Has anyone ever wondered why Darwin’s followers …

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 7, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Peer review}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

… have a really hard time figuring out why anyone tries to be good?

The carriers of the evolutionary process are populations. Populations consist of reproducing individuals, such as cells, viruses, plants, animals, and people. Offspring inherit fundamental information from their parents. This information is encoded in genomes, if we focus on genetic evolution. Occasionally modifications arise. These new genetic variants are called “mutants.” Mutation generates new types, new molecular ideas. This constitutes the first half of the evolutionary process.

The second half is “natural selection.” The mutations might affect reproductive rates. Some mutant genes spread faster in the population than others. Nature becomes a gigantic breeder selecting for advantageous traits. Survival of the fittest is the underlying theme of natural selection. The world is fundamentally competitive. So it seems.

Depending on where you live, you may be paying for school systems that force this stuff down kids’ throats, thanks to the Darwin in the schools lobby.

Comments

Yes, Zach, "Altruism can increase fitness". So are Theists more fit AND more altruistic than Atheists? http://m.livescience.com/38743-religious-women-having-more-babies.htmlppolish_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness - July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE1haKXoHMo Mass Consciousness: Perturbed Randomness Before First Plane Struck on 911 – July 29 2012 Excerpt: The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened – but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.,, Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers. ‘It’s Earth-shattering stuff,’ says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading the research project behind the ‘black box’ phenomenon. http://www.network54.com/Forum/594658/thread/1343585136/1343657830/Mass+Consciousness-+Perturbed+Randomness++Before+First+Plane+Struck+on+911
bornagain77_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Seversky said:
So morality could be possibly be objective but in reality humanity’s moral beliefs are subjective, it is just logically a problem to admit the truth of the matter. One must be dishonest to be logically moral.
Humanity's moral beliefs are subjectively held. There is no "logical problem" in admitting that. All knowledge and belief is subjectively held, accumulated via our subjective sense. We do not know if what we subjectively experience, know or believe is a factual accounting of objectively existent phenomena; this point was made by Plato long ago. The question is if we believe/hold to be true that some of our experiences, knowledge and belief do reflect phenomena that objectively exists "out there" somewhere. We either believe/hold this to be the case or we are solipsists. It is not dishonest to believe/hold that some of what one experiences has an objective existence of its own; it's the only honest way to live. Even if we call ourselves solipsists, we still behave as if at least some, if not most, of what we experience, objectively exists "out there". The dishonesty is in when one claims that something experienced (morality) doesn't objectively exist "out there", but then acts as if it does.
Such is the nature of subjective morality even if one acts like it is objective.
Immutable Natural Law morality doesn't have the problem of self-referential incoherence (subjective morality) or the Euthyphro Dilemma (divine command morality).
The same as those who believe there is an objective moral code, the subjective basis for that belief . Objectively applied to all.
Then you are distinguishing between your own subjective, personal feelings about what is good and what is evil? And that is how you tell "the" difference between good and evil - however you happen to feel about it? Thus, your subjective morality boils down to the principle: Because I subjectively feel like it. Thus, if you feel like gratuitously torturing a child, then by your argument that is the way you tell between good and evil; how you subjectively feel about it, and so torturing a child is moral. What gives you the right to intervene in the moral behaviors of others if what they are doing is, in your view, a matter of subjective perspective and does not refer to any objectively wrong behavior?
In practice you have admitted it is,
No, I haven't. We do not know if morality refers to an objective or a purely subjective phenomena. Like with anything else (Plato's Cave), in all matters we are trapped within the subjectie confines of our own subjective viewpoint. However, unless we are solipsists, we believe and in many cases must act as if some things exist outside of our subjective perspective, objectively, in a universe "out there". Morality is one of those things we must act as if exists, in some way, objectively, just as we must act as if other things outside of ourselves actually exist objectively. To act as if morality exists objectively, but insist it only exists subjectively, is not only hypocritical, it points to a problem in your worldview; why are you insisting morality is subjective in nature if you must act as if it is objective in nature?
Objectively applied morality, treat others as you wish to be treated.
Or, treat others as if they are mere objects for you to use for personal gain. It's as moral a principle for behavior as any other in a subjective-morality world.William J Murray_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

William J Murray: Atheism/materialism morality: You commit as many murders as your nature demands given your circumstances. Turns out that religious people also commit murder. William J Murray: If you consider it right to torture children gratuitously, it is morally good (as morally good as anything gets under a/mat), if you consider it wrong, then it is immoral. Obviously, if someone thinks some act is morally good, then that person thinks it is morally good. Some might think it is morally wrong, but do it anyway due to some compulsion; while others may simply have no moral sensibility, in which case it is neither moral or immoral to them. Silver Asiatic: The idea is: “people usually don’t go around committing murders, so there’s nothing to think about here” Actually, the idea is that most people don't have a desire to commit murder. Silver Asiatic: We praise people like that – they’re ignorant of the game and just do good deeds, not realizing that evolution is merely compelling them to do them for their ‘winning strategy’. That a mother might feel compelled to sacrifice for their children doesn't make her less courageous, even if we recognize the evolutionary benefit. Silver Asiatic: They know that helping, loving, charitable actions are really just selfish desires done for our own interest. Obviously, a mother who sacrifices for her children isn't doing it for her own interest, but out of love for her children. Mark Frank: Evolution causes us to want to eat sweet things because having calories (at one time) increased our fitness. That doesn’t mean we eat sweet things because it increases our fitness (indeed in the modern world it does the reverse). We eat sweet things because we like the taste. We are altruistic because we like to help others. Knowing the cause of that desire makes no difference. This. bornagain77: So evolution is about survival of the fittest except when it is about survival of the most altruistic? Altruism can increase fitness.Zachriel_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Theists are more fit than Atheists. http://m.livescience.com/38743-religious-women-having-more-babies.htmlppolish_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank We are fit because we're altruistic because we like sweet things because we like it because it causes fitness...... Got you.Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Seversky: As for good and bad, what’s to stop us from working out for ourselves? Wjm: Nothing. The problem is the logical ramifications of a group that has worked it out for themselves and has come to the conclusion that morality is subjective or that morality is issued by divine command. Previously William: Any sane person knows that alltheir beliefs are subjective beliefs that they may be mistaken about. Nobody here that I know of is asserting that they have “objective” beliefs. So morality could be possibly be objective but in reality humanity's moral beliefs are subjective, it is just logically a problem to admit the truth of the matter. One must be dishonest to be logically moral. While nothing stops them from doing so, the nature of what they have “worked out” is problematic both from a historical and a logical perspective. Such is the nature of subjective morality even if one acts like it is objective. Look at what you just said. If there is no objective good/evil, what exactly is it that the a/mats are “distinguishing between”? The same as those who believe there is an objective moral code, the subjective basis for that belief . Objectively applied to all. If morality is indeed subjective, In practice you have admitted it is, nobody can know the difference between good and evil because there can be no “the” difference between good and evil. Of course they can based on whatever subjective criteria they choose for whatever reason, just like you, what they can't do is claim that they have a absolute knowledge. Your argument for subjective morality is laced with terms, claims and implications that only make sense if morality is objective in nature. Objectively applied morality, treat others as you wish to be treated.velikovskys_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

So evolution is about survival of the fittest except when it is about survival of the most altruistic? Man you just got to love a theory that can explain away any evidence no matter how contradictory it is. Of course some may think that such unfalsifiable flexibility of a theory is a sure sign that the theory is in reality a pseudo-science, but I'm sure evolution can also explain why some people would believe that evolution is a pseudo-science!
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists - April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory — ,, "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?" The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. "We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists," Cardinale says. "When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled.",,, Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. "Maybe species are co-evolving," he adds. "Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong." http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html Oceanic microbes behave in a synchrony across ocean basins - March 16, 2015 Excerpt: Researchers have found that microbial communities in different regions of the Pacific Ocean displayed strikingly similar daily rhythms in their metabolism despite inhabiting extremely different habitats -- the nutrient-rich waters off California and the nutrient-poor waters north of Hawai'i. Furthermore, in each location, the dominant photoautotrophs appear to initiate a cascade effect wherein the other major groups of microbes perform their metabolic activities in a coordinated and predictable way.,,, The bacterial groups common to both ecosystems displayed the same transcriptional patterns and daily rhythms -- as if each group is performing its prescribed role at a precise time each and every day, even though these communities are separated by thousands of miles. "Our work suggests that these microbial communities broadly behave in a similar manner across entire ocean basins and that specific biological interactions between these groups are widespread in nature,",,, "Surprisingly, however, our work shows that these extremely different ecosystems exhibit very similar diel cycles, driven largely by sunlight and interspecies microbial interactions," said Aylward, "This suggests that different microbial communities across the Pacific Ocean, and likely waters across the entire planet, behave in much more orderly ways than has previously been supposed," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150316102112.htm
bornagain77_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

SA I seem to write the same things about this every couple of months. Don't confuse the cause of moral behaviour with the justification. Evolution (and other things) cause us to want to be altruistic because in the long run that increases our biological fitness. That doesn't mean that even the most knowledgeable evolutionary scientist is altruistic because they want to increase their fitness. To give an analogy. Evolution causes us to want to eat sweet things because having calories (at one time) increased our fitness. That doesn't mean we eat sweet things because it increases our fitness (indeed in the modern world it does the reverse). We eat sweet things because we like the taste. We are altruistic because we like to help others. Knowing the cause of that desire makes no difference.Mark Frank_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

From the OP, Mr. Nowak explains:
In these repeated games, winning strategies are generous, hopeful, and forgiving. They accept less than half of the pie, but share many pies; they hope to establish cooperation with newcomers; they forgive occasional defection.
Cooperation comes from evolution. We cooperate in order for our species to survive and reproduce. It's the way multicellularity works:
Multicellularity means that cells cooperate with each other. They are no longer in an all-out competition for whoever reproduces fastest. Instead, they divide as needed for the benefit of the organism.
So, cooperation is for the benefit of the organism. Cooperation enables us to have a 'winning strategy' in evolution.
In a most recent approach, we search for mechanisms that allow “saints” to cooperate without looking, without calculating the costs and benefits, without being aware of the game that is being lost or won.
Since evolution made cooperation basically a selfish strategy to win in the game of life, we really don't like that. It's kind of ugly and embarrassing. So, there are 'mechanisms' that make us obey evolutionary demands 'without looking' at the self-centeredness of it all. In fact, the good people are not even 'aware of the game'. We praise people like that - they're ignorant of the game and just do good deeds, not realizing that evolution is merely compelling them to do them for their 'winning strategy'. The 'good people' are living in an illusion that they're not being selfish. But that's ok. Evolution made it that way - we need those ignorant people around. Fortunately, we have evolutionists who are smarter than everyone else to explain all of this to us. They know that helping, loving, charitable actions are really just selfish desires done for our own interest. Evolutionists do good deeds, but not in the 'saintly way' of being totally ignorant of reality and living in an illusion, but rather, fully aware. They're university professors, after all. You can't get much more important than that. But we excuse evolutionists of being openly selfish because they're so intelligent and they teach us everything we need to know about life.
We recognize principled cooperators, who we can trust when times get rough, and we preferentially associate with them. We call them friends.
Yes, "we call them friends". The "principled cooperators" in our life who we associate with, because they benefit us. That's why we 'associate with them'. It's like multicellular cooperation. We need friends because they give us a better winning strategy for survival and reproductive success, the true goal of life.Silver Asiatic_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

WJM
Atheism/materialism morality: You commit as many murders as your nature demands given your circumstances.
Zachriel was attempting to be cute and appeal to a populist view. The idea is: "people usually don't go around committing murders, so there's nothing to think about here". But in this case, his little comment expressed exactly what materialist morality is: acts are of neutral value, we just do what our nature dictates.
Or we can just boil it down to this: Morality under atheism/materialism means that you consider an act right or wrong as your nature demands given your circumstances. If you consider it right to torture children gratuitously, it is morally good (as morally good as anything gets under a/mat), if you consider it wrong, then it is immoral.
Exactly. Zachriel argued against this idea previously, but he inadvertently expressed it quite clearly now. We consider acts right or wrong depending on whatever our nature demands. We know our nature is often violent, irrational and hostile. Whatever our nature demands is what is right for us. But taken a logical step further, there is no right or wrong. There's just doing whatever our nature demands. Evolution made us this way and it doesn't matter what we choose to do, under that belief-system.Silver Asiatic_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Seversky
What has what we are made of got to do with the value of what we think and feel?
In the a/mat view, what we're made of is what causes us to think and feel.
Are a computer’s calculations worthless because it’s made of silicon and copper and plastic?
It's a pretty good analogy. The calculations are worthless to the computer. The silicon and copper and plastic do not care. Even the software doesn't care if it exists or not. We care because we have immaterial qualities of intention, purpose, meaning, intelligence, imagination, future aspirations, goals -- and we want to explore and learn and discover the truth about things -- all of which transcend (and contradict) the evolutionary determinants of survival and reproduction.
As for good and bad, what’s to stop us from working out for ourselves?
A consistent a/mat wouldview would stop us. We persist in working out good and evil in opposition to materialism. Many, probably most atheists use and apply the moral structures derived from theism (and which have no support under atheism) to live moral lives. Just because a person says he or she is a materialist, doesn't mean he or she has to live consistently with atheist-materialist thought. The same is true for theists. The question is not judging various individual persons - but judging the belief-system and worldview in itself. As following ...
And doubting a/mats ability to distinguish between good and evil is a bit rich coming from people who apparently wouldn’t know the difference unless God had told them.
Can you see the difference in these two statements?: 1. I doubt than any atheist has the ability to distinguish between good and evil. 2. Atheistic/materialism provides no rational basis for distinguishing between good and evil.Silver Asiatic_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Zachriel said:
The ‘universe’ doesn’t dictate what you should or shouldn’t be. Rather, it’s in your individual nature. You presumably commit as many murders as your nature demands given your circumstances.
I completely agree that this is what a/mat means in terms of morality. That's a great summary: Atheism/materialism morality: You commit as many murders as your nature demands given your circumstances. Or we can just boil it down to this: Morality under atheism/materialism means that you consider an act right or wrong as your nature demands given your circumstances. If you consider it right to torture children gratuitously, it is morally good (as morally good as anything gets under a/mat), if you consider it wrong, then it is immoral. It all just depends on the individual's nature and circumstances.William J Murray_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

William J Murray: The problem is that such a universe doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be, either. The 'universe' doesn't dictate what you should or shouldn't be. Rather, it's in your individual nature. You presumably commit as many murders as your nature demands given your circumstances.Zachriel_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Seversky said:
What has what we are made of got to do with the value of what we think and feel? Are a computer’s calculations worthless because it’s made of silicon and copper and plastic?
No, they're not worthless; they're just not moral. Biological automatons that do what they do entirely because they are caused to do so by the forces of physics are not making moral choices because there is nothing else they can do in any particular instance other than what physics dictates via happenstance colliding/interacting collections of molecules.
As for good and bad, what’s to stop us from working out for ourselves?
Nothing. The problem is the logical ramifications of a group that has worked it out for themselves and has come to the conclusion that morality is subjective or that morality is issued by divine command. While nothing stops them from doing so, the nature of what they have "worked out" is problematic both from a historical and a logical perspective.
The fact that the universe is pitiless and indifferent doesn’t mean we should be.
The problem is that such a universe doesn't mean we shouldn't be, either.
Look up the is/ought gap. And doubting a/mats ability to distinguish between good and evil is a bit rich coming from people who apparently wouldn’t know the difference unless God had told them.
Look at what you just said. If there is no objective good/evil, what exactly is it that the a/mats are "distinguishing between"? If morality is indeed subjective, nobody can know the difference between good and evil because there can be no "the" difference between good and evil. Your argument for subjective morality is laced with terms, claims and implications that only make sense if morality is objective in nature.William J Murray_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter4 @ 7
If an atheist acts according to his own worldview and to Darwin’s view, they are nothing but pieces if meat that came together over millions of years through chemical interaction and blind chance . No ultimate meaning . Three is no good or bad in this worldview , just blind pitiless indifference as Dawkins correctly states . When atheists talk about good or bad ! Sorry but I have to chuckle and shake my head in amazement
What has what we are made of got to do with the value of what we think and feel? Are a computer's calculations worthless because it's made of silicon and copper and plastic? As for good and bad, what's to stop us from working out for ourselves? The fact that the universe is pitiless and indifferent doesn't mean we should be. Look up the is/ought gap. And doubting a/mats ability to distinguish between good and evil is a bit rich coming from people who apparently wouldn't know the difference unless God had told them.Seversky_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Andre @ 6
And if that is true it needs to be addressed.
Why? That would seem to be what News and others here would like.Seversky_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

If an atheist acts according to his own worldview and to Darwin's view, they are nothing but pieces if meat that came together over millions of years through chemical interaction and blind chance . No ultimate meaning . Three is no good or bad in this worldview , just blind pitiless indifference as Dawkins correctly states . When atheists talk about good or bad ! Sorry but I have to chuckle and shake my head in amazement .wallstreeter43_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Seversky And if that is true it needs to be addressed.Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Depending on where you live, you may be paying for school systems that force this stuff down kids’ throats, thanks to the Darwin in the schools lobby.
Not to worry. According to one survey, some 13% of science teachers are openly teaching Christian creationism in the science classroom and the bulk of the remainder avoid trouble by not mentioning evolution by name at all.Seversky_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

WD400 By implying that chemical reactions can choose a outcome that is different than other chemical reactions. It's total nonsense. Chemical reactions obey the laws of nature. Always. Newton 's efforts to turn lead into gold should be enough to tell you why the materialist version of evolution is total nonsense.Andre_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

What's wrong with the quoted passage? Do you not think children are similar to , but different from, their parents. Or that some genetic variants have higher fitness than others?wd400_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

"Depending on where you live, you may be paying for school systems that force this stuff down kids’ throats, thanks to the Darwin in the schools lobby." Teaching of naturalism in public schools is state establishment of atheism, in the US this is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. In the past, state atheism this has not ended well: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.”
Viktor Frankl
“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. “I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
Jim Smith_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

News: Depending on where you live, you may be paying for school systems that force this stuff down kids’ throats, thanks Quelled horreur!velikovskys_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply