Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

WND examines Norway’s terrorist:

Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’

{See Updates below at 2:30 PM on actions; & at 10:30 PM on Breivik’s manifesto}

Norwegian’s manifesto shows Breivik not religious, having no personal faith Posted: July 24, 2011 © 2011 WND

WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto shows the media’s quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a “Christian” may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims. . . . many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway’s Labour Party – as a “right-wing, Christian fundamentalist.”

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God’s existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.
——————————————————–
[Note: Also, the Finnish school shooter and the Columbine shooters attributed their actions to Darwinism. Barry Arrington here was the lawyer for the Columbine victims and

read through every single page of Eric Harris’ journals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

In the age of Darwin worship, the memory hole awaits this stark fact. But maybe not this time. – UD News.]

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” . . . The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas. . . .

“I am very proud of my Viking heritage,” he writes. “My name, Breivik, is a location name from northern Norway, and can be dated back to even before the Viking era. Behring is a pre-Christian Germanic name, which is derived from Behr, the Germanic word for Bear (or ‘those who are protected by the bear’).” . . .Likewise, media reports frequently characterized McVeigh as a “Christian,” though he adamantly denied any religious beliefs or convictions – placing his faith in science. . . .Breivik adds, “I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious.”

In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, “What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?”
His answer is hardly the response of a “Christian utopian”: “‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level.”

Religious worship and study is never noted in the manifesto as part of Breivik’s routine in preparing for his mission of mass murder. . . .Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith . . .Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons, which many Christians consider to be a cultic organization.

More specifically, he calls himself a Justiciar Knight . . .”As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus,” he writes. “. . . Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not motivated by Christian faith.
“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person, as that would be a lie,” he says. “I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. . . .

Read more: Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’
———————————————-
2:30 pm July 25th: Raising the title question raised issues faster than I expected. I support the excellent comments below by AussieID and kairosfocus.
Ideas have consequences. Should we not judge people by their actions?
Jesus observed:

Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.

Luke 6:44 NIV
Jesus commanded:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[”

Luke 10:27 NIV

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:34-35 NIV

Did Anders Behring Breivik obey Jesus’ command? The General Secretary of the World Council of Churches Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit,

“accused Norwegian gunman Anders Behring Breivik of blasphemy Monday for citing Christianity as a justification in his murderous attack on government buildings and a youth camp that left dozens dead. . . .” these actions in no way can express what is our Christian faith and our Christian values,”

For journalists to categorize Breivik as a “fundamentalist Christian” is a direct abuse of the public trust.

Did not Breivik apply “might makes right”? Communist regimes espoused Atheism and Darwinism. They collectively caused more than 94 million deaths to their own people as documented in The Black Book of Communism ISBN: 978-0674076082 –three times as many as all deaths in wars during the 20th century.
Objective statistics and actions suggest that Breivik acted on the social principles of Darwinism, not Christianity.
——————————————————————
10:30 PM July 25, 2011
Notes on: Anders Behring Breivik /Andrew Berwick A European Declaration of Independence
Breivik focuses on the expansion of Islam in taking over Christian countries in the Middle East, Africa, and then into Europe:
2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began

This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. . . .Islam is certainly in a position to force unbelievers into Dhimmitude (as is happening in dozens of Muslim countries in varying degrees), and even to wage new jihads, this time with weapons of mass-destruction. . . .Islamic terrorism has started with Mohammed himself.

He cites: Muslim 3584; Islam & Islamic 3274; Christ & Christian 2447; law 695; Immigrant & Immigration 678; Jihad 602; Mohammad & Muhammad 311; Allah 300; Dhimmi & Dhimmitude 266; Sharia 140; Colonial Colonization 149; Maronite 112; Coptic 56; Orthodox 72

Breivik is concerned by:
“1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe” e.g.,

You cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism… . . . More than 90% of the EU and national parliamentarians and more than 95% of journalists are supporters of European multiculturalism and therefore supporters of the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe;”

He cites: Marx & Marxist 1108; Multicultural 938; Political 1358; Correct 225

Breivik then addresses:
4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the
coming decades

This book presents the only solutions to our current problems. . . .The compendium/book presents advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organisational
and rhetorical solutions and strategies for all patriotic-minded individuals/movements.

He admires the Knights Templar as repulsing Islam and recovering Jerusalem. He uses: Europe 4275; Resistance 327; Solution 232; Patriot/Patriotic 224; Knight 610; Templar 221; Justiciar 326; Crusade 230; Malta 31; independence 84; Norway 219; Viking 13; martial 24; Hitler 53; Jesus 62; Darwin 4

Though dismissed as a “nut”, Breivik is tapping into the “clash of cultures” between Islam and the West. He had more than 7000 facebook friends before publishing his manifesto. There are numerous books on Islam and Europe and over 143 million hits on Islam Europe.

He may have committed his atrocity thinking to attract attention to his manifesto. This neither condones nor explains Breivik’s demonic/murderous actions, but might explain some of his frustrations.

————————————-

UPDATE September 20, 2011:  kairosfocus asked ((163) , (213) So I changed from “Norway shooter a Darwinian terrorist?” to “Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?” to emphasize that this is a question not a statement, and it refers to the social not biological consequences of Darwin’s writings (within severe title length constraints). I wrote this post to challenge the assertion that Breivik was a Christian terrorist when Breivik himself said he was not a religious Christian. I showed that there is significant evidence that Breivik loved/supported Darwin. (169); quotes Breivik talking as a Social-Darwinist, emphasizing “we”:

Social-darwinism was the norm before the [sic] 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel [in context, 80 – 90%]. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist.

; That is NOT to say that Social Darwinism was Breivik’s only or primary motivation as numerous posts below explore. Yet the moral and social consequences of Darwin’s writings strongly impacted the 20th century and continue to do so. DLH

Comments
In comment #76 ellijacket wrote:
"I haven’t read anything about him or what he wrote so any assertion I make would be on false premises."
Did you read the title of this thread? If so, then your assertion that you "...haven’t read anything about him or what he wrote..." is a false statement. To refresh your memory, the title of this thread is "Norway shooter a Darwinian terrorist?" Did you read this and immediately answer "No" or "Yes" or "Irrelevant"?Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Prof. FX Gumby: <blockquote) KF, No, not a key influence. An average of one mention per 300 pages does not reflect a key influence. The quote you reference and that I’ve referenced further above appears on page 1376. If it’s “foundational” as you say, surely it would have been on, say, page 1? At least in the first 10? As Allen MacNeill has pointed out better than I have, it is very easy to cherry pick from among a person’s likes or influences and inflate it’s importance. Whereas "Christian" gets 2211 hits. And no, I'm not saying he's a Christian. FWIW "atheism" gets 51 hits, most, but not all, pejorative.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
In comment #76 ellijacket wrote:
"If someone believes in Darwinism then of course it will affect how they live."
In what way? Please be specific, especially in relation to the stated premise in the title of the OP. For example, there are at least two alternatives: 1) If someone believes in Darwinism then it will necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior. 2) If someone believes in Darwinism then it will NOT necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior. Alternatively, 1) If someone believes in the historical accuracy and moral tenets expressed in the Bible then this will necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior. 1) If someone believes in the historical accuracy and moral tenets expressed in the Bible then this will NOT necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, You state that Provine said there is NO necessary connection between any science and any system of morals/ethics. If he also said: "“‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine – Atheist" Those two statements seem to contradict each other. Maybe they don't but I don't see how both could be true.ellijacket
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
KF:
And, I think you will find that I have explicitly disavowed the thread’s headline.
Yes, in fairness, you did and thank you for that. However, I think your view that "it can be seen as pointing out how the attempt to twist the case from the patent case of the mad man it is, into yet another poisonously laced caricaturing attack on Christians" is charitable to say the least. As for attacks on Christians, I don't know how it was played in the media elsewhere, but the reports I saw and heard used "Christian fundamentalist" as a label, quoting the early reports from Norwegian authorities. I didn't construe anything I heard along those lines as an "attack". But perhaps the BBC was different. As I said above, none of those media people are here at the moment, when at least the OP writer and some others are willing to promote the Breivik = Darwinist line. Hence the focus of my discussion.Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
To be clear: I agree with Hume, Moore, Lewontin, and Provine (among many others) who have asserted that there is NO necessary connection between any science and any system of morals/ethics.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
I quoted Will Provine to say that I thought he made has an honest worldview based on his beliefs. All beliefs affect worldviews so Darwinism will affect worldviews if anyone wants to admit it or not. This has nothing to do directly with Breivik but only with the discussion on whether Darwinism has a say or not in how people live. If someone believes in Darwinism then of course it will affect how they live. How can I state what did or did not affect Breivik? Neither you nor I could make that assertion. I haven't read anything about him or what he wrote so any assertion I make would be on false premises. I personally think he's a lunatic.ellijacket
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
In comment #70 kairosfocus wrote:
"...there is a problem of amorality in evolutionary materialism [as in the notorious is-ought gap]..."
What if we change this to:
"...there is a problem of amorality in nuclear physics [as in the notorious is-ought gap]..."
To me it seems that these two versions are semantically equivalent. That is, there does not appear to be a necessary connection between any scientific theory and morals/ethics. This was the essence of G. E. Moore's analysis of the "naturalistic fallacy", which is still the underlying assumption of mainstream ethical theory. By describing the connection between "is" and "ought" statements as "notorious", does kairosfocus intend to assert that ethical prescriptions can be valid justifications for ethical prescriptions, and therefore that the "naturalistic fallacy" is not a fallacy but rather a legitimate ethical principle? If so, then it seems to me that the use of evolutionary theory (i.e. a science based on "is" statements) as a foundation for eugenics (i.e. an ethical theory based on "ought" statements) would be fully justified.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
This thread seems a little too heated for my liking so I'll just drop in to offer the perspective of Peter Hitchens which is slightly more neutral and perhaps more realistic too: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/07/all-the-hallmarks-of-what.htmlChris Doyle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
To detach myself slightly from the anger that is still simmering away: ellijacket: You ask:
I merely listed a quote of his and stated it is an honest worldview derived from his belief in materialistic Darwinism. Where in my comment did I call Will Provine immoral or any other name? If you can’t show me that I would appreciate a retraction on your part.
AussieID had written (#32):
Atheism, though, can not see anything as, you call it, ‘morally reprehensible’ because everybody’s morality is different and there is no definite Wrong or Right. There just IS.
I replied (#35):
This is untrue. Also irrelevant. But untrue.
AussieID replied by quoting Provine (37):
“‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine – Atheist
Now it seemed to me that Aussie ID was trying to connect his claim that under atheism, nothing is "morally reprehensible" with Provine's statement. Provine does not in fact say that nothing is morally reprehensible, merely that there "is no ultimate foundation for ethics" which is not the same thing. I'm not sure what he meant by it, but I'm pretty sure, and Alan confirms it, that Provine did not mean that nothing was morally reprehensible - if I had to guess his meaning, it would be that there is no god-given or absolute foundation for deriving a system of ethics. I would agree with Provine, if this is what he meant. But then I don't think that even those who claim a god-given foundation for ethics do a terribly good job of saying what it is, unless it's the simply the pragmatic one of "you'd better behave or you'll go to hell". Certainly I don't find the bible a good ethical handbook - it's not even consistent. There are some Buddhist writings that I find pretty sound, ethically, but then Buddhism is essentially atheist. On the contrary, the golden rule - do as you would be done by - seems to have emerged spontaneously in many different religious cultures probably because it makes a lot of practical sense, and is a good community rule - helps us to live in communities. So as foundations go, I'd actually trust to biology more than I'd trust to scriptures. If that's the rule we evolved to derive and adopt, then it's good enough for me. And if Breivik had adopted it, 96 people would be alive today, who aren't. And weirdly, it's the rule that Christians, atheists, and even Darwinian evolutionists tend to agree on.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
KF, No, not a key influence. An average of one mention per 300 pages does not reflect a key influence. The quote you reference and that I've referenced further above appears on page 1376. If it's "foundational" as you say, surely it would have been on, say, page 1? At least in the first 10? As Allen MacNeill has pointed out better than I have, it is very easy to cherry pick from among a person's likes or influences and inflate it's importance.Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
In comment #67 ellijacket wrote:
"I merely listed a quote of his and stated it is an honest worldview derived from his belief in materialistic Darwinism. Where in my comment did I call Will Provine immoral or any other name? If you can’t show me that I would appreciate a retraction on your part.
To what end did you quote my friend Will Provine? Was it to indicate that his beliefs have nothing to do with the topic under discussion? To be clear: Did you quote Will Provine to indicate that there is NO necessary causal relationship between his beliefs (i.e. "Darwinian materialism") and the behavior demonstrated by Anders Behring Breivik? If so, why did you post it? And if not, please so state and I will be happy to post a retraction to that effect. To be as specific as possible: If ellijacket is willing to state for the record that there is NO necessary causal relationship between "Darwinian materialism" and the behavior demonstrated by Anders Behring Breivik, I will be happy to agree with that assertion.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Prof Gumby: Kindly note that you and Dr Liddle are not the only commenters in-thread. I do not really wish to name names, but there is a problem. Also, sorry but the thing tha tis being trumpeted tothe skies all over the media is NOYT thst this man is associated with Darwin, but that he is a fundy Christian. That is the real material issue and that is what most needs correction, and emphasis. So when I see an almost in passing note then back to the usual, I think some serious pausing is needed. Why not look at my three-parter from was it 25 on, where I addressed the matter in the main and see if I am fundamentally in error in my concerns and facts and reasoning? I would welcome well merited correction. And, I think you will find that I have explicitly disavowed the thread's headline. When I have taken up the "Social Darwinism is not linked to Darwinism issue," it has been to correct common talking points, on evidence. From Darwin's corpus. And, I have long pointed out that there is a problem of amorality in evolutionary materialism [as in the notorious is-ought gap], with fairly serious and longstanding evidence, some of it 2350 years old. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
In comment #65 kairosfocus quoted the following list of factors cited by Anders Behring Breivik as justifications for his behavior : "...logic, rationality, reason, science..." Does this mean that "logic, rationality, reason, [and] science..." are necessarily causative factors in the behavior of Anders Behring Breivik?Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Onlookers: I find in the above thread a telling, sad, sign. In the face of direct evidence that we are looking at a media smear of Christians and the Christian faith — at minimum by their playing to their own biases and failing to do due diligence before headlining slander-laced talking points, ever so many commenters seemingly find it extremely hard to acknowledge that such a smear has been exposed and needs to be corrected.
No. Original reports suggested Muslim terrorism. Then it emerged that he had Christian affiliations and was white, so earlier reports were corrected. Then it emerged that he was not religious, just culturally Christian, so those reports were corrected in turn. In contrast, here, in the OP we have a headline implying that he was a "Darwinian" terrorist. And it is still uncorrected, despite emerging evidence that he was not even a eugenicist, let alone a "Darwinian".
Meanwhile, we find a jumping on effect.
What is being jumped on is exactly what you (rightly) jumped on - the identification of the terrorist with a view that he did not even hold. Even if "Darwinian" would have been the right word to describe it, which it isn't
I shudder to think of what is going on elsewhere.
Which is exactly why this blog should do as the papers have done, which is to correct misleading headlines. And in this case, there is the additional motivation in that it is a site that promotes ID as an alternative scientific view to Darwinian evolution, so to have a headline in which the word "Darwinian" is misleadingly applied to an ideology, not a scientific theory, is, well, a smear.
We need to step back and ask ourselves, seriously, what is going on. Before it is too late. GEM of TKI
We do. Let the smears stop now. Be the change you want to see.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, I merely listed a quote of his and stated it is an honest worldview derived from his belief in materialistic Darwinism. Where in my comment did I call Will Provine immoral or any other name? If you can't show me that I would appreciate a retraction on your part.ellijacket
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
The conversion of a number 8 0 into an icon of a person wearing sunglasses and smiling in the comment above was done automatically by the editing software and was not intended by me.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Prof Gumby: In noting a social darwinist influence, I am not excluding other influences. Kindly note the already excerpted:
In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, “What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?” His answer is hardly the response of a “Christian utopian”: “‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should [note: SHOULD] be the fundament [sic] [i.e. foundation] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought [note previous defn as hitghlighted] but not necessarily on a personal level.” . . .
OF COURSE THESE ARE THE RAVINGS OF A MADMAN, BUT MADMEN ARE OFTEN QUITE LOGICAL, JUST LACKING IN COMMON SENSE AND A MORAL COMPASS. But it should be plain that though Darwinism in the social context is to frequent, where it comes up here, it is assigned a key role and one that controls his interpretation of what is logical or rational. Did you add into the Darwinism influence count the times where this man uses or implies terms or concepts sch as logic, rationality, reason, science or the like cognate terms? As, all these will be in part influenced by the FOUNDATIONAL assertion just clipped. In short, I am plainly well within fair comment on what is there, to note that a social-racial-national darwinist view is a key influence. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
In my experience it appears to be extraordinarily easy for most people to assume a causal link between what people express agreement with and preferences for and their behavior. In many cases it appears to me that when people do this they are very selective in what they choose as their causal links. For example, which of the following preferences (expressed repeatedly by a well-known historical figure) can be causally linked to this person's behavior: This person... 1) was a strict vegetarian 2) had a preference for Alsatian dogs 3) expressed a deep love for children 4) loved the operas of Richard Wagner 5) was especially fond of Franz Lehar's opera, "The Merry Widow" 6) enjoyed watercolor painting 7) was nostalgic about the time he spent in the city of Vienna In addition, this person... 8) expressed virulently anti-Semitic views in his public speeches and published writing 9) exhibited the behaviors of a narcissistic sociopath Which of the preference listed in points 1 through 6 is causally linked to the behaviors listed in points 8 and 9?Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
KF:
Onlookers: I find in the above thread a telling, sad, sign. In the face of direct evidence that we are looking at a media smear of Christians and the Christian faith — at minimum by their playing to their own biases and failing to do due diligence before headlining slander-laced talking points, ever so many commenters seemingly find it extremely hard to acknowledge that such a smear has been exposed and needs to be corrected.
You'll note that at least Elizabeth Liddle and I have acknowledged that the media have been incorrect in labelling Breivik a Christian fundamentalist. We are now more concerned with those anti-evolutionists here and now who are "playing to their own biases and failing to do due diligence before headlining slander-laced talking points."Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Dr Liddle: Practitioners of science had better be in part about what ought to be. That is why the failure to seriously address the moral hazard in the heart of Darwin’s theory as identified by him, is so sobering.
As was the failure to seriously address the moral heart of Einstein's theory. But it makes no difference to the truth or otherwise of the theory. Yes, science raises huge ethical dilemmas all the time. They are extremely important to resolve. But resolution does not involve denying the science - it involves scrupulously investigating its implications and taking steps to minimise harm. For example - and this is on point - the possibility is arising, right now, that genotyping will enable us to predict with significant odds what diseases someone is likely to suffer from. As a consequence, insurance companies may start to insist on genotyping before issuing health insurance, and denying cover for certain groups. This is in itself a form of eugenics. But do we then talk about "evil geneticist insurance companies"? No. Because issue isn't the science, but the ethical implications of that science. Exactly the same applies to Darwin's scientific theory.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
PS: Just to make my point clear, I am speaking about a worldview that in Plato's words [as was linked onwards], leads to the notion that the highest right is might. Atheists, having a conscience implanted by the God they would deny, can be moral, but evolutionary materialism, by dint of the lacking of a foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT, per Hume's IS-OUGHT guillotine argument, is inherently amoral and undermining of sound ethics and morality.kairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
In comment #57 kairosfocus wrote:
"...playing to their own biases and failing to do due diligence before headlining slander-laced talking points..."
In which of the following statements is this happening: 1) Anders Behring Breivik is a Darwinist 2) Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian fundamentalist 3) Anders Behring Breivik is a psychopathological mass murdererAllen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Mr MacNeill: Kindly note, the issue on the table in my remarks was the inherent IS-OUGHT gap of evolutionary materialism, which indubitably across 2400 years of history has led to associated factionalism, and which in the last century cost 100+ millions their lives. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
To continue the logic developed above, let's change the major premise: 1) people who accept the historical accuracy and moral prescriptions expressed in the Bible are immoral and potential psychopathological mass murderers; 2) fundamentalist Christians accept the historical accuracy and moral tenets expressed in the Bible; therefore 3) fundamentalist Christians are immoral and a potential psychopathological murderersAllen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Onlookers: I find in the above thread a telling, sad, sign. In the face of direct evidence that we are looking at a media smear of Christians and the Christian faith -- at minimum by their playing to their own biases and failing to do due diligence before headlining slander-laced talking points, ever so many commenters seemingly find it extremely hard to acknowledge that such a smear has been exposed and needs to be corrected. Meanwhile, we find a jumping on effect. I shudder to think of what is going on elsewhere. We need to step back and ask ourselves, seriously, what is going on. Before it is too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
In comment #47 ellijacket wrote:
"All beliefs affect our worldview. Will Provine’s view of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are a direct and honest result of his belief in materialistic Darwinism. What other view could he possibly come to?"
The logic of this comment (and the title of the OP) seems clear to me: 1) atheists who accept the scientific validity of evolutionary theory are immoral and potential psychopathological mass murderers; 2) Will Provine is an atheist who accepts the scientific validity of evolutionary theory; therefore 3) Will Provine is immoral and a potential psychopathological murderer It is perhaps somewhat inconvenient to ellijacket's logic that I happen to know Will Provine. Indeed, he is one of my mentors and very best friends. I do not know a more generous, kind, loving, mild-mannered, and scrupulously moral person. What is one to conclude from this? There are two alternatives: 1) Will Provine is an exception to the rule that atheists are immoral and potential psychopathological murderers (i.e. the major premise is valid) 2) the major premise that atheists are immoral and potential psychopathological murderers is invalid.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
It appears that my hopes
Attempts by any side to shoehorn him into their opponents’ camp are simply shamefully cheap debating tactics and blatantly ridiculous. The same goes for any mass murdering nutcase. I would hope the readers and writers here have the maturity and honesty to recognise that.
were in vain. The attempts by some here to use this tragic event to score cheap culture war points is absolutely disgraceful. What is even more disgraceful is the huge stretching and squishing that people are going through to label Breivik a "Darwinian terrorist." KF:
2 This man clearly has social darwinist influences.
This is false. Or rather it is true to the extent that he clearly has Shakespearean influences. To be absolutely tedious, let's go through each of the five references to Darwin in his manifesto (http://unitednations.ispnw.org/archives/breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf):
[Australian writer Keith Windschuttle] urges us to remember how unique some elements of our culture are: “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena. They were never produced by Confucian or Hindu culture.” “But without this concept, the world would not be as it is today. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, Newton or Darwin.”
Reference here is simply a quote from someone else championing Western culture, with Darwin as an example of a great scientist.
The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.
Reference here is justifying that his anti-feminist rant is not religiously motivated. Not that he is espousing "strict atheist Darwinism".
We say something, some politically correct BS like it’s the inside that counts, or that all ethnic groups are equal, but we don’t really mean it. The only reason lie publicly and even to our friends is because our countries are ruled by a Marxist entity and we are not allowed to say the truth. Social-darwinism was the norm before the 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist. Many people I know who supports mass-Muslim immigration (by voting on political parties in support of multiculturalism) deliberately avoids living with Muslims, simply because they don’t like them. But they still support mass-Muslim immigration.
In his anti-Islamic rant. Note that this is the only reference specifically to social darwinism in 1500+ pages.
Segregation in combination with a complete halt in aid and facilitating the African governments to implement nationalistic doctrines are in fact the best African strategy. Policies like these are in fact the most anti-racist approach of all as it clearly defines the new responsibilities and limitations. Because with responsibilities and limitations, comes opportunity. Nevertheless, people who are very short sighted will consider these policies quite cynical or darwinistic. However, long term, it is the most humanistic and responsible approach.
Defending his racial segregation ideas. Note that he is not self-identifying as "darwinistic".
Q: What should be our civilisational objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe? A: “Logic” and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level. Because, if a woman was purely rational, she would choose to not have babies at all, and instead live her life in a purely egotistical manner. We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives. Instead, we would focus much more of our resources to better ourselves and our communities by channelling at least 20% of the budget to research, science and technology. Good welfare arrangements combined with embracing the ideal of perfection requires a solid cooperation/symbiosis (social cohesion) and is only possible in a monoculture where everyone has complete confidence to everyone.
This is the only place where he appears to favour "Darwinism", but what he describes thereafter is not scientific Darwinian evolution or even social darwinism. More a sort of tribal collectivism. The last reference is the book list I quoted above. Above this reference, he cites Star Wars as one of his favourite films. Shall we now say Norway shooter a Jedi terrorist. There is as much basis for this headline as the current one. Can we now dispense with the cheap culture war potshots and drag this blog out of the muck?Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Practitioners of science had better be in part about what ought to be. That is why the failure to seriously address the moral hazard in the heart of Darwin's theory as identified by him, is so sobering. And it underscores how in an era of professionalised science, we need a unit in science edu, compulsory at undergrad and grad levels, on ethics of science in society with key case studies like special darwinism, eugenics, and the nuclear bomb. As I have highlighted again and again, evolutionary materialism -- a worldview that likes to dress up in lab coats -- has in it an inherent is-ought gap, is inescapably amoral and as Plato warned from long since, 2350 years ago, is dangerous for our civilisation. As I pointed out yesterday, I do not think it is an accident that it is a forgotten corner of science that the co-founder of evolutionary theory thought that "The World of Life [is] a manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose," GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
ellijacket:
Elizabeth, Respectfully, anything that we believe affects our worldview. If someone believes in materialistic Darwinism then that will affect how they view the world and most assuredly other people. How can it not?
It possibly does. So?
All beliefs affect our worldview. Will Provine’s view of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are a direct and honest result of his belief in materialistic Darwinism. What other view could he possibly come to?
Mine. Honestly I cannot believe this thread. We have a headline that asks "Norwegian shooter a Darwinian terrorist?" That headline is shameful propaganda. The Norwegian shooter was a terrorist. Details are still coming out as to the content of his specific fanaticism, but "Darwinian" is not a description of any of it, and to imply it is to mischievously conflate a scientific theory (which people here think is unsound) with an ideology that every right-thinking person on the planet, be they Christian, Muslim, atheist, biologist, Darwinist, evolutionist, flat-earthist, would condemn, in order apparently to score back debating-points the writer thinks were lost when early reports described Breitvik, wrongly, as a "Christian Fundamentalist". Breitvik is neither a "Darwinian" nor a "Christian Fundamentalist". His actions appear derive from a megalomaniac and narcisstic delusion that Christian Nordic Culture are under threat from Islam and that this threat is amplified by the Norwegian left and the ideology of multiculturalism. There is nothing Christian OR "Darwinian" about any of that, and think the headline as it stands is a disgrace to this site. kairos, news, can you not change it so something less despicable? Sure, make the argument that the theory of Darwinian evolution is misused by despicable ideologies. So is Christianity, for goodness sake. Misuse does not make either a scientific theory wrong, nor even a theology wrong. To imply that it does is, well, I used the word "mischievous" above, but it does not represent the depth of my feelings here.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply