Talk:God's utility function

Template:WikiProject GeneticsI am a deep supporter of Dawkins' views, but this article appears to me as a bit of one-side biased. I don't mean to say we should put any kind of creationism in there, just clean it all up to reflect a more neutral view. Some claims here sound as universally accepted at least, while some appear as outright quotes - and the phrase "as Dawkins says it best" doesn't really belong here.

--82.139.47.117 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Dawkins invented this phrase. So, I think it is right to present his views here. That is not to say that we shouldn't include other sources here. I'll edit the article again when I have a chance. Fred Hsu 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science or Metaphysics?

I'm really unclear about what Dawkins intent is here...is he describing the mechanics of how he thinks evolution occurs or is he making a statement about the metaphysical implications of the evolutionary process. As is, it seems the latter. For example, it is said in the article that he asserts: "it is a mistake to assume that an ecosystem or a species as a whole exists for a purpose. In fact, it is wrong to suppose that individual organisms lead a meaningful life either. In nature, only genes have a utility function – to perpetuate their own existence with indifference to great sufferings inflicted upon the organisms they build, exploit and discard" Well yes, but that goes without saying, doesn't it? Doesn't the methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific process basically assume that metaphysical concepts "purpose" and "meaning" are unimportant in the first place? If the whole point of the "God's utility function" is that it is an argument for why genes themselves, as opposed to species or groups, are the units on which natural selection acts, then I certainly didn't get it from article---this article seems to be more about how life is cruel, but hey, blame genes for that. If that is all there really is to this term---or if Dawkin's discussion of it is so tied to all this rhetoric about the how cruel genes are, than I don't think it contributes anything that isn't already in the Gene-centered view of evolution. Corbmobile (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins was addressing theists' claim that science could not address the purpose of life, and that science could only address how but not why. Dawkins went on to show that the purpose of any life was to propagate genes, and nothing more. There is no higher meaning to life, other than to propagate genes. That is, the answer to the question, "why is there life", is simply "so that genes can propagate".

One could argue that this inference can be drawn directly from the gene-centered view of evolution. But most people don't make that connection spontaneously. It takes an eloquent writer such as Dawkins to make this plain. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "Dawkins went on to show that the purpose of any life was to propagate genes and nothing more," then that addresses not "purpose" but "causation". You also say, "There is no higher meaning to life, other than to propagate genes"...and I must say I don't follow at all. Unless "meaning" should be read as "explain for", then this is very clearly a metaphysical statement---because from a position of methodological naturalism, life never had any relevant "meaning" in the first place, and if even if the gene-centered view of evolution is correct, the propagation of genes being the only relevant factor in selection doesn't have any meaning either, it is simply what happens according to observable natural laws.

As for the idea that Dawkin's eloquence (and I don't deny it is largely that) makes his theory clearer---I think the opposite is true. His eloquence may help him reinforce his position about how silly the notion of teleology in nature is, but it only obfuscates his point about the gene-centered view of evolution. He makes it, yes, but he doesn't seem very interested in the thing itself (which, seeing as he is an ethologist by training, not a geneticist, isn't surprising). The other commenter on this page said, "I don't mean to say we should put any kind of creationism in there..." speaks to the fact pretty well. Dawkin's is supposed to be addressing the an example that reinforces his position on a scientific theory about how evolution works; but all his examples seem concerned as much with the idea, "God could not possibly be just, therefore he doesn't exist".

I don't think you can argue this is more accessible than anything by E.O. Wilson. It is more literary and less abstract, but I don't think that in any way means it explains his point more clearly. If anything, I can't help but think that people might come away from this with the idea that genes actually have intentions. In fine, this article ought to be drastically shortened or gotten rid of all together. Just because Dawkin's is well known and has many best selling books doesn't mean that every term he ever came up with should have a page of it's own. Corbmobile (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]