What do you think of Dawkins' sentiments?

Richard Dawkins says: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Is this true? If it's all nothing, how is he able to say there is no good and evil? The ideas and debates we have must mean we have a conscience. Without a conscience, there would be no discussion and nothing to think about. Dawkins would not have the clarity to make this statement without a conscience.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

LeopoldBloom · M

We evolved what we call a conscience as a way to limit individual selfishness for the good of society. This is because human beings are social animals. Since we are more likely to survive in society than we are by ourselves, a conscience is beneficial. "Good" and "evil" are value terms we use to refer to things that either promote thriving or increase suffering respectively. If people lived by themselves in the forest and never interacted with each other, they wouldn't have developed consciences or any concept of good and evil, since these mainly exist with respect to how we treat others. There wouldn't be very many of us if we lived that way, either.

emiliya · 22-25, F

@LeopoldBloom If a conscience is beneficial, why do we suffer for it? I have seen that badness brings success. Being good is loss, loss of all things material, possibly more. Prophets were killed for delivering God's message. Jesus' followers had to suffer for being good. A rich man is rich because he hasn't given his money to the poor. This cooperation we talk about is only that. It is one small part of life, a very superficial one.

LeopoldBloom · M

@emiliya We suffer because the universe doesn't care how we feel about any of this. Conscience isn't beneficial to the individual, it's beneficial to society. A society where individuals don't have a conscience won't survive because its members will take advantage of each other. That may be good for them in the short term, but not for the long-term prosperity of that society because none of the members will trust each other. A society where people cooperate because they don't want to feel shame or guilt for not cooperating will outcompete societies that don't have that feature. So evolution favored development of conscience as it results in more people being born and surviving long enough to reproduce.

Jesus' followers are doing pretty well these days. If you want to see suffering, try being openly atheist in a small town in rural America.

Cooperation is the basis of human society. Society wouldn't exist without it. Religion is just one form of cooperation. Government is another.

emiliya · 22-25, F

@LeopoldBloom I think God is the universe. The universe cares, and it lets us live as we do. If it changed, we would no longer be able to exist. You seem like a moral person who has very moral views and opinions. You don't like Trump, you want abortion for women, you believe Israel's way of defending itself is right. You and I may disagree, but we are both moral for having thoughts and desiring to share them. We were born this way.

“Cooperation is the basis of human society. Society wouldn't exist without it. Religion is just one form of cooperation. Government is another.”

Cooperation is cooperation. It is practical and has nothing to do with morality. Morality is as big and real and fundamental as air.