The Very, Very Selfish Gene
Some of the most enlightened thinkers of our day, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens are deeply troubled by the influence that religion has on some many people in a world where religion appears to be entirely irrelevant. They paint religion as dangerous and evil and are “crusaders” for rationality.
The fact is that they, like Don Quixote, have taken on something that is far more formidable than they imagined. It is most ironic that the author of “The Selfish Gene” should be so unaware of just how selfish the human gene can be – it pays his rationality meager respect, allowing him the indulgence – in a sense, humoring him.
The fact is, it is the selfish gene that has given us religion. In plain evolutionary terms, if it were not so (that religion provided some measure of selective advantage), then it might be a variety of cultural practices that was lost very early in the "evolutionary" tree of possible practices.
To comprehend the extent of the selfishness of genes in subjecting us to religion, we must first contemplate human behaviour generally.
It is clear, from casual observation, that human life is governed in the main by habitual and instinctive behaviour. If it were not so, we would exhaust our energies through a daily analysis of the best way to behave in every situation we encounter.
So, as we went to clean our teeth, we would be forced to contemplate the various methods of teeth-cleaning and their long-term effectiveness and we would need to have long discourse on the data before breakfast. Clearly, life cannot go on like that.
Fortunately, we are able to suspend our skepticism about the merits of teeth cleaning and go on as if the evidence was clearly in its favour. We have an innate probability mechanism which advises us that “9 out of 10 dentists can’t be wrong” – that, despite the obvious benefit to many parties financially of you engaging in teeth attention activity daily – the dentist (yes, you are reminded every day of their product), toothpaste and toothbrush manufacturers, health professionals and so on.
When rationality is allowed an indulgence, it is usually fairly superficial. Which route should I take to work today to arrive on time? This is not “rocket science”. The drover’s dog could probably work it out with a bit of trial and error. Systematic rationality – science – is almost entirely absent from our daily operation. Sure, it was imperative in the development of so much that we depend upon. But it has so little bearing on our daily routine – governed by whim, fad, fashion and self-deceit.
Who would be a scientist? Not only must a scientist defeat their own innate desire for irrational behaviour, but when they do work something out, they receive no credit until they are subjected to a thorough workover by their peers and then they are ignored by nearly everybody in the world. The return on investment is meager indeed.
Truly, scientists only do science because they are obsessive. The selfish gene has allowed a certain proportion of population to have minds that thrive on little else but the hope of discovery or the satisfaction of finding that what they guess at is right. Were it not so, humans would have little advantage over their evolutionary brethren and a big brain would be a waste of energy.
In the main, however, the very selfish gene would prefer that many remain ignorant and tied to behaviour predicated on crude rules of thumb rather than rational contemplation. Further, it finds that too much thinking makes the individual arrogantly suppose that their comfort and well-being are important and makes them attempt to hijack the natural process of reproducing the gene.
It serves the very selfish gene better if a person is so brain-washed that they believe that sex is for procreation, not pleasure. It works even better if the male of the species believes the female to be of so little worth that rape is institutional. It works even better if the female is bound to a counter-intuitive contract of monogamy. It works even better if promiscuous females are killed, since they will dilute the gene pool and threaten survival of the very selfish gene. It works even better if the offspring are inculcated with this value system as young as possible, to reduce the possibility that they will harbour heretical (rational) notions that work to bring it undone.
This describes what religion is all about. In “Letter to a Christian Nation”, Sam Harris ponders the Christian Right’s preoccupation with sex in the face of massive human suffering. He wonders about the morality of religious teaching on sexuality that causes so much suffering. Clearly, in terms of humanity, it is immensely immoral and only the very blind will not see that.
But morality does not come into play in religion. Religion is a system of thought impervious to moral thinking, as this simply blurs the clear imperatives to reproduce as efficiently as possible.
Religion condemns masturbation. Clearly, masturbation is an individual engaging in satisfaction of itself, not the imperatives of the very selfish gene. Condemning the practice on rational grounds would be stupid. Only myth provides sufficient fear and self-loathing to be effective. “Don’t do that or you’ll go blind” is just a secular version of “You will rot in hell if you do that.”
The very selfish gene is a fascist and its propaganda machine is religion. It cares not a fig for truth or rationality. It cares only for its own survival, no matter how much the individual must suffer. But it has, perhaps, become victim to its own experiment. The mind that can generate religion is just as capable of dreaming of a civilisation that could exist (despite the evidence around it to the contrary) for the pleasure and comfort of human beings.
It is this civilisation, with human values as the centerpiece, which threatens to overthrow the fascist selfish gene. We have only to observe how prolific pornography is on the internet to realise that there are a good many people who don’t give a damn about meeting real people, copulating and reproducing when virtual sex is on offer. Virtual sex is not embarrassing, does not involve assault, and is not binding or restrictive, but, most of all, it carries not implication of responsibility for off-spring. It is no wonder the “moral” campaigners of the religious right are so set of Internet censorship.
In "Letter to a Christian Nation" Sam Harris provides some disconcerting statistics on the Islamisation of developed countries. But his observations have a most disconcerting conclusion of which he is no doubt aware. The religious of the world are out-reproducing the rational. The very selfish gene is winning.
The fleas are multiplying.