Determinism

[Caecilian]

Re. genetic determinism: I'm very well acqainted with what Dawkins and Dennett say about the matter. You're correct in saying that they don't view human behaviour as being genetically determined. However, they do come very close to viewing the physical phenotype as being genetically determined. Genotypes are seen as being programs, and the genetic program or algorithm is largely responsible for determining ontogeny. Human behaviour is co-determined by genes and memes.

You confuse me with your use of "phenotype" because you seem to suggest that behaviour is not part of the phenotype. If that's indeed what you suggest, my wording would be "genotype".

Wikipedia: "A phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest)."

In The Extended Phenotype Dawkins suggested that phenotype could be extended with behaviour. But IMO he did not suggest with that, that behaviour is fully determined by genetic markup alone.

The Dennett-Dawkins position, as I understand it, makes a sharp distinction between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of other organisms.

In the case of non-human organisms, behaviour is understood as being part of the phenotype, and as such is largely determined by the genetic program (genotype).

In the case of humans, there are some behavioural tendencies that can be attributed to the genotype. However, humans also have a cultural replication system (the memes), which to a large degree replaces and over-rides the genetic system with regard to behaviour.

Thus Dennett and Dawkins can, I think, be reasonably described as genetic determinists with respect to biology, but not to culture, and therefore not to human behaviour. They could, however be described as genetic-memetic determinists (or perhaps replicator determinists) with respect to human behaviour.

Hope this clears up any confusions.