Thursday, September 21, 2006

Jewish Perspective On Social Darwinism and the Holocaust

Dr. Arnold Slyper, Director of Pediatric Endocrinology at Loyola University Medical Center said this in one of the articles on Jewish Action Online that I cited in my last post:
Darwinian evolutionary theory captured the popular imagination of the nineteenth century because of the social implications of natural selection as well as its biological implications. If man were no more than a higher functioning animal, argued social Darwinism, survival of the fittest would justify the powerful exploiting the economically and politically vulnerable, since this was the way the natural world functioned. By World War I, many of the implications of social Darwinism, such as colonialism and the extremes of capitalism, had largely become untenable from both a political and moral standpoint. Nevertheless, the Jewish people were to experience firsthand the horrors of this theory when it resurfaced, unbridled, in Nazi Germany.

I was quite struck when I read this, given Abraham Foxman's recent strident and insulting comments alleging that examining the influence of Darwinism on Nazism was an "outrageous and shoddy attempt . . . to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust." (Many other Darwinists joined in the attacks as well.)

We must never forget the Social Darwinist movement and its effects. We must never ignore the important moral, philosophical and religious implications of Darwinian theory-- no matter how many people want to deny them or sweep them under the carpet.


27 Comments:

At September 23, 2006 10:28 AM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

Now wait a minute. I've been assured by any number of scientifical folks that Darwinism is absolutely neutral and not at all religious, and therefore perfectly appropriate for government funded cumpulsory education, and crafting socio-political legislation. MK

 
At September 24, 2006 11:40 PM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

We must never ignore the important moral, philosophical and religious implications of Darwinian theory-- no matter how many people want to deny them or sweep them under the carpet.

Let's not forget the moral and philosophical implications of astronomy. The world made oh so much more sense when the Earth was at the center of the universe, or when Ra carried the Sun across the sky in his chariot.

Please! Evolutionary biology says what happened. It doesn't say what we ought to do. Anyone who says that it tells us how we ought to run our society is either grinding an axe or has a screw loose. And that's whether they accept the science or not.

Hitler's master plan had about as much to do with Darwinism as it did to do with Christianity. Nothing rational at all.

And, gee, I wonder how well contemporary social Darwinism correlates with confidence in the biological sciences? Or should I say ANTI-CORRELATES?!

I am a macroevolution agnostic.

Time to change that stale user profile. You, my friend, are not an agnostic. You are a religious fundamentalist. Why? This blog post makes it clear that, no matter what the evidence for evolutionary biology, you're unwilling to accept the science lest it alter your worldview. Newsflash: the moral and philosophical implications of scientific fact have nothing to do with its truth.

 
At September 25, 2006 12:18 PM, Anonymous John said...

Let's not forget the moral and philosophical implications of astronomy. The world made oh so much more sense when the Earth was at the center of the universe, or when Ra carried the Sun across the sky in his chariot.

"You can see here that I've stuffed this shirt and pants with straw and sewn them up to form a vaguely human shape. See the sign hung around its neck? I've taken a paintbrush and covered over anything that reads 'Christian' with the word 'RELIGION' using very broad strokes. Now, pardon me while I give this fellow a sound thrashing..."


Please! Evolutionary biology says what happened. It doesn't say what we ought to do. Anyone who says that it tells us how we ought to run our society is either grinding an axe or has a screw loose. And that's whether they accept the science or not.

"Now that I've beat the stuffing out of the first one, let's move on to this much more substantial fellow. Notice how I've used the same brush as before on this sign, but blotted out the word 'justification' with 'IMPERATIVE'. I think I did an excellent job there, it's very subtle and you can barely tell that the first word was there, can you? Let's whack him around a bit..."


Hitler's master plan had about as much to do with Darwinism as it did to do with Christianity. Nothing rational at all.

"I call this piece 'Equivalence'. As you see, the two figures here are dressed exactly the same, even though one is a life-sized mannequin and the other is a Barbie doll. I'm hoping nobody will notice the mannequin is more realistic and its clothes fit much better. Wait, did that mannequin just move? I could have sworn..."


And, gee, I wonder how well contemporary social Darwinism correlates with confidence in the biological sciences? Or should I say ANTI-CORRELATES?!

"Ignore those old newspapers piled in the corner there. No really, don't bother. They're old, I don't care if the headlines seem to be relevant to current events, they're not. Conflict in the Middle East? Old news, old old news. No true Scotsman believes that tripe today. No no no, you must have read the date on that paper incorrectly, it couldn't possibly have been yesterday. Would you please for the love of Darwin drop that paper and stop reading old news?"

Time to change that stale user profile. You, my friend, are not an agnostic. You are a religious fundamentalist. Why? This blog post makes it clear that, no matter what the evidence for evolutionary biology, you're unwilling to accept the science lest it alter your worldview.

"Here we are in the main part of the gallery. There are really only two types of paintings here, red ones and blue ones. Anybody who likes the blue ones is obviously not a true Scotsman, as we love only the red ones. Which type do you like? What are you pointing at? A 'green' painting? There is no 'green', there is only blue and red. 'Green' is merely blue in a cheap suit, which every true Scotsman knows is horribly inferior. You should be ashamed to have any liking whatsoever for such an obviously blue painting."


Newsflash: the moral and philosophical implications of scientific fact have nothing to do with its truth.

"And now we end our tour of the gallery by returning to the second hay person and examining all of the stuffing I beat out of him. Wasn't that grand? Am I not an accomplished pugilist? Most assuredly you would agree, as does any true Scotsman."

 
At September 25, 2006 5:53 PM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

Doctor of What? What happens here, and in similar forums and debates, is an effort to try to poke at the loose mortar between the bricks of Atheistic Darwinian materialism along with it's philosophical / religious tendencies and consequences. And the wall is slowly crumbling.

I offer yet again, the perpetually unanswered question; If you legally compel children to attend classes that foundationally teach that the universe and all life in it is the product of nothing more than blind, indifferent, random, chaotic, accident, devoid of any transcendent meaning or purpose...and do so with all challenges to what is nothing more that a theory presented as fact, legally censored - what kinds of things can clearly be see as the (unintended?) consequences of that indoctrination?

Some version of, "Does Not!" does not qualify as an answer.

There being no scientific or religious empirical proofs to be had about origins, what possible authority can you appeal to when declaring science is neutral in the matter of philosophical truth? MK

[T]he universe we observe "has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no
good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Darwinist Richard
Dawkins

 
At September 27, 2006 12:13 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

MK,

I offer yet again, the perpetually unanswered question...is nothing more that a theory presented as fact...blahblah...consequences of that indoctrination?

Some version of, "Does Not!" does not qualify as an answer.


It's not that the question is perpetually unanswered, it's that fundamentalists like you just don't like the answer.

There being no scientific or religious empirical proofs to be had about origins, what possible authority can you appeal to when declaring science is neutral in the matter of philosophical truth?

Evolutionary biology identifies physical mechanisms that explain elements of our biological history. A mountain of scientific evidence supports its claims. It is not a negative proof that design could never have occurred at any time in our history. And schools don't present it that way. So much for indoctrination.

Meanwhile, ID is devoid of scientific content, and pretending that biology and religion are on an evidential par is just silly.

Biology shows that God isn't needed for everything evolutionary, just like God isn't needed for everything celestial. I'm sorry if these facts have "philosophical implications" that disturb you.

 
At September 27, 2006 11:07 AM, Anonymous John said...

Evolutionary biology identifies physical mechanisms that explain elements of our biological history. A mountain of scientific evidence supports its claims.

Keep pointing at that molehill and repeating the high priests' mantra. It's not working.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

 
At September 27, 2006 1:51 PM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

Ooh, let's do the same thing with the other sciences! Instead of relying on evidence and reason, we'll hold an opinion poll among non-experts.

What cancer treatment should I select? I'll do an informal poll down at the local tavern! Did Iraq plan 9/11? Let's ask average Americans (never mind that most can't even find Iraq on a map)! It's lucky we're so scientifically advanced!

First it's fundamentalism, now it's anti-intellectualism.

 
At September 27, 2006 2:57 PM, Anonymous John said...

doctor logic,

Your response, which is hyperemotional, condescending, and completely misses the point, is a wonderful example of why your masters' message isn't getting out to the kiddies like it used to.

A molehill is still a molehill, no matter how much some hysterical, irrational acolyte in the Church of The Blessed Darwin screams and yells that it's a mountain.

But please, do go on. It's amusing to me and it repulses the very people you want to supposedly educate. Maybe in a couple of years the percentage of rejecters will be over 80%, if you and the Brotherhood of the Sacred Selected Randomness keep chasing the heretics.

 
At September 27, 2006 7:07 PM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

doctor illogic,

Now y'all know us hicks is jest too danged dumb to figger stuff out no matter how hard our betters try to help. I prob'ly cain't git the question rite and that's where some of this here trouble commenses. I'll try 'er agin';

After all, the smoke and mirrors, and the protestations, and misdirections, and subject - topic - planet changes...Does the foundational religio-philosphical princple of Darwinian evolution demand that all material spontaneously appeared out of nothing?

I am not speaking of 'biology' here, and you are well aware of that fact. You rightly discern that self preservation prevents you from following the logic out to it's inevitable end. Macro-evolution and it's faery spawn "abiogenisis", cannot stand as anything more than sacred relics in the liturgy of religious materialism. You're free to dodge this bullet all you want but it doesn't fool anyone but you. It all comes down to; either all that exists just showed up by accident, for no reason at all...or the God of the Bible Created it, just as He said. There are consequences inherent in each of those choices, and choices they are. We must choose what we will believe about origins, by faith. To deny that it is in the end a religious choice, not only doesn't fool anyone else, it is to lie to yourself, knowing it is a lie, and choosing to believe it anyway. MK

 
At September 27, 2006 11:04 PM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

john,

...is a wonderful example of why your masters' message isn't getting out to the kiddies like it used to.

What on Earth does this have to do with the humanists?

This is a very simple issue about whether or not you value the scientific method, and whether you think that topical expertise is possible and valuable.

What you are talking about is politics, and politics is about subjective desire, not truth.

I realize that you have subjective desires that you believe will be frustrated by scientific truth, but that's not a sign that there is a flaw in scientific reasoning.

With design, species wouldn't have to appear at different times over billions of years, didn't have to show a progression of functionality, didn't have to be descended from common ancestors, nor have to practice predation. All of these things are obvious facets of the evidence, and yet they form only a tiny fraction of all the evidence for evolution accumulated to date. Anyone who claims not to see the mountain, is either blind or axe-grinding.

It's amusing to me and it repulses the very people you want to supposedly educate.

An interesting strategy you propose. Give the reality deniers a seat at the table, and they'll go away. Thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

 
At September 28, 2006 12:25 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

MK,

Now y'all know us hicks is jest too danged dumb to figger stuff out no matter how hard our betters try to help.

Yeah, nail those elite, intellectual bastard oppressors!! Let's call up the mob, burn the library and smash the university! As soon as we get 80% agreement, no one will dare stop us.

Does the foundational religio-philosphical princple of Darwinian evolution demand that all material spontaneously appeared out of nothing?

The founding principles of evolutionary biology are those of science, namely, that there are predictive, discoverable, logical regularities in the world, and these regularities can be discovered with experimental tests. Very scary!

But thanks again for demonstrating that, for you, this is all about theistic fundamentalism.

Look, materialism merely rejects that there is such a thing as a non-predictive explanation. If there is no predictive explanation for the existence of life, then there is no explanation at all. Similarly, there can be no materialistic explanation for the sum total of laws of the universe, for that would require a new law that predicts the rest.

Thus, materialism is not a blind-faith religious belief about the origin of the universe. To a materialist, the universe has an origin like a carpet has a corner. The origin of the universe is just there, described, but ultimately inexplicable.

For me, God isn't explanatory because, no matter how much I know about him, I can never predict an observation. The inability to predict anything would be a tell-tale sign that I were just deluding myself, re-stating my observations instead of explaining them.

Public schools teach verifiable, materialistic explanations. If people want to delude themselves with ultimate, unverifiable, non-materialistic explanations, no one is stopping them (nor contradicting them in the classroom). That contradiction is done outside the classroom by heroes like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see Christians complaining about their oppression in American society. This in a country where there's a church on every other block, and where atheists are despised by a populace that barely knows what the the word "atheist" means.

 
At September 28, 2006 8:42 PM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

Dr. Illogic,

"Yeah, nail those elite, intellectual bastard oppressors!! Let's call up the mob, burn the library and smash the university! As soon as we get 80% agreement, no one will dare stop us."

A little anxiety here? Pantyhose chafing, or maybe a wedgie?

"Look, materialism merely rejects that there is such a thing as a non-predictive explanation. If there is no predictive explanation for the existence of life, then there is no explanation at all. Similarly, there can be no materialistic explanation for the sum total of laws of the universe, for that would require a new law that predicts the rest."

Let me see if I can rephrase this bluntly; Science takes us all the way to the threshold of origins, maintaining some mystical materialist 'neutrality', and then says since there's no way to test for a 'Cause', we'll just say we don't know, but at the same time we'll postulate any number of comic book scenarios to account for an atheistic conclusion. All Matter, all 'Laws', all consciousness, are uncaused causes, for no other reason than they must be.

Without God an atheist is just an 'a'. MK

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. C.S. Lewis

 
At September 29, 2006 12:03 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

Let me see if I can rephrase you bluntly; since there's no rational way to identify a law that explains itself (or explains rationality for that matter), you'll suspend rationality, and brew up a fantasy being who will grant you your every desire and impose your morality on the rest of the universe. Then, despite the fact that the your fantasy doesn't actually predict anything beyond that which science has already predicted, you'll proclaim laws of the universe magically "explained."

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. C.S. Lewis

So, if certain ice cream flavors weren't fundamentally, universally delicious, then we should never have preference for certain flavors of ice cream? If the universe weren't fundamentally French, we should never know France? Or MTV? Or iPods? Or the supremacy of reggae? Or any other human evolutionary, cultural or technological invention?

Yeah, C.S. Lewis didn't know what he was talking about either.

 
At September 29, 2006 3:06 PM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

You are much better at biology than you are at metaphysics, philosophy, or religion. If only your disciple could somehow avoid blundering into those areas. But alas, it is in the end, unavoidable. Biology can't be locked in a box, education cannot be neutral, and science can't just stop and shrug it's shoulders when it's premise leads it to a conclusion that it denies it is even addressing.

It's a fact that the gulf between us is great and nearly fixed, and that neither of us will, or should relent. We can't both be right. You adhere to what I believe is a superstitious myth; that all that is simply appeared out of nothing, and for no reason. I believe in what you consider a myth; that God created all that is. Both of us have a religious faith in our beliefs, but only one of us is honest enough to acknowledge it. You claim neutrality for your myth, while I gratefully embrace the antithesis of neutrality.

"The world of a man who believes that God created him for a
specific purpose, that he has an immortal soul...is radically different
from the world of a man who believes in none of these things. ...The
reasons for action, the moral codes, the political beliefs, the tastes,
the personal relationships of the former will deeply and systematically
differ from those of the latter." Isaiah Berlin

If all is random chance, then proofs cannot be proofs, the very thoughts in your mind are just indiscriminate chemical functions, and unfit to even come the conclusion that you are an atheist, Materialists don't live their beliefs at all anyway. They use terms like reason, rationality, truth, love, beauty, good, evil, logic and so on - all concepts that have no relevance in a relativistic universe of blind, chaotic indifference. For instance, why is there such a thing as math? And why does it work? By accident? Can you appeal to purpose to 'prove' purposelessness?

You're free to deny (or fail to understand) C.S. Lewis. I'm free to consider Dawkins and Dennet et al, fundamentalist preachers of the Darwinian cult religion. The cloak of religious 'science' is unravelling and you would do well to stop using it to disguise your views on origins. Dawkins, among other clergy do, unabashedly;

[T]he universe we observe "has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no
good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Richard
Dawkins

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism ... materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Richard Lewontin of Harvard.

"We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Stephen Jay Gould

MK

 
At September 30, 2006 11:05 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

MK,

Biology can't be locked in a box, education cannot be neutral, and science can't just stop and shrug it's shoulders when it's premise leads it to a conclusion that it denies it is even addressing.

Are the discoveries of evolutionary biology going to make students less likely to be superstitious? Probably. But the same can be said of all science. For example, earthquakes and lightning were once thought to be acts of God. Now we know they're just physics. Do we not teach those things because they might lead students to a more liberal theology or to atheism?

How about history or the study of foreign cultures? If a student learns that other cultures have comparable religious myths, might they be lead to challenge the uniqueness of their conclusion? Might they adopt polytheistic or new age theologies? Or might they conclude that people are naturally gullible? Sure. Should we then not teach history or social studies?

I think your position is absurd. I suspect it's not even consistent with your own views on education in the main. (I'm assuming you don't support the idea of Christian madrassas as a replacement for the public school system.)

If all is random chance, then proofs cannot be proofs, the very thoughts in your mind are just indiscriminate chemical functions, and unfit to even come the conclusion that you are an atheist.

All isn't random chance. Where did you ever get such a nonsensical idea? Chance is an ingredient in evolution, but it is physical regularity and statistical regularity that are more important.

Materialists don't live their beliefs at all anyway. They use terms like reason, rationality, truth, love, beauty, good, evil, logic and so on - all concepts that have no relevance in a relativistic universe of blind, chaotic indifference.

Of course they're relevant. Just because something is subjective, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Or do you deny the existence of subjective experience?

For instance, why is there such a thing as math? And why does it work? By accident?

First of all, why math exists is irrelevant to its utility.

Second, are you claiming that you have a logical argument (which relies on math) that predicts the existence of math? That's impossible.

Can you appeal to purpose to 'prove' purposelessness?

Can you appeal to our knowledge of breathable air on Earth to prove that space is a vacuum? Yup.

Purpose can be given a precise definition. Once that's given, we can ask if we see purpose elsewhere. We don't.

The cloak of religious 'science' is unravelling and you would do well to stop using it to disguise your views on origins.

Do well? Or else what?

Religious science? This is just an attack on science in the main from someone who disagrees with scientific conclusions.

And quoting Dawkins doesn't help. I like Dawkins and generally agree with what he has to say. What Dawkins means is that there is no absolute good or evil, that the universe has no such global properties. Good and evil patently exist, but they are subjective, like taste in food or music. The universe no more acknowledges good and evil than it acknowledges the deliciousness of strawberry jam, the sweetness of the sounds of Metallica, or the sexiness of Pamela Anderson. These things aren't absolutes. They're subjective, personal opinions.

So, in conclusion, you're still selling a "Protocols of the Elders of Darwin" conspiracy theory. You claim 99% of biologists are conspiring to bring atheism to the masses (despite the fact that they are competitors, 40% of whom are theists). Maybe you should believe in plausible stories like alien abductions, or claims that Elvis still lives.

 
At September 30, 2006 6:29 PM, Anonymous John said...

What on Earth does this have to do with the humanists?

These are your masters, whether you're ignorant of this or not. They've formerly announced and reiterated their intentions several times over the last century. Read the screed. When you're done reading it, read the names of the signers. Then, read the signers' names on the latest affirmation of this "wedge document". Then make sure to completely ignore those names and recite from their liturgy instead.


This is a very simple issue about whether or not you value the scientific method, and whether you think that topical expertise is possible and valuable.

What you are talking about is politics, and politics is about subjective desire, not truth.

The original topic of the post is about the impact of Darwinian dogma on politics. You have drifted off-topic. The scientific method, while valid and necessary per se, is irrelevant to the discussion.


I realize that you have subjective desires that you believe will be frustrated by scientific truth, but that's not a sign that there is a flaw in scientific reasoning.

Subjective desires? Huh? If you have something to say, spit it out. I don't have all day and night to interpret your glossolalia.


With design, species wouldn't have to appear at different times over billions of years, didn't have to show a progression of functionality, didn't have to be descended from common ancestors, nor have to practice predation. All of these things are obvious facets of the evidence, and yet they form only a tiny fraction of all the evidence for evolution accumulated to date. Anyone who claims not to see the mountain, is either blind or axe-grinding.

I thought ID wasn't falsifiable, or at least that's part of the hymn I keep hearing from the Charlie Boys' Choir. You seem to have devised enough tests to attempt falsifying it. I guess ID is a scientific hypothesis then.


An interesting strategy you propose. Give the reality deniers a seat at the table, and they'll go away. Thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

The religious reality deniers are already at the table.



You directed the following at MK, but I have something to demonstrate how wrong it is:

Are the discoveries of evolutionary biology going to make students less likely to be superstitious? Probably.

Incorrect. The danger of the Darwinian dogma, which is a large portion of the humanist agenda, is not that people will believe nothing, but people will believe anything. And people who believe anything are more likely to believe madmen who declare large portions of the population to be subhuman and in need of elimination.

 
At September 30, 2006 9:26 PM, Anonymous John said...

Correction:

They've formally announced and reiterated their intentions several times over the last century.

PIMF

 
At October 01, 2006 1:19 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

John,

These are your masters, whether you're ignorant of this or not.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. All part of the "Protocols of the Elders of Darwin." Deep conspiracy theory by the humanists to take over the world by hypnotizing all the competing biologists (almost to a man) to endorse neo-Darwinism.

The scientific method, while valid and necessary per se, is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, it's not irrelevant. You accuse neo-Darwinism of allowing people to believe anything. That's so hypocritical. Your propaganda is doing just that. There's an objective way to settle the challenges of ID supporters, and the scientific community has done so, and ruled against them almost unanimously. Your goal is to discredit scientific conclusions and science as a process, so the general public can't see the difference between good science and bad science, and will believe any bilge you feed them.

I thought ID wasn't falsifiable, or at least that's part of the hymn I keep hearing from the Charlie Boys' Choir.

What? No comment about the actual content of my statement? Only the conspiratorial ramifications?

Okay, let's look at falsifiability.

Does your preferred ID theory predict that all life should appear at once, built on different biological substrates, and showing no common ancestry?

I doubt it. If that were the case, your theory would already be falsified and inconsistent with the evidence.

But, go ahead and fine-tune your theory of the designer to fit the observations. After fitting your theory to the data, what do you predict that can be falsified?

Nada. No matter how much you observe and fine-tune your picture of God, you never make an experimental prediction. That's called re-stating the data, not explaining it.

The religious reality deniers are already at the table.

No. The religious reality-deniers (you forgot the hyphen between reality and deniers) are simply getting their wacky opinions printed in the paper. They can't get published when refereed by scientists because they are patently wrong.

And people who believe anything are more likely to believe madmen who declare large portions of the population to be subhuman and in need of elimination.

Hey, hey! We agree on something. Though, as I see it, you, your anti-intellectual propaganda, and your religious fundamentalism are facilitating the "believe anything" movement.

 
At October 01, 2006 4:23 PM, Anonymous John said...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. All part of the "Protocols of the Elders of Darwin."

The religious reality-deniers (you forgot the hyphen between reality and deniers) are simply getting their wacky opinions printed in the paper.

When you are reduced to fallaciously equivocating your opponent's arguments to those used for propping up Holocaust denial and nitpicking on punctuation, then it's obvious you don't have much confidence in your position. I would have expected better from someone calling himself "Doctor Logic", but then again I've been known to be overly optimistic.

I understand your frustration. It's not easy to hear that you've been told lies by those whom you revere. It can be so frustrating that you begin to hallucinate, like imagining religious propaganda in text where it doesn't exist. You might even develop hysterical blindness and not see religious fundamentalism that is right under your nose.

Oh, and read Gramsci and you'll find out you don't need 99% support for a "conspiracy" to deconstruct a society. You just need 1% or less in the right places; the rest of the herd (like yourself) follow along in blissful ignorance. Add some time for the propaganda and indoctrination to work, and voila! a teeming mass of unthinking bovine, ready for servitude (and culling, if necessary).

 
At October 01, 2006 5:11 PM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

dr. illogic,

Is alchemy a superstition? What superstitions might be adopted by someone who is taught that the universe (including themselves) simply appeared out of nothing? Is it possible for a Darwiniac to address this question directly without testing the outer limits of bloviating dissimulation?

"(I'm assuming you don't support the idea of Christian madrassas as a replacement for the public school system.)" dr. i

What I support is large vacuum where "public" schools used to be. Should we want the same people who inflicted the DMV on us to "educate" our children? And if there were ever a more representative group of PC cultists and aparatchics than the NEA, I don't know where you'd find them outside of a University faculty lounge. The U.S.S.R. was a hot contender until, sadly for some, it imploded.

So right and wrong, good and evil are "subjective", or relative? Granted, it's imperative that they be so in your worldview. What might be some of the inevitable conclusions of this philosophical / religious position? It has just as much relevance to all of the main denominations of materialistic atheism. Ready? Is it wrong for everyone, to torture and kill babies for fun? Why? Is it wrong for Farmer Brown to 'marry' Bessie the cow? Why? If I'm having a bad hair day, and I determine that the only thing that will make me feel better is to shoot you, is that wrong? Why? Is Nietzsche right? Are the materialistic conclusions of religious 'science' still "neutral"?

"First of all, why math exists is irrelevant to its utility." dr. i

Bravely (if obtusely) spoken, like a true(?) believing relativist.

"Purpose can be given a precise definition. Once that's given, we can ask if we see purpose elsewhere. We don't." dr. i

Is there a different definition of the absence of purpose than random, chaotic chance? Wait, I know! Purpose is like the magic of "beneficial mutations" and entropy working hand in hand, right?

"Do well? Or else what?" dr. i

Or continue in an excellent imitation of a court jester.

"Religious science? This is just an attack on science in the main from someone who disagrees with scientific conclusions." dr. i

Try me; what are the "scientific conclusions" about origins. Oral surgeons pull teeth, and I'm not one. Can we get a coherent response here, this time?

MK

"In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a
prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog
turning into a prince was a fact." Ron Carlson, Geisler & Turek, "I
Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"

"We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But is impossible for these always to exist, for that which cannot be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist , begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another , as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God." Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica"

"Still another twist on the argument for the general revelation of God's existence is presented by C. S. Lewis. Suppose there were no intelligence behind the universe, says Lewis. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. "But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course, I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." (Lewis, 'Broadcast Talks, London 1946) David A. Noebel, "Understanding the Times"

 
At October 02, 2006 12:58 PM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

MK,

Clearly, you don't understand the first thing about ethics and morality.

Morality is just subjective opinion. The only difference between subjective moral taste and, say, subjective gastronomic taste is the degree to which we will act to impose our views on others. An act is said to be "wrong" to the extent that we will discourage such acts from taking place.

Is it wrong for everyone, to torture and kill babies for fun? Why?

Yes, I will act to oppose everyone who engages in such practices because it offends my moral taste.

Is it wrong for Farmer Brown to 'marry' Bessie the cow? Why?

Ditto.

If I'm having a bad hair day, and I determine that the only thing that will make me feel better is to shoot you, is that wrong? Why?

Ditto.

Is Nietzsche right? Are the materialistic conclusions of religious 'science' still "neutral"?

Science tells you what is. It doesn't tell you what your goals should be. Once you have identified your goals, science might tell you how to achieve them, but that is all it can do.

Suppose you subjectively prefer the taste of coffee to the taste of tea. Suppose, also, that you somehow discovered that tea objectively (absolutely, universally) tastes better than coffee. Will you switch to drinking tea despite the fact that your subjective taste tells you coffee is more delicious?

As you can see, science can never reveal facts that create an ought out of an is. Science can only create an ought out of goals you already possess.

 
At October 02, 2006 12:59 PM, Blogger Doctor Logic said...

I'm happy to rest my case here.

John admits that you lot are pushing a conspiracy theory of the highest order.

MK advocates a "large vacuum where 'public' schools used to be."

That puts the debate in perspective.

 
At October 02, 2006 6:18 PM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

dr. illogic has (un)effectively dodged the question yet again. If it is from ignorance there is always hope, but stupidity is incurable. I don't believe he is stupid. He is however, a blind faith fundamentalist ideologue, nothing more and nothing less, which is nearly as intractable.

It was somewhat entertaining, in a predictable sort of way, while it lasted.

"I would have dispaired had I not seen the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living." His arm is not short. If the scales can be removed fron my eyes, no one is beyond hope. MK

 
At October 02, 2006 6:25 PM, Anonymous Michael Kilpatrick said...

ps - Thank God we still have a little ways to go yet before we will have sunk to the low estate of the UK. MK

 
At October 02, 2006 11:17 PM, Anonymous John said...

I'm happy to rest my case here.

Too bad, really. I was hoping you would begin thinking for yourself instead of continuing to recite from TalkOrigin cheat-sheets.

For instance, if you actually used the scientific method instead of placing it upon an altar and bowing to it in vain, you would know that your masters' fearmongering narrative of "Xian fundie infiltration destroying Science" is a lie. A huge lie.

Can you do it? Popper has shown you the way. I'd like to think you could, but like I've said before, I tend to be overly optimistic. If someone like Antony Flew can finally come to grips with reality, there is hope for you.


John admits that you lot are pushing a conspiracy theory of the highest order.

I wish I was the one who came up with the idea of a Scientismic conspiracy. I'd be one of your masters, instead of some poor slob commenting on a blog. Alas, it was another one of those Darwinian religious zealots (and a racist eugenicist, to boot).

Further reading on Darwinism and Scientism:

Shermer Says Science is Religion To Him.

Evolution and Ethics by Sir Arthur Keith (establishes Hitler's street cred as an evolutionist).

Eco-misanthropes want better living through mass death (better article on how widespread Pianka's misanthropy is)

Gaia Is a Tough Bitch by Lynn Margulis (skepticism of ultra-Darwinism ala Dawkins et al)

So You Think You Are a Darwinian? by David Stove (oldie but goodie philosophical slam on Darwinian dogma)

Hasta, Doc.

 
At October 03, 2006 9:51 AM, Anonymous John said...

One more: The Open Conspiracy zealot shows how similar his views are to Hitler's.

 
At May 13, 2007 2:57 PM, Anonymous vargas said...

I think dr. illogic got himself good intellectual thrashing on this blog and found himself poorly prepared, out of shape and out of his league.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home