From Dr Dawkins Website

[Robert]

Interested as to what you think of this page from Dawkins site:

Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster - Richard Dawkins, On Faith - RichardDawkins.net

I have three questions,

1/ What do you think the basic message is?
2/ Do you think he is right, and why?
3/ Considering his position as a scientist, is he qualified to comment when we consider also the media coverage he has

~Thanks Robert

[Jack]

1/ What do you think the basic message is?

The point of his essay is contained in the last 2 paragraphs.

...is it so very obvious that you can't love more than one person? We seem to manage it with parental love (parents are reproached if they don't at least pretend to love all their children equally), love of books, of food, of wine (love of Chateau Margaux does not preclude love of a fine Hock, and we don't feel unfaithful to the red when we dally with the white), love of composers, poets, holiday beaches, friends . . . why is erotic love the one exception that everybody instantly acknowledges without even thinking about it?...I'm just wondering aloud why we all accept it so readily, without even thinking about it. And why don't we all admire — as I increasingly do -- those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy...

He's asking us to think about a basic human emotion and examine our attitude toward jealousy. He offers examples of how we are inconsistent in our application of love and is asking us to consider our usual knee-jerk reaction to infidelity.

2/ Do you think he is right, and why?

Since it's a matter of opinion regarding the social acceptance of infidelity I don't believe there's a right or wrong way to think about it, it's more a matter of what's beneficial to humanity and what's detrimental. I think the erotic/sexual component of spousal love gives the love of a spouse a different degree of emotional investment than the other types of love he describes. I don't think love is a single emotion felt or expressed the same way in every case. I love my dog, but not with the same degree of passion and investment I would have with a partner with whom I shared a love that included the sexual component. Even the love I feel for Cleo and the love I have for good coffee are different types of love and evoke a different degree of passion. By failing to acknowledge that love is not a single emotion he makes a false equivocation between spousal love and love of a good wine.

When he speaks of fidelity from a biological perspective, though, his view is consistent with the views of other biologists I've read. There's evidence that human males are less monogamous than females at a genetic level. Males gain a biological advantage when they can mate with many women while women, because of the burdon of child rearing, gain more benefit from having one male as her provider and protector during the time she is raising the child. In this aspect of biology the evolutionary needs of males and females are at cross-purposes. What is an advantage to one is a disadvantage to the other. It appears we humans attempted to solve this dilemma by giving greater credence to the needs of the female and invented marriage to make fidelity a social expectation. Of course not all societies went this route. Some modern societies accept multiple spouses, "open" relationships or condone the keeping of mistresses. Western society, being quite prudish about sex in general, hold fidelity to be nearly sacred even though a large number of males in our society do not limit their sexual relations to their spouse. We are hypocritical in that our ideals don't match biological reality. That's not so much an accusation as an observation. In this country at least we can decide the level of fidelity for ourselves. Couples can decide what level of fidelity they expect from each other. And as humans we have the ability to ignore our biological instincts and stay faithful to a single mate if we choose to.

3/ Considering his position as a scientist, is he qualified to comment when we consider also the media coverage he has

As a biologist he is eminently qualified to speak on biological matters. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept his interpretation of the evidence and cannot differ with his opinions.

I'm not sure why you consider his media coverage relevant to this topic.

[Robert]

Thanks Jack, ~Robert

[hensatri]

I believe that he is correct, while admitting that I would have problems with jealousy myself if I found my lover in the arms of another.

This is one of those places where divorcing our instinctive feelings about somthing from the conclusions arrived at by reasonable judgment is extraordinarily difficult.