At The Stream: Why IS racism wrong if Darwinism is true?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 8, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Racism}

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

Ask Darwinists — who believe that all life, and our life, and our intellects, are the waste product of random mutation and ruthless natural selection — a few simple questions. You’ll quickly encounter The Thing. It’s their answer to every question. So I wrote, in an essay (Brew a cup of coffee and read it!) aimed at college teachers. They should demand of their “Woke” students answers to each of the following:
What’s wrong with racism?
Why is inequality bad?
Why should those who enjoy the benefits of “privilege” ever surrender it?
If the results of injustice are more aesthetically pleasing to me than those of justice, why shouldn’t I choose injustice? Assuming that I can keep the whip hand, of course. Whatever answers they manage, teachers should “critique [each] response by referring strictly to Darwinian materialism. Any argument that can’t withstand that corrosive acid, toss in the trash.”
John Zmirak, “In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was with the Thing, and the Word Was the Thing” at The Stream

Here’s the essay Zmirak refers to.

Hmmm. It may be cruel to expect the young Woke to think carefully about such questions. They might be so much better adapted by their education to relieving their intellectual frustrations by smashing things.

See also: Historian Richard Weikart weighs in on Darwinian anti-Semitism in Poland. According to Weikart, unfortunately, it is not fake news. White nationalists use Darwinism and evolutionary psychology to promote their perspective.

Comments

"Ed George":
Evolution is not about right and wrong.
And yet if evolutionism is true then there isn't any right and wrong. There is just living, procreating and dying.ET_{March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

As in, Plato
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus_{March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Nihilism.kairosfocus_{March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

*Are?*Truthfreedom_{March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

@13
OK Bob. I’ll bite. On what basis do you say that your view of the Holocaust is objectively superior to Eichmann’s?
Pop-corn is almost ready. A materialist is going to embarrass him-self (again). -Materialism is the worst metaphysics. :)Truthfreedom_{March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

OK Bob. I'll bite. On what basis do you say that your view of the Holocaust is objectively superior to Eichmann's?Barry Arrington_{March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Barry -
It always boils down to personal preference. As Bob O’H has demonstrated in these pages many times, the materialist’s answer to the holocaust must ultimately be: “Holocausts are not my cup of tea, but who am I to say whether Eichmann’s tea preferences were better or worse than mine.”
No, that is most definitely not my answer. But I'm not surprised that you're unable to summarise my views correctly.Bob O'H_{March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Evolution is not about right and wrong. However, that doesn’t mean that it is not the best explanation. Whether or not racism is right or wrong is up to human society to determine and enforce. Nazi Germany as a society decided that discrimination against Jews was not wrong. For centuries, many different societies decided that slavery was not wrong. Up until well into the 20th century most societies felt that it was not wrong to discriminate against women. Within living memory most societies felt that it was not wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. Things change as societies evolve. Sometimes to be more inclusive, sometimes to be less so.Ed George_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 2
Seversky, predictably tries to hijack the thread by turning the question away from the point of the OP and put theists on the defensive.
Theists should be on the defensive if they are claiming that their morality is better-grounded or in some other way superior to others. If the only basis for such a claim is that "God says so" then that really isn't enough. It's no better that "I say so" if God doesn't give any reasons for what He is supposed to have said and if we can't even verify that He actually exists.
There really is no such thing as materialist ethics if by “ethics” one means “a non-arbitrary standard by which right and wrong are measured.”
Quite right, if you can't derive 'ought' from 'is' then there can be no materialist ethics
It always boils down to personal preference. As Bob O’H has demonstrated in these pages many times, the materialist’s answer to the holocaust must ultimately be: “Holocausts are not my cup of tea, but who am I to say whether Eichmann’s tea preferences were better or worse than mine.”
If Eichmann had actually asked all those who were marched into the ovens whether they wanted to be gassed as the Nazi's 'Final Solution' I'm pretty sure the answer would have been a resounding "No!" If people were asked whether they would like themselves or their loved ones to be tortured, raped and murdered to satisfy the warped desires of a psychopath, I'm pretty sure that, again, the answer of the overwhelming majority would be a resounding "No!" And if people were asked if they would like themselves and their loved ones to be provided with adequate shelter, food, water and other necessities, I'm pretty sure the answer would be a resounding "Yes!" If you asked them if they would like a safe and secure environment in which to enjoy these benefits, I'm pretty sure the answer would be a resounding "Yes!" That seems to me to be a good basis for morality. And it's one we can work out for ourselves rather than being imposed on us by someone else, even if the being doing the imposing is supposed to be the greatest that has ever existed. If that's the only reason for accepting that being's morality then you are just making the ultimate case of 'might makes right'. And I really don't think you want to do that.Seversky_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

@8 Pater Kimbridge
Now you understand why the question in the OP title makes no sense.
Nope. Now I understand that you are not providing any argument.Truthfreedom_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

@Truthfreedom: Now you understand why the question in the OP title makes no sense.Pater Kimbridge_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

@4 Pater Kimbridge
Why is slavery wrong if Christianity is true?
This is not even the shadow of an argument. This is s***. Wow Pater.Truthfreedom_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge also is apparently afraid to discuss the subject of the OP and wants to change the subject. I don't blame him. If I espoused his metaphysics, I wouldn't want to dwell too long or too deeply on their ramifications either. Better to parasitically benefit from the dwindling store of Christian moral capital built up over the millennia while, ironically, sneering at it.Barry Arrington_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Nowadays I would expect the more likely outcome would be for the student to melt, get all "triggered" and issue a complaint about the mean teacher who made him uncomfortable with his "offensive" questioning. The teacher would then be dragged before the protectorate of hurt feelings and chastised at length for his insensitivity and "intolerance". The teacher would then have to sign an apology, promise never to do it again, and be put on watch for any minor further infractions. He would be lucky to keep his job.Fasteddious_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Why is slavery wrong if Christianity is true?Pater Kimbridge_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

From the linked essay:
But you could make progress by being Socratic. Ask tough questions, and keep on asking, even if your students start shouting at you, or break down crying.
Yes, perhaps. But you might also be horrified to learn that some students have become hardened by materialism to the point that they acquiesce in its logical entailments. The point of "being Socratic" is to be provocative in the sense of provoking clear thinking. Force the student to face the fact that if he is going to embrace materialism he must also embrace the logical consequences of that view, one of which is that his aversion to the wanton slaughter of millions of innocents in the Holocaust rests on no firmer foundation than his aversion to pistachio ice cream. The hoped for result is the student will recoil in horror and reexamine his metaphysics. As I often say in these pages: If one's metaphysics causes one to say screamingly stupid things, perhaps one should reexamine one's metaphysics. But just there is the rub. Perhaps the student has examined this metaphysics. And perhaps he understands its logical entailments. And perhaps he has accepted that he cannot pick and choose; he must embrace the whole package, both the premises and the entailments of those premises. And perhaps he does. Now it is your turn to be horrified. This has happened to me more than once when discussing these matters with young people. I patiently explain the ethical entailments of materialism, often using the Holocaust as a practical point of focus. The student might push back at first, but at the end he always comes to the end of the logical chain (there really is only one end to that chain, no matter how much the Bob O'H's and Sevs of the world protest). And then expecting the student to be horrified at materialist ethics and open to changing his mind, to my horror he drops this bombshell: "I guess that's right. There really is no foundation for ethics; the Holocaust was not objectively wrong, because 'objectively wrong' does not exist." As I said, some version of this has happened to me more than once. The materialists control the heights of our education system. And from the commanding position of those heights they teach our children. And our children are learning the lesson. It is hard to be optimist about the future.Barry Arrington_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Seversky, predictably tries to hijack the thread by turning the question away from the point of the OP and put theists on the defensive. Why? Because defending materialist ethics causes painful dissonance of course. There really is no such thing as materialist ethics if by "ethics" one means "a non-arbitrary standard by which right and wrong are measured." It always boils down to personal preference. As Bob O'H has demonstrated in these pages many times, the materialist's answer to the holocaust must ultimately be: "Holocausts are not my cup of tea, but who am I to say whether Eichmann's tea preferences were better or worse than mine." Sev says, he knows why he thinks racism and inequality are bad. Well, Sev, will your answer withstand the corrosive acid of Darwinian materialism? Let's see. As a materialist Sev's response to racism and inequality must ultimately be derived from his subjective preference: "Racism and inequality are not my cup of tea, but who am I to say whether Bull Connor's tea preferences were better or worse than mine." Weak stuff Sev. Toss it out.Barry Arrington_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Well, why is racism wrong? Why is inequality bad? I know why I think so but what does the Bible say about why they're wrong? What reasons does God give, assuming they are specifically forbidden. I don't seem to remember a commandment against racial discrimination or social inequality.Seversky_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply