Search This Blog

Monday, October 04, 2010

Why Christianity and Darwinism cannot mix - the postscript

PS - Because Darwinism has led to countless evils.

HISTORY OF EUGENICS:
Eugenics Story"...Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century. Darwinism is the survival of the fittest., Many Darwinists insisted that biology was the next step and was destiny to do away with the unfit and otherwise socially not accepted traits (like mental illness).
 
The word "eugenics" was first coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, an English scientist, and a cousin of Charles Darwin. He used the term to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables".  Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?"

"Improved?"  That is a euphemism for abortion, genocide and various murderous atrocities numbering in the tens of millions!


"The American Eugenics Society was founded in 1926 by Harry Crampton, Harry H. Laughlin, Madison Grant, and Henry Fairfield Osborn.  The purpose was to create a eugenical movement throughout the United States. The group had a peak membership around 1930 with about 1,250 members.  This group continued to work on the science of eugenics and became at the time a highly effective organization at disseminating practical and scientific information on genetic health, drawing attention to eugenics, and promoting eugenic research.
 
The eugenic movement had a positive and negative side. The positive side concentrated on exhorting the genetically gifted to reproduce, and the negative side sought to prevent the defective people from breeding.
 
In the1930s, most states had passed eugenical laws authorizing the sterilization of "defectives," and in an infamous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed such laws were constitutional. Eugenical lobbying also contributed to the powerful anti-immigration movement of the 1910s and 1920s, using their scientific studies to support the claim that non-whites and immigrants were inferior to native-born white Americans in intelligence, physical condition, and moral stature.  After the Second World War, when the Nazi eugenic programs became fully known, the eugenic movement lost standing among people."




That last line is a classic understatement.  Along the lines of "giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a depraved terrorist Yasser Arafat devalued the significance of the award."  We now see the same programs just changed the names and language used and now we are baby murdering at a current rate of about 130,000 per day!  The current administration, should it not be voted out of office, would eventually bring us to euthanasia and death panels as well here in the United States.  


Psalm 97:10 (New International Version)


  Let those who love the LORD hate evil,
       for he guards the lives of his faithful ones
       and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

Perhaps one day historians will classify the Darwin family tree as the most diseased of the 19th Century and the family most responsible for the profanities of the 20th Century.  Charles Darwin's hypothesis has been grafted into the tree of tyranny and racism and flourished.   Francis Galton, his cousin, was the "inventor" of Eugenics, which is straightforward no apologies racism at best and genocide at worst.  Darwin's grandfather was an atheopath and his father a complete hypocrite.

It is not just that Darwinism is errant and unproven.   It is not merely that it has led multitudes of Christians and young minds astray.   Darwinism has been at the heart of some of the most bloodthirsty and heartless initiatives ever taken by any nation's ruler against any of its citizenry.   You would have to research to determine whether I am referring to Mao's slaughter of peasants, Stalin's widespread murder of anyone inconvenient to him or Hitler's attempt to rid his country of Jews and "inferior specimens."  (Hint:  It would be all three)

This article wonders if Christianity and humanity in general will ever learn from history?

CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day…


Darwin, the Nazis, Euthanasia, and Christianity

Four major topics lumped together in one article could be a recipe for disaster. But there is a method to my apparent madness, so allow me to proceed. Many have noted the connections between Darwinism and Nazism. Perhaps the most important recent work on the topic is Richard Weikart’s, From Darwin to Hitler (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

And euthanasia of course featured prominently in the Nazi death machine. And later in this article I will look at how German Christians reacted to the rise of the Nazis. But to begin, I wish to focus on the first three topics, utilising one very important article which was penned back in 1987.

I refer to “Euthanasia: Lessons from Nazism,” by Harold O.J. Brown (Human Life Review, 13 March 1987, pp. 88-99). It was a stirring wake-up call for Christians not to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors in Germany in the 1930s and 40s.

In it Brown lamented the fact that Christians of his day are so quiet on the issues of abortion and euthanasia, just as Christians tended to remain silent under the Nazis. And he traces the ideological history leading up to the rise of the Nazis, noting the close connection with Darwinism.

Darwin, the German euthanasia movement, and Hitler

Brown notes that two major intellectual developments in the 19th century helped to pave the way for Hitler and the Nazis. One was the rise of the Higher Criticism movement which championed liberal biblical scholarship, resulting in a full-scale attack on the authority and reliability of Scripture, and a corresponding rejection of the supernatural.

The other was the Darwinian philosophy of the “survival of the fittest”. As Brown notes, in Germany “it was but a short step from extolling the survival of the fittest as nature’s mechanism for the advancement of the race to endorsing the elimination of the least fit as man’s contribution to nature’s program.”

He refers to Ernst Klee’s 1985 volume, Euthanasia in the National Socialist State which carefully documents the profound effect Darwin’s Origin of the Species had on the pro-euthanasia movement, and its place in the Nazi horrors. Darwin may not have intended it, but his thought nicely prepared the way for Hitler’s ideology.

Darwin’s system undermined the biblical doctrine of man being made in God’s image, so that man was seen as “the highest ranking primate yet to have climbed the evolutionary ladder”. And Darwin’s successors “were quick to seize on the concepts that if the survival of the fittest is natural and good, it is wise to promote it by eliminating the unfit”.

The logical results of Darwinism were quick in coming. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche happily utilised Darwinian thought, declaring that Christianity was a self-serving religion of the weak and sickly. He actively promoted euthanasia: “Let there be preachers of quick death!”

Says Brown, “The connection between Darwin, Nietzsche, and the call for the liquidation of the weak is not a mere literary supposition: it can be fully documented from a number of sources.” He mentions the 1893 volume by German writer Alexander Tille, From Darwin to Nietzsche.

In that book euthanasia was strongly argued for, and his thinking tied in nicely with Hitler’s euthanasia programs. And in 1895 the German legal scholar Alfred Jost wrote The Right to Die. In 1904 the German Society for Racial Hygiene was formed.

Of special importance was the publication in 1920 of Hoche and Binding’s The Authorization of the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life. Binding promoted the concept of “lives not worth living”. It all lead nicely to Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925-1926).

In it Hitler said, “A stronger race will drive out the weak, because the thirst for life in its final form will always smash all the ludicrous fetters of a so-called humanitarianism, in order to replace humanitarianism with nature, which destroys weakness in order to make room for strength.”

In early 1933 the Nazis were preparing the public for euthanasia with an intensive propaganda campaign. Soon there was an active program of euthanasia being carried out, which resulted in the death of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. It was by then a small step from euthanasia to genocide.

Christian complicity

All this is bad enough. But tragically there was not a lot of resistance to the Nazis and their programs of death from the German Christians. There were notable exceptions of course, but it seems that both Catholics and Protestants tended not to want to rock the boat.

Says Brown, “The sad fact is that Christians in Germany allowed themselves to be swept along with the euthanasia movement – which proved to be a forerunner of the ‘eugenic’ genocide of the Jews. Those who were in a position to speak out almost never did.”

Of course it was not just the church which was silent. As Brown points out, “there were very few secular intellectuals other than Jews who took a stand against the Nazis.” We do expect better of church leaders, but “those who should have been guardians of the traditional values of the church and of civilization failed to take a real stand against the dogmatic neo-paganism of the Nazis.”

Why did most Christians – even conservative ones – succumb? A big factor was the “prestige of modern science”: “The early twentieth-century veneration for science, particularly strong in Germany, extended even to the pseudo-science of racial hygiene, and led otherwise serious Christians to acquiesce in almost anything done in its name.”

That to a large degree explains why even the German euthanasia programs tended to be accepted by Christians: “Faced with the double argument that such euthanasia was both ‘scientific’ and ‘legal,’ i.e. within the competence of the secular government, many Christians and Christian organizations simply submitted.”
Brown asks: “How could so many dedicated Christians, committed to giving loving care to physically and mentally handicapped people as their calling from God, acquiesce in the liquidation of the very people who had been trustfully placed in that hitherto loving care?”

He continues, “The fact that so many of these selfless workers went along with the Zeitgeist, the ‘spirit of the age,’ not only without protesting, but apparently without even understanding the implications of their collaboration, should stand as a sinister warning to Americans from the same Christian traditions as we observe a like moral impotence in our own midst.”

Exactly right. These words were prophetically spoken almost three decades ago, and are even more urgent today. The situation is so eerily similar. Indeed, I have had numerous people who call themselves Christian informing me how proud they are to be associated with a political party like the Greens.

Never mind that this is the most pro-death party in Australia. They fully support abortion on demand and legalised euthanasia. Their early ideological leader Peter Singer is even keenly in favour of infanticide. Yet some believers naively think that the Greens are just about trees and the like.

How many of these believers fully understand the pro-death agenda of the Greens? And if they do know all about it, why in the world are they still supporting that party, with some even running as candidates for it? Some even claim that this is the most Christian of parties! I find this moral and theological schizophrenia hard to fathom.

Indeed, from my vantage point it seems that there may not be much of a moral difference between Christians who supported the Nazi regime – or even just quietly stood by doing nothing – and those Christians today who embrace and champion our most pro-death political party, or who do nothing about the rising culture of death in our nation.

Obviously we have not at all learned the lessons of history. May God have mercy on us all.

~~~~~~~~

A Christian should not yield one inch to Darwinists and their belief system.   "Science falsely so-called"  is what needs to be removed in order to improve the human race.   Once Darwinism is falsified and has become a bad memory all of mankind will benefit greatly.   Haste the day!




38 comments:

Anonymous said...

I see Radar's series has belatedly (but quite predictably) succumbed to Godwin's Law.

Anonymous said...

All this demonization of "Darwinism" hardly adds up to a reasonable stance or accusation, Radar. It's like pretending that Christianity inexorably leads to witch hunts or the Spanish Inquisition, something I think we can agree is not the case - even though we can cite that events like these did take place. Yes, some misguided persons have followed such horrendous trains of thought, but that in itself is not an indictment of the original idea - neither in the case of Christianity or the theory of evolution.

If by Darwinists you're referring to atheists, we're not the demons you seem to think we are. I'm an atheist myself, I know quite a few, and as a group we are not on record as acting any less morally than theists.

It would be helpful if you could at some point ponder the moral implications of demonizing a segment of the population like that.

-- creeper

radar said...

I am condemning a worldview and illustrating that so many people have carried it out to what seems to be the logical end. If any of you personally feel demonized I suggest you consider why that it, as I have not made this a personal attack on individuals such as yourselves, assuming you are not engaged in murder personally.

Since easily at least 60 million innocent people were slaughtered by Hitler, Mao and Stalin and some say it would total over 100 million, that is no small aberration. It is a condemnation of social Darwinism which is born as the famous hypothesis that I am going to assert has been falsified.

The moral implications of demonizing the Nazis and the Soviet leaders and the ChiCom leaders? I am revealing their actions, for by their fruits you shall know them. Darwinism = Eugnenics = atrocities against humanity. Eugenicists remain among us, seeking ways to sneak more of their agenda into law.

Anonymous said...

"....if you subscribe to an idea, you also subscribe to that idea's ideology, (gesticulating) and to every possible negative consequence that that ideology remotely implies when you carry it to absurd extremes. For instance: Progressives, if you believe in a minimum safety net for the nation's neediest, you believe in total and absolute government control. So, if you believe that faith provides a strong moral tent post for a nation's foundation that could only lead to totalitarian theocracy..."

-- Jon Stewart lampooning Glenn Beck

Jon Woolf said...

Darwinism = Eugnenics

False. While the word only dates back to the 1880s, the concept of eugenics pre-dates Darwin by millennia. And Darwin would not have approved of using his work to support eugenics.

If you try to argue that Darwin is irredeemably evil because of acts committed by others that they claim were based on his ideas, then you have no defense against the charge that Christianity is irredeemably evil because of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Don't go there.

Anonymous said...

"If you try to argue that Darwin is irredeemably evil because of acts committed by others that they claim were based on his ideas, then you have no defense against the charge that Christianity is irredeemably evil because of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Don't go there."

My point exactly.

Yet Radar seems to insist on his sloppy thinking. No surprise there.

-- creeper

highboy said...

Godwin's Law is a smokescreen to avoid valid comparisons. There is nothing in Christian doctrine that tells a Christian or even implies that its their duty to set people of fire, and even the most outrageous twisting of Scripture wouldn't even yield such an interpretation. Natural selection and the survival of favored races, and yes, you can get Hitler. In an amoral universe where we're all random chance creatures than the "right to life" doesn't exist because the inherent worth in all human beings has no reference point. If we're all just creatures formed and born of nature than the moral self awareness found in humans doesn't obligate me to act more morally toward a human than it does any other animal. We're all animals. So if one species of animal kills off another and its deemed "natural selection" by science than Hitler exterminating Jews is the exact same thing. There is no other way to spin it, though I'm sure some are about to try.

highboy said...

Oh, and Jon Stewart isn't fit to even be mentioned in the same sentence with Beck. Beck uses factual research and verifiable history to make his points while Stewart uses cynical "humor" to try and push his socialism. Referring to him in this discussion just drops everyone's IQ levels.

Anonymous said...

"Godwin's Law is a smokescreen to avoid valid comparisons."

As ill-founded comparisons to Hitler/Nazis can also be a smokescreen to avoid actual discussion, which is why the "Law" came into being in the first place.

"There is nothing in Christian doctrine that tells a Christian or even implies that its their duty to set people of fire, and even the most outrageous twisting of Scripture wouldn't even yield such an interpretation."

Just as there is nothing in the writings of Darwin that tells anyone that it is their duty to kill people they deem inferior. Got that?

"Natural selection and the survival of favored races, and yes, you can get Hitler."

By the same token, take a belief that one has a superior faith and that people of other faiths are possessed by the Devil and yes, you can get witch hunts and inquisitions. Got that?

As Jon advised above: don't go there. Why would you want to?

"In an amoral universe where we're all random chance creatures than the "right to life" doesn't exist because the inherent worth in all human beings has no reference point."

Ah, but now you're insisting that that is the only conclusion one can draw from a secular stance. But just because you can't see it another way (or because you like to go down this path rhetorically) doesn't mean such worldviews don't exist. Both you and Radar would do well to read up on humanism with a more respectful and tolerant stance. Radar especially has a completely cartoonish view of humanism, fully equating it with secular humanism at every turn and perhaps not even aware of its Christian origins.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"If we're all just creatures formed and born of nature than the moral self awareness found in humans doesn't obligate me to act more morally toward a human than it does any other animal."

And yet animals and non-Christians have been found to have altruistic impulses. So perhaps your thoughts on this issue don't go far enough. Which isn't surprising, since you and Radar have an agenda and a goal in mind, instead of coming at such issues with an open mind.

"We're all animals. So if one species of animal kills off another and its deemed "natural selection" by science than Hitler exterminating Jews is the exact same thing."

?? The exact same thing how? Science describes things that happened, it doesn't prescribe actions to be taken. The theory of evolution describes the most plausible and likely explanation for the origin of species, all distortions by people with religious agendas aside.

As has been pointed out before on this blog, you don't look at the theory of gravity and conclude that you should take things off high shelves and put them on the ground. Same with the theory of evolution. It describes a mechanism for how the species evolved. It doesn't say you should indulge in genocide and use artificial selection as an excuse. (Or religion, for that matter.)

"There is no other way to spin it, though I'm sure some are about to try."

Your own attempt to spin this isn't all that solid, so of course there are other ways to approach this issue.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and Jon Stewart isn't fit to even be mentioned in the same sentence with Beck."

You mean like this? "Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart are both clowns, but only one of them is being honest about it."

"Beck uses factual research and verifiable history"

Oh, he does his research all right... to rip off his viewers.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"As ill-founded comparisons to Hitler/Nazis can also be a smokescreen to avoid actual discussion, which is why the "Law" came into being in the first place."

The "Law" has not authority behind it which is why its not a "law" but just a made up rules of engagement for people who don't want to have an actual discussion.

"Just as there is nothing in the writings of Darwin that tells anyone that it is their duty to kill people they deem inferior. Got that?"

Nobody said the writings of Darwin said there was any "duty". Got that? The writings of Darwin indicate that natural selection isn't a matter of duty, but a matter of nature selecting. The comparison is valid. Hitler is a part of nature like any other animal, and if Hitler kills off a species, nature selected the victim. Pure and simple. Got that?

"By the same token, take a belief that one has a superior faith and that people of other faiths are possessed by the Devil and yes, you can get witch hunts and inquisitions. Got that?"

One is based on a belief (puritan) and the other is based on science (natural selection) Got that?

"As Jon advised above: don't go there. Why would you want to?"

Because the comparison is valid. That's why. Once again: explain to me how the extermination of the human race or even a large chunk of it is not a matter of natural selection.

"Both you and Radar would do well to read up on humanism with a more respectful and tolerant stance"

Bullshit. Every time this comes up when backed into a corner nearly every humanist I encounter tries to make the claim that I haven't researched humanism objectively, but no matter how you spin it, the answer is the same. There is still no reference point humanity can find for its own worth other than the worth humanity puts on itself. But just because humanity decides of its own volition that it has worth, nor more worth than animals and decides of its own volition that from that subjective worth springs a subjective duty to itself, it doesn't make it factually true. Humanity in a secular amoral godless world may want to be worth more than the rest of nature but without any reference point for such worth its totally subjective. Humanity can't claim to be nothing more than another random meaningless creation and then decide for itself that any act against it is immoral, whereas the rest of the entire animal kingdom is merely natural selection. Even for a human to look within himself to find meaning and worth for himself, the concept of meaning and worth would have to exist first, and there is no such concept in a universe with no meaning. How does a meaningless chance formation of a universe misfire and create meaning within its meaningless self?

highboy said...

"Science describes things that happened, it doesn't prescribe actions to be taken."

Once again, nobody said science prescribes any action to be taken. You're avoiding the comparison on purpose. Natural selection doesn't have a tome of how an organism is suppose to act, but it describes it as you say. If species of shark kill off another species of shark, its natural selection. So if a species (or race) of human kills off another it is EXACTLY the same thing, unless you place a sense of duty and obligation to the human race that doesn't apply to any other animal species.

As for Beck, you'll have to do better than that creeper. Jon Stewart is a joke. Beck is factual news and researched analysis.

Anonymous said...

"As for Beck, you'll have to do better than that creeper. Jon Stewart is a joke. Beck is factual news and researched analysis."

Looks like you didn't follow the link. Factual news? Researched analysis. Riiiight...

Anonymous said...

"Nobody said the writings of Darwin said there was any "duty". Got that?"

Nope. Radar sure goes out of his way to imply exactly that. Darwinism inevitably leads to euthanasia, eugenics etc. Guess you didn't get that.

"The writings of Darwin indicate that natural selection isn't a matter of duty, but a matter of nature selecting."

Correct, hence the moniker.

"The comparison is valid."

Which comparison? Nazis and the Inquisition?

"Hitler is a part of nature like any other animal, and if Hitler kills off a species, nature selected the victim. Pure and simple. Got that? "

That's where you're running off on a tangent. It's not natural selection if an artificial decision-making process (e.g. "Jews must be exterminated") is imposed. That's when it becomes artificial selection.

"Bullshit."

Pardon your French.

"Every time this comes up when backed into a corner nearly every humanist I encounter tries to make the claim that I haven't researched humanism objectively"

... which you go on to prove in the remainder of the paragraph, so it's hardly surprising that this is a recurring experience for you. Or that you think you have people "backed into a corner" when you're just busy exposing your ignorance. Seriously, read up on humanism sometime. Try it without a constant refrain of "this is wrong this is wrong" pulsating through your head. It's obvious you haven't achieved this so far. You're still merely imposing your own biases and constructing strawman arguments in your head instead of trying to understand the humanist worldview. And no, it's not about atheism.

"Because the comparison is valid. That's why. Once again: explain to me how the extermination of the human race or even a large chunk of it is not a matter of natural selection."

As above: if a conscious decision-making process is involved, it's artificial selection, not natural selection. Even if the decision-maker in question is of natural origin. Otherwise artificial selection wouldn't exist; it would all be natural selection.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"How does a meaningless chance formation of a universe misfire and create meaning within its meaningless self?"

It doesn't. Who says the universe has a meaning? But man craves meaning. That's why we're so prolific at creating gods, myths etc. Why invent all those gods (all but one of which you don't believe in) when there is only one God?

"Once again, nobody said science prescribes any action to be taken."

So can we agree that the theory of evolution doesn't prescribe any action to be taken then? Thanks.

"You're avoiding the comparison on purpose."

You mean the insinuation that secular humanism equals mass murder, stuff like that? Well yeah, because it's nonsense. Even decent Christians shouldn't stoop to such smears.

"Natural selection doesn't have a tome of how an organism is suppose to act, but it describes it as you say."

Thank you for understanding that.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"If species of shark kill off another species of shark, its natural selection."

Yes, because one species of shark (or whatever) would be fitter than the other.

"So if a species (or race) of human kills off another it is EXACTLY the same thing,"

Depends on the circumstances, as described above. For example Neanderthal being squeezed out by homo sapiens may have been due to natural selection.

"unless you place a sense of duty and obligation to the human race that doesn't apply to any other animal species."

Far as I know, man is the only animal that has set out to artificially cull a subset of its own population. (I may be wrong about that - Jon, do you know of any?)

Man is by far the most advanced animal in terms of cognitive development, so while we have an uncommon destructive capacity for atrocities, we also have a counterbalancing moral and altruistic sense, which you can find in the major religions and in humanism (secular, Christian etc.).

"Jon Stewart is a joke."

A joker, to be exact.

"Beck is factual news and researched analysis."

Um, whatever. I've done you the favor of posting a simple link that would make you think twice about making such statements. And here you are with the same refrain, "factual news", "researched analysis"... Have a look at the information and then ask yourself if this is a guy to be trusted.

Or don't. Your call.

-- creeper

highboy said...

saying something can lead to something is not the same as saying something prescribes something.

"It's not natural selection if an artificial decision-making process (e.g. "Jews must be exterminated") is imposed. That's when it becomes artificial selection."

That's where the theory contradicts itself. Hitler is a part of nature, and his decision making process is natural. Making the decision is in itself a natural act, it didn't happen outside the natural order. Its still natural selection.

"And no, it's not about atheism."

Correct, its about humanity being the measuring stick of morality and whatever is best/worst for the collective human race.

"It doesn't. Who says the universe has a meaning? But man craves meaning"

you just made my point. If the universe has no meaning, how can man crave it? How does the concept of meaning even exist?

"So can we agree that the theory of evolution doesn't prescribe any action to be taken then? Thanks."

Um, you're welcome.

"Yes, because one species of shark (or whatever) would be fitter than the other."

And Hitler's position was that one race was fitter than the other.

"Man is by far the most advanced animal in terms of cognitive development,"

that doesn't make the plight of humanity a moral issue any more than the plight of a Giraffe. If sharks killing sharks is not a moral issue than neither is human on human killing, just because of a moral self awareness. It doesn't make our plight "right" or "wrong". Humanity just is or it isn't like the rest of nature. You can't set up the worldview that there is nothing but the natural order and then somehow argue that humanity is somehow risen above the natural order because the natural order made humanity more complex.

Anonymous said...

If Hitler wanting to kill people can be a natural act, why can't wanting to save people from being killed be considered a natural act?

highboy said...

"If Hitler wanting to kill people can be a natural act, why can't wanting to save people from being killed be considered a natural act?"

who said it couldn't?

Jon Woolf said...

You can't set up the worldview that there is nothing but the natural order and then somehow argue that humanity is somehow risen above the natural order because the natural order made humanity more complex.

Why not?

Creeper, a number of animal species are known to commit violent acts against their own species. Examples would be male lions that kill cubs sired by other lions, or mustang stallions that force intercourse with pregnant mares in an attempt to induce miscarriage, so the mare will come into season again. Chimpanzees will methodically kill other chimps, and to use cooperative hunting to kill monkeys in large numbers. No one knows why for sure, except that it clearly isn't for food or defense -- no monkey can threaten a chimp. There are some species of ants that engage in organized warfare between colonies.

But I don't know of any other species that does anything that might be considered genocide.

highboy said...

"Why not?"

Because it doesn't make an ounce of sense. Not to mention it doesn't make an ounce of sense to state that we live in an amoral universe and then decide of our own volition that our existence within this amoral universe has moral implications. Its simply nonsensical, especially since such a statement would have no authority behind it. Humanity isn't "better" or "above" any other animal species just because it has more complexity.

But the inconsistency still remains in calling what animals do to one another "natural selection" and what humans do as moral/immoral.

"mustang stallions that force intercourse with pregnant mares in an attempt to induce miscarriage,"

That is really fd up.

Jon Woolf said...

Because it doesn't make an ounce of sense.

Not to you, perhaps.

But the inconsistency still remains in calling what animals do to one another "natural selection" and what humans do as moral/immoral.

Humans are moral agents. Animals aren't.

As for Glenn Beck, yes, he's a clown. Says so himself, in fact. He's often described himself as a rodeo clown who has achieved fame largely by luck, not talent or skill. I won't argue with that assessment.

highboy said...

"Humans are moral agents. Animals aren't."

Not if we live in an amoral universe.

As for Beck, you and the rest of the libs can hate all you want, he's usually right and libs are usually wrong, which is where most of the disdain comes from.

Jon Woolf said...

Not if we live in an amoral universe.

Why?

Highboy, it's really sad to think that you need some absolute authority to tell you what moral and immoral behavior are. Can't you simply figure it out for yourself?

As for Beck, you and the rest of the libs ...

[snicker.wav]

...can hate all you want, he's usually right...

Sometimes. Not always. Beck has made a common mistake: he doesn't take the time to truly learn about the subjects he talks about, so he doesn't know what sources he should trust. As a result, he listens to many of the wrong people and gets as many things wrong as he gets right.

highboy said...

"Highboy, it's really sad to think that you need some absolute authority to tell you what moral and immoral behavior are. "

No, what is sad is a supposedly intelligent human such as yourself deliberately misrepresenting my position on morality as you just have. I don't NEED an absolute authority to tell me what moral/immoral behavior is. What I'm asking for is who morality enters the equation at all in an amoral universe. The concept of morality is based on duty and obligation and you have never once given a valid explanation as to why I have a duty to my fellow man in an amoral meaningless universe. You can talk all you want about our "moral self awareness" but that doesn't tell me why I'm obligated. Consequences themselves don't obligate me, and my advanced complexity doesn't obligate me. You have yet to give me one valid reason as to why humanities existence and coexistence is a moral issue yet the rest of the entire universe's existence has no moral implications to it whatsoever. It just is. If the universe has no moral implication and no meaning than neither do humans. We just are. Therefore, genocide is nothing more than another act of nature, as the human performing the act, regardless of reason, is simply performing another act in nature. There is no moral connotations to it. There can't be.

highboy said...

"who" is suppose to be "what".

Anonymous said...

"I don't NEED an absolute authority to tell me what moral/immoral behavior is."

That certainly seems to be the position you've presented so far.

Jon Woolf said...

Highboy, we went through this in a previous comment-thread, several months ago. My explanation hasn't changed since then. Why should I spend time retyping it now?

highboy said...

"Highboy, we went through this in a previous comment-thread, several months ago. My explanation hasn't changed since then. Why should I spend time retyping it now?"

Even though your explanation wasn't an explanation and you did nothing to answer the question. I know I know, "not to you perhaps". The fact remains your explanation by point of FACT didn't explain or answer the point.

Anonymous said...

Jon Woolf did answer the question, more than once. Which is when you keep going on about there being no moral law-giver etc. But the question was answered several times, in increasingly clear wording.

highboy said...

"Jon Woolf did answer the question, more than once. "

Sure he answered it, but his answer was less than adequate, which is the point I'm making and neither he nor you his apologist have yet to give an adequate answer. You can't. Though I'm sure you'll keep arguing that you can and did like little children.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

If the universe has no moral implication and no meaning than neither do humans.

Please elaborate. Even if the universe is amoral, why should that keep humans from being moral?

After all, the fact that the universe is unintelligent doesn't keep humans from being intelligent, nor does the fact that the universe isn't sentient prevent humans from being sentient.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, what exactly was the question? I'm looking through both this thread and the one Jon linked to, and he consistently responds with clarity to everything you've said. Sure, there's scope to continue the conversation (especially in the thread Jon linked to, which ends sort of in mid-conversation), but you have no cause to claim that he's not answering your questions - only that you don't like some of the answers.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Please elaborate. Even if the universe is amoral, why should that keep humans from being moral?

After all, the fact that the universe is unintelligent doesn't keep humans from being intelligent, nor does the fact that the universe isn't sentient prevent humans from being sentient."

Here's the elaboration: you're assuming that the universe is amoral, assuming that its not intelligent, etc. You're assuming that its meaningless. But the very fact that we are sentient, moral, and intelligent says otherwise, as is our thirst for meaning. I ask again: how can the concept of meaning exist in any real sense in a meaningless universe? Why should humanity's existence be a moral issue if existence itself isn't even a moral issue? Despite your claim to the contrary, this has NEVER been addressed with any coherency.

Anonymous said...

highboy, you said:

"Why should humanity's existence be a moral issue if existence itself isn't even a moral issue?"

Why should human existence determine morality? The fact that human existence has no specific value in the grand scheme of things does not mean that human life has no value.
Humanity's existence didn't depend on choice, but existing (i.e. living) as a human does.

highboy said...

"Why should human existence determine morality? "

Well if you actually follow the thread, you'll see we're discussing humanism, which means human existence determines morality. But basically you just reasked my question.

"The fact that human existence has no specific value in the grand scheme of things does not mean that human life has no value. "

and no one has given a reference point for that value over all other living things other than sheer human desire.

Anonymous said...

and no one has given a reference point for that value over all other living things other than sheer human desire.

Value according to whom?