Believing in Dawkins is currently being written.
Dawkins is known both for his writings on biology and on atheism. I focus on his atheism. As he reflects on science, Dawkins starts to work out what he refers to as an Einsteinian religion. Einsteinian religion rivals the old religions. Einsteinian religion is naturalistic. But since he prefers spirituality to religion, I will just say that Dawkins is developing a spiritual naturalism. Spiritual naturalism is atheistic. However, it is not nihilistic. Dawkins presents his spiritual naturalism through fragments scattered across his many books and essays. I show how these fragments support a coherent structure which I refer to as the Cathedral for Spiritual Naturalists. I will use Stoic and Neoplatonic frameworks to build this Cathedral. These frameworks are often implicit in Dawkins; but I will bring them out and make them explicit.
Dawkins talks about atomic, molecular, biological, and technological evolution. When he talks about evolution more abstractly, Dawkins turns to computer science, information theory, and mathematics. His discussions become more Platonic. All types of evolution involve the gradual cumulative increase of complexity. All types of evolution involve algorithms that drive flows of matter through abstract libraries whose books are possible things. Paths run from books to books; evolutionary algorithms select paths that slowly and gradually and cumulatively increase complexity. They climb Mount Improbable. Paths become arrows pointing higher on Mount Improbable. Stoic and Neoplatonic ideas provide the larger framework that enables Dawkins to think abstractly about evolution. As things grow in complexity, they grow more reflexive. More reflexive parts mirror more of the whole. All the evolutionary arrows point at infinite self-reflection.
Dawkins naturalizes the design arguments: in his early and late writings, he repeatedly states that evolution designed organisms. He wonders about the values being optimized by evolution. He argues that evolution is not utilitarian; it does not aim to maximize happiness. His discussions of the axiological aspects of evolution rely on Stoic and Neoplatonic ideas. Evolution maximizes the virtues that emerge through competitive struggle. It maximizes the arete that appears in the agon. Arete is beautiful and good. For the Neoplatonists, the universe strives to maximize vision; it strives to maximize reflexivity. Maximizing reflexivity is a core idea that organizes many Dawkinsian ideas into a coherent whole. Dawkins often talks about how energy flows governed by thermodynamic laws drive evolution. The maximum entropy production principle provides a deeper thermodynamic explanation for the growth of cosmic complexity. It is a principle of path selection. The Stoics thought that pneuma (spirit) was the pyr technikon (the designing fire). It self-organized according to an immanent algorithm, the logos. These Stoic ideas can be naturalized and added to the Cathedral.
From things in the universe, Dawkins turns his attention to the universe itself. Our universe is extremely complex and therefore extremely improbable. It appears to be finely tuned for the internal evolution of complex things. Dawkins repeatedly declares that our universe is beautiful and rationally organized. Some explanation is needed for our universe and its cosmic features. Dawkins considers several possible explanations. He rejects the God hypothesis and the simulation hypothesis. Dawkins considers various multiverse hypotheses from physics. The eternal inflation hypothesis and fecund universe hypothesis suffer from fatal problems. But if the Dawkinsian logic of possibility applies to organisms, then it applies to universes too. There is a library of possible universes. These can be ranked by complexity. Hence they can be ranked by intrinsic value. Possible universes are books on the slopes of the cosmic Mount Improbable.
Dawkinsian principles point to an evolutionary explanation for our universe: our universe is complex (and finely-tuned and beautiful); but all such things emerge through gradual cumulative processes of evolution; hence our universe emerged in some process of cosmic evolution. Dawkinsian principles entail a biocosmic analogy: just as biological replicators drive biological evolution, so also cosmic replicators drive cosmic evolution. I refer to these cosmic replicators are the animats. By arguing for these animats, I am building on Dawkins; I am completing his arguments. Animats evolve in the space of possible universes. Animatic evolution starts with some ultimately simple object. Dawkins himself explicitly affirms the existence of a natural first cause. He naturalizes the cosmological argument. Since this first cause is utterly simple, I refer to it as the One. But the One is not an abstract object at the top of some great chain of being; on the contrary, it is a concrete thing at the bottom. It is the root of the deepest evolutionary tree; the ultimate ancestor of all concrete things.
Dawkins does not avoid ontology. He worries about the Metaphysical Question: why is there something rather than nothing? Dawkins offers several strategies for answering this question. But his most thought answer refers to Peter Atkin´s idea that the universe evolved from the self-elaboration of the empty set. This answer relies on set theory. Set theorists are modern Pythagoreans. The physicist Max Tegmark thinks reality is purely mathematical. But Dawkinsian principles entail set-theoretic Platonism: reality contains both abstract objects and concrete things. Abstract objects exist with logical necessity; so why are there any concrete things? The ontological argument provides the traditional answer: the most perfect abstract object necessarily has a concrete instance. Dawkins sometimes dismisses the ontological argument as infantile; other times he recognizes the power of pure logic. I naturalize the ontological argument. It justifies the existence of a maximally perfect proposition: the Platonic Good. The Good ensures that all and only the best books in the Modal Library are instantiated by concrete universes. The Good ensures that all evolutionary arrows strive to maximize reflexivity.
Cosmological evolution proceeds according to general evolutionary principles. The iterative hierarchy of pure sets is the ultimate Mount Improbable. The animats are the ultimate replicators. The first animat sits at the bottom of the cosmic Mount Improbable. It actualizes the simplest universe. As animats beget animats, they climb higher on the cosmic Mount Improbable. The actualize more complex universes. Animatic evolution allows spiritual naturalists to naturalize the cosmic design arguments. The cosmic designer is cosmic evolution. Cosmic evolution runs into the infinite. Set theorists recognize an endless progression of increasingly great infinities. The absolutely infinite objects are the proper classes. They are transcendental objects. They are beings beyond unity; they dwell in the wildness of the abyss. Nature is an unsurpassable class of surpassable universes; nature is the self-surpassing surpasser of all. Atheistic mysticism points to these transcendental objects.
Human animals are genetically programmed survival machines. Dawkins argues against mind-body dualism: we are identical with our bodies. But our bodies do not persist through time. Dawkins argues for a four-dimensionalist approach to persistence: a life is a four-dimensional stream of three-dimensional bodies. Dawkins uses a Platonic image to illustrate the flow of time: bodies are illuminated by the spotlight of presence. And he says bodies are blessed by this spotlight; our lives gain value from this light. Spiritual naturalists say it comes from the Good. Dawkins turns to ethics. He cannot be a utilitarian; he has to adopt a version of Kantianism combined with virtue ethics. We ought to maximize vision and maximize beauty. Dawkins rejects Cartesian approaches to life after death. This leads him to incorrectly reject all types of life after death. But many approaches to life after death are consistent with his naturalism.
Dawkins says we ought to be grateful for our existence. He incorrectly says that gratitude is a vacuum emotion. His own principles imply a Stoic account of gratitude. Although evolution is not utilitarian, it is still providential; hence we ought to give thanks to evolution. Dawkinsian principles further justify several types of spirituality. They justify secular Buddhist approaches to spirituality. They justify Stoic spirituality. And they justify Neoplatonic spirituality. These types of spirituality are irreligious. Thus spiritual naturalists are spiritual but not religious.