Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress

_{Mario Lopez

July 8, 2009

Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution}

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

This should be interesting:

Book Description

In this book, Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

More…

Comments

KF, although Anscombe makes a point similar to my own, I like to stay within a given frame of reference. Moral condemnation of Hitler is not possible in the same context in which one considers Darwin and ID. Indeed, the the same theater, Darwin is quite unable to expressly condemn the exterminating civilized races, and quite oblivious and unhelpful as to how that jives with the superior civilized nature that make these races "superior". Yet in his picture it is clear that a less ape-like civilized races--without losing that designation of "civilized"--have exterminated the other races. This of course is inevitable within the newly-minted "objective" good of "progress". As for how Hitler related to the ethics of a civilized society, I've quoted him before that he believed 1) Civilized ethics were a central trait of civilized societies, 2) As Germans were the preeminent culture (which they were prior to WWI) they represented the pinnacle of civilization, 3) As the creators of aesthetics and ethics, they could put them aside if survival depended on it. 4) As they were nothing without those with the power to craft them. So Hitler shows a similar tension as Darwin. On one hand we have ethics as the high-mark (and mark) of civilization, but somehow we can exterminate the ape-like races and set those ethics aside to defend those who deem themselves the authors of the bounty of civilization. It seems that all Hitler added was *how* civilized man retains his civility and exterminates the ape-kin as prophesied in the Book of Darwin. Evolution is the process of IS. One thing IS in such a way that it gradually becomes another thing that IS in it's new way. We impart the term "progress" to this, and the species that created the worldwide mindlink of the Internet owes to the progress, that was made without one single ought. OUGHT relates to design. An intentional redirection of what IS. If we need an ought in order to condemn Hitler, and it is absolutely true that we ought to condemn Hitler, then any scheme that does not account for oughts just makes us stupider--definitely if purity of method is to be advocated. That's what I originally referred to as the "stupidity" on this thread. A lot of micro-points, a number of misses that some took to be points. But absolutely no understanding of the inherent relationship between concepts.jjcassidy_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

JJ: More properly, we cannot derive an ought from an is unless the foundational is grounds that ought. This is Anscombe's point in rebuttal to radical relativism and its underlying metaphysics. (Cf here.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

So much stupid stuff has gone on above. One guy repeatedly misreading what Darwin describes as many points of similarity as "little difference" (Review NS). And, in defense of the natural origin of morality, Seversky trots out Hume's observation that you cannot derive an ought from an is. Obviously, if that is case, what is to be our response? What ought it to be? It seems that much of this is tied up into what makes good Science. I dare say that Science is supposed to be all IS-es. That being the case, and it all IS, where would we possibly get an ought from by sourcing only Science. Either oughts are and Science doesn't describe them, or they are a secondary manifestation. Of course you can't get an ought from an is, only is-es are real! An ought for example, is that we ought not teach evolution because it causes fascism. But, wait, that ought is simply an expression of bias and preference. Questionable as an emotional utterance. There's another group that thinks we ought to teach it because it is true. Regardless of whether we need God for morality, we need an ought. And if Science displaces our trust in ought, before telling us what it IS--or perhaps by telling us that it IS simply an expression or opinion about preference, then the appeal to the partition between "ought" and "is" IS nothing. If we cannot find a good Scientific ought, then Hitler's atrocity IS NOT criticizable in the same context that we want to use to critique ID. And even the naturalist NEEDS an ought when he uses reverses Hume's skepticism against oughts to argue about how we OUGHT to proceed with this disconnect. This is ultimately why Darwin was completely ineffective in arguing that although we WERE undoubtedly (objectively?) injuring the race of man, we OUGHT not neglect our higher (??) nature. Of course, how that nature related to "exterminating" the the more savage races is another question, because he presents that more of as an WILL BE. If Homo Civilis was always to nurture this sensitive side--as some unquestionable asset--then it either has NOTHING to do with exterminating the more ape-like races of man, or Darwin is presenting the case that "civilized" man will ascend regardless of this selective sympathy. He is as least ambiguous and confused on the matter and so his ethical conclusions--as admirable as they were--didn't leave as big of an impression as that we were undoubtedly injuring our race in letting our "worst" members breed.jjcassidy_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Further follow up: On egalitarianism as the root of natural law based morality, from Locke's 2nd treatise on civil Govt, ch 2 in which he quotes "the judicious [Richard] Hooker" in Ecclesiastical Polity thusly:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.
Locke goes on to remark:
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions . . . . so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another . . . . In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security [i.e. we see here the right to self-defense for the community, and also the individual, as is discussed at length in the work], and so he becomes dangerous to mankind . . . . [Ch III, S 17] he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power [i.e. to tyrannise upon another, by force, fraud, usurpation or invasion] does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it.
The in-stamped in-common Imago Dei grounds a fundamental equality that leads tot he legitimacy of common accountability before the Tao, as has long been known. The inherent inequality/elitism and cut-throat survival ofthe fittest races or classes etc competition of evolutionary materialism -- allegedly warranted by "science" -- stands in sharpest contrast to this restraint on our propensities to misbehaviour, with consequences that are now a matter of massive and massively bloody record. Sadly, all of this was foreseen and warned against, to no avail. So easily have we been bewitched by the word magic: "Science proves . . . " (And, the methods of science are inherently provisional and incapable of proof in any strong sense of that term. [For that matter, post Godel, so are the methods of Mathematics. Our civlisation needs to learn a little epistemological humility, methinks.]) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

Following up: First, CY, thanks for some kind words. Needed as a balance, and they caused the focus to at least in part shift to a serious reflection. Now, too, it seems that it needs to be pointed out that it is a fundamental datum of our existence that we find ourselves morally obligated; as is reflected in how and why we quarrel -- not just fight. That is, we have an in-built, undeniable fairness expectation that when one party says "you unfair me!" the other does not say "what is fairness and how do you get a so-called right to it?" but instead argues on the premise that fairness is a right is true. Those who seem to think that the is-ought gap driven amorality of evolutionary materialism is irrelevant to enabling a civilisation-destructive trend of gross and destructive immorality, therefore should do a serious rethink. (In short, at worldviews level, AMORALIY in the name of "science proves" is worse than "mere" IMMORALITY. And, historically just such amorality is precisely the context in which C19 - C20 racism, "superman" elitism and revolutionism had appalling consequences, as Darwin projected and as Wells warned against.) And, the hint of the Kantian Categorical Imperative on which we can judge that a pattern of thought and behaviour that credibly results in such destructiveness if it spreads across a society is immoral, is not coincidental. That is, that which is AMORAL as a claimed established and institutionalised worldview, is thus plainly also IMMORAL. That is also why it is a very legitimate conclusion -- even on the strength of this alone -- that evolutionary materialism cannot be correct; as, we all know that we are morally bound, so its amorality reveals its inability to account for patent facts. (Of course, as is discussed at 255, it also cannot ground the credibility of the conscious, reasoning, knowing mind that is required to think evolutionary materialist thoughts too, i.e it is self-referentially absurd. The hard problem of consciousness is hard because it is trying to solve a self-referential incoherence. this is most blatantly seen in say Crick's neurological reductionism: "you're nothing but a pack of neurons," but also comes out in the magic of otherwise unwarranted "emergence" -- "matter in motion under blind forces: poof, magic, mind!") Finally, the way that such evolutionary materialism is held to be a scientific finding and fact that is "indisputable" save by the "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" is that (a) the vast difference between operational science and origins science is improperly blurred, and (b) the question is begged at worldviews level by imposing a redefinition of science that is historically and philosophically unjustified. On the first, we can observe the planets in orbit around the sun, or that the world is round. We cannot observe the remote claimed past of life on our planet, especially the relevant sense of "macroevolution," origin of body plans and associated large jumps in functionally specific complex information. (We CAN observe that the relevant type and scale of information is routinely produced by designers and is beyond t5he reasonable reach of chance and necessity on search space and target grounds on the gamut of our observed cosmos.) On the second, let us call up US NAS member Mr Lewontin as a witness, from his infamous 1997 NYRB article on Sagan's last book:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
It should be plain to all but he "true believers" that worldviews level prejudice like that can have no epistemological credibility. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

vjtorley @ 319
(1) Is it possible to formulate a concept of human nature which is essentially egalitarian - in other words, a concept of human nature which precludes the very possibility of one group of human beings being superior to (or more important than) another group, or of one person mattering more than another? If so, then what is this concept? Or, if an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature is incapable of being formulated, then why not?
Before I could answer that, I would have to ask you to be a little more specific about what you mean by "egalitarian". By what measure are you seeking equality? For example, at the individual level I observe that there are many human beings who are variously younger, stronger, faster, smarter, more talented and more skillful than I am. I do not consider myself their equal in terms of many or all of these abilities or properties. There are also people to whom I am superior in some or all of these fields. By these measures we do not observe equality amongst individual human beings. At the racial level, I would have to ask similar questions. Do we consider the white European/North American race superior or inferior to the black African race and what metric would we use to establish that relationship based purely on racial factors, bearing in mind that science considers the differences between the so-called races to be insignificant. Or are you asking if it is possible to develop a philosophy or ideology or policy in which all human beings, regardless of race, culture, creed, wealth or individual capabilities in a given society are held to have equal rights before the law, are entitled to have those rights respected and protected by their fellows.
(2) Assuming that some essentially egalitarian (and hence non-racist) concept of human nature can be developed, what kinds of social and political systems would be most likely to promote that concept?
Winston Churchill once said in the House of Commons:
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
I would argue that any system of government which upholds the rights of individuals, which upholds the right of individuals to be individuals and which holds those rights to be supreme is probably the most egalitarian we may be able to set up. We should also bear in mind that any form of social uniformitarianism, such as various communist regimes attempted to impose is not what I would consider 'egalitarian'.
(3) What kind(s) of Deity, if any, is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature, and what kind(s) of Deity is/are not?
As an agnostic/atheist, it is not really for me to say. I can say that I was raised as a Christian and believed in the compassionate, forgiving, all-loving God of the New Testament. There are some here, or who have posted here, who appear to cleave more to the God of the Old Testament. If I were still Christian, I would have to say that I do not consider that deity to be either Christian or worthy of worship.
(4) Which account(s) of human origins is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature?
The value of any account of human origins lies in its accuracy as a description or reconstruction of what actually happened. What moral conclusions may be drawn from such a theory are both irrelevant to its accuracy and, on the basis of the 'is/ought' problem, unfounded.
If I believe that each and every human being has a spiritual soul, like mine, made in the image and likeness of God, then four things follow at once.
Obviously, I do not now share your belief in the existence of a God or soul but I do share your belief in the value of each individual human life and the respect we should accord the rights to which each should be entitled. I cannot ground that evaluation in the decrees of some supreme moral authority but then I believe that any claims for objective grounding of moral prescriptions are philosophically suspect. What I can and do argue is that there is nothing to prevent human beings in society from deciding moral codes by which they agree to be bound and which would be just as valid - and arguably better-grounded - than those prescribed by the various faiths.
Seversky_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

tsmith:
really? ok, then go ahead and design a flu vaccine for the NEXT iteration (mutation) of the flu virus..use the awesome powers of evolution to predict it…should be easy…
isn't that kind of what happens already? according to wiki:
Each year the influenza virus changes and different strains become dominant. Due to the high mutation rate of the virus a particular vaccine formulation is effective for at most about a year. The World Health Organization coordinates the contents of the vaccine each year to contain the most likely strains of the virus to attack the next year.
ohyes_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

hdx -- And since Hitler never talked about speciation or anything related to macroevolution,
The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker,which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all . . . . . . If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
He is saying that process of evolution created the "higher development of organic life". How is that not macroevolution?tribune7_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

KF, Your post brought together many parts, it was good reading. I'm guessing you didn't go through the public school system's mill. I think you explained it much better than I did. What the writers after you missed in the "amoral" distinction is that while darwinism could be called amoral in an ultimate kind of way, the point is that it lends itself the best to bad stuff happening. Just as there's a whole lot of good that can be taken from Karl Marx, the point is that it's so easily twisted to bad ends. This would be a hard point to argue if Neodarwinist evolution was on firm footing but it's not, so it shouldn't be given exclusive rights. Evolution is at a watershed now where further research can't bring it back to naturalism. You'd have to believe that the cell machinery and genetic entropy and double helix's etc, each and every point can be reconciled. Everyone on both sides knows that this is impossible, and there's only one direction research can go towards. So I'm not worried from a scientific viewpoint but instead how it's communicated to the public. "We therefore need to recapture the C19 - early C20 milieu, in which “science” and “progress” — the latter usually explicitly tied to an evolutionary and often explicitly socially darwinist view (and often with race and/or class as key evolutionary varieties) — were the twin engines of “hope.” (In that context, H G Wells was a dystopian, warning about the moral dangers of materialist and/or irresponsible science through the War of the Worlds, Time Machine and Island of Dr Moreau. [Observe the contrast with Jules Verne, who was much more celebratory over he prospects of science.])" I read the unabomber manifesto recently, it's worth reading. And while I don't agree with his methods, he convinces me on the point that technology developed too far is always bad. His solution is to force a dark ages on us. I'd like a more long term solution but in the meantime I think religion should be promoted as a stop-gap. The founding fathers thought the same thing probably. They were interested in promoting religion in this country and so made the church and state separation. It's not just darwinism that bothers me but that all this new science is being used by a global elite to control people. Jefferson said this republic will only last if it remains agrarian. My bottom line is I wouldn't have a problem with Darwinism or the materialist agenda if the humanities were keeping pace with technology advances, and I think this will happen if enough time is given.lamarck_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

There have been a great many claims and counter-claims on this thread, so I'd like to make a suggestion. What we should be focusing on are these four questions: (1) Is it possible to formulate a concept of human nature which is essentially egalitarian - in other words, a concept of human nature which precludes the very possibility of one group of human beings being superior to (or more important than) another group, or of one person mattering more than another? If so, then what is this concept? Or, if an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature is incapable of being formulated, then why not? (2) Assuming that some essentially egalitarian (and hence non-racist) concept of human nature can be developed, what kinds of social and political systems would be most likely to promote that concept? (3) What kind(s) of Deity, if any, is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature, and what kind(s) of Deity is/are not? (4) Which account(s) of human origins is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature? For those who might want to follow up a cogent Christian perspective on these issues, I would recommend the following reading. Economy or Explication? Telling the Truth About God and Man in a Pluralist Society by Professor John Finnis. Aquinas' Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy by John Finnis. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Defense of the Immateriality of the Human Soul Hylemorphic Dualism by David Oderberg, University of Reading. From Augustine's Mind to Aquinas' Soul by Fr. John O'Callaghan, Creighton University. (I suggest that readers scroll down half-way to "The Philosophical Claim" and continue reading to the end.) Why the concept of God, properly understood, strengthens rather than weakens the notion of the natural moral law C. S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma by Steve Lovell, at http://www.theism.net/article/29 . Addresses the question: are actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good? C. S. Lewis argued that the key to the answer lay in the essential goodness of God. I have voiced my own opinions on some of these matters on another thread, but I'd just like to briefly restate the reasons why I think that the belief that every human being has a spiritual sould, created by God, is the best defense against racism or any other kind of -ism which puts people down. Here goes. If I believe that each and every human being has a spiritual soul, like mine, made in the image and likeness of God, then four things follow at once. First, each and every human being possesses a value which cannot be adequately expressed in purely material (let alone monetary) terms. Nothing on Earth can be compared to the value of one human life. Second, each and every human being is just as important as I am: we all have human souls, and spiritual attributes are not quantitative, so no person’s soul can be greater than another person’s. Third, each and every human being exists for the same reason as I do: to know, love and serve God. He/She is a child of God. Fourth, each and every human being has an eternal destiny. He/She was made to be happy with God forever in Heaven. Some religious believers may have forgotten or overlooked these truths in times past. But that does not make them any the less true. It merely makes the people who didn't live up to these truths hypocrites. Is belief in evolution compatible with the religious vision of our origin and ultimate destiny described above? Only if this belief goes hand-in-hand with a humble acknowledgement that a comprehensive "bottom-up" (or reductionist) account of human nature is impossible, and that our capacity for reason is God-given.vjtorley_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models
really? so what does the flu virus evolve into?? 8xhe8sk (something new)?? haven't seen that...all that 'macro' evolution of a flu virus isn't it still the flu???tsmith_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Your knowledge of evolution is atrocious. Evolution can’t predict what specific changes will be made with the flu virus.
well then what good is it?? might as well say a little green martian made the flu virus. But evolution definitely does cause changes in the flu virus. uh no, the little green man programmed the virus to change...tsmith_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

hdx:
Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models in hummans are based on animal models, which wouldn’t make sense if there wasn’t common ancestry.
Except for the fact that common design and convergence explain the SAME data that UCD does.Joseph_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

hdx:
But evolution definitely does cause changes in the flu virus.
Mutations cause the changes. Evolution is a result. IOW your knowledge of evolution is atrocious.Joseph_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

KF @301:
And so, we should just as firmly — but with civility — insist that the facts and their implications be faced.
The implications are disturbing, indeed. It's unpleasant even to write of them, because, taken out of context, my own words would make me seem a very sick person. But if morality, and by extension, our moral outrage at wrongdoing are simply evolved behaviors, just like the wrongs themselves which provoke it, here are the implications: Hitler's genocide, and others, were not absolute evils. They were decisions we disagree with. Our moral outrage is subjective. Had the Third Reich succeeded, those same actions might be considered moral and just by most men. Further, the victims of those actions deserve neither pity nor sympathy. Natural selection chooses some and others die. Do we memorialize every population that gets wiped out by disease or predation, by which one creature kills another for its own perceived benefit? The Nazis' victims died because their environmental niche turned hostile. It happens all the time. So what? As I said before, I don't propose such reasoning as scientific evidence against Darwninism. But if, as a Darwinist, one cannot accept such reasoning without hesitation, without flinching, then why not? To accept a premise and not follow it through to its logical conclusion is intellectually dishonest. To those readers: Look it in the eye. It's what you believe. If you cannot accept it, then the reasons why are worth exploring.ScottAndrews_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

"Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models in humans are based on animal models, which wouldn’t make sense if there wasn’t common ancestry." This has been discussed many times before and is essentially the issue of homology. It ignores the mechanism that produces the differences. Understand no one is disputing that changes occurred and that some of these changes were large changes. The issue is what caused the large changes or what is the mechanism. Since Darwinian processes have never shown any capability of producing these changes, the debate is over what is the mechanism. Darwinian processes can produce micro evolution or small changes but they cannot produce macro evolution or large changes. The common perceived wisdom is that small changes add up to large changes but this falls apart when one uses an information processing model of the genome. So there are really two separate areas of evolution and one should not conflate one with the other.jerry_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

really? ok, then go ahead and design a flu vaccine for the NEXT iteration (mutation) of the flu virus..use the awesome powers of evolution to predict it…should be easy… Your knowledge of evolution is atrocious. Evolution can't predict what specific changes will be made with the flu virus. But evolution definitely does cause changes in the flu virus. Does keep me employed since some of the work I do has involves detection of the H1N1 Swine Flu.hdx_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 301
The real problem with the example of this case is that it documents the problem of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism: it is an IS that can ground no OUGHTS.
Quite right. The theory of evolution is amoral - as distinct from immoral. It is a theory in biology not ethics, just like theories of gravity or relativity or quantum mechanics are theories in physics. They are constructed to describe and explain aspects of the observable Universe, not make judgements about them. And, as you rightly point out, you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. That would also apply to any God who 'is'. Just because He might tell us to behave in certain ways does not mean He's right and we ought to obey Him. If He 'isn't' then, of course, He's irrelevant.
Of course, Hume’s “surprize” is rhetorical. (He full well knows that those who argue in the context of God find in God an IS who grounds all OUGHTS.
And he also knows full well that those who do so argue have no more justification for trying to "ground" their morality in an 'is' that isn't than in an 'is' that is.
He is really hinting at something like the Euthryphro dilemma, in an era where were he to have done so explicitly and directly, he would have been brushed aside with the longstanding classical answer: God’s goodness of character and status as undisputed Creator and Lord, ground oughts as the means of his moral government, and do so without arbitrariness.
And he would have been well aware that this so-called "classical answer" is rhetorical ploy that amounts to a blatant failure to engage the substance and the underlying evidence supporting the case against the existence of a God and any claims for overriding moral authority made on His behalf.
But Hume’s usual subtle game is to shift the burden of proof unduly and set up selectively hyperskeptical terms of engagement, just as he does most notoriously on miracles.)
Hume is keeping the burden of proof right where it belongs, with whoever is making a claim, as in his rightly celebrated case concerning miracles. Chanting "selectively hyperskeptical" does not answer a good argument or make it go away.
We now have amorality that grounds social darwinist immorality, and corrupts science, medicine, law and policy alike.
Sorry, no, you can't ground immorality in amorality any more than you can ground morality in amorality. It's just another version of the 'is/ought' problem.
This began to unravel in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, as it was discovered where the "logical" outcome of such thinking ends. So, Germany became the paradigm case of undisputed evil. (Never mind that Stalin's Gulag actually seems to have killed more than herr Schicklegruber's, and Mao's much more yet again. [Not to mention 48+ million unborn victims of the US abortion policy since 1973.])
Speaking of being selective, all this quietly ignores the fact that human beings have been committing evil acts against each other at least as long as recorded history. Just look at the Old Testament for a start. And how about the Spanish conquistadores rampaging through the Americas? They didn't need the theory of evolution to inflict the most appalling catastrophes on the native peoples. Just being good Christians was more than enough. Or what about the European powers plundering Africa, Asia and Australasia for natural resources - which, for them, included slaves - well before "survival of the fittest" was ever though of? There is more than sufficient evidence to support the claim that all of the evils referred to above have been endemic in human society long before Darwin. The Nazi policy of scapegoating and then massacring Jews may have been conducted on a much larger scale but it was far from being the only example of horrors in European history. The theory of evolution may have provided an additional justification for the Nazi policy but it is neither sufficient nor necessary to account for long-standing anti-Semitism in Europe of which it was but one more - admittedly extreme - example. In my view, any history of the rise of National Socialism in Germany which isolates Darwin's theory of evolution as a primary cause while minimizing the roles of the many other causal chains on which such events are contingent runs the risk of being viewed as partisan advocacy rather than the objective and disinterested scholarship which is its ostensible purpose.Seversky_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

@308 tsmith said evolution, and made no distinciton between the two. And since Hitler never talked about speciation or anything related to macroevolution, the whole point is that Hitler's concept of evolution is different from Darwin's and closer to ID/creationism (since both agree on microevolution but not common descent) Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models in hummans are based on animal models, which wouldn't make sense if there wasn't common ancestry.hdx_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Evolution is always in an important topic. In fact Yesterday I was reading about how useful evolutionary models where for predicting the resistance of HIV to antiviral drugs. Or was HIV designed to resist drugs? I still haven’t seen a creationist or ID models to predict the resistance of HIV to drugs.
really? ok, then go ahead and design a flu vaccine for the NEXT iteration (mutation) of the flu virus..use the awesome powers of evolution to predict it...should be easy... so why would coyne say this??
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell's fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all
and why the lament from the article...
It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine's most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as "evolution" in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].
linktsmith_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

"Evolution is always in an important topic" You are talking about micro evolution and this is not controversial. No one is disputing micro evolution. So to bring it up or continue with it is an irrelevant diversion.jerry_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

and evolution has nothing to do with modern medicine either…
As someone who works in the biomedical field, I can say that you have no clue what you are talking about. Evolution is always in an important topic. In fact Yesterday I was reading about how useful evolutionary models where for predicting the resistance of HIV to antiviral drugs. Or was HIV designed to resist drugs? I still haven't seen a creationist or ID models to predict the resistance of HIV to drugs. In many other topics of medicine, evolutionary models are also useful.hdx_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

said you were bearing false witness. I didn’t say you intended to deceive. You don’t read too good, it seems.
now you're lying about your lies...too funny.
But since many religious people support science, and since it is science which created the internet and modern medicine and got us to the moon, to call it “atheistic faith” is quite nonsensical.
sorry Darwin didn't invent the internet, that was ALGORE...and evolution has nothing to do with modern medicine either...or getting us to the moon. and yes evolutionary biology is an atheistic faith, as I have proven, and as its supporters, like miller and provine admit. too bad you cannot admit the truth, but, as we have seen, the truth is not in you.
What I said, tsmith, is that the consensus of historians say the rise of Hitler was due to a range of factors. Your inability to process basic information is quite astounding
the 'consensus'..right...whenever someone says the word 'consensus' they're lying. you can't name any names, just spew unsupported talking points. given your proclivity for lies and your intellectual shallowness, I'm real curious as to what your job is.
Let me just re-state for the record all of the positive evidence you have discussed for Intelligent Design in this thread…
whats the title of this thread again?? 'hitler's ether, the Nazi pursuit of ID'???? no its... Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress are you masochistic?? do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself??tsmith_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

olearyfan -- I said you were bearing false witness. That would be calling him a liar. Don't try to parse it. You are using the phrasing of the Commandment and the Commandment involves not just intent to deceive but intent to damage.tribune7_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

KF, "So, we know what is at stake, and why there is such a stout distractive or deflective rhetorical resistance when this topic is brought up. And so, we should just as firmly — but with civility — insist that the facts and their implications be faced." While others here were most assuredly contemplating the "evils" of God, I spent several hours reading the material in your post and its links. And none of it was verbose. It seems some arguments get lost in the rhetorical sea of quck summaries. Your posts seem to float above all that. You took me from the jungles of Africa to Nazi Germany, to the courts of America, covering a century and a half of history in that time, with one clear focus - evil's clear rejection of a law-giver. Ideas have consequences indeed. Excellent post.CannuckianYankee_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

tsmith
so you called me a liar first. you’re wrong of course, but facts don’t matter to darwinists, obviously.
I said you were bearing false witness. I didn't say you intended to deceive. You don't read too good, it seems.
so you don’t know, and your ’science’ is nothing more than athiestic faith.
Of course there are limits to our knowledge. But since many religious people support science, and since it is science which created the internet and modern medicine and got us to the moon, to call it "atheistic faith" is quite nonsensical.
in other words ya got nothing…LOL..no surprise. Most of the historians I mentioned were also contemporaries of Hitler, they knew the era VERY well…
What I said, tsmith, is that the consensus of historians say the rise of Hitler was due to a range of factors. Your inability to process basic information is quite astounding.
LOL at least I can name names and provide research and links that actually support my postion, instead of undermining it…
Let me just re-state for the record all of the positive evidence you have discussed for Intelligent Design in this thread... [ ] There. That was easy.olearyfan_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 297:
He gets away with it, though, because he is “goodness” personified and the foundation of objective morality. Thus, genocide - or should that be something like ‘bioticide’ - on a planetary scale is a good thing. It is only bad when atheists try their hand at it.
Over at TVTropes, they refer to this phenomenon as "Designated Hero". To quote:
It might be easier to present this character as being deliberately morally ambiguous, if not for other characters (and the writers) repeated[ly] implying they have great traits.
A related trope is "What The Hell, Hero?", best summarized I think by this snippet:
Sometimes, the author doesn't realize his hero just wiped out all the Ewoks...
dbthomas_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

Lamarck: As the linked lecture documents, it is a bit more complex than schoolyard bullyism writ large; though that is a definite personal component. (We need to ask why any presumably sane culture would hand itself over to the tender mercies of grown up schoolyard bullies, given what we all know of such by observation and/or experience.) We therefore need to recapture the C19 - early C20 milieu, in which "science" and "progress" -- the latter usually explicitly tied to an evolutionary and often explicitly socially darwinist view (and often with race and/or class as key evolutionary varieties) -- were the twin engines of "hope." (In that context, H G Wells was a dystopian, warning about the moral dangers of materialist and/or irresponsible science through the War of the Worlds, Time Machine and Island of Dr Moreau. [Observe the contrast with Jules Verne, who was much more celebratory over he prospects of science.]) In the particular case in view in this thread, the above lecture -- observe how the Darwinist advocates above have refused to actually engage the substance and underlying historical evidence of the lecture, resorting instead to "lost in the rage" rhetorical tactics -- and the online articles here and here will help us see what was going on. The real problem with the example of this case is that it documents the problem of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism: it is an IS that can ground no OUGHTS. So, if in the name of "science" it becomes a dominant view in the decision making and decision influencing classes of a culture, it tends to drive out morality from power considerations. (And it seems these trends are resurfacing in our day.) Now, the is-ought gap problem goes back to Hume:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. [book III, part I, section I of his A Treatise of Human Nature]
Of course, Hume's "surprize" is rhetorical. (He full well knows that those who argue in the context of God find in God an IS who grounds all OUGHTS. He is really hinting at something like the Euthryphro dilemma, in an era where were he to have done so explicitly and directly, he would have been brushed aside with the longstanding classical answer: God's goodness of character and status as undisputed Creator and Lord, ground oughts as the means of his moral government, and do so without arbitrariness. But Hume's usual subtle game is to shift the burden of proof unduly and set up selectively hyperskeptical terms of engagement, just as he does most notoriously on miracles.) Now, in a civlisation increasingly driven by that sort of skepticism, enter stage left a new theory of science that sweeps all before it, on our origins, in a context that is also simultaneously arguing that inferences from apparent design to God as designer a la Paley are thereby undermined and proposing that the evils of the natural world are a second argument against such Design. Suddenly, the civlisational tide shifts, and we begin to face a culture that in its intelligentsia is more and more driven by the view that IS cannot ground OUGHT, and the scientifically credible is is a matter of cutthroat struggle for existence at the expense of lesser breeds. We now have amorality that grounds social darwinist immorality, and corrupts science, medicine, law and policy alike. In the socialist movement, this takes place in the name of dialectic materialist social evolution driven by economic manifestations, and leads to Communist Russia. In Germany, it grounds itself in the Blavatsky Aryan Man myth -- a largely lost once higher sixth stage of human evolution, now to be recovered by the races closest to that ideal (the Swastika being a cultural artifact of the Aryans . . . ) -- and ends in herr Schicklegruber's regime. In Britain, it comes down to the white man's burden [not to mention, the identification of the upper classes as the evolutionary elites and the robber baron capitalists as similar elites), and justifies the sort of behaviour indulged by a Cecil Rhodes. It also spawns the eugenicist movement, which boils down to being a softened version of Darwin's envisioned elimination of inferior races by the superior ones. In America, what wee may call eugenicism . . . "applied biology" . . . is the driving force of several key "progressive" social-cultural movements, indeed it is even embedded in the textbook at the heart of the Scopes Monkey trial. (Oddly, in those days, too, much of the "fundamentalist" movement was caught up in the same vision. Young Earth Creationism, from one perspective, is a protest movement against the social-cultural implications of the progressivist- evolutionary myth. That is why the Ota Benga story is so pivotal in understanding the dynamics at work.) This began to unravel in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, as it was discovered where the "logical" outcome of such thinking ends. So, Germany became the paradigm case of undisputed evil. (Never mind that Stalin's Gulag actually seems to have killed more than herr Schicklegruber's, and Mao's much more yet again. [Not to mention 48+ million unborn victims of the US abortion policy since 1973.]) Unfortunately, it has been much harder to get a serious rethink of the underlying philosophy, history of ideas and "science" going in our civlisation. And in particular, science has been insulated from having to address the moral hazard that lies at he core of materialism-dominated paradigms: a "scientific" materialist view of reality asserts that all that is, is an IS that plainly can ground no oughts; and has played a key enabling role in the rise of indisputable evil. That is, utterly demonic evil is all too real -- and can triumph in the most civlised and "scientific" of countries, and in the name of "science" too -- so needs to be reckoned a fact of reality. But, the prevailing view of science among the professoriat and other halls of our intelligentsia is a materialist-evolutionary one: a view of reality that only admits of ISes that can ground no OUGHTS. That is, we have now come to an Acts 17-style critical instability in the foundation of the [hyper-]modernist, evolutionary materialist worldview. That is why the rhetoric, rage and immoral equivalency arguments are so intense on this topic; as, this is the point where the key crack in the foundation of the evolutionary materialist view is most obvious. (And, it is a point that as soon as we consider comparative difficulties on the reality of evil points strongly to a grounding reality beyond the material.) So, we know what is at stake, and why there is such a stout distractive or deflective rhetorical resistance when this topic is brought up. And so, we should just as firmly -- but with civility -- insist that the facts and their implications be faced. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

This idea that Stalin and Hitler and Mao were wrestling with different ideologies and came to the conclusion that Darwin or Jesus were right or wrong is in opposition to how we see politicians act today. They use religion as a tool. When you see a bully on the playground he's not wrestling with abstractions. He'll grow up and still do the same thing but with words. It's a lack of introspection because rage is clouding vision. Insanity is likely not a logical process. When I'm angry I'm not thinking logically, so I have to conclude that these people are feeling chronically what most feel once in a while, and this long term heavy burden leads to extremes if the person is in power. You'll only be able to feel release when you destroy, just as normal people get emotional release of anger through destruction. So ideologies that lean towards destruction if "bought" by the masses, while at the same time lending a veneer of justification, are the ideal choices for Hitler etc. Right now China has their citizens convincingly brainwashed on "nationalist pride" as an abstract ideology. Bad propaganda is as powerful as it contains some grains of truth, without weakening it's power to destroy. People that espouse this type of nationalism the quickest aren't concerned with China's pride. They see it as the best vehicle to destroy everything with a seemingly valid justification. It's all about destruction and this is what Neodarwinism is. This country is the same way. Eventually microchips will be implanted in babies because enough fools think this will bring safety. Safety is always the tool used to get rid of civil liberties because it's close to the truth. The founding fathers knew this and Jefferson didn't think we'd be able to fight the bankers off our backs for long, he gave it 100 years. But anyways, I don't think we can look to history to see anything like what's being set up now. Because Neodarwinism is specifically about ensuring that everyone knows their worthless and there's nothing worth living for. This is unprecedented if it succeeds. I mean there's many vectors to what's suppressing mankind, there's taxes, TV, drugs, the IMF etc, but Darwinism is right up there with those, or even worse. I predict disaster for the world if Darwinism gets a much firmer grip on the next generation. Darwinism isn't that powerful just now but if they got a really good grip on everyone it's all over. I'm glad to see higher physics going forward into spiritualism and mystic minds etc. I saw a vid where an oxford physicist says we're all from another universe.lamarck_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Quoted by DATCG: "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection." Interesting. It almost sounds like a follow-up to OctoMom.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply