Josh, there is so much here. I find myself typing and erasing, typing and erasing because I don’t know where to start best.
I feel like you have a slight misconception about natural selection.
For instance here:
I'm still not convinced that certain experiences of beauty are primarily pragmatic.
It is not your
experience of beauty that is necessarily pragmatic, but your
ability to experience beauty that proved itself to be pragmatic.
Here is another misconception:
But I also wonder if certain features of humanity were really necessary for it's survival or it's ability to compete.
Natural selection isn’t an intelligent designer. It doesn’t ask itself: is this feature necessary or not? Features that are necessary will be reproduced but also features that aren’t necessary, as long as they don’t stand in the way of a successful reproduction. Take our wisdom teeth (again
). They aren’t necessary; we could perfectly do without them. But they aren’t hindering our reproductive success either, so the genetic information that will lead to the creation of wisdom teeth in the future is being past on.
As you will find reading on in the God Delusion, Dawkins will talk about side-effects of evolution.
Now back to your post in chronological order.
If naturalists start with the premise that whatever traits currently exist in a species
must have had a pragmatic reason for arising, then how objective can they be in a discussion of whether there are some facets, abilities, and desires in species that didn't arise merely by natural selection?
But Josh, this question could just as easily be turned around. If you start with the premise that we are entirely created by God how are you gonna be objective in finding out what parts of us actually haven’t got a divine origin?
Real objectivity is hard to get. Everybody, scientist or not, operates from his personal reality. With personal reality I mean our individual experience, the things we’ve learned, the impressions and opinions we have gathered. All this shaped our view on things and it is often hard to be really objective. Maybe even impossible.
But I would argue that every
educated person at least
should be aware that the own truth is fragile. Every scientist knows that what we hold for the truth today could be ditched tomorrow. A fossil in the wrong layer of earth would mean the end of the theory of evolution as we know it. The same goes for religious believers: A letter from Peter to a fellow disciple telling him where he buried Jesus’ corpse would mean the end of Christianity as we know it.
So could there be alternative explanations for everything? Of course! How do we know when we finally found the one and only truth? We can’t know. Those who work in the field of evolutionary biology are operating with a theory they put to the test on a daily basis. As long as the theory matches the expectations there is no real reason for them to believe the theory is wrong, wouldn’t you agree?
Here's the problem I see: just because the thirst for beauty in humans can be found to have some pragmatic results doesn't mean that the thirst itself came about by pragmatic means.
But it can mean it. The question was:
Can the
ability to experience beauty be explained with the concept of natural selection. And the answer you gave me was:
Yes, your view is coherent. And it is explanatory.
That’s all. It doesn’t mean that I’m right! Does the experience of beauty make sense if there is a God? Yes! That’s the whole point. The Argument of beauty doesn’t really bring us closer to the truth because there are different explanations that get by independently. It can’t be considered a God proof. Not even evidence for God. It’s just as much evidence for the existence of God as it is evidence for the truth of evolution.
However, though we can point out ways in which a desire for beauty can be beneficial, we can also point out ways in which it is detrimental to the species. Also, we could point to ways the lack of a desire for beauty might actually be more beneficial to humans.
Yes. This again goes for many features we posses. Sometimes it would be better if we didn’t have eyes. How many people have died of heart attack because they have seen something that really startled them (maybe not the best example, but I’m sure you’re getting what I’m saying)? The decisive question is: Is a feature altogether beneficial or not. If you say the lack of a desire for beauty might be more beneficial, I’d like you to be more precise. Do you think we would be better off without this ability? I already argued that the ability of experiencing beauty brings about much more benefit than disadvantages. The disadvantages it brought about weren’t able to stop the successful reproduction of our species, this much is fact.
I can imagine our species thriving just as easily or better with the absence of certain wonderful qualities we have
Do you include the experience of beauty to those qualities? What qualities are you referring to?
and the addition of more pragmatic qualities we don't seem to posess. (hey, this is kind of like the reverse of the discussion about whether or not the human body is optimized!)
Does that mean you agree now that humans aren’t perfect?
Another question: on the other side of the coin, how much has the quest for beauty/ pleasure/desire led to death and impairment in our species?
That’s not measureable. But as I said, it hasn’t led to enough deaths to trouble the reproduction of itself.
The most common human reaction to beauty/ joy/ or the numinous has been to postulate the existence of spirit. Do you see this as beneficial to the species?
Yes. I think it’s pretty much the same as with beauty. The concept of spirit has brought heaps of inspiration (the word inspiration already includes the word spirit) to mankind and was certainly a driving force. Even though it might not be necessary anymore, we have this ability to be spiritual built into us. That’s why I think religion will always succeed no matter in what form. And that’s okay. As long as religious people are aware that they could be wrong too, accept and respect other worldviews and stop acting as if they were talking fact.
Dawkins gets into this at some point, right? He must, because he must first explain that "religion" is an evolutionary phase for humans to progress through, correct?
Patience, my very young Padawan. Just read on
). They aren’t necessary; we could perfectly do without them. But they aren’t hindering our reproductive success either, so the genetic information that will lead to the creation of wisdom teeth in the future is being past on.