Originally posted here in a better format, but without an account: http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3194367&cid=41706389

Dr. Dawkins, You state in River Out of Eden that “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other god. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is,”—as opposed to “ought”. But you also claim we can cultivate our own purpose in The Selfish Gene, stating, “If you would extract a moral from this book, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs (SG, 3). We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birthWe can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism, something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world,” (215). To you, is even natural empathy inherently selfish, as its evolutionary purpose is to promote the survival of those who are genetically related to us? Has your view on this changed since reading Sam Harris’ book? You said, on Harris’ website, “To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. It should change it for philosophers too. Philosophers of mind have already discovered that they can’t duck the study of neuroscience, and the best of them have raised their game as a result. Sam Harris shows that the same should be true of moral philosophers, and it will turn their world exhilaratingly upside down.” Do you now believe there is objective moral truth? Do you now believe in a ‘real’ good? Is this somewhat more like a political move? “Let’s vote on eachother’s bills, even if we don’t agree with them, since we share a common goal”? If you do now, with Sam Harris, believe in objective moral truth–What being in reality does that truth describe? To what always good being does it correspond? Thankyou, Maryann Spikes Christian Apologetics Alliance