Some Comments on Darwin's Dangerous Idea
written by Ray Andrews
Dennett's goal is not only to prove evolution, but at the same time to disprove religion (specifically violent, fundamentalist, cultist religions, but in fact all religions and God along with them). My one-sentence response is this: if he is ready to proclaim that God is not necessary, and therefore that God does not exist, he had better be right.
He spent all his time talking about the past, leading up to and including today. That concerns me very little. What concerns me is today and everything that comes after it.
Let me state my primary case against evolution as the one and only (I have no problem with creatures adapting somewhat, but going from one species to another, and most critically from lifelessness to humans with all the intermediates all by accident is beyond my ability to accept regardless of the 'evidence') cause of everything that exists. Here it is:
If there is no God, then life is pointless. There is no meaning at all for doing anything. Whatever I do with my life, I will die someday. Any children I have, and all their offspring, they will die someday. Anything I create (like books, for instance), will disappear someday. Why should I waste my time working at a job for 30 years, investing in a family, etc., if everything will be destroyed someday? Why should I waste my time being nice to other people? After all, they will just die someday. It might make us both 'feel better,' but so what? If life is only about 'feeling good,' then I suggest spending every moment of your life doing things that bring pleasure to you. What if other people are hurt or killed in the process? Who cares? They will all die someday anyway. I should do everything I can to maximize my own pleasure...and make sure to kill myself before I am caught.
On a larger scale, if existence is about 'survival of the fittest,' then powerful, wealthy nations should dominate and enslave weaker nations and force them to do all the work (so that the rich and powerful can spend all their time pursuing their pleasures, of course). The rich and powerful nations should take all the wealth from weaker nations; they should kill all the men (and the children, too, of course; no sense in leaving behind young ones who could grow up and become a threat in the future) and enslave the women for the pleasure of its own citizens.
Protecting the environment is pointless and a foolish waste of energy. It will all burn up someday anyway, so we should use as much of it as we need to right now to maximize our own pleasure.
By the way, I am describing 'natural selection' here. In the world today (as Dennett points out in his book), it is common for males to mate with as many females as possible, to kill the offspring from other competing males. It is common for females to eat the males as soon as they have been impregnated. It is common for parents to eat their young, for siblings to kill each other. Why should humans be any different?
Somehow, along the evolutionary chain, one solitary species stopped spending all its energy looking out for Number One and started asking itself if it was doing 'the right thing.' Suddenly, we feel guilty if we rape a defenseless woman or drive over the speed limit or kill a hundred thousand people by dropping an atomic bomb on them or cheat on a test or lie about our age. Why should we care if we are doing the right thing? Remember, everything will die and be utterly destroyed someday.
Dennett has a pretty convincing argument. Who knows, he might be right; we will never know in this life with 100% certainty either that God exists or that God does not exist. That's why it's called 'faith.' If God does not exist, there is no harm in believing in God (as long as we are not fanatical). However, If God does exist, the consequences of failing to find out what God expects of us could be disastrous and eternal. Could be. The irony, of course, is that we won't know until we get there (until we die), and by that time it is too late.
An analogy (or 'thought experiment,' as Dennett likes to call it): There are two people in two separate rooms. In each room there is a table with a gun on it. Both people are told that the gun is loaded. Then they are told that they have a choice, either to put the gun to their head and pull the trigger or not to pick up the gun. One person, chosing to accept 'on faith' (there cannot be proof that the gun is loaded or not until the trigger is pulled) that what he has been told is true, chooses not to pick up the gun. The other person, choosing to believe that there is a chance (a slight chance, a strong chance, it doesn't matter) that what he has been told is false, begins a lengthy investigation. He studies other guns, calculates their weights, calculates the weights of bullets, studies how guns are built, studies the origin and evolution of gunpowder and gunsmithing, studies the possibility that someone may have accidentally forgotten to put the bullets in...studies whatever he wants to try to convince himself that there must be some way to explain that what he has been told is false. After all, he cannot see the bullets, nor did he see anyone put bullets in the gun. Confidently proclaiming that there are no bullets in the gun, he picks it up, puts it to his head, and pulls the trigger.
Everybody's body will die someday. Either everything that we are will die and disappear forever, or something else will happen. Which is the wise course of action to pursue?