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
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
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 1151 - 1200 of 1765 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers1152. Comment #169995 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 8:33 am
Comment #169992 by riandouglasKeeping up is so bad, I am tempted to write a "conversation tracker" application. It would notify in real time if a particular conversation has changed, or keep track of what has changed since last viewing.
If only I had the time...
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1153. Comment #169997 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:36 am
Steve Zara: Keeping up is so bad, I am tempted to write a "conversation tracker" application. It would notify in real time if a particular conversation has changed, or keep track of what has changed since last viewing.
I was thinking some kind of IM interface which backs onto the website, so you don't have to keep polling the site. If only I had the time...
On a different note, I think I'm falling prey to the effect which is the basis of Cory Doctrow's "Eastern Standard Tribe", though which tribe do I associate with? The UK'ers or the US'Ers (and the US is probably large enough to have an east and a west tribe). I wonder if my employer would allow me to radically change my work hours...
Other Comments by riandouglas
1154. Comment #170077 by D'Arcy on April 27, 2008 at 10:44 am
24 hours without TTID? Has my prediction of the future proved true? Am I really the Prophet that has been awaited?
I've got to go and meet Zarquon, but watch this space!
Other Comments by D'Arcy
1155. Comment #170198 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm
D'Arcy: 24 hours without TTID? Has my prediction of the future proved true? Am I really the Prophet that has been awaited?
No, it is I. I correctly predicted the order the final 4 of "So you think you can dance Australia" would be removed from the show, producing the winner. I subsequently cast demons out of my flat mate.
Obviously being the son of Quetz has it's benefits
Other Comments by riandouglas
1156. Comment #170265 by oldwobbly on April 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm
If David J's time were only spent reading...reading Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, Shermer, Harris, or even a high school science textbook....rather than forking over money to the craven and duplicitous-for-a-profit Ben Stein, he would be a happier man. And Ben Stein would have to go back to running a game show on cable.Other Comments by oldwobbly
1157. Comment #170277 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:39 pm
oldwobbly: And Ben Stein would have to go back to running a game show on cable.
Couldn't he go back to being a social activist? His jew-fro looked great
Other Comments by riandouglas
1158. Comment #170358 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Ok, I'll admit that I am a supporter of ID. I also support at least some form of evolution because its pretty obvious. The reason I support ID in part is because I find no plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell, but I digress.I take issue with the idea that atheism coupled with Darwinism would not lead someone to the ideas such as some of Hitler's. I don't mean to say anti-semitism and genocide, but ideas such as eugenics more broadly. If we remove an objective source of morality, there is no reason not to want to try to encourage the reproduction of the "best elements" of society while discouraging the reproduction of the "worst elements." This would lead to more comfort for individuals who would not be given the burden of caring for people who are weak or unintelligent. Could someone explain to me how I am wrong about this?
Other Comments by smellhound
1159. Comment #170359 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
eugenics was in vogue after Darwin. People seem to forget but Churchill supported eugenics and was a incredibly cruel and horrible man. If we remove an objective source of moralityThere never has been one.
This would lead to more comfort for individuals who would not be given the burden of caring for people who are weak or unintelligent
That isn't the eugenicists argument. Eugenics goal is to improve human genetic qualities so that people don't have to suffer.
Eugenics is not Darwinian, in that it is artificial selection, but Darwins theorys acceptance allowed for the intellectual atmosphere that made eugenics the vogue. It doesn't in any way explain Hitler however.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1160. Comment #170360 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm
smellhound: Ok, I'll admit that I am a supporter of ID. I also support at least some form of evolution because its pretty obvious. The reason I support ID in part is because I find no plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell, but I digress.
If you mean the first replicator/life, and I think you do, then you're an "evil darwinist" like the rest of us. The theory you actually have a problem with is abiogenesis.
Welcome!
smellhound: If we remove an objective source of morality, there is no reason not to want to try to encourage the reproduction of the "best elements" of society while discouraging the reproduction of the "worst elements." This would lead to more comfort for individuals who would not be given the burden of caring for people who are weak or unintelligent. Could someone explain to me how I am wrong about this?
Others will (hopefully) address this better than I will, but here foes.
There is no objective source of morality. I'm not removing god, simply that morals are objective even with his existence. happy to explain further or point you to material.
Eugenics is a case of "artificial selection" as we practice on domesticated animals, and the spartans did on their children. They were a little before darwin too.
Any further points or clarification?
Other Comments by riandouglas
1161. Comment #170364 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm
1301. Comment #170358 by smellhound
Ok, I'll admit that I am a supporter of ID. I also support at least some form of evolution because its pretty obvious. The reason I support ID in part is because I find no plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell, but I digress.
riandouglas and ThoughtsonCommonToad have covered your second point; I'd just like to ask this:
Even though, as already stated, it's abiogenesis, not evolution, what "plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell" does ID propose (other than "goddidit" I mean)?
Other Comments by Geoff
1162. Comment #170366 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Sorry, need to clarify. I am not blaming Darwin for eugenics. In fact, I am not blaming Darwin for anything. I bring up the idea of no source of morality, and ultimately no right and wrong from what one of the interviewees on Ben Stein's movie said.To clarify about why eugenics is Darwinian. We all have the biologically programmed goal to survive and breed. We will be better able to survive and thrive as individuals in a society if we don't have to care for the weak and the sick. Maybe eugenics isn't even the right term, but there certainly is a darwinian justification for removing the weak from the herd so each individual in the herd doesnt have to waste its time caring for it.
The only rational argument I can think of supporting this is to gain the assurance that you will not be thinned from the herd. I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality
Other Comments by smellhound
1163. Comment #170367 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Sorry, as I understand ID, or at least the kind that right now I will accept as a scientific theory is that something or someone must have intervened at the start in order get the process moving. Whether it was God or something else, I don't think can be explained at this point. I think of ID as more of a rejection of saying that Darwin is enough.Other Comments by smellhound
1164. Comment #170368 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm
smellhoundbut there certainly is a darwinian justification for removing the weak from the herd so each individual in the herd doesnt have to waste its time caring for it.The Theory of Natural selection is amoral. It doesn't justify anything it simply explains the natural order we see around us.
Now you seem to have a misguided view on the theory of natural selection. It merely says those that survive survive.
How do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be? I think you should call Darwinism the Theory of Natural Selection. It gets rid of the idea that its somehow a set of prescriptions on how to live.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1165. Comment #170369 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I don't mean this as a way to justify anything other than to say that to avoid conclusions that slavery, eugenics, involuntary euthanasia, are logical without appealing to some set of morality that is neither rational or logical. A kind of morality that, dare i say it, is faith based.Other Comments by smellhound
1166. Comment #170371 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:37 pm
smellhound: We all have the biologically programmed goal to survive and breed.
I think I'm still correct in saying it's actually genes which do the replication. Our desires to breed are simply a manifestation of that ie. Those who had a greater desire to breed bred more often and left more ofspring.
No mention of the sick or weak. In fact they can be important sources of knowledge, especially while we were still living in small tribal units.
smellhound: The only rational argument I can think of supporting this is to gain the assurance that you will not be thinned from the herd. I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality
Why do you think there is an abandonment of morality?
If you want I'll point you to some reasons why morality is subective even if god exists, and why we can't/shouldn't use the bible as a source of morality. Or something close to that
Other Comments by riandouglas
1167. Comment #170372 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:38 pm
You increase your own ability to survive and thrive by not caring for and eliminating those who cannot survive on their own. I'm just arguing what is the rational action to take if you eliminate morality. I'm not arguing about what is moral or immoralOther Comments by smellhound
1168. Comment #170373 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:38 pm
smellhound: Sorry, as I understand ID, or at least the kind that right now I will accept as a scientific theory is that something or someone must have intervened at the start in order get the process moving. Whether it was God or something else, I don't think can be explained at this point. I think of ID as more of a rejection of saying that Darwin is enough.
You're thinking theistic evolution, not ID.
ID seems to be (and there is no real, decent, definition around for some reason), that the complexity we see in live is too much for simple descent with modification (evolution), so they postulate a designer to add this complexity in.
Other Comments by riandouglas
1169. Comment #170374 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I don't mean this as a way to justify anything other than to say that to avoid conclusions that slavery, eugenics, involuntary euthanasia, are logical without appealing to some set of morality that is neither rational or logical. A kind of morality that, dare i say it, is faith based.
Morality is what has made it possible for the human species to survive. It seems crude but its a survival strategy. We all share the same morality broadly speaking.
I mean do you really think that before Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 commandments (which by the way don't deal with 'morality' very much) everyone thought murder and theft were ok? No they wouldnt have survived if they were seen as ok.
Can you tell me how you morality is faith based?
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1170. Comment #170375 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Smellhound,
The application of ethics and morality often hinges on at least two factors. Is that person in my family? Yes, then let the ethcial treatment ensue.
Is that person in my tribe? Yes? Well then so long as they don't burn me then so long as you don't burn me too often then I will behave ethically toward you. That isn't the whole story but I would certainly encourage you to go read Steven Pinker's essay on the "Has science made Obsolete?" thread.
EDIT: I mostly only refering here to what seem to be the roots of morality.
I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality
Who has abandoned morality? I don't think such a thing is even possible as a good part of the morality is evolved sensiblities in ourselves.
Other Comments by MaxD
1171. Comment #170376 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm
smellhound: I don't mean this as a way to justify anything other than to say that to avoid conclusions that slavery, eugenics, involuntary euthanasia, are logical without appealing to some set of morality that is neither rational or logical. A kind of morality that, dare i say it, is faith based.
Why is morality neither rational nor logical?
The morality presented in the bible is not what we have today, and the sense you get from it is informed by your own morality. This explains why we don't think stoning homosexuals and adulters is a great thing to do anymore.
Other Comments by riandouglas
1172. Comment #170378 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:42 pm
smellhound: You increase your own ability to survive and thrive by not caring for and eliminating those who cannot survive on their own. I'm just arguing what is the rational action to take if you eliminate morality. I'm not arguing about what is moral or immoral
My ability to survive is not the thing. It's about genes. If my genes ability to replicate is helped by caring for someone (kin selection and reciprocal altruism are good read's on wikipedia) then that behaviour will be selected for.
Other Comments by riandouglas
1173. Comment #170379 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Oh, there are definitely certain examples where morality is beneficial and logical, its known as cooperation. (IE I won't mistreat you if you don't mistreat me) But there is no reason not to mistreat someone from another tribe or someone who has no ability to harm you in any way for that mistreatment when you can benefit from it.Other Comments by smellhound
1174. Comment #170380 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:43 pm
1305. Comment #170366 by smellhound
Sorry, need to clarify. I am not blaming Darwin for eugenics. In fact, I am not blaming Darwin for anything. I bring up the idea of no source of morality, and ultimately no right and wrong from what one of the interviewees on Ben Stein's movie said.
To clarify about why eugenics is Darwinian. We all have the biologically programmed goal to survive and breed. We will be better able to survive and thrive as individuals in a society if we don't have to care for the weak and the sick. Maybe eugenics isn't even the right term, but there certainly is a darwinian justification for removing the weak from the herd so each individual in the herd doesnt have to waste its time caring for it.
No. If anything, that would be species selection, which has been shown to be false.
Bear in mind also that evolution was known about long before Darwin, as was artificial selection (in farming and agriculture, for example). Darwin showed that natural selection (ie with no human interference) would lead to changes in gene frequencies within a population, too.
The only rational argument I can think of supporting this is to gain the assurance that you will not be thinned from the herd. I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality
No-one is abandoning morality; just the opposite. If that's your argument, you need to explain why many other animals demonstrate altruism, presumably without any imposed absolute morality.
Other Comments by Geoff
1175. Comment #170381 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:44 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
All good things to read concerning the development of morality in homo sapiens (and other species)
Other Comments by riandouglas
1176. Comment #170382 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I'm just arguing what is the rational action to take if you eliminate morality.
Could you clarify that statement, again: How do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be?
For example I assume you believe you get your morality from the bible. That is easily shown to be false but just a favourite quote of mine
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10."
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1177. Comment #170383 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm
smellhound, I've never been religious, so by your argument I can't be moral (sorry if I'm misinterpreting).I'm actually quite a nice guy, trying to do the right thing and be kind to people. Why do I do it, if not because of faith? It was how I was raised (thanks mum). It feels like the right thing to do.
Some (many?) on this site were evangelicals, who might have held the opinion that without god/faith, there can be no morality. Some of them no longer have a belief in god, but are still (or have become?) moral people.
Other Comments by riandouglas
1178. Comment #170384 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:50 pm
smellhound, if morality can only exist because of god, either it is his nature and he can do nothing about it, in which case we should be after the laws which god follows. If it is his whim, then it is simply following commands, and isn't really morality.(Hope I put that argument together in a lucid fashion)
Other Comments by riandouglas
1179. Comment #170385 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:51 pm
No, sorry, i think you are missing the point. Acting moral sometimes means acting irrationally against your own interests. The only reason to do that is that you have faith that what you are doing is right. Faith in something that can't be proven I would identify as religion.Other Comments by smellhound
1180. Comment #170386 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:52 pm
smellhound: No, sorry, i think you are missing the point. Acting moral sometimes means acting irrationally against your own interests. The only reason to do that is that you have faith that what you are doing is right. Faith in something that can't be proven I would identify as religion.
I understand what you're getting at. It simply doesn't mean what you think it means. Please take a look at the wiki links I posted. They explain an evolutionary basis for the development of "selfless" behaviour, which is what you're talking about.
EDIT: basically, meaning there is no reason in saying that it is irrational to behave selfishly unless there is something higher/greater
Other Comments by riandouglas
1181. Comment #170387 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:54 pm
riandouglas Socrates gotta love the guy. Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1182. Comment #170388 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 5:54 pm
But there is no reason not to mistreat someone from another tribe or someone who has no ability to harm you in any way for that mistreatment when you can benefit from it.
And what has this to do with morality? Morality isn't objective, but we evolved to feel that what we hold to be moral involves very strong feelings such as disgust and repugnance. Such as mistreating strangers......
Religious people have to learn that morality can't come from God. Even if there were an objective morality, God could be nothing more than a messenger of morality. But it's quite obvious there is no objective morality. Some peoples thought (still think) that slavery was (is) fine and moral. Many do not, this demonstrates that what is seen as moral changes. The basic feelings that we feel when something seen as moral is transgressed are the same as previous generations.
Other Comments by Brian English
1183. Comment #170389 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" goes into some detail concerning this. You can read a small snippet on wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Genes_can_reproduce_at_the_expense_of_the_organism
Other Comments by riandouglas
1184. Comment #170390 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm
TCT, I guess I now have to read Socrates. I have a new book to read every 10 minutes on this site.If I didn't like it so much, I'd hate you people! :-)
Other Comments by riandouglas
1185. Comment #170391 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I can see what he's saying. How can you justify doing something against your self-interest, i.e something that would put you at risk of loss, if there is no reason to do so logically or rationally if and this is a big if, your premise is to increase you self-wealth as it were.Well I can give you my reason. Because I care what happens to others. Others suffering cuts like a knife. Human solidarity, basically that elementary moral principle the golden rule, which is a fairly good rule of thumb.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1186. Comment #170392 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Ok, I read the thing about reciprocal altruism, and I understand that, but again the problem becomes, why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?Other Comments by smellhound
1187. Comment #170393 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm
One more, then I'm off to bed, it's 2 am here!1306. Comment #170367 by smellhound
Sorry, as I understand ID, or at least the kind that right now I will accept as a scientific theory
that's not even close to being a scientific theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it barely qualifies as a conjecture. look up those 3 terms as they're used in science.
is that something or someone must have intervened at the start in order get the process moving.
again, you need to understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has nothing to do with how life got started, which is (probably) more the province of chemistry.
Whether it was God or something else, I don't think can be explained at this point. I think of ID as more of a rejection of saying that Darwin is enough.
Precisely. All creationism (or ID if you prefer; they're exactly the same thing, just dressed up slightly differently) does is try (unsuccessfully) to poke holes in the ToE, without proposing anything remotely capable of replacing it.
Goodnight, all!
Other Comments by Geoff
1188. Comment #170394 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Brian English: Religious people have to learn that morality can't come from God. Even if there were an objective morality, God could be nothing more than a messenger of morality. But it's quite obvious there is no objective morality. Some peoples thought (still think) that slavery was (is) fine and moral. Many do not, this demonstrates that what is seen as moral changes. The basic feelings that we feel when something seen as moral is transgressed are the same as previous generations.
I'd say people need to learn this, not just religious (though they're the majority).
Also, simply because morals aren't relative, doesn't mean we can't strive to improve them.
There is no such thing in reality as a perfectly straight line, but that doesn't preclude us from trying to make one.
Other Comments by riandouglas
1189. Comment #170395 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:00 pm
smellhound: Ok, I read the thing about reciprocal altruism, and I understand that, but again the problem becomes, why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?
How can you know at the outset?
And how do you know the only payback can come from the recipient. Aren't people who help the needy, with ho though of themselves thought of very highly. being thought of highly is a very valulable thing.
EDIT: I don't mean to say that this is a conscious thing on the part of the altruist, though it may be.
Other Comments by riandouglas
1190. Comment #170396 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:01 pm
why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?
Why do you? If you do.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1191. Comment #170397 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 6:02 pm
For morality to function we need mechanisms for record keeping (so we know if we're being cheated or not, etc), strong irrational feelings (so we might overreact when cheated, feel great when something moral occurs) and a capacity to believe that what we hold to be moral is something real and strong. Humans have all those in spades. No faith required.Iterative game theory, coupled with the possibility of someone who's moral code has been transgressed irrationally overacting (vicious angry retaliatory behaviour for example when you steal or hurt) will get morality.
Other Comments by Brian English
1192. Comment #170398 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:02 pm
TCT: Well I can give you my reason. Because I care what happens to others. Others suffering cuts like a knife. Human solidarity, basically that elementary moral principle the golden rule, which is a fairly good rule of thumb.
Ah, empathy. That would be somewhat related to the mirror neuron link.
We treat people as we'd like to be treated as we can see what it is like from their point of view.
Other Comments by riandouglas
1193. Comment #170399 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:03 pm
smellhound: why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?
I'm with commontoad. What is your reason for behaving morally?
Other Comments by riandouglas
1194. Comment #170401 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. Regardless of my views on God etc. (I am a Christian) I do believe that there is an objective morality of right and wrong.Other Comments by smellhound
1195. Comment #170402 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm
smellhound: I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. Regardless of my views on God etc. (I am a Christian) I do believe that there is an objective morality of right and wrong.
Why is it the right thing to do?
Other Comments by riandouglas
1196. Comment #170403 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Demonstrate this objective morality. Other Comments by Brian English
1197. Comment #170404 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The question: "Why be altruistic"? Has several aspects. The one is the question about prescriptive justification - what prescribes that? This is a question of ethics.The other is a question of game theory.
I suggest you look into "Evolutionary Stable Strategy", "tit for tat", "tit for two tats" and "game theory" at wikipedia.
Concerning the first, I have written a lot about that recently - maybe others can direct you via my "Other comments by"...
My points were:
-Science is always only descriptive. No moral values or imperatives can be inferred from descriptive statements. Nor can any moral imperative be more or less compatible with any descriptive statement.
-Theistic ethics don't work, the ethical theory is incoherent or insufficient
and
-There are working ethical theories that do not require inherent, objective moral values and yet do provide a basis for what we would intuitively call "ethical behaviour".
Other Comments by MPhil
1198. Comment #170405 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. Regardless of my views on God
So how do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be?
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
1199. Comment #170406 by smellhound on April 27, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Again, I can't prove it. I am willing to accept it as an act of faith. That is exactly my point though. Without believing there is some objective morality there is no reason not to oppress/harm others when it serves your interest both long term and short term.Other Comments by smellhound
1200. Comment #170407 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 6:07 pm
That is exactly my point though. Without believing there is some objective morality there is no reason not to oppress/harm others when it serves your interest both long term and short term.
Wrong, you've just demonstrated an ignorance of what morality is.
Other Comments by Brian English
More Comments: First | Previous | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 | Next | Last
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1151. Comment #169992 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:28 am
It's 1:30am here, I've only had 10 hours sleep after being awake for 36 hours. During the week I'll be getting up at ~5am to train prior to work.
Will you people please give me my life back!
Thanks Steve. I'll keep posting as I can, but it is hard to keep up with the conversations, even having been doing it "full time" as it were this weekend.
Other Comments by riandouglas