by Dave Porter (Sermon delivered to Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Richmond, KY, Dec 10, 2006)
How do you feel?
Confused? Frustrated? Amused? Amazed? Bewildered? Anxious? Detached?
Basically what you are feeling is something within wide range of “normal” reactions of primates confronted with an ambiguous situation. Our two closest relatives, chimps and bonobo react to such situations quite differently, however – agitated standard chimpanzees are likely to become physically aggressive and belligerent and violently enforce dominance hierarchies. Among our cousins the bonobo, on the other hand, anxiety is likely to precipitate a spontaneous love fest… I trust that this morning, your reactions will be somewhat more moderate.
Of all the biological organisms that share this planet, humans appear to be the only ones interested in making sense of things; the only ones that would be concerned about the topic of this mornings conversation. A glib response to the question of what is the meaning of life would be that the meaning of life for humans is, in fact, the process of making meaning itself.
So let’s see how this might work. What if our topic for today would have been “The Adventures of Christopher Columbus?” Is there anything that you know that is relevant to this topic? What did he do? Where did he come from? Where did he go? When? How? Why?
What we have just done is construct a cognitive framework of shared ideas and understanding about a particular historical event. This shared understanding does not necessarily mean we’ve reached complete agreement but it does provide a basis for communicating with one another. It allows us to understand the jibberish with which I began. {Repeat Jibberish}
Recently I had the opportunity to hear a presentation by Chet Raymo on The War of Faith and Science? Although Dr Ramo has authored over a dozen books on physical science and nature, he spent most of the hour telling stories of his own experiences and how he had reconciled his personal ambivalence toward science and faith or, as he put it, between evidence he knew and the experiences he’d had. He made no claim that he understood how to resolve the culture wars that plague our society, but for him a foundation of scientific knowledge about the world around us (and our place within it) was a prerequisite for developing his spiritual side. It reminded me of Gandhi’s famous observation that we each must first become the change we hope to bring about in the wider world.
So you should not be surprised that a behavioral scientist’s speculations about the meaning of life would begin with a review of what the behavioral sciences tell us. As a science, behavioral science is situated within a broader methodology and the integrated body of knowledge it has garnered. The “big bang” over 20 billion years ago is the beginning (we can speculate about what came before but there is no evidence available to confirm or reject alternative hypotheses). The formation of the earth about 6 billion years ago is an important milestone as was the development of complex molecules with a curious capacity for replication. These “replicators” became increasingly complex; some fed on others and some of these others developed the capacity to evade or escape early predators by clumping together and “life” began before the earth celebrated its three billionth birthday.
In understanding the cosmos, the concept of gravity has great explanatory power. It helps us understand why things are the way they are and makes predictions that obtainable evidence can either support or refute. Gravity is not a thing; no one can touch it or feel it directly and yet each of us can confirm its existence through our experiences daily. Understanding gravity helps give our physical world meaning – a good theory helps us to organize and appreciate our experiences.
Darwin’s idea of evolution through natural selection is a lot like the idea of gravity: it is very helpful in understanding life. Theories can organize a plethora of complex and confusing information into comprehensible patterns. Just as gravity explains orbital mechanics and falling apples, evolution through natural selection helps us make sense of the biological worlds of which we are a part. Just like gravity (and relativity) evolution through natural selection has made some remarkable predictions. There is little evidence that Charles Darwin had even been aware of Gregor Mendel’s seminal experiments with green pea genetics when he developed his theory of natural selection. And yet, the accuracy of Darwinian predictions revealed by our investigations of genomes and the DNA they contain is nothing less than astounding. So accurate in fact that it is the statistical equivalent of predicting the distance between the city centers of New York and Los Angeles and finding the error to be only a fraction of an inch.
Darwin’s notion is that very complex and sophisticated organisms develop through a gradual process of natural selection. This idea is not completely new; since humankind has been experimenting with “unnatural selection” for much of the past 12,000 years. Over this period, selective breeding has produced a wide variety of plants and animals shaped by systematic and selective pollination, breeding and insemination programs to meet the needs of human societies. To learn that the environment itself, by “favoring” certain traits and characteristics and acting over millions of years can produce not only a diversity of breeds within a species but can also create entirely new species, is an idea that is staggering in both its simple elegance and profound implications. What the fossil record shows, and the human genome confirms, is that human beings share common ancestors with our nearest relatives, the chimpanzees (with whom we share over 98% of our genes) about 6 million years ago.
I have often found my eye drawn to the painting here on the wall in the front of the church. It provides a graphic depiction of Darwin’s descent (or ascent depending upon one’s perspective) of human kind. If we take this center panel to represent the six billion years since we shared a common ancestor with our chimp cousins, the appearance of humans, homo sapiens sapiens, would occur with the last half inch of the panel (about 2% of the total length). Organized human societies have only existed in the last 10-12,000 years which would fit within the eye of a needle using the same scale. So what evolution has produced in us is the biological equivalent of a super nova – something quite strange and spectacular has occurred in what must seem to any external observer to be an evolutionary instant. We can’t help but wonder why.
Looking at this picture of the evolution of mankind also reminds me of one of one of my favorite cartoons. Imagine a small thought bubble coming out of the heads of each of these creatures representing our evolutionary ancestors. In each bubble but the last appear the words “SURVIVE and REPRODUCE”. In the last bubble, the one emanating from the big brain of the individual representing us, is a question rather than the common two word imperative. In this bubble we find the question “What’s it all about?”
Behavioral scientists (physical anthropologists and ethologists) have also discovered that chimpanzees themselves are composed of two separate species, pans troglodyte, common chimps, and pans bonobo, sometimes referred to as pygmy chimps. These two other species of chimps diverged from one another about three million years ago and developed cultures and habits that are far more distinctive than their physical differences. Basically, pans troglodyte, the common chimp, is large and often quite aggressive. Their social structure is based upon patriarchy (as shown by the difference in size between males and females – called dimorphism). The killing of other members of the species (including infants) is not an uncommon occurrence among many primates and this is true among standard chimps as well. In contrast bonobo chimps organize themselves into matriarchic communities. Hunting other animals is rare and infanticide is virtually unknown among the peaceful bonobo. Sex rather than aggression seems to be the stuff that holds bonobo societies together – sexual intercourse among bonobo is quite frequent (a dozen times a day is not unusual). Since these two species of chimps separated from each other about 3 million years ago (three million years after we all shared a common ancestor), it is not unreasonable to assume that as humans we may well have the genetic capacity to create either type of cultures although examples of human violence and aggression are unfortunately far more common..
There are several characteristics that we share with chimps that distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom. We all can walk on our hind legs (bipedalism), possess opposable thumbs, and have relatively large brains. In our search for an answer to the question of the meaning of life we could spend considerable time exploring each of these characteristics and its implications for us as a species. However it is perhaps even more important to recognize that there is ample evidence to suggest that each of these characteristics developed gradually over time; there is no evidence to support the idea that they are the product of a special endowment or creation. Universal Darwinism suggests that we are not as special as we like to think we are. Just as Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not at the center of the solar system or the universe, Darwin’s theory of evolution shows that humankind is made of exactly the same meaty physical components as the rest of the world’s fauna.
The real danger in Darwin’s idea is that if it is true – and certainly all the available evidence now indicates that it is – our whole way of thinking about ourselves needs to be reconsidered. In essence, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are correct: three thousand years of our sociopolitical and religious self understanding are likely to crumble under the acid of Darwinian inquiry and objective analysis. The beliefs that humans represent a special case, an exception to the laws of nature, endowed by a higher power or highly intelligent designer with characteristics and attributes not found in other animals is simply untenable. We are what we are: one of a wide variety of vehicles that have developed over the past three billion years to serve the reproductive needs of our genes. Our belief in a higher power is simply incompatible with the evidence that we owe our existence and particularly distinctive characteristics to something far simpler – our genes… the progeny of those replicators that appeared about 3 billion years ago.
Although the evidence for such a conclusion is nearly overwhelming, the implications are none the less staggering. Accepting that both the fault and credit for our characteristics lie not within the heavens but within ourselves is like staring into an abyss – a Darwinian abyss. Ironically, as humans we are the first species to become aware of our precarious predicament. Our genes may be immortal but we, each of us, as a unique collection of these little replicators are not. While it is true that half of our genes survive in each of our biological children, in only five generations, the constellation of genes that was each us will have nearly disappeared. Queen Elizabeth II may be the biological heir of William the Conqueror but it is quite possible that she does not possess any of the genes that were uniquely his.
So must we conclude that we and the lives we live are meaningless? The more we know about genes, the less reason we have to respect the “wisdom” they represent. While they have been successful in replicating themselves, there is little to be said for their positive attributes beyond their utility. Perhaps the answer might lie in the organ that enabled us to become aware of this seemingly dismal reality. This organ is of course or brain. Organs, like organisms, are shaped by natural selection and at first glance our brain seems a very unlikely development. It is just so big. In fact, it is so big that human birth is a traumatic and quite dangerous event. Without medical assistance and intervention, as many as one in five human births would result in the death of the mother. There doesn’t seem to be much intelligence in this design. So perhaps we should consider this organ more closely to see what it is and what potential benefits it might offer since it seems to be associated with such an astonishingly high evolutionary cost.
Evolution by natural selection has the habits of a pack rat – it seldom gets rid of anything – it lives in a house with lots of closets and they are all filled with clutter. Much of the human genome is composed of junk (in fact geneticists refer to it as “junk DNA”) – genes that appear to have just come along for the ride – they do influence the development proteins or seem to serve any purpose useful to the human vehicles in which they reside. Similarly evolution by natural selection has provided us with a brain that contains evidence of its far more humble predecessors. In the Dragons of Eden, Carl Sagan popularized the notion of the triune brain. The idea that the human brain is actually composed of three distinct neural systems built on top of one another. Sometimes these systems seem to work in harmony but frequently significant conflicts arise based on their distinctive purposes and structure.
For example the oldest part of our brain is known as the reptilian complex or R-Complex. It is the part of the brain that is shared by all reptiles and mammals. It controls many of the most basic biological functions necessary for survival such as respiration and circulation. It also seems to be associated with sex, aggression and ritualistic behavior. It might even be likened to Freud’s concept of the id – it operates on the pleasure principle and urges immediate gratification regardless of the circumstances. It only accounts for about 5% of our brains’ mass but contains many of the instincts we share with the rest of the animal kingdom.
Another 10% of the brain is common to all mammals. It is the limbic system and developed out of the olfactory system which provides organisms with their sense of smell. It is also associated with memory and emotion. A common characteristic of organisms with well-developed limbic systems is the bond these species have with their offspring. Young fish, turtles, snakes, and salamanders are usually required to fend for themselves from birth. In contrast, young mammals spend some time under the protection of one or more adults of the species. Instinct still seems to play a role in the behavior of some mammals but mammals also have the capacity to “learn” about their environment from experiences. Often this learning occurs in a series of steps of limited exposure controlled directly by parents. It’s easy to see the importance of the functions associated with the limbic system (smell, memory and emotion) in sustaining the connections between organisms and their progeny during this prolonged period of dependence and learning.
The final part of the brain, the neocortex, or outer covering, accounts for about 85% of the human brain mass. Primates have more neocortex than nearly all other mammals and we chimps have more than other primates. Humans in fact have almost twice as much our two chimpanzee cousins. This part of the brain is associated with all the higher cognitive functions in which we take such pride. Our language abilities, capacity to solve problems and puzzles, our penchant for planning and imagination are all manifestations of neocortical activity. In fact, when John Searle noted that “the mind is what the brain does” – most of the doing that we associate with the human mind is done in the neocortex.
So, our big brains, dangerous as they are to our mothers, have been necessary to bring us to a place where we are today. To a position where our systematic inquiry into the physical and biological world has revealed that the meaning we thought life had is at best a useful metaphor. This realization has been referred to as staring into the Darwinian abyss. But wait, there’s more to the story. As necessary as our big brains have been to these discoveries of the way the world works and our place within it, they were not sufficient. Recall that homo sapien sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years. Individuals of our species had brains nearly identical to ours for about 20,000 generations and there is little evidence to suggest that they were bothered by the existential anxiety with which we now wrestle so earnestly. So our big brains were necessary but not sufficient to create this crisis. We needed something else – we needed culture and the capacity to accumulate and organize the ideas that our big brains could produce. Human societies with the capacity for such cultures appear to have developed very recently – in only the last 2,000 human generations or so.
Darwin’s dangerous idea about evolution through natural selection has turned out to be such a powerful explanatory tool, it has been applied to cultures and societies and the ideas within those societies as well. Richard Dawkin’s Selfish Gene introduces the notion of a meme, the conceptual equivalent of the biological gene. Basically, ideas that are good at surviving and reproducing themselves are likely to be represented in increasing numbers in successive generations. Just like genes, memes increase their chances of survival by becoming organized into more complex forms. Such memoplexes are the ideational constituents of human culture. Science itself can be thought of as one of these relatively recent memoplexes.
As collective organisms, cultures must engage the same questions as individuals. They must find ways to survive and reproduce. Cultures must be concerned with their physical existence – Jarrod Diamond’s book, Collapse, documents the variety of ways in which human societies overt the last several thousand years have struggled with their immediate physical environments to sustain themselves. But cultures must also retain their distinctive identity: the artifacts and ideals they value most, their customs and habits, their beliefs about the mundane, the profane, and even the ultimate. Cultures like the individuals that compose them possess a tremendous capacity for self delusion – perhaps if we had recognized this from the beginning, scientists would have named us homo sapiens autopsychosis rather than homo sapiens sapiens. It is time to stop fooling ourselves and take responsibility for our own beliefs and their consequences. There are certainly many things we do not control, but our attitudes and the way we treat others are two things that are largely a matter of personal choice.
The reality upon which we must rebuild the meaning of our lives starts with the realization that we are vehicles not replicators –genes are replicators (as the philosopher Samuel Butler suggests: the hen is just an egg’s way of reproducing itself).
Often the interests of replicators and the vehicles in which they ride coincide. For example survival to sexual maturity and reproduction is in the interest of both genes and the vehicular organisms that house them. However, there are times when the interests of the two diverge. Think of the bee that willingly forfeits its life by loosing its stinger in defense of its hive (or the human equivalents: the suicide bomber or kamikaze pilot) – its action ultimately helps its genes but brings an end to its individual existence as an organism. Similarly it is in our genes interest that we sacrifice ourselves to save 3 of our children or 5 of our grandchildren.
There are also a number of examples of this divergence of interests that might be drawn from the category of humans behaving badly. Road rage serves no purpose yet it occurs with distressing frequency. Our reptilian instincts to defend our territory and insist upon our place in the hierarchy help explain such totally irrational acts (it also explains why it is a far more common problem among males than among females.) Another example is the cruel discrimination suffered by those with physical deformities – especially facial deformities. A third distressing example is the tendency of those males closest to rape victims to withhold sympathy and support at the victim’s time of greatest need. In each of these cases individuals questioned afterwards express regret and generally see that the harm they caused was unjustified and unreasonable. In fact much of what is most unreasonable in us, xenophobia, stereotyping, racism, oppression and hostility all seem to reflect instincts that appear to have significant genetic influences.
Are we destined to continue our existence as slaves to the mindless replicators that created us to serve their reproductive needs? Keith Stanovich, a noted psychologist, suggests that there is an escape hatch. The same organ that is responsible for making us aware of our dire existential predicament may also be instrumental in extracting us from it. But to escape from nihilism we must take action both individually and collectively.
First we need to recognize our situation; we really are vehicles rather than replicators – we need to get over our collective embarrassment at not being nearly so special as we thought we had always assumed that we were. Worse yet, the replicators (our genes) our not even our best friends – they do not have our best interests at heart. In fact they have no hearts, they have no minds, they have no spirits and they have no souls – they are simply complex molecules that developed the trick of replicating themselves about 3 billion years ago. In this context it becomes clear that the Catholic church’s prohibition on birth control or conservatives insistence on abstinence only sex education do not reflect the desires of a loving God but merely the instinctual impulses of our selfish genes.
We must collaborate to develop our own interests individually and collectively – what Keith Stanovich has called The Robot’s Rebellion. We need to quit rationalizing and ruminating about metaphysical fantasylands and begin to take personal responsibility for the things we choose to believe (the memes we let into our heads and those that we propagate by sharing with others). We must relinquish antiquated notions of soul as something that is an aspect of special-ness of our creation and accept that our willingness to ask questions, live with integrity and commit ourselves to the welfare of others and to enrich our communities is the only way to salvation – the living of a life with real meaning. As it turns out, the design of our species is neither ultimate nor even very intelligent – it is certainly complex but, at best, it is merely adequate for the moment. For me, the meaning of life lies in the acceptance of these realities and our willingness to take action in spite of them.
