Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”

Barry Arrington
October 24, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As irksome as Richard Dawkins can sometimes be, one must nevertheless admire his occasional outbursts of honesty.  Over at First Things  Fr. Ed Oakes refers to an interview  Dawkins gave to an Austrian newspaper, Die Presse (July 30, 2005), in which he said: “No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. . . . A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.”

Comments
Richard often says that we as humans need to rise above our darwinian roots.idnet.com.au
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
People who believe in scientism, i.e. that science is all there is, all there ever can be, and all there ever will be, must believe what Dawkins said, to be logically consistent. In other words, there is no "social" Darwinism, as congregate states. There is simply Darwinism, and that applies to every facet of life. Dawkins is simply being consistent with his worldview.DrDan
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
The rest of Dawkins' quote:
Yes but Fascism as the result of natural selection is the best any society can hope for. THAT is REAL Fascism. And you don't know Fascism until you have experienced the REAL Fascism born of natural selection.
:) I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...Joseph
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
I don't think there was any quote mining here. But title of the OP does seem to completely misrepresent what Dawkins is quoted as having said, by conflating the political or social philosophy of social Darwinism with the more common use of Darwinism here (and elsewhere), which is to refer to Charles Darwin's insights into the natural world, as supplemented by 150 years of research. Dawkins does not say anything about "Darwinism", or that a society in which belief that Darwin was factually correct about the nature of the origin of species was widespread would necessarily be or become fascist. He says that a "Darwinian society would be a fascist state." That is, a society that works according to Darwinian laws would be a fascist state. It seems clear to me that he means that a society based on social Darwinism would be fascist.congregate
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
If the quote is correct. I can only speculate that he is starting to build a case where "we the evolving humans" are reaching the Darwinian limits and should embrace our destiny in the religion of Dawkinsm - The living sage of our time...mullerpr
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Anybody out there have the full quote? Quote mining can be real, or it can be just a convenient objection to nullify the effectiveness of a quote that makes an excellent point. The way one tells which is the case is to look at the original context. It shouldn't be too hard, as the reference is given in the First Things article.Paul Giem
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Unless the full quote before the ellipsis is something like "[It is not the case that]A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.” Then it seems pretty hard to claim something dishonest is going on. I suspect he is being quoted honestly and meant what he said (though no doubt many will scream that it is taken out of context to keep dawkins' congregation pacified) . He is on record saying really brain dead things to the effect of, he is anti-darwinian when it comes to questions of helping others and the like.Jason Rennie
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
I think his point is something more like that government shouldn't emulate Darwinism. The "goals" of the two (to be very metaphorical in the case of the latter) couldn't be more different, after all.Reed Orak
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
That smells of quote-mining to me.Gods iPod
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
I don't understand. Isn't religion a social construct?Glarson24
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Dawkins has been extremely clear on his "anti-Darwinism" with respect to his politics. The question is whether Darwinism in his science is consistent with anti-Darwinism in his politics. Though I can sympathize with anyone who thinks that Dawkins simply hasn't made the case, that doesn't mean that the case for consistency cannot be made. And the vignette from Nietzsche isn't from any of his Untimely Meditations, but from his somewhat earlier, unpublished essay, "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense."Carl Sachs
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Nice admission by a party opponent. But if Darwinism is the truth about life how do you build a society on anything else? Our society is built on the Judeo-Christian world view that right and wrong exist as a fact of nature that all men are created equal by God and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Under the Dawkins model there is no such thing as right and wrong or human rights - only social constructs of convenience.Jehu
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply