Tetra, very interesting quote by Mr. Dawkins and one that sort of bothers me. As I understand it, nature/evolution is pitiless and indifferent as Mr. Dawkins points out, and that all the traits we have are bred into us for survival. I also recall your explination as to how culture evolved along with biological evolution, and that the drawings that started out to coordinate the hunt evolved into the Mona Lisa as we big brained apes found ourselves stimulated by the pictures.
I also given what I do acutely understand the role that morals play in the functioning of our society and why they might evolve, but here's where I have a problem and I find it to be a leap: If morals evolved so that we can live together as a group and provide order, as our living together in a group is safer for the species than alone that makes sense, but what about the emotions of say, pity, compassion, remorse, etc. In Mr. Dawkins view, nature is pitiless, there is no place for sentiment here, if it favors survival it is kept, if not, discarded. Why would the tribe develop compassion for the sickly weak member that isn't smart and doesn't contribute anything to the tribe towards its survival? Why would we feel moved to feed, care for, and protect such and individual? It would seem what we deem the higher aspects of human behavior really don't benefit our survival all that much if at all, in fact they may actually be counter productive in many situations. This is where I find a problem with the theory and find myself having to make a leap of faith to accept it akin to that made in accepting a god.
