Where to buy Richard Weikart’s new book — HITLER’S ETHIC

_{William Dembski

October 8, 2009

Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Religion, Science}

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

HITLER'S ETHIC This book retails for $79.95 and Amazon sells it for $57.78. But the best price online to purchase it is at the Human Events Book Service (go here), where you can get it for $34.95.

I highly recommend Weikart’s latest. Darwinists continually try to deny or change the subject that Darwin’s theory deeply influenced the Nazis. Accordingly, what the Nazis did is supposed to constitute a profanation of tried-and-true pure Darwinism. But the flow of ideas from one to the other is clear. To be sure, Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for Nazism, but it certainly was a necessary one.

Comments

mikev6 -- the US has higher crime rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, larger disparity between rich and poor, supports capital punishment, has lower life expectancy, less general access to health care, Not to segue into the health care debate since there is a whole thread devoted to it, but there is probably more general access to health care here than in other Western nations (shorter wait times, more hospitals, treatment for the poor via Medicare or even emergency rooms etc.) Our poor are richer than the rich in a lot of countries using metrics such as appliances, automobiles, caloric intake, clothing etc. Other problems stem from our freedoms and cultural diversity, basically good things. I'm not claiming it's paradise and things can't be improved.tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PST}

mikev6 --I believe 80% of the US claims to be Christian. Do you feel that if we just made that value closer to 100% things would improve, or are there problems within that 80%? I believe that if 0 percent of the US claimed to be Christian and 100 percent followed Christ we would be a paradise. Of course, if you are going to follow Christ you may as well call yourself a Christian.tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PST}

tribune7:
My position is that if everyone followed Jesus society would be better.
I believe 80% of the US claims to be Christian. Do you feel that if we just made that value closer to 100% things would improve, or are there problems within that 80%? Also, what (in your view) makes Christianity unique in this way? What do you feel stops other religions or non-belief from forming a moral society?
What I am saying is that there is a strong link between institutional opposition to Christianity and oppression and terror.
I would agree with this, but probably for different reasons. A totalitarian state will try to eliminate any possible source of dissent, so (like communism) may suppress religion along with free speech, personal liberty, political parties, etc. In other words, the opposition to Christianity flows from the oppression, not the other way around. But not in all cases - Hitler seemed willing to leverage religion when it served his purpose, and I don't recall any large-scale uprisings from Christians attempting to halt his policies.
I showed that the U.S. is a significantly better country than other developed ones. Is the high percentage of believers a mere coincidence?
Largely, yes. I feel that religion has far less impact on the "morality" of a society than is generally claimed. Also, immigration does not necessarily mean the US is "significantly better" - the US has higher crime rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, larger disparity between rich and poor, supports capital punishment, has lower life expectancy, less general access to health care, etc. than many developed nations. Why do these problems persist despite the high percentage of Christians in the country?mikev6_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PST}

This seems to be a frequent assertion (”if everyone believed in God, our society would be better”). Actually, I'm not asserting this. My position is that if everyone followed Jesus society would be better. Professing a belief in some vague, self-defined spiritual force could actually make things much worse. What I’m trying to understand is that you seem to be claiming a strong causal link between religion and a moral society – i.e. that lack of religion automatically entails an immoral society. What I am saying is that there is a strong link between institutional opposition to Christianity and oppression and terror. Are you conceding that the U.S. has a “relatively high percentage of believers” and is “a significantly better country”? . . .Nope. It seems to be a corollary of your views You brought it up in 14 asking if I "can show how the relatively high percentage of believers in God in the US have made the US a significantly better country (lower crime, better living conditions, etc) than other developed nations?" I showed that the U.S. is a significantly better country than other developed ones. Is the high percentage of believers a mere coincidence?tribune7_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PST}

tribune7:
laws not arbitrary or based on expediency
What I'm trying to understand is that you seem to be claiming a strong causal link between religion and a moral society - i.e. that lack of religion automatically entails an immoral society. What exactly causes this? How does religion alone prevent "arbitrary laws"?
Are you conceding that the U.S. has a “relatively high percentage of believers” and is “a significantly better country”?
Nope. It seems to be a corollary of your views - if lack of belief creates immoral societies (in your opinion), then it seems likely that widespread belief will create better societies. This seems to be a frequent assertion ("if everyone believed in God, our society would be better").mikev6_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PST}

mikev6 That if Marx and Lenin had (somehow) managed to reconcile religion and communist theory then communism would have been quite moral? The Pilgrims basically started as economic collectivists and their system of government could be considered moral i.e. laws not arbitrary or based on expediency. And of course, the Pilgrims were smart enough to see the system not working and adapt. it would seem to me Are you conceding that the U.S. has a "relatively high percentage of believers" and is "a significantly better country"?tribune7_{October 11, 2009
October
10
Oct
11
11
2009
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PST}

tribune7:
Try this and this
From this, do I assume your thesis is that the evils of communism arose to a large extent from the rejection of religion? That if Marx and Lenin had (somehow) managed to reconcile religion and communist theory then communism would have been quite moral?
I wasn’t trying to. I was addressing your question as to how we know the U.S. is a better country. Remember that you are the one implying that there is a relationship regarding a belief in God.
Except that wasn't my question. From your statements OTOH, those things objectively get worse when a society attempts to institutionalize the rejection of Christianity. and For the nightmare to come about you would not merely need the rejection of God... it would seem to me that you are making exactly that implication - presumably if rejecting God drives a society to disaster, accepting God in greater numbers will improve society. Or does this hold for communism but not the US?mikev6_{October 11, 2009
October
10
Oct
11
11
2009
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PST}

Lmikev6 --OTOH, those things objectively get worse when a society attempts to institutionalize the rejection of Christianity. There is a case history. . .I’d be interested in reading that case history and how it supports your thesis. Try this and this You haven’t demonstrated how this is caused by a belief in God rather than the fact that the US is a developed country. I wasn't trying to. I was addressing your question as to how we know the U.S. is a better country. Remember that you are the one implying that there is a relationship regarding a belief in God.tribune7_{October 11, 2009
October
10
Oct
11
11
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST}

tribune7:
OTOH, those things objectively get worse when a society attempts to institutionalize the rejection of Christianity. There is a case history.
I'd be interested in reading that case history and how it supports your thesis. And how exactly does the US "institutionalize the rejection of Christianity"?
Since the U.S. is a destination for immigrants and not a source of emigrants, that would be very strong indicator.
You haven't demonstrated how this is caused by a belief in God rather than the fact that the US is a developed country. It could equally well be related to the increase in non-belief in the US.mikev6_{October 11, 2009
October
10
Oct
11
11
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

mikev6 --Killing and theft and lying and for expediency would be put into practice . . .Can you provide some evidence that these didn’t exist before Darwin? They certainly existed before Christ. Before Moses even. OTOH, those things objectively get worse when a society attempts to institutionalize the rejection of Christianity. There is a case history. Conversely, can you show how the relatively high percentage of believers in God in the US have made the US a significantly better country Since the U.S. is a destination for immigrants and not a source of emigrants, that would be very strong indicator. But, hey, now that we got European-style, one-world secular socialists running things that might change.tribune7_{October 10, 2009
October
10
Oct
10
10
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PST}

I do not mean to be tedious here but all too often a "proof" is asked for or is presumed to have been shown regarding subjects which do not lend themselves to proof. No particular entry is referenced here, just the general use of the term "proof" For example, no lawyer ever "proved" anything in a court of law. Proof is a term of art reserved for Mathematics and its branches (including rigorous logic.) Some things can be demonstrated to be true but not proved in the rigorous sense of the word. Newton's gravity is spoken of as a Law, but the revision, given by Einstein is spoken of as a Theory. In fact, probably neither is the complete explanation of the relevant workings of the universe. Einstein did not disprove Newtons gravitation; he just amended it and corrected it, adding the decimal points not included in Newtons Law. The formulation of a theory is properly a rigorous undertaking and the essence of a theory demands that the most fundamental precepts must be fully explained at the outset and the theory (in scientific terms) also demands that the theory must be able to predict future observations. It is not enough to simply say that "It is not fully understood." Evolution theory does neither. In fact it explains so little that it does not deserve the designation "Theory" at all. It could be called a conjecture, but I would call it simply a notion. Though not a fundamental necessity for Nazism, they certainly used it for political purposes to motivate the people by giving them something to hate and unite against. Differentiating natural selection and evolution, we can ponder the social consequences of any methodical human intervention into manipulating a population such as the Nazis did. In our own society we abort millions of children and we can but wonder what will be the long term consequences of that action on society. What if we could know the genetic makeup of those who have been aborted? If liberals abort more children than conservatives does it follow that eventually there may be no more liberals? Is there a liberal or conservative gene? Science works by the scientific method and not by imputing some ideology and then selectively taking only evidence which supports it and rejecting the rest. When the ID folks ask hard questions they must be answered satisfactorily before continuing the discussion. That is how it is done in physics and the competition there is not to promote but to explore. Personalities get involved of course but there is at least a general agreement that the search is for the truth as to how nature works.PhilipW_{October 9, 2009
October
10
Oct
9
09
2009
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PST}

tribune7:
Killing and theft and lying and for expediency would be put into practice with the judgment as to whether the expediency justifies the action being solely left to politics.
Can you provide some evidence that these didn't exist before Darwin? Conversely, can you show how the relatively high percentage of believers in God in the US have made the US a significantly better country (lower crime, better living conditions, etc) than other developed nations? Neither of these are speculation - we should be able to show this from actual data. Or should we just agree that acceptance or non-acceptance in Darwinism (or belief in God) actually has little or no impact on the morals or quality of society and move on to a more useful topic?mikev6_{October 9, 2009
October
10
Oct
9
09
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PST}

Really? Phylogenetics is definitely not all there is to human behavior and I don’t know where you got that idea from .
maybe from evolutionary psychology...and all the articles using evolution to explain every aspect of human behvior, including how religion 'evolved' given the rabid response of darwin's defenders to anything that may cast doubt upon his theory...like a rabid imam...evolution is a religiontsmith_{October 9, 2009
October
10
Oct
9
09
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PST}

What if, I underscore the ‘if’, evolutionary theory (”Darwinism”) eventually became universally recognized as true due to the strength of the evidence? What impact would that have on the world of religions, politics and society in general? Killing and theft and lying and for expediency would be put into practice with the judgment as to whether the expediency justifies the action being solely left to politics. Mercy and compassion would only apply as matters of aesthetics. Fortunately, God exists and science is showing that Darwinian (undirected) evolution to be impossible as a complete explanation for biodiversity. For the nightmare to come about you would not merely need the rejection of God but the rejection of science.tribune7_{October 9, 2009
October
10
Oct
9
09
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST}

Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for Nazism, but it certainly was a necessary one.
I don't know, or maybe I do know why Hitler is of such importance in the culture war on evolutionary science. What if, I underscore the 'if', evolutionary theory ("Darwinism") eventually became universally recognized as true due to the strength of the evidence? What impact would that have on the world of religions, politics and society in general? The existence of nuclear bombs is an unpleasant fact of life that we have to cope with - maybe evolution is another evil we also may have to learn to live with? For what it may be worth, my personal belief is that if evolutionary theory became universally accepted as a fact that we have to live with, that might actually improve our chances of survival on the planet. What would happen if we should come the realization that our lives and our future rest entirely in our own hands?Cabal_{October 9, 2009
October
10
Oct
9
09
2009
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PST}

tsmith,
Evolution attempts to explain all human behvior…it is the atheist creation fable.
Really? Phylogenetics is definitely not all there is to human behavior and I don't know where you got that idea from . Certainly not from evolutionary biology. Recognition of our evolutionary heritage however aids in understanding the soil in which our garden of behavioral flora grows. That is, our behavior is determined by the compound effect of phylogenetics and ontogenetics. On the other hand, it is a proven fact that religion is no guarantee against the most atrocious behavior. I don't think I need refresh anyone's memory about a recent scandal involving clergy. The only solution to the problem of ignorance about evolutionary theory is more education, not less. Nobody advocates elevating the ToE to a religion or faith but we think it deserves to be taught like all other scientific theories. We are not required to believe in the theories of electromagnetism, nuclear physics, relativity - or evolution. Or even ID, if and when it develops into a comprehensible theory.Cabal_{October 9, 2009
October
10
Oct
9
09
2009
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PST}

camanintx -- If terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb somewhere, would you try to use that to overturn modern atomic theory? No, but if they justified their act by appealing scientific theory, it would certainly call that theory into question.tribune7_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PST}

tsmith, #5
then why do you think evolution is absolutely, 100% proven and correct?
Nobody who understands how science works would ever claim that a theory is absolutely, 100% proven and correct. But if one wishes to supplant existing theory, they should spend more time explaining their alternative and less time trying to discredit the current theory. After all, Einstein didn’t go around attacking Newton’s theories as immoral because people used them to hurl deadlier projectiles at each other.camanintx_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PST}

"And why would you expect a biological theory to predict aspects of the social sciences?" Well, Webster's dictionary defines social Darwinism thusly: 1. The application, chiefly in the late 19th century, of Darwinism to the understanding of human society. 2. The body of political and social beliefs based on this, specifically the belief that individuals, ethnic groups, etc., achieve success or dominance because of inherent genetic superiority and a resultant competitive advantage. If evolution truly explains the origin of species, then it's a simple matter of extrapolating that theory into explaining human behavior and customs (see also evolutionary psychology).Barb_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST}

Dr. Dembski, Though I could not find the whole video, this video segment by Chuck Missler seemed somewhat similar in the direction it was going to the Theodicy you laid out in "The End Of Christianity": Chuck Missler - The Fall of Lucifer http://connect.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=b02993bec4071a87ddc3givemeabreak_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PST}

then why do you think evolution is absolutely, 100% proven and correct? no matter the data, the story is changed to fit the facts. whatever it is, it had to evolve, because evolution is true. I wouldn't, but evolution is far more than a 'biological theory' and everyone, except the apologists, know it. Evolution attempts to explain all human behvior...it is the atheist creation fable.tsmith_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PST}

tsmith, #3
#2: this assumes that evolution has been proven, it hasn’t. When atomic theory attempts to explain all human behavior, let me know.
Atomic theory hasn't been proven true either (even quantum theory has its limitations). And why would you expect a biological theory to predict aspects of the social sciences?camanintx_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PST}

#2: this assumes that evolution has been proven, it hasn't. When atomic theory attempts to explain all human behavior, let me know.
"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- 'Darwinism' was always intended to explain human society." (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], "Darwin," [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).
tsmith_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PST}

If terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb somewhere, would you try to use that to overturn modern atomic theory?camanintx_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST}

I wonder if he discusses the role of Progressivism in the formation of Nazi ideology.Vern Crisler_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply