Talk:God's utility function

Needs rewrite

Newer sections go below older sections, thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codwiki (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC) This definitely needs a rewrite. The concept of God's utility function is much more precise and can be explained without all this metaphysical lingo. The use of "God" is metaphorical to mean: What are the living things in ecosystems striving to maximize? Dawkins does include some personal jabs at why questions and religion but they are incidental to the concept that this article is describing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.53.191.107 (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Christ, this thing reads like pure propaganda. It doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to a neutral, encyclopedic entry. Not only is it clearly biased, but it's written like a magazine article or essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.79.2 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 "explanation 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. And according to Dawkin's viewpoint, I imagine the answer to the question, "Why is there life?" would be, "Because a billion or so years ago, the conditions were such on earth that certain basic proteins formed extremely simple self-replicating units, which through natural selection eventually became single celled organisms." The fact that he thinks genes are the primary units of selection has nothing, or very little, to do with that.

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)

You are arguing from the point of someone who has a firm grasp of how biology and natural selection work. You do not need (or no longer need) to approach gene-centric view of evolution using analogies. You can afford to use long sentences such as "...the conditions were such on earth that certain basic proteins formed extremely simple self-replicating units, which through natural selection eventually became single celled organisms...", every time you make a point.

But understand that the intended audience of Dawkins comprises mostly people who may not have been fortunate enough to have your background. Our evolutionary history predisposes us to more readily internalize physical world by intents, emotions, actors, causations and yes, purposes (oops, did I just commit the same sin?). For Dawkins' audience, explanations using these accessible analogies help them understand evolutionary concepts tremendously (myself included). Whether you like it or not, Dawkins has been successful in winning converts to evolution by natural selection because of this fact ever since The Selfish Gene.

Sadly, he still has to spend pages in every single book (The Greatest Show on Earth included) detailing why and how he uses these analogies, in order that he not be misquoted by creationists, or worst, be attacked by fellow evolutionists for such usage. Fred Hsu (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have simply come to an impasse and probably can't agree. My main concerns are that Dawkins, or the way this article is presenting his argument, is creating a false sense of teleology in genes, as was Gould's objection. Also, Dawkin's analogies, while they do illustrate his point, also distract from it by alluding to other points. The fact that Pacific Salmon die a few days after spawning may illustrate the "God utility function"; but the fact that a dog chases its own tail (as mine does) may prove it just as well: both might be things the animal would rather not do, but are impelled to do because these things ensure the survival of their genes (in the case of my dog, you could say that his genes have made his attention to his own peripheral vision a bit more important than, in his particular case, it needs to be, because he does need to make sure some other animal is going to steal his kill, because he is spoiled domestic dog---I admit that I don't know if this is actually true based on research, but it certainly could be). The fact, however, that Dawkins can't use more neutral examples to prove his points shows, in my mind, that is just as concerned with theodicy (evil proves God does not exist, and the selfishness of our genes may as well be evil incarnate) as he is with biology. I also think that the point of this article should not be to win converts to evolution, but to win them to the gene-centered view of evolution away from, say, the phenotype-centered view of Gould and Lewontin. I don't feel qualified to edit the article myself, but I can't help but urge you, that if you are concerned with Dawkins' theories being clearly understood, this article should 1) make it quite clear that that our "gene overlords" are only overlords in a metaphorical sense, and 2) should cut at least some of his examples, many of which are simply redundant (the seventh paragraph, for example, has three examples proving the same thing where one would quite clearly). I am not saying that there isn't merit in writing science like literature...the problem is when the literary elements overwhelm and obscure the science rather than make it clearer, which is at least what I take away from this. Corbmobile (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Huntington's disease and anticipation

I am reverting 71.193.28.243's good-faith removal of the sentence describing late-onset diseases and in particular Huntington's disease. While due to Anticipation (genetics), largely from paternal inheritance, the disease manifests earlier and earlier in subsequent generations, it is not clear that the disease will be extinguished also via the maternal lineage. Lineages involving hundreds of years of generations have been documented.

Can someone produce more convincing proof? Fred Hsu (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Flawed logic

The logic of the argument in this article seems badly flawed. By the same logic, if a gene had a utility function, we wouldn't have contraceptives, abortions, animal-rights activism, and a myriad of other energy-consuming activities that have a negative effect on the "goal" of spreading our genes.

I think this article must have a "criticism" section in which criticism such as this would be displayed, with citations to official publications. I don't do this myself because I don't have time to look for official publications on this topic.

--Erel Segal (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not material for an article

Well, I agree with most of the points made above over the past many years. The article is essay-like, and sourced only to Dawkins's book, which is already covered in an article of its own, River Out of Eden. It is one-sided and unencyclopedic, and frankly if only Dawkins uses the phrase, it fails WP:N and WP:GNG; even as a Darwinist, I can't see why we would want an article on one chapter of one of Dawkins's books: after all, there are plenty of other chapters. No, the coverage in the section of the book article (also not cited to anything, but that's just about bearable in an article on a book) says all that is needed. Given that (on the evidence of this talk page) people have for years thought this article unsatisfactory, I'm redirecting this now as the consensus action that should have been taken a long time ago. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)