Christian geneticist debates atheist biologist

[Cypress]

Richard Dawkins:
the behavior of Oscar Schindler - or anyone who risks practicing a radical altruism for the welfare of complete strangers - is not explainable by evolutionary advantage, but it is explainable as a result of misfiring of neurotransmitters.

Francis Collins:
it doesn't ring true that Schindler's radical altruism, or the transcendent effect of beauty and music on humans is just explained by neurotransmitters misfiring. These seem to be signposts pointing to something beyond evolutionary biology and the altruism of mutual advantage.

 

[Daylight63]

Many species of animal are known to care for orphans of their species.

I disagree with Dawkins' characterization of this level of altruism as a "misfiring" (even in the non-pejorative meaning) simply because this form of altruism is little more than a different scale of normal altruism which we all agree animals can and do show instinctually.

If you think about it: my dog attempting to protect me from a much larger dog is a "misfiring" of the instinct. My dog will 100% be killed by the larger dog but he does his level best. I doubt very highly my dog is making a conscious decision to protect me. Certainly he isn't thinking about it.

I am a bit more fond of the "misfiring" label, however, because at the extremes there simply are TOO FEW Oskar Schindlers in the world. It is clearly NOT a normal human behavior or we wouldn't have isolated heroes like that to honor and several million jews would not be dead from the Holocaust. But I still don't see it as something that requires the invocation of something "else" to explain it.

Whence do you think these impulses arise? And why are they somehow separable from when we see similar behavior in other animals?

 

[Cypress]

Many species of animal are known to care for orphans of their species.

That's a turbo-charged maternal instinct observed rarely in a few higher mammal species.

Oskar Schindler did not have a maternal instinct.

Males of animal species will also kill the offspring of rivals, and it's considered perfectly normal in the animal world and the evolutionary framework.

Anyway you slice it, Richard Dawkins is conceding that human moral behavior such as Oskar Schindler does not conform to expected standards of evolutionary biology. I think he used to try to claim human morals can be explained by evolutionarybiology. .

 

[T. A. Gardner]

 

[Daylight63]

That's a turbo-charged maternal instinct observed rarely in a few higher mammal species.

So is your feeling that they don't differ merely by scale but it represents a wholly different concept from what we see in the animal kingdom? Like how the rules of classical physics don't apply at the quantum level? That sort of difference?

Anyway you slice it, Richard Dawkins is conceding that human moral behavior such as Oskar Schindler does not conform to expected standards of evolutionary biology. I think he used to try to claim human morals can be explained by evolutionarybiology. .

So I guess the question then is: what could the answer possibly be?

The reason I say this is because we don't have anything else to work with to explain these things. I mean we both agree that animals have many of these instincts naturally but that humans take it to the next level by adding in what our giant brains are able to bring to the party. But I'm trying to figure out if it is NECESSARY to add in some special "something else" or if the answer might be far more boring that we expect. That all these things we do really are just extensions of our natural inclinations coupled with our unique ability to attempt to interpret our own actions.

 

[Cypress]

So is your feeling that they don't differ merely by scale but it represents a wholly different concept from what we see in the animal kingdom? Like how the rules of classical physics don't apply at the quantum level? That sort of difference?



So I guess the question then is: what could the answer possibly be?

The reason I say this is because we don't have anything else to work with to explain these things. I mean we both agree that animals have many of these instincts naturally but that humans take it to the next level by adding in what our giant brains are able to bring to the party. But I'm trying to figure out if it is NECESSARY to add in some special "something else" or if the answer might be far more boring that we expect. That all these things we do really are just extensions of our natural inclinations coupled with our unique ability to attempt to interpret our own actions.

A good scientist will say we currently just don't know how to explain certain things about humans at the level of physics and chemistry.

Dawkins is a bullshitter and a bad scientist when he waves his arms around and confidently babbles about Oskar Schindler and misfiring neurotransmitters.

 

[Margot]

Richard Dawkins:
the behavior of Oscar Schindler - or anyone who risks practicing a radical altruism for the welfare of complete strangers - is not explainable by evolutionary advantage, but it is explainable as a result of misfiring of neurotransmitters.

Francis Collins:
it doesn't ring true that Schindler's radical altruism, or the transcendent effect of beauty and music on humans is just explained by neurotransmitters misfiring. These seem to be signposts pointing to something beyond evolutionary biology and the altruism of mutual advantage.

Schindler knew the difference between right and wrong

 

[Cypress]

Schindler knew the difference between right and wrong

Obviously his conscience told him the right thing to do, even though he was originally hoping to make a lot of money collaborating with the Nazis.

 

[Margot]

Obviously his conscience told him the right thing to do, even though he was originally hoping to make a lot of money collaborating with the Nazis.

He did both!

 

[Cypress]

He did both!

I think risking his life and his money to save thousands of strangers ultimately left him destitute.

I don't see how the laws of Darwin, survival, and physical materialism have any explanatory power for that.

Dawkin's vague and nebulous 'explanation' that misfiring neurons caused it is almost a comedy routine.

 

[Daylight63]

A good scientist will say we currently just don't know how to explain certain things about humans at the level of physics and chemistry.

Dawkins is a bullshitter and a bad scientist when he waves his arms around and confidently babbles about Oskar Schindler and misfiring neurotransmitters.

So where does it come from? What other factors do we have to consider?

 

[Margot]

I think risking his life and his money to save thousands of strangers ultimately left him destitute.

I don't see how the laws of Darwin, survival, and physical materialism have any explanatory power for that.

Dawkin's vague and nebulous 'explanation' that misfiring neurons caused it is almost a comedy routine.

The Jews,helped him after the war!

 

[Daylight63]

The Jews,helped him after the war!

I wonder if it was God letting people know he exists by showing us that people like Oskar Schindler can step out of the normal bounds to help a group under attack.

 

[Cypress]

The Jews,helped him after the war!

Yes they did. But he didn't risk his life and his money for strangers in the early 1940s in the expectation they would give him an award and a stipend years later.

Geogio Perlasca didn't risk his life to save all those Jews in Hungary in the expectation of reward or mutual benefit. The way I remember it, he went back to Italy and never bragged to anyone about what he did in Hungary.

 

[Daylight63]

Yes they did. But he didn't risk his life and his money for strangers in the early 1940s in the expectation they would give him an award and a stipend years later.

Geogio Perlasca didn't risk his life to save all those Jews in Hungary in the expectation of reward or mutual benefit. The way I remember it, he went back to Italy and never bragged to anyone about what he did in Hungary.

So is it possible that the existence of these SUPERCHARGED "instinctual moral actions" (above and beyond anything that other animals would do normally) is a signal of something ELSE that explains these actions?

What is that something else? Is this possibly a definition of "God"?

 

[Cypress]

So is it possible that the existence of these SUPERCHARGED "instinctual moral actions" (above and beyond anything that other animals would do normally) is a signal of something ELSE that explains these actions?

What is that something else? Is this possibly a definition of "God"?

My two ideas are that 1) it either means we have not yet developed a scientific discipline that can examine these questions, or that 2) there is something about human conciousness and subjective psychological experience we will never understand; it's not a scientific question.

Francis Collins - who is a far better and more sophisticated scientist than Dawkins - claims that this moral law is one of the signposts he believes points to the transcendent and divine.

Dawkins is just basically a zoologist who doesn't have the deep world-class understanding of biochemistry, genetics, and physical chemistry that Collins does. I think that's why the video shows Collins laughing when Dawkins is flailing around and muttering about misfiring neurons.

 

[Daylight63]

My two ideas are that 1) it either means we have not yet developed a scientific discipline that can examine these questions, or that 2) there is something about human conciousness and subjective psychological experience we will never understand, it's not a scientific question.

Certainly if we take it out of the scientific arena, there's a lot more flexibility in terms of discovering the possible workings.

Francis Collins, who is a far better and more sophisticated scientist than Dawkins,

Why do you say that? I see them as taking the obvious two sides of the debate, both of which are perfectly rational and since both men are scientists by training they both understand what each side represents.

Collins appears to be of the mind that the beauty of nature and the universe inspires in him a sense of the "divine" and since he is a believer in God it is quite simple to look at all the wonderful stuff in nature and say it reflects on the creator AS WELL AS ALL THE USUAL SCIENCE the Creator set in motion. It's a super attractive position for those who wish to square their faith and a life in the sciences.

Dawkins is looking at the same stuff and being SIMILARLY AMAZED at the beauty of nature, but he's limiting his explanations to only those things which he has available that all observers can perceive in a common way.

There's nothing that says Collins HAS TO BE WRONG and there's nothing to say Dawkins HAS TO BE RIGHT. But as a scientist, Dawkins is definitely adhering to the "rules" of science especially that around parsimony and unfalsifiability.

That doesn't mean Collins is wrong. Not by a long shot. Collins could definitely be right. But it's just not a scientific approach to the question.

So yeah, maybe we need to pull this topic out of science altogether so that we might access explanations that throw the doors wide open. Maybe that is where truth resides.

Dawkins is just basically a zoologist who doesn't have the deep world-class understanding of biochemistry, genetics, and physical chemistry that Collins does.

So you think the man who initially made his fame writing extensively on evolution and gathered a huge following and many scientific admirers doesn't understand genetics and biochem? I would probably question that claim.

I think that's why the video shows Collins laughing when Dawkins is flailing around and muttering about misfiring neurons.

I fear that those who espouse a more religious position simply assume their knowledge is RIGHT by definition. That's why religion has such a tough time in the sciences. Religion doesn't really brook "uncertainty" and why should it? It is from the almighty creator of the universe. Of course such truth is incontrovertible. And it is the weakness of science to say "We never really know anything perfectly, since our source is simply our flawed imperfect observation".

The two sides aren't even really playing the same game. But only one comes on the field claiming they have won the game before it starts. And the largest hole in the claim is that few other observers will agree with the explanation because God "appears" to all believers in a way unique to their needs.