“Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.”
24 Replies to “Who Said This?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Serving The Intelligent Design Community
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The same man who said this:
Mr Arrington,
A happy new year to you and yours, as well as all at UD!
You have posed an excellent and deliciously utterly politically incorrect but revealing he/who said it.
(To see it in its context, onlookers, cf here. The chilling prophecy that foresaw where all of that could — and, sadly, did — lead [right down to the symbols: eagles falling, dead, in the air and lions defeated, in Africa . . . ], is discussed and cited here.)
GEM of TKI
Onlookers,
Since we seem to have a new wave of objectors at UD armed with subtly toxic talking points, it is necessary to give the actual context of Herr Schicklegruber’s talk:
The cynical, manipulative calculatedness of that Nietzschean amoral superman cum false political messiah cum neopagan occultist — don’t forget his court astrologer! — cum racialist evolutionist driven by the stream of darwinist thought flying the flag of science that through Haeckel and successors was so dominant in Germany in the early half of C20 stands utterly revealed. (And the onlooker will understand why I have consistently linked radical secularist evolutionary materialist thought with neopaganism.)
So, yes, he could attack [some] atheists as threats to his slow perversion and death of the Christian faith agenda, and/or as suspected Communists. At the same time he had many such in his party and SS, indeed there is a remark by I think it was Himmler to the effect that he had ever so many divisions full of men who would willingly sacrifice their lives with equanimity, who had not a thought or concern about facing their Creator in judgement, with eternal consequences to their behaviour in the stakes.
So, plainly, opposition to the atheists who were not supporters of his party — despite the rather irresponsible toxic talking points of many a current atheistical site — by no means meant that Hitler’s “Christianity” was any more real than Breivik’s.
Indeed the same web page continues right after the cite above, as follows:
And, the writer then concludes with a pointed question: So whose beliefs are really more like Hitler?
GEM of TKI
PS: For those needing a worldviews level discussion on the warrant for Theism, and the Judaeo-Christian tradition of theism, I suggest a read here on, in context.
F/N: It is worth the pause to cite Heine’s prophetic warning from the 1830’s; yes, a full century before the horrific events played out:
Heine was well-known, and I have seen how in 1914, the rape of Belgium by German militarism was seen as a manifestation of this prediction in action. Hitler, of course, served in the Imperial German Army in that same area, and plainly imbibed deeply the toxic propaganda that moved Bryan — US Secretary of State in 1914 and 15 — to remark on its roots in Nietzschean superman thought and Darwinism as then seen as inter alia a scientific analysis of human society and history.
We need to face how science can be abused by being wedded to irresponsible ideologies, and how we can neglect or too hastily brush aside warnings on the consequences.
That is why we need to reflect slowly, soberly and thoroughly on the questions of Origins Science in Society as a burning ethics issue; especially given the inherent and inescapable amorality of evolutionary materialist scientism. KF
The same man who wrote:
Of course, I don’t quote this in an effort to taint theism by association with Hitler. That would be almost as ridiculous as trying to associate “Darwinism” with Hitler.
I never read this from old Hitler but indeed he is saying Christianity is a myth and science whas and will more prove to more its a myth.
Perhaps however the bible having Jewish connections made him hopeful for its demise even more so. Even if he thought it untrue the achievement of Christianity, and so by his unbelieving reasoning, was repulsive to him because of its Jewishness.
So he thought aliens were living on other planets?!
So evolutionists and evolutionist science fiction writers can score him in their ranks!
He just got things always wrong while indeed seeing facts and presumptions that were indeed to be noted.
He sounds just like the bad guys today!
His presumptions would place him in our opponents tent.
From his writings would they see or predict anything wrong?
It seems Christianity being and treated as being true as been the reason for any good thing in mankind.
Of course you can’t associate Hitler and Darwinism! How preposterous! Hitler clearly actually got his racial agenda from Haeckelism.
C:
Pardon, but I must be direct.
You are wrong, and wrong in more ways than we can count, in ways that are driven by toxic, misleading talking points that are being irresponsibly circulated in new atheist circles by people who have simply not done their homework — on the charitable interpretation.
First, you and your ilk need to make proper acquaintance of the recent documentation on what Hitler and ilk were doing and planned to do to the Christian Churches. That is why both the Catholic leadership and the Confessing churches rebuked the Nazis in formal denunciations. In the latter case, they actually issued a creedal document denouncing subversion of the gospel and the church by politically messianistic idolatry, the Barmen Declaration. We are talking here, of leading theological thinkers, such as Barth, Bonhoffer and Niemoller, et al. Of this list one became a martyr and one a confessor. On the Catholic side, the White Rose movement were the first to publicly expose the holocaust in Germany, at the cost of their lives.
In short, there is no reasonable dispute that Hitler was seeking to subvert and manipulate the church, cynically and coldly exploiting the ignorance and goodwill of many in pews or pulpits alike. That is what the cite already given above documents, and you need to read it again, in addition to the just linked Nuremberg investigatory document.
And, I am not even more than mentioning the no 2 group of the holocaust: Catholic Poles, was it 2 million dead. (In the usual lists of victims, this group is somehow conspicuously not named as such, even though they vastly outnumber many of the groups that are commonly listed. Perhaps, you are unaware that the FIRST murdered at Auschwitz were Catholic Poles? Let us never forget, Hitler’s first target of his extermination and subjugation policy was Poland, not just Jews in Poland. Though, he singled out Jews for particularly vicious attention, wiping out 90% of the Jews of Poland — and I am in no way minimising his genocide of Jews; just the opposite, I am highlighting that he was a murderous misanthrope, worse than Robespierre. That 3 million murdered Jews of Poland is already half the Jewish holocaust. Add in the other 2 million or so Poles and you get to almost half the holocaust proper as a whole; the wider European war of course being responsible for the death of maybe 40 – 50 millions. I don’t know how the totting up reckons with the 20 millions of Chinese who suffered at the hands of the Japanese as many of these were killed before the fighting started in Europe. IIRC, that 5 mn was also about 1/5 the population of Poland at the time. No prizes for guessing just which nation was no 1 on the list for Lebensraum, to be cleared of “inferior” races and repopulated with Aryans. Cats have no pity on mice. But, herr Schicklegruber, have you not noticed: PEOPLE are neither cats nor mice!!! If a tiger kills a man, we do not try it for murder, though we will shoot it for fear that it has acquired the taste for new easy prey. But, a man who kills and eats another man is universally and properly condemned as a criminal and murderous cannibal, for in him there is the implanted conscience and objective moral accountability that do not come from any mere biology. How dare you suggest that some men have a right of being powerful, to prey on other men like a cat on mice. For shame!)
Going on, you seem to want to distance Hitler from Darwinism.
Plainly, you have not made acquaintance of the line of thought in Germany and elsewhere that demonstrably flowed from Haeckel et al. Let me therefore clip an infamous text from Mein Kampf, as an illustration of the underlying Darwinist thought, taking it from the post on this subject that was made here at UD some six months ago.
I add explanatory comments in parentheses:
Darwinism, plainly, was used in Germany to provide a “scientific” rationale for jingoistic Aryan man racism and associated predatory militarism, as well as related radically relativist and amoral philosophy.
This first had horrific fruit in the rape of Belgium in the first World War, the precise area where Hitler served. And, indeed there are recorded sayings in which he approved of the sort of shoot the civilians, burn the villages, deport workers tactics that were used to try to cow Belgium when it had the temerity to resist the Kaiser’s armies that wanted to use Belgium as a way around the French defenses.
Unfortunately, there was so much distorted propaganda about this and a resulting general public disgust, that at the war’s end, there was no move to hold war crimes trials. I suspect as well that the Allies of that war had some indefensible actions to account for too, so I think there was a general attitude of “let sleeping dogs lie.”
In my opinion, and that of others who are far more august than I, that failure to bring war criminals to account materially helped set the stage for the new “Hunnish” — notice, the neopagan reference a la Heine — barbarism that prevailed all across Europe under Hitler a generation later.
There are sobering, horrifically bought lessons in all of this, that we need to take up our duty of care to attend to.
In the face of that, those who insist on playing toxic talking point games in the face of such facts and documents, simply raise the question about just what agenda it is they wish to conceal behind the smoke screen of such poisonous distractors.
Please, please, please, do better than this.
GEM of TKI
F/N: I have posted Weikart’s crucial lecture here, for record. I think C and others should carefully reflect on the evidence and arguments brought forward therein.
Even if it were true that Hitler justified his ideology by reference to Darwin’s theory, that would not make Darwin’s theory wrong.
A scientific theory is not an ideology. It is a scientific theory. It carries no moral mandate.
Einstein’s theories were used to develop weapons of mass destruction. That does not make his theories wrong. Nor does it make them right.
And you could equally argue that Darwin’s theory tells us that all living things are cousins, and that all people are almost literally, siblings.
The brotherhood of man is a heart-stirring thought. But it does not make Darwin’s theory right, any more than Hitler’s ideology makes it wrong.
The only thing that falsifies a scientific theory is evidence.
Dr Liddle:
Pardon, but the subject currently on the table is not whether Darwinism is right or wrong as a theory of biology, but the origins science in society ethical challenge posed by the theory and its adherents across time.
And, in particular, Mr Arrington has pointed out in the original post, that the author of a quote he uses wished to use the scientific triumph of the theory for the propaganda purpose of undermining confidence in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. A tradition that just happens to be the main source of moral thought and sensibilities in our civilisation.
Which puts Heine’s prophecy on the table, from 1831.
100 years before the fact.
And thus also, the consequences that played out on the ground.
In that context, we therefore have to address the moral hazards that may be associated with Darwinian schools of thought, and in particular evolutionary materialism.
Thence the challenge to pose a worldview foundational IS that — in an era dominated by scientism — can credibly ground OUGHT in a way that properly reflects human dignity.
(Where evolutionary materialism cannot get out of the starting gates.)
GEM of TKI
Elizabeth Liddle:
A point made often, but more often ignored.
Eliizabeth:
If the alleged scientific theory isn’t science, as is the case with darwinism and neo-darwunism, then it is not even wrong.
You are correct in stating that a scientific theory should not be an ideology and should not carry a moral mandate. However, you could not possibly believe that statement to be true today. If so, you have been hiding under a rock for the last 150 or so years of science. Like it or not, and I personally don’t, Darwinian theory is what the majority of the scientific community in institutes of higher education, secondary schools and even our governments hang their hats on. Their agendas and even the way they approach scientific problems are molded with darwinian thought. Darwin’s theory is seen as the one thing that cannot be question in a field in which one is supposed to question everything. True science has gone by the wayside years ago. While I do agree with you that we cannot judge a theory simply by those who adhere to it or detract from it, one would be foolish to ignore history. History shows over and over again that those who blindly adhere to this theory create a dangerous ideology by doing so. Perhaps it is time we take the theory of the great Darwin down from its pedestal and examine it more closely. Maybe in a Dr. Suess world theories don’t become ideologies and carry moral mandates, but in the real world, they can and do.
Happy New Year to you as well GEM.
OT:
Gem of quote from video:
For once I agree with you, Elizabeth. The truth is the truth. If one doesn’t like the consequences, whatever they are, too bad. One’s dislike doesn’t alter the truth one iota.
Now I happen to agree that Darwinsim is “the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science”, but not because I don’t like its moral consequences. I’m just convinced that it’s wrong.
KF: You said,
With all due respect, I think you have the cart before the horse. Ethics simply cannot drive metaphysics. You have to find out what’s true first, and then do your best to derive a satisfactory ethics within that metaphysical context. I think that this emphasis on the negative moral implications of Darwinism that is a major theme of UD is basically impotent in the sense that no one is going to be convinced to change his or her metaphysical beliefs by pointing out adverse consequences of those beliefs for morality. The truth is the truth, whatever it is. We have to deal with what is, not what we want it to be.
BD:
Actually, I am thinking beyond whether or not a theory may be true — historically all theories strongly tend to be corrected and are not strictly true but rather empirically reliable “so far” (and epistemologically and logically scientific methods and investigations provide support for laws, models and theories not demonstrative proof) — to the responsibilities of practitioners in society.
For instance, that scientific theories etc SHOULD seek the truth, that scientists SHOULD be truthful and objective in making investigations, that scientists SHOULD carry out safe and responsible lab and field practices, etc etc are all ethical issues deeply intertwined in teh practice of science.
In that context, scientists have responsibilities for how they present and apply their theories, especially where politics, vulnerable people and science intersect. As one who is himself a scientist and educator, who also addresses science and development policy issues, who lives on an island where at any given moment the evacuation sirens can sound on emergency order of scientists at the Observatory, that is a daily fact of my own existence.
And, BTW, my conclusion on these matters is, that generally speaking science too often does not mix well with politics where vulnerable people are involved. That is why Science in Society is a serious matter for careful reflection.
That is for the issue of context.
Now, you highlight the centrality of truth in our thinking about the world. So, now, let us multiply this by the concept that truths cohere in a unified whole, i.e. reality is a whole, and the sum of truths about reality will be a whole as well.
So, in steps:
1 –> We have a duty of care in science as elsewhere to seek and live by the truth. (Already, ethics is deeply intertwined.)
2 –> Ethical truths exist, e.g. it is always wrong to torture innocent babies for pleasure or convenience.
3 –> If a proposed worldview then denies such keystone ethical truths, it is contradicting truths that are far more credible than the worldview construct as a whole.
4 –> Such a proposed worldview then fails to account for important truths, or may even contradict them. It is thus now under probation, and should be adjusted to better match the well-known, credible truths.
5 –> If it cannot be so adjusted as to remain itself while addressing such truths, then the view can be seen as falsified by direct contradiction to known truths.
6 –> You will notice, I am here speaking of worldviews, not science. We saw from the beginning that scientific theories are provisionally empirically reliable, not strictly true. Though we should treat them as serious, we should not close the door to correction. So, if a claim of science contradicts a credible well-warranted truth,it is the claim that in the first instance needs to be reassessed.
7 –> Further to this, evolutionary materialism is primarily a worldview, not a scientific theory, as say we can see from Plato’s The laws, Bk X. That is, it has been on the table as an option for 2350 and more years.
8 –> Now, it is a well known principle of ethical analysis that IS cannot ground OUGHT, save if the IS already enfolds the ought. That is why all worldviews — including evolutionary materialism — face the challenge of having a foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.
9 –> Notoriously, evolutionary materialism has in its foundation only matter, energy, space and time in some form or other. These, patently, can ground no oughts. That is why it is inescapably radically relativist and amoral, reducing in Plato’s terms to “the highest right is might.”
10 –> So, on the grounds of being in direct contradiction to the known truth and fact of ethical obligation, evolutionary materialism as a worldview is in direct co0ntrqadiction to a major cluster of truth, and is factually inadequate, incoherent, and explanatorily impotent.
11 –> Unfortunately, in our time, it has become an a priori imposition on science [cf here on], and adherents seek to use their “might” to redefine science so that by definition, evolutionary materialism will be “right,” and only that which kowtows to it will be seen as valid science. This, in an era of radical, over-reaching scientism, where if something is not seen as “scientific,” it is not seen as credible.
12 –> So, science is being taken ideological captive to evolutionary materialism, and must be liberated.
13 –> A key step in that liberation is to FIRST expose the radical incoherence of such evolutionary materialism, as can be seen here on. Just to clip Haldane, we can see in a nutshell the basic dilemma that such evo mat would radically undermine the credibility of the very minds we must use to think scientifically:
14 –> That is, THE WORLDVIEW OF EVOLUTIONARY MATERIALISM IS SELF-REFUTING.
15 –> In addition, we may highlight that this same worldview is inescapably amoral and radically relativist, having no is that can ground ought. Thus, it is prone to moral hazards, and will tend to undermine the moral consensus of the community if it takes science captive in an era where scientism prevails.
16 –> This is exactly what happened with Social Darwinism, in eugenics, in scientific racism, and in the mass sterilisations and genocides that were rooted in these clusters of ideas.
17 –> Which is where Hitler comes in as a case in point, with the scientific, general academic, legal, medical and engineering establishments of Germany being corrupted by such scientism and Haeckel et al derived evolutionary thought. But also with roots in Darwin’s own thought as can be seen from his The Descent of Man, esp chs 5 – 7, etc. (Darwin was among the first social darwinists.)
18 –> Now, in dealing with the war criminals, their radical relativism used as a legal defense — they were acting in accord with legal and moral stances that were the consensus of their community and so should not be subjected to a panel of the victors and judged by the standards of the victors — had to be countered at Nuremberg, and this is how Robert Jackson did so:
18 –> In short, policy makers, academics, scientists, doctors, engineers and military officers are all accountable before the bar of clear objective moral principles that have force of law and are foundational to sound law. Regardless of what Nazi courts, ideologues and power brokers up to and including Hitler may have thought or said, what was being done was wrong, was patently wrong, and was a matter of willful mass murder, massive theft, etc.
__________
Consequently, science in society is an important issue, and it speaks straight to the current ideologisation of science.
We must not allow the dominance of science by an ideology to blind us to the truth challenges faced by that ideology, or to the inescapably provisional nature of the science. Including, where key foundational, credible ethical truths and associated duties are in play.
And that comes right back to the propaganda intention highlighted in the original post, to use “science” to create the perception that evolutionary materialism is scientifically established, undeniable truth, thence to undermine the perceived credibility of the institutions that have been foundational to ethical thought and progress in our civilisation.
GEM of TKI
Dr Liddle, kindly cf here below on the significance of keystone ethical truths and worldview level ideological dominance issues for science in society. KF
F/N: I should note that, for instance, the abuse of chemistry to make and use poison gases in those infamous showers at Auschwitz, was an abuse of Chemistry that speaks to not whether the chemistry as such was grounded, but whether the ethics of the chemists was properly grounded.
Similarly, it is not well known that there was a petition of scientists on the Manhattan Project, that the Japanese should have been shown a DEMONSTRATION of the atomic bomb. This was suppressed by the leadership who advised Truman to proceed to use the bomb on cities. This, again, points to ethical rather than scientific failure.
The case with von Braun and the V2 is a bit more complex, as this could have been used as a legitimate weapon of war, say as long range artillery against the ports in Normandy or the UK fleet in Scapa Flow.
In the case of evolutionary materialism and theories of common decent, the matter is a little more complex, especially as the very definition of science is being reworked ideologically by advocates of evo mat. To disentangle in brief:
a: Common descent at the level of modification of body plans is empirically supported and not in dispute, e.g. circumpolar gulls etc.
b: Universal common descent from a common unicellular ancestral organism lacks empirical support in many ways, but is compatible with design, especially where schemes such as use of viri to insert modified genetic programs is brought to bear.
c: In short, common descent and common design are not incompatible; this is a commonplace view of many design theory advocates (and many historic evolutionists including the co-founder of evolutionary theory, Wallace).
d: So, the attempt — cf here on if you doubt me — to force-fit evo mat as an unchallengeable a priori unto theories of common descent, often by implications of so-called methodological naturalism [see especially the views of the US NSTA, NAS and Mahner on this], is highly questionable.
e: As evo mat is a worldview, and has been so since before the days of Plato, it is properly subject to worldview level tests, and arguably fails them; being incoherent and amoral.
f: However as the OP documents, this ideology has been used to pervert science and to create the false perception that science grounds materialism. So, we have a worldview right to expose that.
g: But also, within this ambit, once science has been infected by materialist ideology, it sees itself as explaining everything, and being the basis for all warrant that counts. Thus, the amorality poses significant moral hazards.
h: We have every right to address such under the heading, science in society.
As, I have done
KF
OOPS, above, and it seems that my nouns and verbs these days seem to want to go their own ways, especially when I am tired. Pardon. KF
KF,
First, let me say that I agree with much of what you say, particularly your points 13 & 14 that materialism is self refuting. I have made the same argument myself in several other threads. And of course, as you know, I am no fan of Darwinism.
I also accept the logic of your argument regarding how an IS can ground an OUGHT, which turns on your point #2: “Ethical truths exist.”
There, however, is the rub. I know that atheists would simply deny the truth of this assertion (as do I for very different reasons). The fact that most people agree with a particular ethical statement, such as the one you give (“It is always wrong to torture innocent babies for pleasure or convenience.”) does not raise it to the level of a “truth”. Universal or near universal acceptance of a proposition simply does not have that power.
Furthermore, I think you overrate the ability of belief in a worldview that includes morality to alter the behavior of people who hold it. One has only to look at the history of how devout Christian men and women treated subject peoples during the European expansion into the New World and Asia to see the truth of this.
My view is that there are really only two motivations for actions that most people would classify as “moral”: 1) socialization and societal pressure, including fear of punishment, and 2) an internal sense of what one’s own integrity and loving, caring nature requires of one. I think that compared to these two, a belief in absolute moral imperatives is quite weak.
I take it seriously that we are all made in the “image and likeness” of God. Further, I believe that this means that in our deepest nature, whatever our metaphysical beliefs, we are absolutely committed to the truth, we hold our word as sacred, and we are unconditionally loving. I believe that, whatever our metaphysical commitments, what will guide our actions will depend on how much we are in touch with that deepest nature. This explains why so many atheists, such as my brother and Christopher Hitchens, exhibit both kindness and integrity in spite of their professed moral relativism. Conversely, it explains why many religious people of all varieties have acted with so much cruelty throughout history—they were not in touch with their essential nature to any great degree, and their professed belief in religiously based moral principles held little power over their actions.
BD:
I am a bit busy to take up a full orbed debate on moral relativism just now, so what I will say is think very carefully about the shift from it is wrong to torture innocent babies, to most people would agree that it is wrong to torture innocent babies.
Next to that, you will see that it is a challenge to live UP to a worldview that calls us to virtue, but all too easy to live DOWN to one that undermines it. Which has a lot to do with our patently fallen moral condition.
Busy just now . . .
GEM of TKI
KF:
Well, we’ve had this debate already. I’ll just summarize my perspective by saying that in my worldview, the challenge is to live up to uncompromising integrity and unconditional love. Do that and virtue will take care of itself.