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 201 - 250 of 1947 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers202. Comment #165279 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 9:39 am
Ugh. Just read Quine's link to the Hawaii Reporter review by Michael R Fox, who apparently schills for the global warming deniers. He thinks the movie is named "Excelled."
Ever notice how the various conspiracy theorists now back each other? It's not uncommon, for example, for a global warming denier to say something positive about intelligent design. Or an ID advocate to express skepticism regarding vaccines and Big Pharma.
A free press has been the proper antidote to propaganda. Isolated crackpots generally haven't been able to maintain a sufficient illusion of support in the face of real expertise. But the Interwebs might be shifting the way the fraud game is played.
Will Free Press save the day once the cranks merge to form Big Bullshit?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
203. Comment #165280 by David A Robertson on April 21, 2008 at 9:40 am
Dear Dr Dawkins,I totally share your disgust about the letter addressed to Michael Shermer. It is disgusting to state that just because someone is an atheist that they approve of the holocaust. It is of course just as disgusting to suggest that because someone is a Christian they are somehow responsible for Fred Phelps and his nutters at Westboroo Baptists - on the grounds that even moderate religion paves the way for extremist religion.
However you raise some interesting points in your letter. Perhaps you will allow me to question some of them.
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.
This statement is true - but it does not go far enough. Germany was not only technologically advanced but had a large and successful academic and scientific community. It was also a community which more than any other group in Weimar Germany, supported Hitler. The question is why? There were many reasons for Hitler coming to power - the humiliation of the Versailles treaty, the hyoer-inflation of the 1920's and some would argue the moral and spiritual degradation of the German people caused by the collapse in Christianity. As regards this latter aspect this was came as a result of the Church largely having given up faith in the Bible - due to the effects of the Higher critical movement (largely based in Germany); and because of the adoption by the German academic middle classes of a materialist philosophy, fueled by Nietzsche, Marx and the understanding of modern science - especially their understanding of Darwinism.
His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians.
Given that you are complaining about the 'dishonesty' of Expelled, this is not a very clever piece of propaganda on your part. How do you know that the 'great majority of them were Christians'? IS this a result of your extensive reading on the subject or empirical research? Or is it - like so much of what you write - an instinctive prejudice based upon wishful thinking? Of course most of the German people at that time would have been baptised as Lutherans or Catholics - including Hitler? But does that make them Christians? I wonder how many atheists on this website were baptised - does that make them Christians? If you are saying that Germany was a nominally Christian nation with a state church then I guess every German by definition was a Christian. But surely you would not agree with that kind of arguing? So where do you get your figures for religious observance from? And how do you know that the great majority of Nazis were Christians? Surely you did not just make that up? In a survey of captured German airman in 1942, when asked their religion - 50% said nature, 40% said Hitler and 10% said they were atheists.
whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist.
This is a most interesting quote because it represents a significant change of mind from your book, The God Delusion, where you state that Hitler 'probably wasn't' an atheist (p278) and that it is 'dubious' to claim that he was an atheist. You also stated that the truth of the matter was far from clear. But now you have clarity. Hitler 'most certainly' was not an atheist. What has caused your change of mind? What new evidence have you come across that allows you to have this certainty? Can you share it with us - or is it something that we are just to accept because you have said it?
Having said that I agree with you entirely about the responsibility of much of the Church in that it did not oppose Hitler and indeed the Catholic church signed a concordat with him. The weakness of the church and the hypocrisy is something to be condemned and regretted. And you are also correct about the prevalence of anti-semitism - but to some extent you are arguing against a straw man. It would indeed be foolish to claim that Darwinism caused anti-semitism in Germany - however it is just as foolish to deny that the Nazis used the notion of the survival of the fittest as a justification for their extermination of the Jews.
I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. /blockquote>
Indeed you have and for that we are very thankful. However there is something inherently self-contradictory about your stance. You seem to me to claim that everything can be explained by, or comes from Darwinian natural selection. On what basis then can you say that Darwinian natural selection is the source of everything - but that we should ignore Darwinian principles when it comes to organising our society? What is the rational and logic for that?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.
This is very post-modern of you. A nice reinterpretation. As you cite Huxley perhaps you will recall your citation of his words in 1871 "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins" . In fact there is plenty evidence that in the second half of the 19th century Darwinism was used to support racism - another example you cite is H G Wells "And how will the New republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black?...the yellow man....the Jew....those swarms of black, and brown and dirty white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency? Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go..." Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, was widely used to support racism - and for you to deny that, is either a product of extreme wishful thinking and or an example of the kind of deception that you are accusing the producers of ExpelledHitler 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.
Of course - because it no longer fits the Zeitgeist - now that we have seen where the social consequences of Darwinianism have lead us. You are of course still struggling to explain where our morality should come from - if it is not a product of evolution. By the way I am not so sure that Social Darwinism is as dead as you suggest. Konrad Lorenz was an enthusiastic Nazi, J B S Haldane was a committed Stalinist and R A FIsher used to argue that civilisation was threatened because upper class women did not have enough basis - leaving the non- quality to breed. One of your own heroes Bill Hamilton certainly had a different take on morality and Darwinism. He once said that he had more sympathy for a lone fern than he did for a crying child. He argued for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia to save the world. Genocide was the result of overbreeding and he would grieve for the death of one giant panda more than he would 'one hundred unknown Chinese'. Perhaps we should be glad that evolutionary biologists have finally caught up with the Zeitgeist but listening to the comments of Peter Singer, you will forgive me if I am more than a little concerned.What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
Actually again you are being a little disingenous. They were. Hitler believed, just as you do, that human beings can overcome their genes and help nature along. The Jews were rats - they were to be exterminated - after all did we not now know from 'nature' that the strong survive, the weak perish.
You do seem to have been very upset by Expelled. No less than 12 articles on your front page about it. Why are you giving it such publicity? If it is just nonsense then surely people will see that. Or perhaps you regard it as a threat? Whatever the case you are going to have to get your facts and your philosophy right if you want to argue against the view that Darwinism without Christianity will lead to an amoral, if not an immoral society.
Yours etc
David A. Robertson.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.
Mr J, You may well have been duped by Stein. I have not seen the film yet but will look forward to making my own judgements. However I do know that Dr Dawkins and his followers are most certainly attempting to dupe you. It is a wicked evil thing that they are seeking to do to you and to many others. I don't know whether they openly and wantonly perpetuate the falsehood that seeks to fool you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believe 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 right to be angry about the injustice and horror of the holocaust. You are wrong to blame it on all atheists or Darwinists (and please remember that there are many Christians and Jews who are also Darwinists). But you are right to see that a particular understanding of Darwinism was a significant contributing factor and justification for the Holocaust. Whilst not making the simplistic equation of stating that all atheists are holocaust supporters it is nonetheless correct to state that the acceptance of an evolutionary philosophy by a large part of the German elite was a significant factor in creating the circumstances in which the evil of Nazism was allowed to grow.
We must ensure that does not happen again. Meanwhile you will forgive me if I leave you with a quote from The Dawkins Letters, which answers many of the points Dawkins makes here...
"And I am grateful to you for citing Hitler’s Table Talk which tells us conclusively what Hitler thought about Christianity. “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity”. Even more interesting is the following from Traudl Junge, Hitler’s personal secretary “Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.” (Until the Final Hour "p108) That just about says it all. " The Dawkins Letters p111.
PS - I have just noticed William Sierichs posting - its almost hard to know where to begin! So the Holocaust was really caused by Hitlers hatred of atheism - that was his motivating factor and the drive behind Nazism. This is an excellent example of how a-historical our post-modern society is. And how in the age of Google and Wikipedia information clearly does not lead to either knowledge nor understanding. Goebbells would have been proud of this post. It is a masterpiece of distortion and ignorance.
Other Comments by David A Robertson
204. Comment #165281 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 9:41 am
Great response from Dawkins.
It is always difficult jumping in to a thread this long, and one's comment does not always answer the preceding post, but here is what I (as did a few other people) found worthy of comment:
Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm
BillG-
Have you ever used birth control?
Then, you're weren't using sex for its designed purpose.
Careful - are you saying sex was "designed"?
Birth control CIRCUMVENTS sexual procreation and is implemented purely to avoid the natural consequence of sex. Sex, or rather male-female coitus, is not naturally non-procreative simply by "willing" it so, to reap only the pleasure from it. One must intervene. Our "powers" of intervention do not change what sex it, how it got that way, what happens when you have it, and why it feels so good.
Oxygen wasn't "made" for us to breathe, and so we aren't using it "against design" when we fuel a rocket with it.
Have you ever been on a plane?
Then, you've defied gravity.
Incorrect. You've defied gravity with flight just the same as you do every time you stand up on your two feet. Both flight and standing require gravity to work as they do. Without gravity there would not be an atmosphere to fly through, but even if the whole universe was filled with our air, without a center of gravity and heavier gasses falling toward it while lighter ones rise, there would be no preferencial direction with which a wing might acquire "lift" - or if it could (and I think it can), that lift would simply be in the direction of lift, not against a gravitational center, against which "flight" is achieved. Without gravity, standing up would be more like flight, since you would lift off from wherever you were and continue indefinitely until you were stopped, slowed or deflected by something.
Have you, or a parent, or a grandparent been saved by modern medicine?
Then, you owe your existance to someone defying the will of nature.
Nature has no will. Medicine simply exploits the environment using science (no miracles) around us to counteracts the ills (not the wills) of nature making us sick. To say sucking the sap from a branch for its medicinal purposes is "unnatural" would mean a dog licking a wound, thus cleaning it, is also unnatural. Where is the line in which using the environment to heal ourselves is crossed and becomes "unnatural" medicine?
So,how did you "pick and choose", how to "delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory".
The notion of free will - if we have it - is still up in the air as far as I am concerned, and I remain "agnostic" about it. However, morals, however they may be "chosen" and defined, shape our notions of what should and should not be, when all nature concerns itself with is laws of physics which should and should not be. In other words, we might find it morally repugnant to place a child in the squashing path of a falling tree, but if the child were there by accident or human intent, the tree would be "obligated" by natures laws to fall on that child him and render as squashed as all the calculations of surface area, mass, velocity, density, viscocity, etc. demand.
The only thing, as I see it, in keeping politics and morals Darwinian is because we "choose" to for "moral" or "altruistic" reasons. However, if a group of individuals lacking a hormone or enzyme found their thoughts uncensored and allowed them without hesitation to successfully commit the mass extinction of a species or race, then how can it be said otherwise by their descenents centuries hence that their "genes" through mutating and chemically altering their host organisms did not ensure their survival whereas the others did not?
That something horrible like this "ought not to be" is a sentiment I share with I hope all of you, it does not mean that it "is not." Same goes for free will, if we wish we must have it even if we don't, and god, if we believe he should exist but he does not, and an afterlife, if we hope for one but there is not.
Other Comments by jac12358
205. Comment #165282 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 9:45 am
Comment #165280 by David A RobertsonHowever I do know that Dr Dawkins and his followers are most certainly attempting to dupe you. It is a wicked evil thing that they are seeking to do to you and to many others.
I have spoken to you politely in the past. No longer. There are good people here, who want nothing more than to be able to live peaceful lives, with their children having the benefit of freedom from religious propoganda and distortion.
You David, are one of the nastiest people I have ever encountered on the net. I do hope your congregation and others in your church can see your true character.
To counteract this awfulness, others have been reading this thread. Here is a comment from the widely-read reddit news site:
"I'm reading the richarddawkins.net forum posts beneath the letter, and they just don't seem all that objectionable. I'm sure that in the (currently) 153 posts, some aren't nice, but if anything it seems like a nicer group of people than those on a typical forum."
Other Comments by Steve Zara
206. Comment #165283 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 21, 2008 at 9:46 am
Irate: Damn, I bet you're more patient than you actually let on.
Carry on !
Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle
207. Comment #165285 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 9:48 am
For those new to David Robertson and pressed for time, I'll provide a summary that works for the above and every post from him: Jesus good; atheists bad. Other Comments by Dr Benway
208. Comment #165292 by Elli on April 21, 2008 at 9:56 am
William Sierichs Jr., that was an excellent post by you. How anyone can attempt to claim that the anti-semitism that motivated the holocaust was from any other source then christianity is beyond me. Other Comments by Elli
209. Comment #165293 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 9:58 am
Although I not nothing about this Donald fellow, there was a lot of his post which did seem to make a valid argument, and I would suggest instead of simply condemning him altogether (especially when the post in question was practically bereft of discernable hate) that you might address his comments and demonstrate them to be the falsehoods you know they are. Other Comments by jac12358
210. Comment #165297 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 10:00 am
David Robertson - Perhaps you could read Hume before posting such tripe. He was a great Scotsman. You'll like him.Oh no, that's right, you won't. Silly me.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
211. Comment #165299 by pand0Ra on April 21, 2008 at 10:04 am
great letter! this with the previous pz letter should be the fatal one-two punch to any hilter/darwin argument.reminds me in high school - the christian kids would bully my friends and i for not attending church and being non beleivers by telling others we were devil worshipers. trying to explain to them that they were the one who beleived in the devil not us, never went over well.
christians coming to terms with the accurate history of ANYTHING has never been a strong suit.
Other Comments by pand0Ra
212. Comment #165300 by David A Robertson on April 21, 2008 at 10:05 am
So Steve - comment 210 - I take it from your post that you think it is perfectly legit for Dawkins to accuse the makers of Expelled of doing a 'wicked evil thing' for trying to dupe J, but when I use exactly the same words about what Dawkins is trying to do, this is an example of 'one of the nastiest people you have ever found on the net'. So RD uses this language - he is a hero. I use his language - I am nasty. Go figure!By the way - what does an atheist mean when they speak of wickedness and evil? Does evil exist in the materialist world? Can it?
Other Comments by David A Robertson
213. Comment #165301 by huzonfurst on April 21, 2008 at 10:07 am
To D. A. Roberston (any relation to Pat?):Of course "moderate" religion paves the way to extremism! What rock have you been living under?
Other Comments by huzonfurst
214. Comment #165304 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 21, 2008 at 10:10 am
Comment #165252 by Dr Benway:
I have to wonder what's up with Ben Stein. He has a law degree from Yale. Granted, so does Pat Robertson. But still, he's an educated person who hasn't seemed frankly crazy or scary before this movie. And he's not a fundie Christian.
I'm at work so I can't access You tube to send a link, but Stein was on the 700 club with that squinty eyed grinning fundie. He talked about the US markets for the first part of the interview and I found him to be actually quite agreeable, then Pat asked about the film and then went down on each other, patting each other on the back, etc.... It was rather disgusting.
Pat Robertson should wear sunglasses because he is always squinting.
Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle
215. Comment #165308 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 10:14 am
So RD uses this language - he is a hero. I use his language - I am nasty. Go figure!
Dawkins has backed his claims with evidence. He has not lied here. These "Expelled" people have used lies and deception all through the process of organising and producing their film. Lies to those contributing, and lies about the subject.
You are nasty simply because you called what Dawkins does evil. That is between you and him. You are thoroughly nasty because you generalise, as in
However I do know that Dr Dawkins and his followers are most certainly attempting to dupe you.
I challenge you to name and face those who you call "followers".
Other Comments by Steve Zara
216. Comment #165311 by AlanF on April 21, 2008 at 10:20 am
A truly excellent and kind letter, Richard!What really angers me about Stein and his cohorts is the gross distortion of the history of anti-Semitism by pretending that it has anything to do with evolution or "Darwinism". I was exposed to some of this racism as a child beginning in the 1950s when I heard extremely racist comments from my grandfather. This man was born in Brooklyn and came from an old line of Scotch-Irish stock that came to the U.S. in the early 1800s. Apparently they brought along all their European racism -- exactly the garbage promulgated for centuries by the Catholic and many Protestant churches of Europe. Grandpa was prejudiced against all non-Anglo-Saxon Protestants, as were his forebears -- "them I-talians, those ni**ers, those Jews, ain't them Catholics something!" etc. etc. etc. Stein and company are liars, pure and simple.
AlanF
Other Comments by AlanF
217. Comment #165318 by MPhil on April 21, 2008 at 10:31 am
David Robertson,It was also a community which more than any other group in Weimar Germany, supported Hitler.
Absolutely untrue - there were many academics who did this, so much is certain.
This is due to same facts that explain why so many non-academics supported Hitler (aside from the poverty-argument): A long-standing tradition of antisemitism (have you read Luther's "Über die Juden und ihre Lügen"?), the treaty of Versailles, Depression challenging even the rich and the longing for the old glory of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - Monarchism.
But actually Hitler would have never made it without the Zentrums-Partei and the CV (Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen) - The Zentrums Partei was the largest Christian party in Germany, and always one of the parties with most members in Germany. They both supported Hitler - the Zentrums Partei by willingly making way and the CV by telling its members that "any good Catholic has the duty to vote for Hitler".
Then of course there was the almost unanimous support of Hitler by the German churches, both Roman Catholic and Lutheran Protestant. (And aside from Bonnhöfer, most of those very few clergymen who didn't support Hitler mostly weren't philanthropists , but did so because they wanted a monarch by the grace of good who was in line with the German nobility and because of the murdering of the mentally ill, not the Jews.)
and some would argue the moral and spiritual degradation of the German people caused by the collapse in Christianity
Well, they would be wrong then. In fact, to get the German churches to support the Weimar Republic, a lot of concessions had to be made to the churches, who strongly supported the Christian monarchy. These concessions are why Germany as a democracy even nowadays isn't laicistic - why there is obligatory, confessionally bound religious education in all German schools (not comparative or merely educational religious eduction, but confessionally bound - ie indoctrinating).
German Christianity was incredibly strong, far stronger than nowadays in the times of the Weimar Republic. A cult of some mixture of Norse mythology (religion) - based partially on Richard Wagners understanding of it arose - but only after Hitler became Reichskanzler.
In fact, to get the support of the Vatican and the Lutheran Protestant church, Hitler had to strengthen the ties between state and church(es)... and he did so, willingly - knowing that when he has the support of the Christian religion in Germany (with their long-standing tradition of antisemitism), religious education and ties between churches and state would strengthen his position.
To get the support of the Vatican and the Protestant church, he had to make the Reichskonkordat - instituting so called "Konkordatslehrstühle" at German universities... chairs where the catholic and protestant church had the final say in the choice of candidate. These still exist today. And mind you - not chairs in theology or even biblical studies... chairs in anthropology, sociology, philosophy, history etc - thus guaranteeing the potential of a church-imposed bias.
came as a result of the Church largely having given up faith in the Bible - due to the effects of the Higher critical movement (largely based in Germany); and because of the adoption by the German academic middle classes of a materialist philosophy, fueled by Nietzsche, Marx and the understanding of modern science - especially their understanding of Darwinism.
Again, absolutely not true.
While it is a fact that many people embraced these philosophies, the Christian faith, true to the bible - was still by far the most powerful comprehensive doctrine in Germany at that time.
Furthermore it is a grave mistake to call the philosophy of Nietzsche and especially Marx "materialist"... have you ever studied any of them? Marx founded his philosophy on an inversion of Hegel, whose central idea was the "Geist" - very metaphysical. Marx's political ideas were based completely on the Hegelian understanding of the "metaphysical truth" that all things in this world are dialectic - a progression from thesis to antithesis and finally synthesis.
Nietzsches idea of the eternal re-occurrence of the same in particular was decidedly non-materialistic.
And the passage about "their understanding of Darwinism" is complete nonsense.
Hitler twisted Nietzsches philosophy of the superman and of the ressentiment and its genesis in the jewish people to suit his needs. Note that Nietzsche was not at all antisemitic - actually he thought the jews were very worthy and cunning adversaries - even helping to bring about the superman. Nietzsches superman-philosophy was absolutely Lamarckian, although he did not acknowledge it - based on the idea of heredity of acquired traits. So it's the understanding of Lamarckism and misinterpretation of Nietzsche that was the ideological basis for a relatively small number of middle-class and upper class "intellectuals" supporting Hitler - not Darwin, not what Nietzsche really wrote (his Sister did a lot of editing of her brother's work to support Hitler) and specifically not what Marx wrote - since he was all about a socialistic egalitarian society, where all that matters is overcoming the class-distinctions.
Of course most of the German people at that time would have been baptised as Lutherans or Catholics - including Hitler? But does that make them Christians?
Oh please - by far most people were Christian back then. They went to church, quoted the bible, expressed firm belief in God, and followed the political commands of their priests in church (oh yes, that was done unanimously). And the priests told them to vote for Hitler, how the Jews are a scourge etc - this is all historically absolutely verifiable.
You are committing the "no true Scotsman"-fallacy. They were pro-Hitler, so they couldn't have been "real" Christians. Yes they were - and their political opinion was based as much on political delusion as on religious delusion. There is antisemititsm in the gospels - and there is antisemitism in the writings Luther and many catholic Saints and high figures.
There were Franciscan monks employed as overseers in concentration camps. Also, read up on Pavelic and Stepinac.
All it took was playing up that part of the bible in combination with the above mentioned elements - and voila - completely Christian Nazi-supporters.
...
Of course - because it no longer fits the Zeitgeist - now that we have seen where the social consequences of Darwinism have lead us.
No, because that would be a naturalistic fallacy... look it up. The is/ought fallacy. Science does not make morally normative statements - it cannot, per definition not. Therefore it's not because it no longer fits the Zeitgeist, but because people have realised it is no longer science.
Whenever someone claims that a certain natural event, process or entity has a moral value - that has nothing to do with the science that investigates and uncovers that event, process, entity. Social Darwinism is all about the moral values - and is furthermore based upon a seriously flawed understanding of evolution.
That's is also why this is complete nonsense:
Actually again you are being a little disingenous. They were. Hitler believed, just as you do, that human beings can overcome their genes and help nature along. The Jews were rats - they were to be exterminated - after all did we not now know from 'nature' that the strong survive, the weak perish.
And just on a side note - the adaptive, not the strong survive.
For the future - remember the
"no true Scotsman" fallacy
and the
"naturalistic fallacy".
And don't commit them again - that's really disingenuous!
-Mike
Other Comments by MPhil
218. Comment #165321 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 21, 2008 at 10:37 am
I like what Steve said to "Mr. Robertson." If that's truly him.
Just because you can easily worship a God doesn't mean that people who don't believe in your God must replace that with a different worship. I can only speak for myself, but I only have great respect and admiration toward Richard Dawkins and that's it. Don't let an internet thread fool you into thinking people worship RD, you're only confusing you're feelings of Jesus with rational, and due respect. "Amen."
Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle
219. Comment #165323 by Divineosaur on April 21, 2008 at 10:44 am
So in order to get a personal letter from Richard Dawkins I have to be a suggestible dupe? Well, shit. I guess I'll just have to keep reading his books! Other Comments by Divineosaur
220. Comment #165326 by Diacanu on April 21, 2008 at 10:47 am
Wee Flea-
RD uses this language - he is a hero. I use his language - I am nasty. Go figure!
Always the persecution complex with you, isn't it?
Climb down off the cross, we need the wood.
Other Comments by Diacanu
221. Comment #165327 by Trilobyterian on April 21, 2008 at 10:51 am
The tone of this letter from 'J' rings entirely false. I don't think it was a prank, I think it was a deliberate plant by one of the Howler Monkeys of the Creationist Tribe. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the oddly befuddled Mr. Stein (whom I once thought to be reasonably intelligent) had penned it himself to drum up publicity for his pathetic piece of cinematic trash. I'm just about certain. Nonetheless, it was another good excuse for Dawkins to air out the usual rebuttal to 'arguments' of this type.Other Comments by Trilobyterian
222. Comment #165329 by Stella on April 21, 2008 at 10:52 am
"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?"YES! Thank you for pointing out this obvious hypocrisy.
Other Comments by Stella
223. Comment #165330 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 10:56 am
David,
It seems that the main point though is that Hitler wasn't a Darwinist. He never mentions Darwin, never discusses natural selection. Never gives credit to Darwin for the initial instantiation of the idea. The idea of breeds of human, and mixed blood etc was in the consciousness long before Darwin entered the fray. And that perculiar fascination with the Jews seems just a bit to Christian to me.
Dawkins language when discussing the nature of Hitler's belief and lack of the prefix un to accompany it probably stems from the fact that Hitler's own writings point to a very mixed, but somewhat supernatural picture. Dawkins mentions both Hitler's theistic mental meanderings and his disdain for Christianity as a whole in the TGD. However it is also clear that Hitler believed a lot of bizarre supernatural type things. So atheist cannot be the label we give him.
I suppose we could throw up our hands and say well, Hitler's thoughts on this issue are so mixed up we may never know. Based on what I have read-admittedly I am no historian- that agnosticism seems unnecessary. No one here has said that Hitler was a Christian. But that many people in Germany were professing Christians also seems in little doubt, nor does there seem room to doubt the idea that Germany's previous history of anti-semitism springing from its Christianity (Luthernism and Catholocism have a history of this strain of paranoia) was the spring board to National Socialist policies. Anti-semitism in Germany was well placed long before Darwin.
David, I think we would be here a very long time indeed if we were to catalogue all the things you don't know but think you know about the world. Take this completely confused line.
By the way I am not so sure that Social Darwinism is as dead as you suggest. Konrad Lorenz was an enthusiastic Nazi, J B S Haldane was a committed Stalinist and R A FIsher used to argue that civilisation was threatened because upper class women did not have enough basis - leaving the non- quality to breed. One of your own heroes Bill Hamilton certainly had a different take on morality and Darwinism. He once said that he had more sympathy for a lone fern than he did for a crying child. He argued for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia to save the world. Genocide was the result of overbreeding and he would grieve for the death of one giant panda more than he would 'one hundred unknown Chinese'. Perhaps we should be glad that evolutionary biologists have finally caught up with the Zeitgeist but listening to the comments of Peter Singer, you will forgive me if I am more than a little concerned.
What is it you are trying to say. First you say you aren't sure Social Darwinism is dead and then you mention several people's thoughts on things decidedly not Social Darwinism. Do you mean any old social engineering scheme can be called Social Darwinism? Or are you refereing to what most people here think of as Herbert Spencerism? J.B.S. Haldane may indeed have been a Stalinist, but that has little to do with Social Darwinism (Spencer's version of said philosophy not whatever blanket charge David R is making). In any event Most of these people are the distant past, and perhaps more than a little bit the product of their times. And aren't you now doing a bit of the disingenuous thing you are constantly accusing all the members of this site. You will note in Haldane's day most people had some crackpot racist theory they abided by, especially in the upper crusts. But here you are doing what you always love to do. Mine the past for people who support your case.
You do this trick in the reverse as well when you trudge through history-oddly leaving out the modern era almost entirely-to find appropriately theistic scientists.
Anyway it is true that people can say lots of odd and weird things and justify numerous evil thoughts they already had by pulling ideas from other quarters. There is no doctrine though accompanying Darwin's dangerous idea. No divine revalation. Religions are quite different, though I needn't tell you this.
A point about Peter Singer. He is a philosopher and part of his job is to follow assumptions around and see where they lead. In my mind he is kind of a brave guy to go where he goes and then write about it for the rest of us to ponder. You'll have to point out why he worries you instead of just dropping out a line before anyone will be adequately able to address it. However, I can say he isn't a Social Darwinist at least as most people understand the term.
-MaxD
Other Comments by MaxD
224. Comment #165332 by happyheretic on April 21, 2008 at 11:00 am
Good letter. I saw the movie. Bad, Bad movie.Best thing about it was that the theater was virtually empty. The woman to our left applauded the most ludicrous of points while the couple to the right discuss (throughout the movie) how all presented "fact" justified what they had always believed. Setting aside the fact that their behavior was rude and that I may have misplaced faith in humanity, surely an intelligent being would see through such bunk if they were paying attention.
Alas. I was just nauseated and incredulous. Wish I had my $19 back. I knew a bit about what I was walking in to see, but didn't expect such overwhelming and obvious crap. I thought, "Surely these people are not serious." Have they crawled under a rock yet? If not, they should seriously consider it.
Hope that isn't too harsh to say.
Other Comments by happyheretic
225. Comment #165340 by nfiertel on April 21, 2008 at 11:12 am
What a perversion of history is this film. An example from my world here in Western Canada where for some half a century a political party called Social Credit was the party of choice and whose racial theories supposedly based upon Social Dawinism and included sterilization and racially controlled immigration was even used by Herr Hitler in formulating his Nuremburg Race Laws! This disgusting and reactionary Canadian political party was an extreme Christian Bible thumping poliitical party with more in common with the Klan than with Darwin, for sure. They as a farmer based populist party thought much the same about people as they did about their livestock..sterilise the ones that they did not want to breed and it was done to people they considered inferior which shockingly included some immigrants, natives and those with "nervous' disorders. It is hard to conceive of such a mentality in so democratic and liberal a country as present day Canada but it did exist and some of its ideas were even present in the other side of the spectrum in the leaders of the CCF which was a socialist leaning party but whose head, a Christian minister also did not oppose sterilisation. It was the time..It had nothing to do with Darwin's evolutionary theories at all but about this distortion of the survival of the fittest being applied as if it were a good thing, a redeemable social policy, rather than a tough reality amongst worms and lions and maggots, flies and horses but surely should not be the social and human policy that proved its bankruptcy under the Hitlerites and Stalinists..and the Social Democrats. The vast majority of Jews, Catholics and other ancient Western religions have no problem with evolution..even the last Pope did not as after all it does not really interfere with the mythic beliefs that they have at all as they do not believe in a verbatim acceptance of what is written in the ancient texts taht they base their beliefs upon. To throw out the baby with the bathwater, ie. species evolution, mutation and its development to present day species is moronic, simply. The casting of Darwinian concepts as leading to the Holocaust is specious, an out an out lie, a complete reversal of the REALITY of just who applied Social Darwinism in its most evil and distorted form..religious right and fascist elements as well as the other extreme and also anti evolutionary Stalinist/communist elements who evoked in the latter case an absurdist Lysenko-ism which claimed the ultimate in Social Darwinism in that behaviour could be thus inherited! All absurd and all ugly in its consequences and for this film to lie outright about the real history and perversion of the great ideas first introduced to the world by Darwin is sickening. It will most likely convince the great ignorant population that is now that of a large fraction of the US which is turning into a horrid fundamentalist miasma of ignorance and foolishness. Alas. What is needed is a film that is the truth about this subject. MICHAEL MOORE WHERE ARE YOU WHEN WE NEED THIS?Other Comments by nfiertel
226. Comment #165342 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 11:21 am
Mphil,
Excellent rebuttal to DR.
Other Comments by MaxD
227. Comment #165343 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 11:26 am
The 'Right to Life' folks link into Expelled with this piece:The monotone teacher from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" may just have something new to teach us all -- especially when it comes to the root causes of the culture of death.
Other Comments by Quine
228. Comment #165345 by Nikolaj on April 21, 2008 at 11:29 am
I wanted to post this comment yesterday, while reading through the posts in this thread, some of which said things to the effect of: "I think Richard's letter is a good one, but I fear it is falling on deaf ears. The person (Mr. J) clearly wants to be decieved, and nothing we can say will change his mind". If the following has allready been pointed out in the above posts, please forgive me for not having read through all the ones added since yesterday.The first thing I noticed when I read the excerpt from Mr. J's letter, was that he said: "My great-grandparents died during WWII".
My grandparents where grown-ups during WWII, so I concluded that, if the generations in Mr. J's family roughly followed my family's he will be very young. I am 27, and had he been In my family he would be my son, so, no older than 8 years old.
I imagine he is older, but judging from this observation, and the general tone of his letter, I imagine he is probably a teenager: anything from 15 to 20 years old.
Now think back to yourself when you where that age: cocky, self-assured, and prone to jumping to factial conclusions based on emotional experiences .
I can readily imagine that Mr. J will be very susceptable to Richards letter, if not now, then surely later in his life.
There is hope for the future. Young people are strong in their convictions, but they are much more pliable than people who are still fundies at the age of 50. Those are the kind that REALLY worry me.
Other Comments by Nikolaj
229. Comment #165348 by kaiserkriss on April 21, 2008 at 11:33 am
MPhil aka Mike:
Herzlichen Dank fuer Deine ueberzeugenden und hervorragenden Zeilen gegenubeber den Argumenten des kleinen floh.
Robertson: I never though you would actually write such utter piffle, just so we all understand, your post 208 above comment #165280. It is probably your most disingenuous work to date, insulting not only to the victims of the holocaust, but all to those within Germany who opposed the regime of Hitler.
To put it blatantly and so simple that even you just might be able to understand, has it ever occurred to you that those academics who didn't "suck up" to Hitler and his ilk were discredited, marginalized and removed from their positions and replaced with half wit party faithful, who spouted forth the pseudo science as suggested by the party line?? jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
230. Comment #165360 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 11:47 am
"Of course "moderate" religion paves the way to extremism! What rock have you been living under?"
Is this not a classic example of slipper slope? Of course moderism MAY lead to extremism for SOME people, you cannot say that it MUST.
And I forgot to include in my last post that I was not agreeing with Robertson (whose post I did not read as religiously-steeped as interpreted by others, who I sense were familiar with his other likely more-obviously religious posts) - I merely was asking people to respond to the criticisms at face value which, if weak, should be easy, and more honorable than just attacking him based on his previous posts.
Other Comments by jac12358
231. Comment #165370 by Teratornis on April 21, 2008 at 11:56 am
Comment #164864 by Diacanu:
Humans like to compete,
I don't.
I loathe it.
You are competing with me right now, by excepting yourself from my implied characterization of you. Do you loathe having to disagree with me? Do you hope to lose this competition to get your ideas heard?
Arguments are competitions, to see who has the most truth, and to see who can change the mind of the opponent.
I enjoy arguing with people who know how to argue. To some extent, I can even enjoy arguing with people who don't know how to argue, especially if I can do it from a safe distance.
I also enjoy watching other people argue, but at least one of them has to know how to argue or then it's no fun.
A lot of it depends on luck, or health, which is also luck.
Health depends on luck, and also on personal behavioral choices. Luck determines our envelope of potential, and then we choose through our behavior where to end up within that envelope.
For example, a person can choose a "healthy" lifestyle, eating low on the food chain, exercising regularly, and refraining from unhealthy indulgences such as recreational drugs. Or a person can live like Christopher Hitchens.
Some people are lucky enough to live to 100 even while doing all the wrong things, but they are exceptions. Other people are unlucky enough to die agonizing deaths at young ages even while doing all the right things, but they are also exceptions. For most people, behavioral choices will matter.
Humans also have the potential to make our own luck, by eventually becoming smart enough to engineer our own genes for better health. Essentially we are competing against nature, and against our own ignorance. If we enjoy that competition, we might make headway sooner.
Thus, I find it to be a lousy way in most every day cases to gauge ability.
I feel as empty and hollow in victory as I do in defeat.
The whole process is punishingly loathesome to me.
Do you come to this site to be tortured? Richard Dawkins is a polemicist who spends his life competing in the marketplace of ideas. Most of what appears here is a record of ideological competition - assertions and counter-assertions, videos of debates, etc.
Do you live in a part of the world which is winning the global competition for resources (such as a first-world nation), or in a part of the world which is losing the competition (such as Haiti, any number of poor African countries, etc.)?
Peak oil is leading to a food vs. fuel competition between the world's rich and poor just now. Oil prices have risen almost six-fold since 2003; food prices depend partly on oil prices so they have risen too. The world doesn't appear to have enough petroleum right now to feed all the poor and maintain the rich in their comfortable first-world lifestyles simultaneously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_since_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007�"2008_world_food_price_crisis
Do you find this competition loathesome enough to concede your competitive advantage? I.e., will you voluntarily reduce your material consumption to pre-industrial levels, and donate all your excess wealth to feed the world's poor? If you do, you won't be able to reply here, since that would imply giving up your computer(s).
Competition itself may be troubling to some, but I don't observe much general reluctance to enjoy the fruits of competition. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to decry competition while rolling in its benefits. Where I live, I'm surrounded by energy junkies who either don't realize, or don't care, that their willingness to pay ever-higher prices for liquid fuels to maintain their enjoyable highly-mobile modern lifestyles comes at the expense of food for the impoverished people in distant lands.
Other Comments by Teratornis
232. Comment #165371 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Jac12358,
If David decides to respond he will not address a single substative point. He will make heavy weather of the any vitriol and play the victim. This is his method.
It is disengeious, as his blanket attacks in his own letter to the hurt jewish guy amply demonstrate. In fact he didn't really wish to make his case for theology but rather just imply that it was again atheist who is the problem and imply the only option is his religion. This is strangely the same tactic of the ID/creationsist studies folk. DR only offers the false dichotomy and not much of substance.
It is for this reason people tire of him, and get uh..."short" with him.
Other Comments by MaxD
233. Comment #165373 by Diacanu on April 21, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Teratornis-Oh, fine, alright.
I just never liked calling it competition I guess.
In my head, there's just the clearly right thing to do, and incompetant idiots who get in the way of it.
Calling it competition...I dunno, gives the other side a validity I never thought they deserved.
I'd rather all the scientists could get on with making new medicines, and inventing faster computers, than having to sully themselves with this religion crap.
But, this is the society we're stuck with for awhile, so...*shrug*...
Other Comments by Diacanu
234. Comment #165374 by fm909 on April 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Mr. Dawkins. You are truly a great man. After seeing the depth and clarity with witch you dispute this nonsense, I have become a fan. Until this movie appeared I never knew much about you. Now I have registered on this site. Next stop is amazon where I will buy one of your books. And I wont be paying to see that movie. Looks like you win sir. Thank you great solder of the scientific method. Thank you.Other Comments by fm909
235. Comment #165377 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 12:18 pm
You guys still believe in evolution?Other Comments by TheTruthID
236. Comment #165379 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The inorganic cell hopping onto a crystal and turning into organic life. That's funny.Other Comments by TheTruthID
237. Comment #165380 by Diacanu on April 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm
TheTruthID-
You guys still believe in evolution?
And a blue sky, and a round Earth, and the sun at the center of the solar system, and gravity, and DNA, and the quantum mechanics that occur within the transistors within the chips of this computer I'm typing on.
Crazy voodoo shit, huh?
Other Comments by Diacanu
238. Comment #165382 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 12:26 pm
How can you begin to explain evolution when you can't even begin to explain where life came from in the first place?Other Comments by TheTruthID
239. Comment #165386 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Comment #165382 by TheTruthID How can you begin to explain evolution when you can't even begin to explain where life came from in the first place?
So how did God do it? I would love to see how "magic" is recorded in the fossil record.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
240. Comment #165387 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I would love to see how evolution is recorded in the fossil record?Other Comments by TheTruthID
241. Comment #165388 by Geoff on April 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm
235. Comment #165360 by jac12358 "Of course "moderate" religion paves the way to extremism! What rock have you been living under?"
Is this not a classic example of slipper slope? Of course moderism MAY lead to extremism for SOME people, you cannot say that it MUST.
I think you misunderstand the way the phrase is being used. No-one is saying that every moderate will become an extremist.
There are really two related concepts. One is that the sheer number of moderates gives some spurious "safety in numbers" rationale to the extremists (in the "this is a christian nation" sense that say, the Phelps use); the other concept is a more statistical one.
If one concedes, as seems likely, that only a very small percentage of moderates become extremists, then the more moderates there are, the more extremists there will be.
Other Comments by Geoff
242. Comment #165394 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Comment #165387 by TheTruthIDI would love to see how evolution is recorded in the fossil record?No, that isn't the way it works. You came, raised a point and got some answers.
Now it is your turn to answer questions.
Here are my questions - I want to know what makes ID (that stands for Intelligent Design by the way, not Ignorant Deism) science. I want to know what it predicts, how its predictions can be tested and whether it can be falsified. I want to know what tests have been conducted and what the results were.
Other Comments by epeeist
243. Comment #165398 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The inorganic cell hopping onto a crystal and turning into organic life. That's funny.
It is tempting to repond to such nonsense with details of the clay-based origin of life, but I am not in the mood.
Look at things this way, moron. If bird flu hit the USA, which would you rather happen - that scientists used their ideas of evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection and come up with a treatment, or would you rather have the idiot ID supporters praying for you?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
244. Comment #165403 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 12:49 pm
You ask, what does ID predict? How has MACRO-evolution predictions been tested and whether it can be falsified and misrepresented? I want to know what tests were cunducted and what the results were. I challenge you to show me one shred of scientific evidence that proves MACRO-evolution?Other Comments by TheTruthID
245. Comment #165404 by Mel Olontha on April 21, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I wonder if "Expelled" might have some problems to be shown in Germany and some other European countries (besides I hope lack of interest). There are very strict laws concerning the description of the Holocaust in the way that lies about it are considered antisemitic hate speech.The notion "Darwinism lead to the Holocaust" is not new but certainly a very arrant lie. It is problematic not only for everybody that cares about biology but especially for the victims of the Holocaust as well for the whole society that is now confronted with a crude and very irrational revision of history.
This is an extremly serious issue. Maybe Professor Dawkins should call some collegues from the faculty for history for help to fight this.
History might not be an exact science and historic "truth" very often up to interpretation. But considering how it has been abused horribly for propaganda in the past, there are nowadays nonentheless rules that forbid that this kind of blatant lie to be considered part of the academic discourse. (In a similar way that the "theory" of the moon made from cheese is disregarded in Astronomy)
To make this point part of the public debate could help not only the science of biology but certainly help the science of history as well.
Other Comments by Mel Olontha
246. Comment #165406 by SharonMcT on April 21, 2008 at 12:52 pm
TheTruthID:
What does ID predict? How can it be tested? You can't answer questions with questions.
Other Comments by SharonMcT
247. Comment #165408 by annabanana on April 21, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Does anyone know why my comment was moved to the alternate comment thread? Other Comments by annabanana
248. Comment #165410 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Sorry, but my thoughts are from my brain and my brain only. I'm not stuck in a protected little circle of influence.
Let me see, something I learned from these two screenings. Oh yes, the affable Mr. Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design!
Maybe you should provide your brain some food for thought. You simply misunderstand what's being said due to self-denial and possibly ignorance.
Other Comments by ofir
249. Comment #165411 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Excellent comment, Steve. I almost asked the nut over on the Lying for Jesus thread if he and his gun club friends were getting ready to defend the country by shooting all the birds. Other Comments by Quine
250. Comment #165412 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Comment #165408 by annabanana I think it is a bug in the website. It may only take one person marking a post as troll for this to happen.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
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
201. Comment #165271 by Spinoza on April 21, 2008 at 9:25 am
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of science.
Abusing the memory of those lost in the Holocaust by trying to pin the blame for it on anything other than the sick, twisted minds who perpetrated and permitted the acts directly is absurd, and offensive to me as a descendant of a Holocaust survivor.
Other Comments by Spinoza