Dawkin's logic is understandable.  Everyone is for himself/herself.  You cannot deny that of the altruistic deeds that you have done, whether charity or community service, some of them do have hidden goals; altruism is merely a means to an end.  However, in light of the fact that humans and animals (to an unknown extent) have developed a thinking process we believe to be far superior in logically and causally explaining how or why we perform certain actions.  In this case, is the "selfish gene" theory simply an oversimplified (or the brainchild of some crazy guy's attempt to explain the capricious headlines on the newspaper) theory of human action?

All opinions are welcome--scientific, philosophical, or whatever you can think of.

Post edited at 10:48 pm on Jan. 13, 2008 by TRIPonME

-------
Read what's up there ^, not here!

But broadly you're right, and the theory is sound for now.

-------
Massive, epic adventure, multi-coloured, multi-layered.
Sort of two/three dimensional Wizard of Oz for the future.

However, to definitively conclude that true altruism is an impossibility, would be highly presumptuous.

"Men are judged by their deeds, not their motives."


-------
Why are we here, if we are here at all?

animals = brutality

Human beings = brutality

That is why we are called by those ancient prophets "sinned people".

-------
A man is not justified by the works of the Law,
but through faith in Christ Jesus. [Rom 3:22; 9:30]