Print
Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda
by Richard Dawkins
On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".
Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.
Richard
Dear Mr J
Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.
1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.
5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).
6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.
With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.
It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.
Richard
Dear Mr J
Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.
1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.
2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.
3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.
5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).
6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.
With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, April 20, 2008 | PermalinkComments 551 - 600 of 1947 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers552. Comment #166660 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 11:19 am
I'm trying to help and educate you
said the priest to the choirboy.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
553. Comment #166662 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 11:21 am
What does bother me is the impossible odds of a god having existed for ever, and he cares whether I masturbate or not. That is what bothers me.
yup, i wonder why god lets some kid gets ripped in two in a car crash but then cares if i use a condom, to my mind the word makes sense as it is, just not when theres a nice god there. thats why im an atheist.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
554. Comment #166663 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 11:21 am
al-rawandi,I think you are mentally disturbed?
newskin,
How is evolution plausible and proven in mathamatical modeling?
Other Comments by TheTruthID
555. Comment #166665 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 11:23 am
flagging Other Comments by phasmagigas
556. Comment #166666 by Diacanu on April 23, 2008 at 11:23 am
TheTruthID-
Diacanu,
Why would I try to harm you? I'm trying to help and educate you.
You completely miss my point.
You say without religion, anything goes.
That's bullshit, and deep down inside yourself, you know it.
Without religion, would you suddenly become a baby killer?
I doubt it.
None of us are.
Look at chimpanzees.
They defend their children, they mourn their dead, they cooperate like a family unit.
They're, well, decent people.
And they had no monkey-Moses or monkey-Jesus to tell them to be good.
Morality comes from us.
The proof is as easy as looking at our cousins.
Other Comments by Diacanu
557. Comment #166673 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 11:26 am
Diacanu,You can claim a chimpanzee as a cousin, but I don't. In addition, a chimpanzee is not a monkey but an ape.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
558. Comment #166675 by Quine on April 23, 2008 at 11:26 am
TheTruthID, here was my response when pacman71192 also tried the clueless probability argument. Please go try to learn some non-fiction.P.S. Answer Epeeist's questions.
Other Comments by Quine
559. Comment #166676 by newskin on April 23, 2008 at 11:27 am
How is evolution plausible and proven in mathamatical modeling?
Well the fact you asked that question is positive, but shows you have a lot more reading to do! Even if it is a case of know your enemy...
I'm certainly not the best person to explain the maths, as that was never my strong point, but essentially setting up a computer simulation of dna with given values of: the rate of reproduction, isolation and mutation, scientists have shown evolution is likely. More likely than some initial conservative estimates.
Incase you are wondering, the values used to program the system are derived from observations of life today, and not simply plucked out of someone's mind or tweaked for ideal results!!
Other Comments by newskin
560. Comment #166677 by Elli on April 23, 2008 at 11:27 am
TTID: Why won't you answer Epeeist's questions? Other Comments by Elli
561. Comment #166682 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 11:30 am
Diacanu,Would you say that human standards of moralty are universal?
Other Comments by TheTruthID
562. Comment #166683 by al-rawandi on April 23, 2008 at 11:32 am
TheTruthID,
al-rawandi,
I think you are mentally disturbed?
If that was a statement you didn't need the question mark.
I have my fair share of problems, no doubt. Being too stupid or to understand basic concepts is not one of them. Another problem I don't have is being duplicitous when it comes to dealing with straight questions.
Now answer epeeist's question.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
563. Comment #166686 by clodhopper on April 23, 2008 at 11:32 am
There are serious child protection concerns related to unfounded belief. If you truly are interested in protecting children you would be well advised to examine the horrific abuse, both physical and mental, meted out to children over the centuries and now, in the name of some designer or other.
I'll ask again. Does your designer have a name?
Other Comments by clodhopper
564. Comment #166687 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 11:33 am
Comment #166597 by MPhilDepends on what you mean by "justified". If you mean whether I think that Darwinism justifies Social Darwinism - absolutely not. Darwinism is science, science per definition does not and can not make ethically normative statements - if anything does, it isn't science anymore.
Are we saying the social sciences do not fall under equal treatment as other science(s), even using the scientific method for the strictest definition?
I guess a bigger question about Galton's use of Darwin theories is Darwin's opinion of it himself. As we have seen with Dawkins and others who felt they were misrepresented in the film, "Expelled" speaking out against their role was a natural expression. From my own research, it appears as though Darwin did have reservations about accomplishing Galton's Utopia, but not reservations about the goal itself.
http://www.galton.org/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm
Letter from Darwin to Galton.
Your proposed Society would have awfully laborious work, and I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is, there is much concealment of insanity and wickedness in families; and there would be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are above mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how difficult to judge on these latter heads. As far as I see, within the same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the register; and these would naturally stick to their own families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance.
Maybe I am reading this wrong?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
565. Comment #166688 by Diacanu on April 23, 2008 at 11:33 am
TheTruthID-Answer my question first.
Without religion, would you become a baby killer?
Other Comments by Diacanu
566. Comment #166693 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 11:36 am
TheTruthIDAre religious standards of morality universally adhered to? NO? They only claim to be universally true. So does Utilitarianism - but with much better evidence (not conclusive, but still).
Most people on this world don't believe that the ethical commands you think are universal in fact are. So all you have is a vacuous claim, whereas philosophical ethics can have a basis in rationality and the general facts about life.
Other Comments by MPhil
567. Comment #166697 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 11:39 am
a chimpanzee is not a monkey but an ape
thats down to naming convention, nothing more. funny how we share more DNA with chimps as predicted than we do with 'monkeys'.
if goddidt i still try to think of a good explanation, a good one, not just any old one. perhaps chimps were a prototype human but god didnt get it quite right so tried again and made adam, wait, god got it wrong!! oh dear, not a good reason, i'll try again.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
568. Comment #166708 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 11:45 am
seeker_of_truthnothing making ethically normative statements is science. Social sciences don't do that - they maximally describe what ethically normative statements are made by people in what situations with what consequences.
The opinion of Darwin or someone else is beside the point. Ethically normative statements -> not science.
Other Comments by MPhil
569. Comment #166709 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 11:46 am
Comment #166693 by MPhilIf I may interrupt since this is on-topic?
Most people on this world don't believe that the ethical commands you think are universal in fact are. So all you have is a vacuous claim, whereas philosophical ethics can have a basis in rationality and the general facts about life.
I will say this much for mainstream religious morals [Protestant/Catholic bibles], they are in black and white, include much detail, and some even have a stated explanation behind them [within the text]. For me, I have a starting point to evaluate them. I'm still searching for as much from the social implications which stem from naturalism.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
570. Comment #166711 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 11:47 am
MPhil,Are not all standards of morality based on some universal belief. What is right from wrong? Who sets these standards. If we all have evolved from nothing with no purpose, why have any social standards? Why not survival of the fittest.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
571. Comment #166712 by newskin on April 23, 2008 at 11:47 am
Hmm wrong thread. My apologies! Other Comments by newskin
572. Comment #166715 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 11:48 am
TheTruthID-Why would I try to harm you? I'm trying to help and educate you.
This is not a genuine reply. Education? That's normally done by demonstrating new information and ideas and then attempting to explain the process. You have done none of this.
Would you say that human standards of moralty are universal?
A quick scan of history shows that they are not universal.
You seem to think science is decided by debate or majority voting. Not so.
If you think evolution by natural selection is a flawed theory it's really easy to replace it. All you have to do is produce a better theory. But before you even start - I think you need to understand what a scientific theory is.
Other Comments by ofir
573. Comment #166725 by Diacanu on April 23, 2008 at 11:52 am
TheTruthID-Are you going to answer my question?
Other Comments by Diacanu
574. Comment #166730 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 am
Are not all standards of morality based on some universal belief. What is right from wrong? Who sets these standards. If we all have evolved from nothing with no purpose, why have any social standards? Why not survival of the fittest.
ermm, havent we heard this one before about 10 tinmes already this month. you need god to be good? speak for yourself., this business has been done to death in many books and many times already on this forum. 'the selfish gene' actually has this idea at its heart.
i have no concept of god in my head, so them why do i open a door for a very attractive sexually mature woman when she comes my way??? you might do it so god pats you on the back, i might do it for a rather different reason. and an even better question, is why would i do the same for some old lady??? ok, i am opeing a serious point here!!!!
yeaterday i was in a changing room, i opened a locker to put my stuff in and there was a bag andcoat already in there, the owner of the gear had forgot to padlock the door.
now as an atheist what did i do???? TTID, have a guess as to what i did and why.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
575. Comment #166731 by newskin on April 23, 2008 at 11:57 am
Diacanu-
I beleive he/she has gone. Probably to that warm, snug, cotton wool like place that says you will survive your own death.
Other Comments by newskin
576. Comment #166734 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 11:59 am
Diacanu,First of all, I do not consider my faith a religion. It seems you have no faith or religion.
Without religion, would I become a baby killer? I'll answer no to that but do not get your point.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
577. Comment #166737 by clodhopper on April 23, 2008 at 12:01 pm
ID: "Are not all standards of morality based on some universal belief."
No.
C'mon man, your inadequacy is showing! Have the courage of your convictions and stand up for the designer you believe in. Above all, answer the questions and stop hiding and dithering about!
Other Comments by clodhopper
578. Comment #166741 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 12:03 pm
You all are so funny. Almost every response you give includes some personal attack or insult. Why is this? Say what you want, but you know deep down what causes you to respond in this way.Other Comments by TheTruthID
579. Comment #166743 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Comment #166639 by MPhilHave you read the Stanford-entry yet?
No, I'm busy chatting with you.
The self-censoring etc don't matter either.
Consider these facts:
1. One can have concepts of persons radically different from oneself, extrapolate what they would do in certain situations, and how they would judge something
By conceptualizing another's predisposed influences we can arrive at an influence-free frame of mind? I like the know-thyself-offset concept better.
This is not really different. The censor doesn't come into it at all, as you are rationally constructing a hypothetical modal
The censor bypasses, even supersedes, the rational mind, often giving the unconscious a priori status.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
580. Comment #166745 by Diacanu on April 23, 2008 at 12:05 pm
TheTruthID-
Without religion, would I become a baby killer? I'll answer no to that
Well, there you go.
You're inherently a good person who knows slaughtering babies for dinner is wrong.
Same as me, same as the rest of us.
So, what part does Jesus have to do with any of that?
Other Comments by Diacanu
581. Comment #166748 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm
You all are so funny. Almost every response you give includes some personal attack or insult. Why is this? Say what you want, but you know deep down what causes you to respond in this way.
Nonsense. You are just avoiding questions. You are calling to question people's education and professions. What do you expect?
If you provide some serious theory then people will attack the theory instead of you. So far you have just claimed that your 'faith' is better without any merit.
Finally, you seem to 'know' so much. Even why people you never met are saying and thinking things 'deep down'. If that's not arrogant - I don't know what is.
Other Comments by ofir
582. Comment #166750 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I will say this much for mainstream religious morals [Protestant/Catholic bibles], they are in black and white,
Which is why they fail to apply, their world-picture is far too coarse.
include much detail, and some even have a stated explanation behind them [within the text].
But in the end it comes down to "because god said so".
That's the thing with theistic ethics. Either god commands things because they are intrinsically right or wrong - that is objectively, in which case god is just a middle-man and is not required for morality. Or things are right and wrong because god said so, or because it is god's nature that determines this, in which case the values are not objective, but subjective to/dependent on god's nature.
Also, "because it is god's command" is never a moral reason unless you have already have made the moral choice to accept the bible/god as the commander of moral values - which has to be justified from without the moral theory of theism - which is impossible for the theist. The logic of theistic morality is circular.
Furthermore, the concept of ethical responsibility is meaningless in theistic ethics because there it comes down to following commands by a celestial dictator (however benevolent one might think he is) - not because things are objectively, intrinsically moral or because of the reasons a rational philosophical ethical theory can provide.
Also, the moral commands of the bible are at places contradictory. Also, they are decidedly unegalitarian and unfair. The basic liberties, rights and freedoms cannot be affirmed. Liberty of Conscience cannot be affirmed. At least if taken seriously. As Jean-Jaques Rousseau correctly noted:
It is impossible to live in peace with people of whom one thinks they are damned; [...] There is no other choice but to either convert or punish them. [...] Such a dogma [there is no salvation outside of the church] is only compatiple with a theocratic constitution, in every other it is ruinous.
If you think that someone who doesn't affirm your doctrine will suffer eternally, you cannot let that happen if you like or love that person and thus have a duty to convert him - and indoctrinate your children, thus crippling the child's ability to make full, rational use of his liberty of conscience, freedom of choice (a child successfully indoctrinated will not even develop that ability to any reasonable degree) and freedom to embrace or reject(!) any religion.
This is incompatible with the requirement to grant everyone freedom to of thought, liberty of conscience and freedom of religion - since this religious practice does not allow for the people over which its adherents have influence (especially children) to develop and make use of that freedom.
I'm still searching for as much from the social implications which stem from naturalism.
Unless you take a theistic morality or supernatural morality as default, there are none.
But as shown above, theistic morality is inconsistent, incompatible with basic liberties, faces a dilemma and has a seriously inadequate underlying world-picture.
Other Comments by MPhil
583. Comment #166752 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I find it amazing that you have so much confidence in evolution THEORY but can't even explain the most important question, how life began. Without this, any theory you can come up with is irrelevant. It's ludicrous.Other Comments by TheTruthID
584. Comment #166753 by clodhopper on April 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm
ID "but you know deep down what causes you to respond in this way."
Yes, it's utterly simple, you won't answer our very reasonable questions.
Start with Diacanu's if you want. That was a simple one.
Other Comments by clodhopper
585. Comment #166755 by Plasticity on April 23, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I am stating the fact of a supernatural designer of life derived from the scientific evidence
Hmmm.
Let's see:
Refuses to answer questions? Check.
Calls people who 'believe in' evolution arrogant, whilst claiming to know everything? Check.
Manifestly obviously does not understand evolution, or the scientific usage of the word theory? Check.
Selectively quotes Richard Dawkins out of context? Check.
I'm spotting a pattern here.
Proper science involves starting at the beginning and assuming nothing. Your ID pseudo science starts by asking a teleological question, and inserts a designer into every gap in your 'knowledge'. That isn't science.
By the way, if you have scientific proof of a supernatural designer I suggest you submit it for peer review. Your nobel prize awaits.
Other Comments by Plasticity
586. Comment #166760 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 12:15 pm
ofir,I am calling into question peoples education and proffessions? It works both ways. Evolutionists are calling into question the education and professions of many in return. And you consider your theory serious. You can't even explain how life originated in the first place.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
587. Comment #166761 by black wolf on April 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I find it amazing that you have so much confidence in evolution THEORY but can't even explain the most important question, how life began. Without this, any theory you can come up with is irrelevant. It's ludicrous.
An analogous statement to yours: a man who can't find his door keys can therefore not possibly learn to read. Makes just as much sense.
Other Comments by black wolf
588. Comment #166762 by newskin on April 23, 2008 at 12:17 pm
TheTruthID
I find it amazing that you have so much confidence in evolution THEORY but can't even explain the most important question, how life began. Without this, any theory you can come up with is irrelevant. It's ludicrous.
That response betrays your lack of understanding of evolution theory. Firstly, the word theory does not mean it is just something all we scientists got together and dreamt up. Evolution explains the origin of species; it does not posit a mechanism for the formation of organic molecules. There are other scientific theories for that. You could insert your favourite god at that point, but know that god would only have created simple molecules e.g. amino acids at which point evolution took over.
Once you start the evolutionary process there are no guarantees and our existence could not have been forseen so bang goes your 'chosen species' argument and all the organised religion that goes with it. Thus your god is a mute point which has no baring (or interest) in your life.
Other Comments by newskin
589. Comment #166763 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 12:18 pm
By conceptualizing another's predisposed influences we can arrive at an influence-free frame of mind? I like the know-thyself-offset concept better.
That's not what I meant - I was offering that as a proof that we can coherently conceive of persons who do not have our predispositions. That is all that is required.
The censor bypasses, even supersedes, the rational mind, often giving the unconscious a priori status.
True, but of no consequence. Since you have a laid out "algorithm", with an objective task - it is logically demonstrable which statements follow from the premises and which don't.
That's why I gave the math example. The internal censor doesn't matter - it is objectively, logically verifiable if something follows from the original position or not.
But you really should read the entry - take your time, I'm here for a while.
Example: I (MPhil) am a white male of rather high education. Yet I and anyone else can perfectly well see that from the original position, behind the veil of ignorance,
A rational person would not affirm that white males of higher education should have a better standing in society, since beyond the veil of ignorance, one does not know what color, sex or education one would have, and as such it would be irrational to affirm any bias, since one might receive a disadvantage from it.
This is a quasi-algorithmic procedure... and as such my predispositions are of no consequence.
Your objections are thus almost like stating math is impossible because everyone has an internal censor and a certain bias might be there without you knowing it. This is irrelevant for logical deduction.
Other Comments by MPhil
590. Comment #166764 by clodhopper on April 23, 2008 at 12:18 pm
ID: OK here is another one maybe you will condescend to look at. Honestly, getting blood out of a stone is much easier!
Your earlier statement implied a universal source of morality. How are the moral imperatives required by this revealed to us. I want the mechanism.
Other Comments by clodhopper
591. Comment #166765 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Plasticity,You hit it on the nose, thank you for proving my point. You state that proper science involves starting at the beginning and assume nothing. Well, you evolutionists, let's start at the beginning. Can't do it can you?
Other Comments by TheTruthID
592. Comment #166768 by clodhopper on April 23, 2008 at 12:21 pm
ID: "You can't even explain how life originated in the first place."
Working on it.
Please give me an answer to the above.
edit: as it's no longer above here it is again:
Your earlier statement implied a universal source of morality. How are the moral imperatives required by this revealed to us. I want the mechanism.
Other Comments by clodhopper
593. Comment #166770 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 12:23 pm
black wolf,What? Are you serious? That makes a lot of sense.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
594. Comment #166771 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Comment #166725 by Diacanu TheTruthID-Unlikely, he hasn't actually answered any questions yet.
Are you going to answer my question?
I am redoing Gandhi's quotation. My version is "First they come to jeer at you, then they refuse to answer questions, then they quote scripture, then they threaten you with eternal torture, then they are busy and have to leave".
TTID on this thread, Remnant, Artful_Dodger act exactly the same. They have nothing to say. Ignorance Deified (to quote Christopher Hitchens) is a pile of rotting dingos entrails that has the same utility as haruspicy.
Since they won't answer questions and nobody seems to be pressing them particularly hard I am off to the penis theft thread for a little light entertainment.
Other Comments by epeeist
595. Comment #166773 by Quine on April 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm
YOKO SUES EXPELLEDAnd, TheTruthID, where are those answers?
Other Comments by Quine
596. Comment #166774 by Plasticity on April 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Well, you evolutionists, let's start at the beginning. Can't do it can you?
And you can? Well, like I say, submit your evidence for peer review. It must be pretty solid.
I hope you fare better than the last ID people who went to court and tried to present it as a science.
Other Comments by Plasticity
597. Comment #166775 by Diacanu on April 23, 2008 at 12:25 pm
TheTruthID-
but can't even explain the most important question, how life began.
Well, even if that were so, plugging the hole with "Goddidit", is no answer at all.
Without this, any theory you can come up with is irrelevant.
Really?
Then let's throw away all science, and thus all modern living, and go back to the caves.
Quantum theory explains how a transister works, but it doesn't answer where life came from yet, so throw away your computer.
Or, plug the hole with "Goddidit", so you can be a hypocrite, and keep your modern appliances, and thus your ability to maintain this conversation about your personally held superstitions.
It's ludicrous.
Yes, religion is.
Other Comments by Diacanu
598. Comment #166776 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 12:25 pm
epeeist,Boy are you misguided.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
599. Comment #166777 by Greybishop on April 23, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I've read all 600 posts in this thread.
Aside from being way, way off topic, it's been entertaining.
TheTruthID -
Just a heads up. Even "Answers In Genesis" suggests that pointing out that evolution is "just a theory" is not a winning debate point.
Go to answersingenesis DOT org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#just_theory
to see what I mean.
Other Comments by Greybishop
600. Comment #166778 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Comment #166773 by QuineYOKO SUES EXPELLEDSorry Quine, but the article isn't very accurate. The writer seems to think Ben Stein is a comedian.
Other Comments by epeeist
More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next | Last
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
551. Comment #166658 by al-rawandi on April 23, 2008 at 11:18 am
I believe what there is evidence for. There is evidence for evolution by natural selection, there is no evidence for design, aside from your feeble misunderstanding of evolution.
What does bother me is the impossible odds of a god having existed for ever, and he cares whether I masturbate or not. That is what bothers me.
Other Comments by al-rawandi