutionary processes. Making a recipe requires memory and the ability to write and read – clear products of a brain shaped by biological evolution; dyslexics may well produce quite a different pie from that intended by grandma. Taste is constrained by what the taste-buds are capable of sensing. If the pie contains toxic substances that make the recipient sick this will be governed by first-order biological processes. However within the parameters constrained by biological level first-order selection is a vast terrain of potential second-order “evolutionary space” within which higher-order evolutionary processes can shape patterns of human behaviour and culture.
What is ‘Evolution’?
In advocating for a higher-order evolutionary analysis of cultural phenomenon I have focused on the need for a generalized evolutionary theory functionally independent of the peculiarities of biology. I now wish to propose the following functional definition of ‘evolution’, with the goal of capturing the essential elements that shall distinguish all true evolutionary processes, regardless of the substrate within which they manifest:
Evolution is the frequency shift of reproducing stable patterns caused by differential selection that explains adaptive complexity too improbable to come about at random by a single occurrence.
It is beyond the scope of the present paper to defend all of the elements of the definition I have here proposed. Instead I will direct my current discussion towards an analysis of the goal of evolutionary theory and will defend the principle of adaptive complexity as the most salient core property of evolution that functionally distinguishes evolutionary from non-evolutionary processes.
In his paper entitled “Universal Darwinism” Richard Dawkins sets out to advance a universal theory of evolution applicable to all forms of life, wherever they may reside in the cosmos. While he does not specifically attempt to develop abstract principles of evolution that can apply to non-biotic substrates he does provide us with a useful starting point by abstracting principles of evolution away from purely terrestrial biology and into the realm of what he calls ‘evolutionary exobiology’. By asking how extraterrestrial life might theoretically evolve he is required to disentangle the idiosyncratic details of terrestrial biology from the functional principles that define ‘evolution’.
At the root of his functional definition Dawkins follows John Maynard Smith in highlighting adaptive complexity as the explanatory goal of evolutionary theory and, significantly, the key diagnostic principle of what constitutes ‘life’ itself. “The main task of any theory of evolution is to explain adaptive complexity, i.e. to explain the same set of facts which Paley used as evidence of a Creator.”
The question of just what constitutes life elsewhere in the universe – where the basic biochemical components may be radically different from our own – is far from a trivial question, as the Viking spacecraft demonstrated when they landed on Mars and ran experiments to detect alien life. Interestingly Dawkins abstracts the definition of ‘life’ through a functional interpretation of evolutionary processes – if an entity displays properties that indicate adaptive complexity then he contends that entity is either alive, a relic of life, or an artefact of something that was alive. In so doing he has given us a useful start to our functionally generalized definition of evolution.
In advancing adaptive complexity as the defining characteristic of evolution Dawkins argues that evolution as an explanatory theory is only of value if we are confronted with adaptive complexity. Such an approach grapples directly with the question of saltationism that underlies many of the debates in philosophy of biology, from Stephen J. Gould’s ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to Michael Behe’s ‘irreducible complexity’ arguments for intelligent design theory. The debate concerning ‘macro-mutations’ or saltationary jumps in evolutionary history extends back to debates between Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Such issues go to the heart of evolutionary theory itself.
For Dawkins the key factor is one of probability – how likely is a particular change to occur through random chance alone? Adaptive complexity can only arise through a process of differential selection compounded over time. As such evolution properly understood is driven only by the selective retention of randomly occurring changes – if a phenomenon fails this criterion then it is not evolution. Small changes are far more likely to occur than large changes, particularly large numbers of changes that occur simultaneously. Calculating probabilities for such things as random mutations is no simple task, however it is helpful to at least distinguish functional principles governing the process.
Changes must be small and incremental, lest they become so improbable as to effectively be impossible. However even very improbable changes may occur on occasion, given the vast periods of time which evolutionary change can operate in and the ability of selection to retain advantageous changes when they do occur. Thus, dramatic and complex changes that are retained by selection pressure may occur gradually through a process of cumulative change, whereas such dramatic and complex changes are vanishingly less likely if construed as happening simultaneously or as a single event.
The classic example here deployed by all sides of the debate is the evolution of the eye, advanced by fundamentalists and intelligent design advocates from Paley onward, and also featured prominently in Darwin’s The Origin of Species. The eye is clearly adaptive, in the sense that it is highly tailored to perform a certain function in accordance with the laws of optics that are imposed by the external environment. It is also vanishingly improbable to propose that the eye just “formed itself” by random chance, as fundamentalists rightly assert. How then to explain such a clear case of adaptive complexity? Fundamentalists argue that “only” a designer could be responsible, however evolutionary theory proposes a more likely process with a series of small, incremental steps, accumulating over countless ages, each step providing a selective increase in adaptive advantage and complexity.
It is then a simple matter to take such principles and apply them to non-biological context, and from there derive the basis for our functional account of evolutionary theory. If we return to pie recipes as a guiding example, how can we explain the existence of lemon meringue pie today? What was to stop a member of Homo sapien sapiens from inventing lemon meringue pie during the Upper Paleolithic era?
Lemon meringue pie is a highly tasty treat that generates strong behaviour reinforcement. By this virtue it produces strong selective pressures to retain and replicate such recipe patterns within human culture and therefore we may consider it to be a well adapted entity filling a cultural niche. But what of the question of complexity?
Such a dessert showing up during the Upper Paleolithic seems vanishingly improbable. There are many numerous components necessary to make a lemon meringue pie, and most of these are difficult to notice for us today because we take them for granted. We first must assume the development of flour as a baking ingredient, cream of tarter as a binding agent, or the best means of producing pie crusts. Each necessitates long periods of development.
The meringue itself seems like a highly counter-intuitive and unlikely product that requires significant independent development. We must know how to separate and beat egg whites, and must know how to cultivate and process caster sugar and cream of tarter. All together, the act of producing a lemon meringue pie is positively overloaded with a succession of small baking innovations that have accumulated over time, and which are retained and propagated through the processes of imitation and social teaching in which human beings uniquely excel.
Our Homo sapien sapien ancestors in the Upper Paleolithic would have been hopelessly incapable of producing a lemon meringue pie because it is deeply improbable that all the necessary baking innovations could have arisen at once. Lemon meringue is a highly complex pattern, and therefore highly unlikely to arise fully developed in a sudden leap.
It is even more unlikely that biological evolution can explain this observation, given that there is little biological difference between modern H. sapiens and our Upper Paleolithic ancestors. No one would argue that pie-making ability is a phenotypic trait coded by the genes.
How then should we explain the existence of such a dessert in today’s world? Did the recipe for lemon meringue pie – including the notion of how to make meringue and how to make a pie crust from “scratch” – just jump into some ingenious baker’s head many hundreds of years ago? I am unaware of any factual historical data concerning the origin of lemon meringue pie, but such a proposal seems highly improbable in precisely the same way that it is unlikely for the eye to jump into existence by random chance all at once in one generation.
Instead we must seek another explanation for how lemon meringue pie came into existence. Our pie is an example of adaptive complexity, and our alternate explanation must be an evolutionary explanation. I could easily substitute any other product of technological development for our pie example: the steel of Spanish swords, the internal combustion engine, sailing ships, the plow, Euclidian geometry, agricultural irrigation systems, space flight, firearms, smelting, quantum mechanics… all of these entities are adaptively complex patterns that did not leap into existence in one highly improbable step but were instead the culmination of a series of small and successively more adaptive improvements.
If a medieval Spanish smith tried a technique for forging steel that produced a better sword he remembered it and taught it to his apprentices. If the technique failed the experiment was discarded and forgotten. Over time a succession of such innovations lead to the technological improvement of Spanish weapon smithing by a process of differential selection. Notice that this second-order evolutionary process is completely divorced from whether or not the cultural pattern in question had a positive, negative or entirely negligible impact upon the underlying biological fitness of the first-order evolutionary process. Strong Spanish swords may increase biological fitness by increasing the likelihood of success in battle, or it may decrease fitness by increasing the potential appeal for invasion and subjugation of societies containing such technology. Or it may act like our rhubarb meringue pie and merely be an oddity with no appreciable effects upon biological fitness – except perhaps the ‘fitness’ around the waistline.
I must hasten to add that such a process is not limited to technological innovation, which is merely the case study I have chosen to follow. This process of cumulative selection can be deployed to offer explanations for observed moral phenomena, including the near-universality of adaptively complex ethical norms such as the ‘golden rule’ or taboos against incest and cannibalism. It can be deployed to explain the successful ‘fit’ of scientific theories to the world. Computer viruses may display similar patterns, as may dances, fashion, word etymologies, music, religion or many other cultural patterns. Such a model is generally applicable across human culture and can offer precisely the sort of second-order evolutionary account of human behavioural phenomena that is needed to overcome Gewirth’s problem of specificity. However we must be careful not to be too cavalier in our application of such a model, for it ought to be clear that not every trait arose by adaptation through differential selection.
Adaptationism and Genetic Drift
How then do we demarcate the boundaries between an evolutionary process and simple non-evolutionary change? The answer must again return to the principle of adaptive complexity. Any process that does not display the properties of adaptive complexity is by definition not ‘evolution’. Change may occur, but if it is not the product of selection pressure then it can not be adaptive, in which case the process that generated it can not be considered an evolutionary processes. Determining what traits are adaptive is no easy task in biology, and is a source of much vitriolic controversy which leads us to grapple with one of the central debates in philosophy of biology: adaptationism.
Much philosophical blood has been spilled over to what degree existing biological traits constitute products of selection pressure and hence adaptations, as opposed to mere qualities that have arisen by some other mechanism. For the purposes of developing a generalized theory of evolution I wish to sidestep the particulars of the various debates over concrete biological cases. Instead I wish to examine the process of genetic drift, a concept that has been advanced as a counter example to adaptationism within biology and will be most helpful to illuminate the boundary between true evolutionary processes and those that merely constitute some form of undirected change.
Genetic drift occurs within a reproducing population when the frequency of a particular trait changes over time by pure random chance, and hence without adaptive direction. For random chance to drive the frequency shift it is necessary that the trait in question have negligible fitness ramifications, else selection pressure would cull less fit varieties, thereby re-establishing the direction of trait frequency towards more adaptive versions. Thus, traits upon which there are weak or negligible selection pressures may experience drift. As a consequence such traits may well be complex, but will most certainly not be adapted and hence the process of drift ought not be considered evolutionary.
In biological settings genetic drift is usually only considered an ecological factor in small populations where the effects of chance variation are more able to have a lasting effect. If only a small number of individuals carry a particular trait it is far more possible for the trait to be eliminated from the gene pool due to random happenstance, whereas with a larger number it is more likely that the trait can re-establish itself in the pool from a small number of carriers, even in the event that a large percentage of the carriers are culled by chance. However for the purposes of examining genetic drift within the context of cultural evolution this need not be the case.
In order to disentangle the concept of genetic drift from the idiosyncrasies of biological factors we must describe the functional characteristics of the process in abstract form. The key principle that distinguishes the process of drift is a shift of trait frequency within the population that occurs entirely by chance; selection plays a negligible role with the result that the change of trait frequency over time occurs in a random direction. To distinguish drift in the biological context from a generalized abstract context I will therefore redesignate the generalized form of genetic drift as ‘frequency drift.’
‘Frequency drift’ may then be defined as a random change of extant trait frequency relative to the larger population of equivalent trait alternatives in the absence of selection pressure strong enough to overcome random forces and thereby direct the course of trait frequency shift in a non-random direction.
Let us return to our pie baking examples. Grandma could choose to bake her pie in a round pan and serve wedge shaped pieces, or a square pan serving square pieces. It is possible that some may dislike one method of serving versus the other, in which case selection pressure would act upon the two baking “styles”. However, the key question that must be resolved is whether the preference for one style over another is strong enough to overcome random factors.
Imagine that grandma has a very busy kitchen (she has a large extended family to bake for!) and a limited supply of baking sheets. Sometimes the square sheets are in use and so she must use the round sheets to bake her pies, and sometimes the situation is reversed. Which situation presents itself is essentially random. If her round pies are devoured, but the square pies go to waste then we may say that there is selection pressure against square pies. If this selection pressure results in grandma limiting the frequency with which she bakes square pies then we can say selection pressure has shifted the frequency of round versus square pies, and as a consequence round pies have ‘evolved’ because they are more adaptive to the fussy preferences of the grandkids.
However, if both square and round pies are eaten when they are served, we can say that there is no significant selection pressure favouring one “style” of pie shape over another. If then by random chance it happens that most of grandma’s round pie sheets disappear (perhaps donated to a niece who is moving out on her own) and replaced by square sheets the frequency of square pies may increase dramatically. Square pies would not have ‘evolved’ because squareness is not the subject of selection pressure and thereby not an adaptive trait – the propensity for square pies in the family arose merely by chance through frequency drift, not a process of ‘evolution.’
We can think of many similar examples of cultural traits where selection pressures are low. Any time we speak in common parlance about “fashion,” “preference,” “style,” “taste,” or other such words we are often indicating a situation in which choices are fickle and selection pressures are weak. Hair styles, hem lengths, musical preferences, dance styles, food tastes and a host of other cultural characteristics that are known to fluctuate randomly over time can be described as cases of ‘frequency drift’ within a cultural milieu. Such traits are not products of selection, hence they are not adaptive, and hence can not be described or explained according to evolutionary principles.
CONCLUSION
The goal of this paper has been to provide a preliminary sketch for a generalized functional account of evolutionary principles that can apply evolutionary theory to non-biological contexts. In the process I argue that Gewirth’s problem of specificity suggests the need for a second-order evolutionary analysis of cultural phenomena that display apparent evolutionary patterns. I then propose a functional definition of evolution that is founded on the notion of adaptive complexity through differential selection, and suggest the concept of ‘frequency drift’ as a process to distinguish evolutionary from non-evolutionary change.
The clear implications that can be drawn from this analysis of generalized evolutionary theory is that a great deal of cultural phenomena are likely to be non-evolutionary in nature, and thus beyond a strictly selectionist evolutionary account except in-so-far as to say that the phenomena in question arose as a consequence of random frequency drift or some other as-yet-undescribed phenomenon. This itself is not a trivial conclusion lacking in explanatory power; other fields such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory infuse random occurrence with explanatory power to great profit, and criterion are needed for the demarcation of evolutionary and non-evolutionary processes. Clearly not all change is evolutionary in nature.
However it is equally clear that a great deal of cultural change can be described and given explanatory weight through an appeal to the sort of generalized second-order evolutionary account demonstrated above. Any time a form of differential selection shifts the frequency of cultural phenomena in a particular non-random direction an evolutionary account will be explanatorily potent. The dividing line that distinguishes which cultural phenomena are evolutionary and which are not is an empirical question that can only be resolved through a case by case investigation of each phenomenon, but it is increasingly clear that a great deal of human culture is accessible to such an investigation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Robert and Peter J. Richerson. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Boyd, Robert and Peter J. Richerson. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Cziko, Gary. Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1989.
Dawkins, Richard. “Universal Darwinism.” In Evolution from Molecules to Man by D.S. Bendall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 403-25.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Touchstone, 1995.
Gewirth, Alan. “The Problem of Specificity in Evolutionary Ethics.” Biology and Philosophy I (1986): 297-305.
Maynard Smith, John and Eors Szathmary. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: W.H. Freeman and Company Limited, 1995.
Maynard Smith, John and Eors Szathmary. The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origins of Language. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1999.
Sterelny, Kim and Paul E. Griffiths. Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
The Great Post-Modern Lie
The Great Lie of western liberal democracy today goes by the name of “relativism,” and it is a very real threat to the survival of global civilization. Relativism has many forms, but simply put it is the unsubstantiated assertion that truth is subjective and all points of view are equally “valid.” Various forms of this relativism are at the heart of what has been presumptuously labelled ‘post-modernism.’
The ridiculousness of relativism is easy to demonstrate. Crudely put, relativism reduces to the absolute claim that all absolute claims are false. If true then the claim that “relativism is true” is false. Either relativism unjustifiably exempts itself from its own conclusions, or it is absurdly self-negating. Appallingly, this incoherent so-called philosophy has enthralled vast swaths of academia and eroded some of our most fundamental democratic principles. Nowhere is this more obvious than in our public discourse concerning religion.
The religious corollary to the Great Lie is the oft-repeated notion that, at some fundamental level, all religions are equal. Such a claim is so ridiculous that it can only survive in a vacuum of factual knowledge. Even a modicum of learning about the teachings of various religions reveals dramatic variation in how and what they teach.
Take the use of violence for instance. No rational thinker with even a passing knowledge of the Koran can claim that Islam’s teachings on violence are even crudely comparable to those of the Jains or the Amish. Where are the Jain suicide bombers? Where are the Amish martyr brigades? Where are the Quaker death squads? The Chinese conquest of Tibet has been one of the most brutal acts of colonialism in the past century. Why don’t we see the Dalai Lama holed up in a Himalayan cave sending Buddhist monks flying into Beijing buildings? The answer is obvious – no matter how you warp or twist Tibetan Buddhist teaching you simply cannot derive a doctrine of violence. A brief flip through the Koran (to say nothing of the Bible) reveals rich fodder for the opposite conclusion.
By refusing to acknowledge the bone-headedly obvious differences between religions we have blinded our discourse to the most dire threat to global civilization since the Cold-War: the soon-to-be nuclear armed fascist cult of jihad and martyrdom known as The House of Islam. Western nations are being given a choice – reaffirm their Enlightenment ideals or submit to Islam. It should be an easy choice.
Further Reading: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel; Sam Harris, The End of Faith.
The ridiculousness of relativism is easy to demonstrate. Crudely put, relativism reduces to the absolute claim that all absolute claims are false. If true then the claim that “relativism is true” is false. Either relativism unjustifiably exempts itself from its own conclusions, or it is absurdly self-negating. Appallingly, this incoherent so-called philosophy has enthralled vast swaths of academia and eroded some of our most fundamental democratic principles. Nowhere is this more obvious than in our public discourse concerning religion.
The religious corollary to the Great Lie is the oft-repeated notion that, at some fundamental level, all religions are equal. Such a claim is so ridiculous that it can only survive in a vacuum of factual knowledge. Even a modicum of learning about the teachings of various religions reveals dramatic variation in how and what they teach.
Take the use of violence for instance. No rational thinker with even a passing knowledge of the Koran can claim that Islam’s teachings on violence are even crudely comparable to those of the Jains or the Amish. Where are the Jain suicide bombers? Where are the Amish martyr brigades? Where are the Quaker death squads? The Chinese conquest of Tibet has been one of the most brutal acts of colonialism in the past century. Why don’t we see the Dalai Lama holed up in a Himalayan cave sending Buddhist monks flying into Beijing buildings? The answer is obvious – no matter how you warp or twist Tibetan Buddhist teaching you simply cannot derive a doctrine of violence. A brief flip through the Koran (to say nothing of the Bible) reveals rich fodder for the opposite conclusion.
By refusing to acknowledge the bone-headedly obvious differences between religions we have blinded our discourse to the most dire threat to global civilization since the Cold-War: the soon-to-be nuclear armed fascist cult of jihad and martyrdom known as The House of Islam. Western nations are being given a choice – reaffirm their Enlightenment ideals or submit to Islam. It should be an easy choice.
Further Reading: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel; Sam Harris, The End of Faith.
Good Deeds Do Not Reflect Underlying Creeds
Re. Religion helps those in need, Sept. 27th Martlet
<please note - the following article appeared in the Oct. 4th Martlet with significant editorial misprints - what follows is the correct unedited version>
I would like to thank Callie Perry for a respectable Рif rather clich̩ Рresponse to my column. Anti-theists assert that religion is not merely false, but that it does considerable harm. This claim does not entail that individuals or groups that are part of a religion are incapable of doing good works. Rather we may only judge the effects of a creed by examining the net consequences that result from the teachings directly. Scientists call this controlling for extraneous variables.
Perry dusts off the tired old argument that religious people do good things, therefore religion is good. This is a ridiculous non sequitur. The good works done by religions and religious people are often done in spite of or even in direct contradiction to the explicit teachings of the creed in question.
Of course religious people and organizations have done wonderful things. So what? Perry must show that the actions explicitly derive from the teachings of the creed itself. Perhaps an example will help. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party and saved 1100 innocent Jews from the Holocaust. Should we therefore conclude that the ideology of Nazism is good because of the actions of this man? Or should we judge the ideology on the basis of a broad, balanced examination of actions that have consequences derived from Nazi principles? Clearly Schindler did not save Jews by following Nazi ideology, therefore Nazism ought not get the credit.
Similarly, religion is only entitled to credit or blame for actions taken as a direct consequence of its teachings. It is effortless to show that witch burnings, pogroms, genocide, misogyny, ‘homo-cide’, jihad, and inquisitions derive explicitly from the holy books. It is somewhat more challenging to ignore these many barbarous passages and derive pro-social teachings from scripture. To do so requires the intellectually fraudulent skills of a used car salesman, selectively rejecting portions of the infallible ‘Word of God’ while accepting others.
Of course, rejecting the genocidal barbarity commanded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy reveals the reader as a better judge of morality than God, which puts the lie to the claim that morality comes from religion. Clearly the philanthropic deeds described by Perry do not originate from religious creeds, but from a deeper well of humanity.
<please note - the following article appeared in the Oct. 4th Martlet with significant editorial misprints - what follows is the correct unedited version>
I would like to thank Callie Perry for a respectable Рif rather clich̩ Рresponse to my column. Anti-theists assert that religion is not merely false, but that it does considerable harm. This claim does not entail that individuals or groups that are part of a religion are incapable of doing good works. Rather we may only judge the effects of a creed by examining the net consequences that result from the teachings directly. Scientists call this controlling for extraneous variables.
Perry dusts off the tired old argument that religious people do good things, therefore religion is good. This is a ridiculous non sequitur. The good works done by religions and religious people are often done in spite of or even in direct contradiction to the explicit teachings of the creed in question.
Of course religious people and organizations have done wonderful things. So what? Perry must show that the actions explicitly derive from the teachings of the creed itself. Perhaps an example will help. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party and saved 1100 innocent Jews from the Holocaust. Should we therefore conclude that the ideology of Nazism is good because of the actions of this man? Or should we judge the ideology on the basis of a broad, balanced examination of actions that have consequences derived from Nazi principles? Clearly Schindler did not save Jews by following Nazi ideology, therefore Nazism ought not get the credit.
Similarly, religion is only entitled to credit or blame for actions taken as a direct consequence of its teachings. It is effortless to show that witch burnings, pogroms, genocide, misogyny, ‘homo-cide’, jihad, and inquisitions derive explicitly from the holy books. It is somewhat more challenging to ignore these many barbarous passages and derive pro-social teachings from scripture. To do so requires the intellectually fraudulent skills of a used car salesman, selectively rejecting portions of the infallible ‘Word of God’ while accepting others.
Of course, rejecting the genocidal barbarity commanded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy reveals the reader as a better judge of morality than God, which puts the lie to the claim that morality comes from religion. Clearly the philanthropic deeds described by Perry do not originate from religious creeds, but from a deeper well of humanity.
Science and the Poverty of Mysticism
Who are we? Where did we come from? What is our relationship to the Universe? These are some of the “big” questions that have been asked by every generation of thinking men and women since the dawn of humanity. We live in the greatest golden age of human history. Thanks to science our generation is among the first in human history with a real chance to learn some of these answers!
The essential quality of science is that we must be free to speculate and dream, but we must be equally careful to separate speculation from fact. Even the most brilliant humans are prone to making errors. For this reason there are no absolute authorities in science; all claims to knowledge are open to the most penetrating scrutiny. Through critical thinking we can weed out ideas that are wrong and thereby arrive at progressively better answers to our questions.
It always puzzles me why so many people turn to religion, mysticism or new-age gibberish to find a “connection” to the Universe. Every day they are awash in overwhelming proof that science holds the power to finding true knowledge, yet they recycle bronze age superstitions that relate the positions of the stars and planets during birth to obscure and dubiously defined personality traits. Or they fabricate the existence of “super” natural beings without a shred of evidence beyond the “say-so” of themselves or others. (I’ve never quite understood how ANYTHING can coherently be described as “apart from” or “above” nature.)
These mystics enthusiastically believe all manner of appealing notions because they want to feel connected with something greater than themselves. They cling to their ideas like a drowning swimmer, no doubt because they derive some psychological illusion of comfort and control from their belief. Yet is this an appropriate basis for determining if something is true or false? Does wishing something to be true make it so? Does science offer its own comfort, if only we will look? Is the clear power of science up to the task of providing the very sense of connectedness to the Universe that most mystics claim to be seeking?
The true grandeur and majesty of Nature as revealed by the methods of science utterly dwarf the fuzzy non-thinking of the mystics, making their most appealing delusions seem as weak and feeble as their arguments in their favour. The difference between them is that science offers us solid reasons to think our beliefs are true, much in contrast to the delusional ravings of prophets and mystics.
Who among us has not stared up at the sky on a dark, clear night and been struck senseless by the spinning gaze of billions of stars peering down upon us? Each of those specks of light is a far off massive ball of molten gas many hundreds of times larger than the earth, the weight of its outer layers crushing the core to temperatures so hot that it shines.
All stars, including our Sun, formed when nearby gas and dust coalesced under the force of gravity into clumps, which continued to grow until the core of the clump grew so hot that the hydrogen gas within it began to fuse into helium, releasing vast amounts of nuclear energy. Eventually all stars will also burn up the gas that fuels their inner fire, producing heavier elements as by-products. Some large stars will explode when their fuel is exhausted, scattering the ashes of their nuclear fire back into the universe in a vast expanding bubble.
These supernova explosions are the only known natural source of heavy elements such as iron, carbon, oxygen, gold or uranium. Successive generations of new stars and planets are enriched with heavy molecules through this process – including all the molecules that formed the earth and our solar system.
The famous scientist Carl Sagan was fond of saying that we are all made of “star stuff” because the molecules that course through our cells, that form the air that we breathe, the calcium in our bones, the iron in our blood, the water that we drink, the gold in our banks and uranium in our weapons were all first formed billions of years ago inside the core of a dying star.
The individual molecules that constitute your body once composed the body of birds and fish, trees and bacteria, stones, dewdrops, planets and stars. Reincarnation of the physical body over billions of years of stellar evolution is a scientific fact.
Where do we come from? Are we a part of something larger? What science teaches us, if the mystics were educated enough to look, is that nature and the universe are indeed profoundly interconnected, and that each of us are a product of that system. Science teaches us that we are quite literally the children of the stars.
Further Reading: any introductory astronomy textbook; Cosmos by Carl Sagan; The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.
The essential quality of science is that we must be free to speculate and dream, but we must be equally careful to separate speculation from fact. Even the most brilliant humans are prone to making errors. For this reason there are no absolute authorities in science; all claims to knowledge are open to the most penetrating scrutiny. Through critical thinking we can weed out ideas that are wrong and thereby arrive at progressively better answers to our questions.
It always puzzles me why so many people turn to religion, mysticism or new-age gibberish to find a “connection” to the Universe. Every day they are awash in overwhelming proof that science holds the power to finding true knowledge, yet they recycle bronze age superstitions that relate the positions of the stars and planets during birth to obscure and dubiously defined personality traits. Or they fabricate the existence of “super” natural beings without a shred of evidence beyond the “say-so” of themselves or others. (I’ve never quite understood how ANYTHING can coherently be described as “apart from” or “above” nature.)
These mystics enthusiastically believe all manner of appealing notions because they want to feel connected with something greater than themselves. They cling to their ideas like a drowning swimmer, no doubt because they derive some psychological illusion of comfort and control from their belief. Yet is this an appropriate basis for determining if something is true or false? Does wishing something to be true make it so? Does science offer its own comfort, if only we will look? Is the clear power of science up to the task of providing the very sense of connectedness to the Universe that most mystics claim to be seeking?
The true grandeur and majesty of Nature as revealed by the methods of science utterly dwarf the fuzzy non-thinking of the mystics, making their most appealing delusions seem as weak and feeble as their arguments in their favour. The difference between them is that science offers us solid reasons to think our beliefs are true, much in contrast to the delusional ravings of prophets and mystics.
Who among us has not stared up at the sky on a dark, clear night and been struck senseless by the spinning gaze of billions of stars peering down upon us? Each of those specks of light is a far off massive ball of molten gas many hundreds of times larger than the earth, the weight of its outer layers crushing the core to temperatures so hot that it shines.
All stars, including our Sun, formed when nearby gas and dust coalesced under the force of gravity into clumps, which continued to grow until the core of the clump grew so hot that the hydrogen gas within it began to fuse into helium, releasing vast amounts of nuclear energy. Eventually all stars will also burn up the gas that fuels their inner fire, producing heavier elements as by-products. Some large stars will explode when their fuel is exhausted, scattering the ashes of their nuclear fire back into the universe in a vast expanding bubble.
These supernova explosions are the only known natural source of heavy elements such as iron, carbon, oxygen, gold or uranium. Successive generations of new stars and planets are enriched with heavy molecules through this process – including all the molecules that formed the earth and our solar system.
The famous scientist Carl Sagan was fond of saying that we are all made of “star stuff” because the molecules that course through our cells, that form the air that we breathe, the calcium in our bones, the iron in our blood, the water that we drink, the gold in our banks and uranium in our weapons were all first formed billions of years ago inside the core of a dying star.
The individual molecules that constitute your body once composed the body of birds and fish, trees and bacteria, stones, dewdrops, planets and stars. Reincarnation of the physical body over billions of years of stellar evolution is a scientific fact.
Where do we come from? Are we a part of something larger? What science teaches us, if the mystics were educated enough to look, is that nature and the universe are indeed profoundly interconnected, and that each of us are a product of that system. Science teaches us that we are quite literally the children of the stars.
Further Reading: any introductory astronomy textbook; Cosmos by Carl Sagan; The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.
Why Religious Thinking is a Threat to Human Survival
Most humanists and atheists such as myself take it for granted that religious claims are false. However many among us would classify ourselves as not merely a-theist, but anti-theist. The reason for this is that religious belief is not simply false and innocuous – as belief in Santa Claus, for instance – but has positively harmful consequences for society that must be actively combated.
The central problem of faith is that it produces the predisposition NOT to act to safeguard or promote the safety and well-being of oneself and others. This disinclination can apply to reactive situations where one fails to take action to safeguard against looming danger, or it can refer to a proactive failure of creative imagination to constantly improve our lives. Both must be accounted for.
The paragon instance of this deleterious world view is surely represented by the asininely negligent George W. Bush asking the nation to pray for New Orleans as hurricane Katrina bore down upon the pious city, while decades of engineering and scientific warnings to shore up the levees were ignored and millions of lives needlessly devastated.
Virtually all religions teach that some powerful being/force is acting as a hidden hand, guiding the events of our lives. The inescapable conclusion is that human beings are essentially powerless to shape our future.
This belief is reportedly a chief source of the psychological appeal of religion, however it comes at a striking cost to human esteem and dignity: it psychologically disempowers human beings, leading to fatalism, complacency and inaction where prayer and faith replace taking effective action to solve problems or safeguard the future.
By contrast those who reject blind faith realize that our future depends entirely upon the actions we take and the choices we make. Nature and the world around us impose consequences on us as a result of our actions and inactions alike, and those consequences affect believers and disbelievers without prejudice. For example, in 1884 a devastating 7.0 earthquake hit Granada in Spain, one of the most devoutly pious nations on earth, killing 800, injuring 1,500 and destroying 4000 homes on Christmas Day.
The key point is that religious belief provides false solutions that displace prudent and truly effective solutions from being implemented, or from even being invented in the first place. The religious edicts against the sinfulness of condom use is merely stupid within a first-world context, but when applied to the situation in AIDS-ridden Africa the religious discouragement of condoms is positively genocidal. Even more chilling, we now have the prospect of several Muslim countries steeped in the Dark Age world view of Jihad and Martyrdom deploying nuclear weapons, while Zionists in the constitutionally racist “Jewish state” of Israel and the speaking-in-tongues lunatics in the White House prepare their own nukes for the Rapture.
The obvious religious evils aside, if all the hours of human effort that have been wasted on ridiculous religious tasks had instead been used to study medicine, geology and engineering there is no telling what blights to human existence may have been mitigated over the centuries. If we take account of not only the well known direct harmful effects of religion, but also the indirect lost opportunity, then we begin to develop an accurate picture of what religion costs society and why it should not be merely tolerated as a quaint cultural relic of our intellectual infancy but outright opposed as a chief force for evil in the world.
Further Reading: Christopher Hitchens, ‘god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’; Sam Harris, ‘The End of Faith’; www.carpediembc.com.
(Edited version published in the Sept. 13, 2007 edition of the Martlet)
The central problem of faith is that it produces the predisposition NOT to act to safeguard or promote the safety and well-being of oneself and others. This disinclination can apply to reactive situations where one fails to take action to safeguard against looming danger, or it can refer to a proactive failure of creative imagination to constantly improve our lives. Both must be accounted for.
The paragon instance of this deleterious world view is surely represented by the asininely negligent George W. Bush asking the nation to pray for New Orleans as hurricane Katrina bore down upon the pious city, while decades of engineering and scientific warnings to shore up the levees were ignored and millions of lives needlessly devastated.
Virtually all religions teach that some powerful being/force is acting as a hidden hand, guiding the events of our lives. The inescapable conclusion is that human beings are essentially powerless to shape our future.
This belief is reportedly a chief source of the psychological appeal of religion, however it comes at a striking cost to human esteem and dignity: it psychologically disempowers human beings, leading to fatalism, complacency and inaction where prayer and faith replace taking effective action to solve problems or safeguard the future.
By contrast those who reject blind faith realize that our future depends entirely upon the actions we take and the choices we make. Nature and the world around us impose consequences on us as a result of our actions and inactions alike, and those consequences affect believers and disbelievers without prejudice. For example, in 1884 a devastating 7.0 earthquake hit Granada in Spain, one of the most devoutly pious nations on earth, killing 800, injuring 1,500 and destroying 4000 homes on Christmas Day.
The key point is that religious belief provides false solutions that displace prudent and truly effective solutions from being implemented, or from even being invented in the first place. The religious edicts against the sinfulness of condom use is merely stupid within a first-world context, but when applied to the situation in AIDS-ridden Africa the religious discouragement of condoms is positively genocidal. Even more chilling, we now have the prospect of several Muslim countries steeped in the Dark Age world view of Jihad and Martyrdom deploying nuclear weapons, while Zionists in the constitutionally racist “Jewish state” of Israel and the speaking-in-tongues lunatics in the White House prepare their own nukes for the Rapture.
The obvious religious evils aside, if all the hours of human effort that have been wasted on ridiculous religious tasks had instead been used to study medicine, geology and engineering there is no telling what blights to human existence may have been mitigated over the centuries. If we take account of not only the well known direct harmful effects of religion, but also the indirect lost opportunity, then we begin to develop an accurate picture of what religion costs society and why it should not be merely tolerated as a quaint cultural relic of our intellectual infancy but outright opposed as a chief force for evil in the world.
Further Reading: Christopher Hitchens, ‘god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’; Sam Harris, ‘The End of Faith’; www.carpediembc.com.
(Edited version published in the Sept. 13, 2007 edition of the Martlet)
Conversational Intolerance
Religious belief is a unique case where truth claims are held immune to critical examination in a spineless appeal to “tolerance”. That religious claims ought to be tolerated on the basis of mere conviction is ridiculous. Religious claims are no different than claims in any other topic of discourse, either they are true or they are not true, and absurd claims in religion that are clearly false should be denounced as such, particularly if belief in the truth of these claims have clear negative consequences.
An overwhelming amount of the violence and conflict in the world today arises out of religious truth claims. It ought to be obvious that a critical analysis of religious claims should be the highest priority to global society. Instead, through much of the western world the concept of religious “tolerance” has lead to religious truth claims becoming exempt from critical scrutiny. It is time to challenge this special “tolerance” that insulates religion from criticism and promote what Sam Harris calls “conversational intolerance” against truth claims that either lack evidence or are in direct contradiction to established evidence.
The most basic function of academic discourse in a post-secondary institution is to critically examine all claims to truth. Religion makes some very potent claims indeed. They inform the political decisions and life trajectories of the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, and have deep consequences for the survival of global society. If a chemist claims that they have discovered the lost secret to alchemy and can turn lead into gold we do not respect their belief, we demand evidence. If a doctor claims she can cure cancer with leeches we do not “tolerate” her strong conviction, we revoke her license to practice. If a pilot attempts to clairvoyantly steer his airplane through mountain clouds without navigational instrumentation we do not judge his claim on the basis of how strongly he believes it, we ground him and send him to a psychiatrist. Lives depend upon us demanding evidence for these claims and marginalizing those who fail the test of evidence.
Religion is the only area where truth claims are treated differently. Lives depend upon these questions, and possibly even the survival of our civilization. Either condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa is a sin or not. Either the souls of unbelievers will be eternally tortured in hell or not. Either apostasy should result in beheading in this world or not. Either God promised Israel to the Jews or not. Either those who die in defence of Islam will get 72 virgins in paradise or not. Millions of lives hang on the truth or falsity of these claims. It is long past time for us to treat the truth claims of religion with the same rigorous scrutiny that we treat claims in medicine, engineering, chemistry, economics, and plumbing.
Further reading: The End of Faith, Sam Harris; Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett.
(edited version published in Sept. 6, 2007 edition of the Martlet)
An overwhelming amount of the violence and conflict in the world today arises out of religious truth claims. It ought to be obvious that a critical analysis of religious claims should be the highest priority to global society. Instead, through much of the western world the concept of religious “tolerance” has lead to religious truth claims becoming exempt from critical scrutiny. It is time to challenge this special “tolerance” that insulates religion from criticism and promote what Sam Harris calls “conversational intolerance” against truth claims that either lack evidence or are in direct contradiction to established evidence.
The most basic function of academic discourse in a post-secondary institution is to critically examine all claims to truth. Religion makes some very potent claims indeed. They inform the political decisions and life trajectories of the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, and have deep consequences for the survival of global society. If a chemist claims that they have discovered the lost secret to alchemy and can turn lead into gold we do not respect their belief, we demand evidence. If a doctor claims she can cure cancer with leeches we do not “tolerate” her strong conviction, we revoke her license to practice. If a pilot attempts to clairvoyantly steer his airplane through mountain clouds without navigational instrumentation we do not judge his claim on the basis of how strongly he believes it, we ground him and send him to a psychiatrist. Lives depend upon us demanding evidence for these claims and marginalizing those who fail the test of evidence.
Religion is the only area where truth claims are treated differently. Lives depend upon these questions, and possibly even the survival of our civilization. Either condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa is a sin or not. Either the souls of unbelievers will be eternally tortured in hell or not. Either apostasy should result in beheading in this world or not. Either God promised Israel to the Jews or not. Either those who die in defence of Islam will get 72 virgins in paradise or not. Millions of lives hang on the truth or falsity of these claims. It is long past time for us to treat the truth claims of religion with the same rigorous scrutiny that we treat claims in medicine, engineering, chemistry, economics, and plumbing.
Further reading: The End of Faith, Sam Harris; Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett.
(edited version published in Sept. 6, 2007 edition of the Martlet)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)