Any Dawkins Apologists out there?

[Aurelian]

Another article from my email loop (I can barely keep up with the volume of reading) When I read the last paragraph, I was reminded of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"...the question is, does McGrath's critique hold water?

A

P.S. I didn't request an atheist apologist because I'm of the opinion that Dawkins has his own brand/flavor, if you will.

The Dawkins Delusion

By Alister McGrath, AlterNet

Posted on January 26, 2007, Printed on January 30, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/47052/

Alister McGrath, a biochemist and Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, may be Richard Dawkins' most prominent critic. As the author of "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life," he was interviewed extensively for Dawkins' recent documentary, "The Root of All Evil." Not a frame of these interviews made it into the final edit. Below is a slightly modified version of remarks delivered by McGrath in response to Dawkins' latest book, "The God Delusion."

The God Delusion has established Dawkins as the world's most high-profile atheist polemicist, who directs a withering criticism against every form of religion. He is out to convert his readers. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Not that he thinks that this is particularly likely; after all, he suggests, "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument." Along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, Dawkins directs a ferocious trade of criticism against religion in general and Christianity in particular. In this article, I propose to explore two major questions. First, why this sudden outburst of aggression? Second, how reliable are Dawkins' criticisms of religion?



© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/47052/

 

[St.Michael]

As the author of "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life," he was interviewed extensively for Dawkins' recent documentary, "The Root of All Evil." Not a frame of these interviews made it into the final edit.

Recent documentary? It was broadcast over a year ago! Why didn't McGrath complain at the time if he was edited out of it?

 

[Myriad]

As the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse commented recently: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

As a liberal Christian who has sees new reasons to be embarrassed to be a Christian, not just occasionally on the publication of some particularly outspoken book but on pretty much a daily basis, I can certainly sympathize with Mr. Ruse.

But perhaps he shouldn't beat himself up too much.

For me, the crux of the matter is right here:

In the first place, Jesus explicitly extends the Old Testament command to "love your neighbour" to "love your enemy" (Matthew 5.44). Far from endorsing "out-group hostility," Jesus both commended and commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation." As this feature of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is so well-known and distinctive, it is inexcusable that Dawkins should make no mention of it. Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to this demand. But it is there, right at the heart of the Christian ethic. [emphasis mine]

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Kind of like, "Sure, my house may be on fire, but if it weren't on fire it would be a much nicer house than my critic's, so it's quite rude of him to complain about the smoke."

Or to put it more plainly, most of the most visible and vocal Christians and Christian leaders are failing to live up to (or, face it, pay much attention at all to) the supposed heart of the Christian ethic, and that's a problem McGrath should be thanking God for sending Dawkins to help point out! McGrath might prefer that any social cost/benefit assessment of Christianity should be based on what the wisest passages of our Scripture exhort, but people like Dawkins will annoyingly continue to judge us by what we actually say and do. Such nerve!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bignickel]

In the first place, Jesus explicitly extends the Old Testament command to "love your neighbour" to "love your enemy" (Matthew 5.44). Far from endorsing "out-group hostility," Jesus both commended and commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation."

Where exactly does he get that the 'enemy' is outside the group? Assuming it's true sure does help him make his points. I find I can make just about any point I want to by assuming things that aren't there, but that's a bit intellectually dishonest.

 

[Freddy]

Where exactly does he get that the 'enemy' is outside the group? Assuming it's true sure does help him make his points. I find I can make just about any point I want to by assuming things that aren't there, but that's a bit intellectually dishonest.

It isn't the least bit dishonest. He's interpreting the passage, and his interpretation is quite reasonable. It isn't a stretch at all. Actually, Jesus' words in this passage are a command about how to treat any person. In/out of the group is not a distinction that Jesus makes, and his actions toward those who were considered "out of the group" in his time (tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans) strongly reinforce the interpretation you are criticizing. It isn't cheating to do a little more than just parse the sentences. I would call it not being an idiot. I give you an F for your pathetic effort.

It doesn't matter if the stories are true, either. Clearly whoever included them in the Gospel did so for a reason, and that reason is, unfortunately, lost on many Christians. It's human nature for people to discriminate based on group identity, and Christians are all too human. But that doesn't mean the message isn't there for anyone to see.

 

[Poppythinks]

first, dawkins 'aggression'. just a strong voice in these times of
'politeness' and 'respect' to all 'religions' to encourage people (who want to) to think for themselves and reject all hateful and ancient superstitions
and 'beliefs'.

interesting how those who have 'suffered' enough 'religion' and all its damage, quietly applaud his courage. those who know they are on shaky ground fear his clarity and understanding, and attack the man for being angry. those who agree with dawkins like a bit of emotion - it's a kind of human thing. we're against child abuse on all levels - religion being the number one abuser. it makes us angry that what is barbaric is excused in the name of godorwhatever. that all kinds of sado-masochistic behaviour are allowed in the name of 'religion' or 'tradition'.

it's a matter of emotional intelligence. emotions have their place too,
accompanied by reason. as for the 'reliability' of his criticisms - those who question his critical attitude to 'religion' are most likely hanging on to some 'belief' system that will block them from recognising they are deluded. i've been there. he is cool, lots of us think so, and lots of us will continue to evolve without faith. need any more evidence?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why some people criticise Dawkins:

1) Trying to turn science/atheism into a religion is strategically suicidal.

Many people have talked about organising atheist/scientist churches, atheist/scientist schools, rebranding atheism/science with new symbols and slogans. The "Brights" fiasco should have been enough. If people are allowed to turn science into something which apes religion, all is lost. Instead of adopting the tactics of religion, science should make it ever more clear why it is NOT a religion. If scientists/atheists start trying to compete with the religions of the world in this way, the war will be lost because the religious people will then have a valid claim that science is just another type of religion, equal to theirs.

2) Make it clear who the enemy really is, and who it isn't.

Attacking all religions and all religious people as being equally problematic is also a mistake. It is perfectly obvious to most people that this is not true. Attacking moderates for "giving cover" to the extremists only serves to alienate the moderates and isolate non-religious people. People trying to get religion taught in science classes and theist fundamentalists who try to impose their beliefs on others or interfere with government are legitimate targets. John Smith who helps his community, doesn't try to convert anyone and is willing to defer to science on scientific questions is not a legitimate target. If you start trying to tell John Smith that he is causing the problem then you are interfering with his right to live his life the way he chooses. In other words, if a person is not causing you a problem, the best tactic is to leave him alone. We need surgical strikes against the real enemy, not carpet bombing of potential allies. Religious moderates tend to be as suspicious of the extremists as the atheists are. They know that these people give religion a bad name. They are also perfectly capable of recognising extremism when it comes from the other side.

3) Recognise what science isn't for.

It is important that scientists/atheists recognise that science/atheism cannot serve certain functions that religions have served in the past. It cannot provide moral guidance, it cannot provide meaning, it cannot answer metaphysical questions. Trying to apply science or pure reason in these areas leads nowhere. We need to make sure that this is emphasised, rather than swept under the carpet. We must be clearer about how we can address such problems in the absence of any religious framework.

4) Distinguish between claims which contradict science and claims which have no scientific evidence to support them.

Some religious people make claims which science has conclusively refuted.

Example: "The world is 6000 years old." "Humans were designed by a divine engineer." It is fair game to attack such claims remorselessly. It is fair game to invoke science as conclusive evidence that they are false.

However, some people are equally enthusiastic of their rejection of other claims, about which science cannot really judge.

Example: Synchronicity. Jung's theory involves the claim that there are meaningful co-incidences which can lead a person on a spiritual journey, or effect their lives in other ways. No scientific evidence can either prove or refute a claim like this. So whilst it is OK to say "I don't believe this is true." it is not so clever to claim science as a reason for disbelieving it. In cases like this, absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

Skeptics who fail to recognise the difference between the two cases above risk pushing science beyond were it is legitimately capable of going. It is a symptom of a failure to recognise the limitations of science.

5) Emphasise the importance of freedom from other people's beliefs.

What atheists/skeptics/scientists really can't stand is having other people's beliefs rammed down their throats. They must make sure they are not guilty of the same offence. Given what I've already said about the limitations of science, we have a potential problem with things like meaning in people's lives. Nihilism is a very real danger, as Nietzsche knew only too well. Since we do not have anything to replace the meaning derived from their religion by a moderate Christian or a Buddhist, I don't think we have any right to tell them what they believe is necessarily wrong. If all we have to offer in replacement is a Nietzschian worldview, or worse, a gaping hole with nothing to fill it, then we aren't in much of a position to tell people they would be better off without their Buddhism or moderate Christianity. There is a tendency to desire a global atheist revolution. One person has even suggested outlawing religion. I think this is verging on gross hypocrisy. If people are not causing a problem, I don't think atheists have any right to try to foist their own beliefs on them.

Live and let live, I say. Our aim should be to help provoke reform in the most damaging forms of religion, NOT to destroy religion when we having nothing to replace it with.

Conclusion:

Scientism can be defined as follows:

(1) science is our only source of genuine knowledge about the world.
(2) it is the only way to understand humanity's place in the world.
(3) science provides the only credible view of the world as a whole.

Scientism is not healthy. It is the fundamentalist version of atheistic scientific materialism. Religious moderates are fully aware of the dangers of religious extremism. I believe that atheists and scientists should be equally aware of the dangers of fundamentalism in their own backyard. In terms of a strategy to defeat religion, scientism is a disaster.

Does this apply to Dawkins himself? Maybe not, but it sometimes looks that way.

 

[TheChadd]

(1) science is our only source of genuine knowledge about the world.
(2) it is the only way to understand humanity's place in the world.
(3) science provides the only credible view of the world as a whole.

I don't think many atheists (certainly not dawkins) fit into this category at all. We love science for what it is and compel people to use science as best as it can be used, but never push it to be the sumation of possible genuine revelation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, he does belch in public, and his table manners are appalling. But I think that despite that, he's still a nice guy.

 

[TheChadd]

I find it interesting that people are using Wittgenstein to attack dawkins... What an uneasy road he's opened up with this fairly simple book.

 

[bignickel]

It isn't the least bit dishonest. He's interpreting the passage, and his interpretation is quite reasonable. It isn't a stretch at all. Actually, Jesus' words in this passage are a command about how to treat any person. In/out of the group is not a distinction that Jesus makes, and his actions toward those who were considered "out of the group" in his time (tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans) strongly reinforce the interpretation you are criticizing. It isn't cheating to do a little more than just parse the sentences. I would call it not being an idiot. I give you an F for your pathetic effort.

I'd give you an F for Logical Reasoning, but luckily I'm not your Philosophy teacher. "Interpreting the passage" to include groups that the Jews despised? I've got news for you: the morality of the OT was in-group morality, and if you'd care to read John Hartung's excellent article on the subject, you'd find out just how disgusted Jesus would be with 'giving away the whole game to the pigs.' Jesus commanded people to 'love gentiles'? Where is this exactly? I mean, I know why Christians would believe it, since it's one of the cornerstones of their faith, but it just ain't in there.

And guess what: the tax collectors and prositutes that he wrote about were Jewish too. Samaritans were despised; one of Jesus' assumed ideas in that parable was 'hey, if these scum can figure how to be moral, then certainly this should be a no-brainer for us (the chosen few who will inherit the earth)' Tho I can see why Christians might not like such a message.

Love towards the 'out-group', while certainly a Christian idea, isn't a Jesus idea. Try as you might, you're not going to find it in the Bible. But if you just want to assume it does, because it's 'reasonable' to do so, then you can pretty much assume just about anything about what someone's saying, and come up with any conclusions you wish.

Which is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Big Les]

Why some people criticise Dawkins:

1) Trying to turn science/atheism into a religion is strategically suicidal.

Many people have talked about organising atheist/scientist churches, atheist/scientist schools, rebranding atheism/science with new symbols and slogans. The "Brights" fiasco should have been enough. If people are allowed to turn science into something which apes religion, all is lost. Instead of adopting the tactics of religion, science should make it ever more clear why it is NOT a religion. If scientists/atheists start trying to compete with the religions of the world in this way, the war will be lost because the religious people will then have a valid claim that science is just another type of religion, equal to theirs.

2) Make it clear who the enemy really is, and who it isn't.

Attacking all religions and all religious people as being equally problematic is also a mistake. It is perfectly obvious to most people that this is not true. Attacking moderates for "giving cover" to the extremists only serves to alienate the moderates and isolate non-religious people. People trying to get religion taught in science classes and theist fundamentalists who try to impose their beliefs on others or interfere with government are legitimate targets. John Smith who helps his community, doesn't try to convert anyone and is willing to defer to science on scientific questions is not a legitimate target. If you start trying to tell John Smith that he is causing the problem then you are interfering with his right to live his life the way he chooses. In other words, if a person is not causing you a problem, the best tactic is to leave him alone. We need surgical strikes against the real enemy, not carpet bombing of potential allies. Religious moderates tend to be as suspicious of the extremists as the atheists are. They know that these people give religion a bad name. They are also perfectly capable of recognising extremism when it comes from the other side.

3) Recognise what science isn't for.

It is important that scientists/atheists recognise that science/atheism cannot serve certain functions that religions have served in the past. It cannot provide moral guidance, it cannot provide meaning, it cannot answer metaphysical questions. Trying to apply science or pure reason in these areas leads nowhere. We need to make sure that this is emphasised, rather than swept under the carpet. We must be clearer about how we can address such problems in the absence of any religious framework.

4) Distinguish between claims which contradict science and claims which have no scientific evidence to support them.

Some religious people make claims which science has conclusively refuted.

Example: "The world is 6000 years old." "Humans were designed by a divine engineer." It is fair game to attack such claims remorselessly. It is fair game to invoke science as conclusive evidence that they are false.

However, some people are equally enthusiastic of their rejection of other claims, about which science cannot really judge.

Example: Synchronicity. Jung's theory involves the claim that there are meaningful co-incidences which can lead a person on a spiritual journey, or effect their lives in other ways. No scientific evidence can either prove or refute a claim like this. So whilst it is OK to say "I don't believe this is true." it is not so clever to claim science as a reason for disbelieving it. In cases like this, absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

Skeptics who fail to recognise the difference between the two cases above risk pushing science beyond were it is legitimately capable of going. It is a symptom of a failure to recognise the limitations of science.

5) Emphasise the importance of freedom from other people's beliefs.

What atheists/skeptics/scientists really can't stand is having other people's beliefs rammed down their throats. They must make sure they are not guilty of the same offence. Given what I've already said about the limitations of science, we have a potential problem with things like meaning in people's lives. Nihilism is a very real danger, as Nietzsche knew only too well. Since we do not have anything to replace the meaning derived from their religion by a moderate Christian or a Buddhist, I don't think we have any right to tell them what they believe is necessarily wrong. If all we have to offer in replacement is a Nietzschian worldview, or worse, a gaping hole with nothing to fill it, then we aren't in much of a position to tell people they would be better off without their Buddhism or moderate Christianity. There is a tendency to desire a global atheist revolution. One person has even suggested outlawing religion. I think this is verging on gross hypocrisy. If people are not causing a problem, I don't think atheists have any right to try to foist their own beliefs on them.

Live and let live, I say. Our aim should be to help provoke reform in the most damaging forms of religion, NOT to destroy religion when we having nothing to replace it with.

Conclusion:

Scientism can be defined as follows:

(1) science is our only source of genuine knowledge about the world.
(2) it is the only way to understand humanity's place in the world.
(3) science provides the only credible view of the world as a whole.

Scientism is not healthy. It is the fundamentalist version of atheistic scientific materialism. Religious moderates are fully aware of the dangers of religious extremism. I believe that atheists and scientists should be equally aware of the dangers of fundamentalism in their own backyard. In terms of a strategy to defeat religion, scientism is a disaster.

Does this apply to Dawkins himself? Maybe not, but it sometimes looks that way.

Excellent post. I hesitate to use a popular culture analogy so often trotted out by the conspiraloons, but it's rather like the impossible situation set up by the first "Matrix" film; there was no way we would get the cathartic human victory and mass-unplugging that people were probably still expecting; the matrix in the film was both an individual and societal lifesupport system. Atheism and science can't, as you say, replace religion as things stand, therefore it's both unproductive and a little unfair to try to pull the rug out from all the believers. Those who "free" themselves from religion construct their replacement metaphysical outlook, morals etc (or modify their existing ones) as part of that process; you can't replicate that by force without it being a rather traumatic experience. Much as some of us might wish that everyone else would agree with us!

 

[bignickel]

Why some people criticise Dawkins:

1) Trying to turn science/atheism into a religion is strategically suicidal.

etc etc etc

Did you read "The God Delusion"? I have trouble believing you did after reading your post. Either that, or you've completely misunderstood a fair amount of his book. Or maybe you're posting the reasons why people say they attack Dawkins, based on spurious reasoning.

I'm not going further, if at all, until I know if you've read it or not. If this is a thread about how 'Dawkins comes off', count me out. Too many 'those radical atheists' threads out there already.

 

[Donn]

Why some people criticise Dawkins:
1) Trying to turn science/atheism into a religion is strategically suicidal.

... organising atheist/scientist churches, atheist/scientist schools, rebranding atheism/science with new symbols and slogans. The "Brights" fiasco ... ... turn science into something which apes religion ... adopting the tactics of religion ... compete with the religions ... valid claim that science is just another type of religion

My memory is terrible, but even I remember Dawkins talking about raising consciousness by using words like "brights". There isn't even the merest suggestion that atheism should become a "religion".

Shermer gave the example of Ayn Rand and the almost cultic following she developed that was in contrast with the rational thinking they espoused, so it is possible to pervert any system into something like a religion -- all it takes is for the followers never to question the system they are in.

I think atheism is quite safe from turning into something like that, as long as atheists keep thinking; and Dawkins is certainly not trying to suppress thinking!

So, your first point is a falsity and you should refrain from ever uttering it again.

 

[ClintonHammond]

I have yet to see anything that Dawkins needs to apologise for

 

[Donn]

A lot of people on Dawkins board make posts which appear to be trying to turn science into a religion.

1. They are not Dawkins.
2. Your pov is seeing them through religion-tinted glasses.
3. It's a "you too" argument anyway.
4. Atheism cannot be a religion for the same reason Theism cannot become a form of irreligion.

While I'm at it:

3) Recognise what science isn't for.

It is important that scientists/atheists recognise that science/atheism cannot serve certain functions that religions have served in the past. It cannot provide moral guidance, it cannot provide meaning, it cannot answer metaphysical questions. Trying to apply science or pure reason in these areas leads nowhere. We need to make sure that this is emphasised, rather than swept under the carpet. We must be clearer about how we can address such problems in the absence of any religious framework.

Bunk. Only by the methods of science can we come to understand how the mind works and that is the only way we will ever come to functional morality.
And this is the reason why:
"Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion." -- Sam Harris

4) Distinguish between claims which contradict science and claims which have no scientific evidence to support them. ... snip ...
Skeptics who fail to recognise the difference between the two cases above risk pushing science beyond were it is legitimately capable of going. It is a symptom of a failure to recognise the limitations of science.

Whatever can go beyond a limit such that the steps between the limit and the new limit are real is scientific.
Whatever goes beyond a limit such that fairies and Gods can be observed in the pink fog is the same old same old.

Your "beyond" is my "I don't know."
Your "certain Faith" is my "I don't know, yet."

Time for another nugget 'o Sam:
"The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments and a passionate unwillingness to do so."
-- Sam Harris

5) Emphasise the importance of freedom from other people's beliefs.
...snip ...
Live and let live, I say. Our aim should be to help provoke reform in the most damaging forms of religion, NOT to destroy religion when we having nothing to replace it with.

I happen to agree with you on this one. My opinions are still forming as I read Daniel Dennet, but I have not found the rational hard-line to be an effective means to talk with the Faithful. Dennet has said that religion may very well be necessary to mankind, we just don't know yet. There is not enough data, we must do the research.

It could end up being concluded that religion must go. It could be that it must stay, it could be that it must change in many ways to fit what mankind needs.

Scientism can be defined as follows

You are the one labelling science in a religous way. No one else is using a name like that, well, no scientists.
If we are scientists of scientism then what are you? Arbitrists of Arbitraryism? Religionists of Religionism?
Come on, this is silly.

Does this apply to Dawkins himself? Maybe not, but it sometimes looks that way.

I'd say no, but it could look that way to the Faithful.

 

[Magic 8 Ball]

Evolution is a souce for morality

3) Recognize what science isn't for.

It is important that scientists/atheists recognise that science/atheism cannot serve certain functions that religions have served in the past. It cannot provide moral guidance, it cannot provide meaning, it cannot answer metaphysical questions. Trying to apply science or pure reason in these areas leads nowhere. We need to make sure that this is emphasised, rather than swept under the carpet. We must be clearer about how we can address such problems in the absence of any religious framework.

Atheism does provide moral guidance. Science teaches us that people, as well as animals, seek pleasure and avoid pain. By studying evolution, I have found that compassion is an evolutionary trait. For example, gorillas (mammals) care for their offspring in a nurturing way. On the other hand, alligators (reptiles) do not and are known to eat their young on occasion. Mammals are higher up on the evolutionary scale than reptiles and therefore one can conclude; as species evolve, so does the manner in which the species behave.

Humans are moral because they have evolved that way. We not only nurture our young, but we extend the principal of pleasure seeking and pain avoiding to others. We avoid harm to others because we ourselves know to avoid pain. We know that it is not in the species best interest to cause pain to others because of the social repercussions. We seek to pleasure others because we ourselves seek it and expect that pleasure to be returned. We do the things we do because it is not only in the individual's best interest, but also in the species best interest.

Religion, which incorporates fantasy and the notion of life after death, tends to do the opposite. The life and death notion suggests that our actions in the present life are not important. The spirit will live on after death. One can justify horrible actions, such as a terrorist suicide attack, because in the terrorist's mind he never really dies. The morality derived from religion is one based fantasy as well as ignorance. This is why I let science be my moral compass.

 

[Magic 8 Ball]

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is "not the smallest evidence" that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda -- the elimination of religion. This doesn't fit with Dawkins' highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.

The motive for destroying churches was to show the hypocrisy of religion itself. Churches were and still are very wealthy. The wealth that was housed in a church was to be redistributed amongst the people. The priests were seen as con men (as many see them today) and therefore were punished as such. From the Solviet's point of view this became a justified repercussion. This does not mean I agree with these methods, but the methods were similar to what religion has been doing for so many years. Believe in our religion or we will kill you. In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Darat]

Atheism does provide moral guidance. Science teaches us that people, as well as animals, seek pleasure and avoid pain. By studying evolution, I have found that compassion is an evolutionary trait. For example, gorillas (mammals) care for their offspring in a nurturing way. On the other hand, alligators (reptiles) do not and are known to eat their young on occasion. Mammals are higher up on the evolutionary scale than reptiles and therefore one can conclude; as species evolve, so does the manner in which the species behave.

...snip...

The idea of "higher up on the evolutionary scale" doesn't really make any kind of sense, the nearest you can say to something like that is "some organisms are better adapted to a particular environment then others". There is no "higher goal" that evolution is "seeking" to reach.

Also many mammals eat and kill their own off-spring.

 

[Magic 8 Ball]

The idea of "higher up on the evolutionary scale" doesn't really make any kind of sense, the nearest you can say to something like that is "some organisms are better adapted to a particular environment then others". There is no "higher goal" that evolution is "seeking" to reach.

Also many mammals eat and kill their own off-spring.

As newer species evolve from older ones, they tend to show more compassion. This is the point I am trying to make. Of course you will find many instances which will show that my analogy may be weak, but consider the following: The older the species, the less compassionate it appears to be. Fish lay eggs and then swim away. Think of this as abandonment. Insects, such as the queen bee, will kill off all other females in order to contol the conlony. Think of this as selfishness over compassion. Mammals, which are much younger on the evolutionary scale than fish and insects, all breast feed. Nature has dictated a closer bond with mother and child. This bond becomes necessary for advancement of the species. This closeness leads to a parent teaching the offspring rather than survival by instinct alone.

Evolution may have no higher goal, but it seems that the more complex a species is, the more compassionate is appears.