Thought Experiment

[Whatsisface]

His objectively existing moral character is our moral standard.

Do you not think that if the Bible actually said do not own slaves that the morality of God would be improved?

 

[The Pixie]

Yes, though I have a hunch you have taken it out of the context both the historic and the linguistic. The way you have just quoted it out of the blue in a discussion about Gods moral character.

Statements like this would have more impact if you were able to say how you think it should be understood, and why your version is to be preferred.

 

[El Cid]

He was alive pretty recently, Dr. E. O. Wilson.

Was Wilson a Social Darwinist?

Yes but he called it Sociobiology.

Did he argue that it was a mistake to protect and care for the "weak" and "inferior"? Because that's the basic definition of "Social Darwinism" that seems relevant here.

Not publicly, but they found out he was a racist eugenicist after his death. Check Wikipedia.

Well first, the jews were NOT trying to kill Hitler or his Aryans. So it was just an excuse.

You were the one who brought up "kill or be killed" as a supposedly "Darwinist" idea that influenced Hitler. If it was "just an excuse," then there was no influence. And even if Hitler genuinely believed the Jews were a mortal threat to the Aryans, that doesn't imply a Darwinian influence, because -- again -- "sometimes you've got to kill or be killed" is not a distinctively "Darwinian" idea.

As I explained earlier he used it to justify the Holocaust scientifically. And justify his eugencist programs.

But I think Hitler was inspired partially by the survival of the fittest concept. And he definitely used evolution to make his view scientific.

He talked about the concept of survival of the fittest many times and used it to justify the extermination of the Jews. I quoted from Mein Kampf where he did it earlier in this thread,

I don't think Hitler ever explicitly called for the extermination of the Jews in Mein Kampf. The quote you offered was "A stronger race will supplant the weaker since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong." This does not say the Jews were among the "weak"; he might have been speaking of the "mentally feeble."

By the way, I had to do a search on your posts and "Mein Kampf" to show that you had offered this some months ago. It would be more convenient if you would simply copy and paste a quote you had already used.

Nevertheless as seen in my quote from Mein Kampf, he used natural selection to justify his evolutionary racism.

I am not blaming Darwin for the holocaust but his idea did help justify it for Hitler and the Nazis. It may be a correct observation of nature, but it is not a correct observation of human morality.

And Darwin never said that human morality relied on survival of the fittest. In fact he explicitly rejected the idea that we should discard the weak.

He did expect the more "primitive humans" like blacks to die out, but he didnt go into details about WHY they would die out which very well could have been genocide.

But Hitler did consider it a correct observation of human morality.

So Darwin and Hitler are completely at odds on the question whether survival of the fittest requires a morality which discards the weak; Darwin is plainly right in saying it does not, and Hitler is plainly wrong in saying it does. This illustrates... what a bad influence Darwin was???

It may not require it but Darwin didnt rule it out. See above.

Well it is true that atheism or practical atheism in Germany leads to subjective and relative morality and that is a slippery slope toward tyranny. As seen in other nations in addition to Germany.

And I can confidently say, with precisely as much evidence as you have supplied, that it is not at all true.

Fraid so, Hitler believed that murdering the Jews was necessary at this stage in Aryan evolution to eliminate competiton for survival. This is a form of moral relativism and nonbelief in an objective transcendent morality. Atheism cannot provide an objective transcendent moral standard. Thereby making Hitlers pantheism a form of practical atheism.

 

[Whatsisface]

Fraid so, Hitler believed that murdering the Jews was necessary at this stage in Aryan evolution to eliminate competiton for survival.

Really? From what I've read it was good old anti semitism. For example ...

The German defeat was hard to swallow for many Germans, and for Hitler, too. In nationalist and right-wing conservative circles, the ‘stab-in-the-back legend’ became popular. According to this myth, Germany did not lose the war on the battlefield, but through betrayal at the home front. The Jews, Social Democrats, and Communists were held responsible.

Found here.

This is a form of moral relativism and nonbelief in an objective transcendent morality.
Atheism cannot provide an objective transcendent moral standard. Thereby making Hitlers pantheism a form of practical atheism.

At the time, Germany was a Christian nation that went along with Hitler's demonisation of the Jews.

 

[The Pixie]

Really? From what I've read it was good old anti semitism. For example ...


Found here.


At the time, Germany was a Christian nation that went along with Hitler's demonisation of the Jews.

As I am sure you know, a far better case can be made for Christianity being the cause of the Holocaust than Darwin.

 

[Komodo]

[. . .] As I explained earlier he used it to justify the Holocaust scientifically.

You have offered nothing to show that Hitler ever attempted "to justify the Holocaust scientifically." The only quote you have offered, repeatedly, has Hitler saying that nature is pitiless, which appears to be a justification of eugenics. Eugenics is not the same thing as the Holocaust, and the quote says nothing about Jews and nothing about a policy of extermination. You simply aren't supporting the above claim.

Fraid so, Hitler believed that murdering the Jews was necessary at this stage in Aryan evolution to eliminate competiton for survival. This is a form of moral relativism and nonbelief in an objective transcendent morality.

No it is not. It posits an objective moral standard, namely that whatever assists the triumph of the master race is good. This is a repulsive thing to use as a moral standard, but it is not moral relativism at all.

And you have said nothing whatsoever which indicates that "atheism" led to the rise of Nazism.

Atheism cannot provide an objective transcendent moral standard. Thereby making Hitlers pantheism a form of practical atheism.

There's no "thereby" here.

 

[El Cid]

Well it is true that atheism or practical atheism in Germany leads to subjective and relative morality and that is a slippery slope toward tyranny. As seen in other nations in addition to Germany.

Germany was 94% Christian in 1939.

See here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gmuw9TvbFdUC&pg=PA10&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Well yes and no. Most Germans at this time were Christian Nationalists which is a heretical form of Christianity where they ignore the First Commandment and thereby ignore some of the most important of the Ten Commandments. Nationalists place their nation above God. So they can rationalize away Gods laws such as "You shall not murder". Which makes their morality relative and subjective like atheists.

 

[The Pixie]

Well yes and no. Most Germans at this time were Christian Nationalists which is a heretical form of Christianity where they ignore the First Commandment and thereby ignore some of the most important of the Ten Commandments. Nationalists place their nation above God. So they can rationalize away Gods laws such as "You shall not murder". Which makes their morality relative and subjective like atheists.

What is your evidence for that? Specifically that they ignored the first commandment, and placed their nation above God.

The ability to rationalise away "You shall not murder" does not require that. Plenty examples in the Bible of God's chosen people killing enemies - including women and children, and often at God's command.

Many Christians believed Jews as a race were responsible for the death of Jesus, based on this (though the author likely did not mean it that way):

Mat 27:24 Now when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; you yourselves shall see.” 25 And all the people replied, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas [l]for them; but after having Jesus flogged, he handed Him over to be crucified.​

The Holocaust was not a one-off. It was just the biggest of a long history of Christians killing and otherwise persecuting Jews. I am sure those involved in the Holocaust did not think what they were doing was murder.

Here is Martin Luther's blueprint for the Holocaust. Do you consider Luther to be a heretic? The Catholic church did, so may be.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:​

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...​

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...​

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...​

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...​

You want to pretend Darwin was a great influence of Hitler, but the evidence indicates it was the great Christian, Martin Luther, who was his big hero. As Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf" (Vol. 1, Chapter 8):

To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner.​

Interestingly, in the same book, Hitler wrote:

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.​

Sounds like a rejection of evolution and statement of creationism to me!

Further, you originally said "Well it is true that atheism or practical atheism in Germany leads to subjective and relative morality and that is a slippery slope toward tyranny." If you are saying that what 94% of the nation believed was "a heretical form of Christianity", then clearly they were not atheist.

 

[El Cid]

If I ask "what did Darwin say about natural selection that was false?" and you respond as you do here, you're implying that Darwin claimed that humans with disabilities were unfit to survive. But he didn't; he explicitly rejected that claim. So I'm still left wondering what he said about natural selection that was false, or that he should not have said because it might give ammunition to war criminals.

He believed that certain human races would die out so he obviously thought they had some type of "disabilities" so that they would not survive and would be selected against by natural selection.

 

[The Pixie]

He believed that certain human races would die out so he obviously thought they had some type of "disabilities" so that they would not survive and would be selected against by natural selection.

More accurate to say he observed that some indigenous peoples were declining in numbers to a dramatic extent - native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, etc. - and he thought they would disappear altogether.

 

[El Cid]

Natural selection is false for humans. Just because a human has a disability does not mean they are unfit to survive.

The above is an ethical question and has no bearing on whether natural selection is true or not. Natural selection being true or not is a scientific question.

Hitler believed that since natural selection was created by nature then we should let nature take its course with disabled people and dont help them to survive, On what basis can you condemn that view other than it causes you to have unpleasant feelings?

 

[Whatsisface]

Hitler believed that since natural selection was created by nature then we should let nature take its course with disabled people and dont help them to survive, On what basis can you condemn that view other than it causes you to have unpleasant feelings?

Sorry, but before we progress I want solid evidence that this is what Hitler actually thought, as you've worded it.

So far you've presented a claim.

 

[The Pixie]

Hitler believed that since natural selection was created by nature then we should let nature take its course with disabled people and dont help them to survive, On what basis can you condemn that view other than it causes you to have unpleasant feelings?

His own writings suggest he was more creationist than Darwinist.

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, Mein Kampf​

​

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.​

- Hitler, Mein Kampf​

 

[Komodo]

Hitler believed that since natural selection was created by nature then we should let nature take its course with disabled people and dont help them to survive, On what basis can you condemn that view other than it causes you to have unpleasant feelings?

Because "we should let nature take its course" makes no sense either logically or morally. "X happens, therefore X should happen, and we should make sure it happens" is a non sequitur. And "give no assistance to the disabled" is a violation of the golden rule (among other ethical principles I find compelling).

 

[El Cid]

As I stated earlier, I am not claiming Darwinism was a direct cause of the Holocaust. But It was one of Hitler's primary justfications for it.

You have offered quotes showing Hitler claiming that "nature" required the eradication of the "weak"; you have not offered anything showing Hitler claiming that Darwin's teaching required the eradication of the Jews. The idea of "nature, red in tooth and claw" actually predates Darwin.

And even if Darwinisn was "one of Hitler's primary justifications for the Holocaust," this makes it exactly parallel to the Beatles's song "Helter Skelter" being one of Charles Manson's primary justifications for murdering Hollywood stars in the hope of provoking a race war. (I asked in what way these were not parallel, and you did not respond.) These facts (if it is a fact, in the case of the Holocaust) tell us a good deal about Manson and Hitler, but tell us nothing about the Beatles and Darwin.

The difference is that Darwin actually said that certain races of humans WILL go extinct in competition with other human races. Ie the whites will cause either directly or indirectly the extinction of the more "primitive" races. And Hitler knew this.

According Traudl Junge Hitler's last secretary said that sometimes Hitler engaged in discussions about religion and evolution. One time she said that Hitler stated "Science is not yet clear which branch humans originated from. We are obviously the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, evolved from the reptile to the mammal, perhaps thru the apes, up to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature and the same laws are valid for us as for all living organisms. And in nature the law of struggle reigns from the beginning. Everything that is incapable of life and everything weak is eradicated. Only humans and especially the Church have made it their goal to artificially preserve the weak, the unfit for life, and the inferior."

This does not show Hitler claiming evolution to be "the hallmark of modern science and culture"; it just shows him agreeing with it. Nor does it show Hitler "defend[ing] its veracity as tenaciously as Haeckel," a phrase which suggests that Hitler constantly defended evolution against all doubters, it just shows him assuming the veracity of evolution in a private conversation.

Maybe not but it plainly shows his views are actually a form of practical atheism, no mention of Gods moral laws, just laws of nature and in fact this quote shows one of his main criticisms of the Church and Christianity.

I am just showing that someone with intimate association with Darwin's theory (unlike HItler) saw the connection that even Hitler made.

This only shows that some people saw such a connection, not that this connection was reasonable. People do not in fact have special insight into a theory when that theory is propounded by a cousin.

According to Marc Lappe in his article on Eugenics in the Encyclopedia of Bioethics, "the most important root of eugenics was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton's ideas on genetics were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine of elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin."

And yet again, you are not saying what part of Darwin's theory was wrong, or what part of that theory was right but should have been suppressed in order to prevent others from using it as ammunition for their moral insanity.

No, I am not saying it should be suppressed but people need to be taught and warned about that it has caused serious problems especially when applied to human behavior. Hitler has not been the only one to justify bad things with the theory. The famous lawyer from the Scopes trial Clarence Darrow used it to try to get two young murderers off in the famous Loeb trial.

 

[Komodo]

The difference is that Darwin actually said that certain races of humans WILL go extinct in competition with other human races. Ie the whites will cause either directly or indirectly the extinction of the more "primitive" races. And Hitler knew this.

You offer no evidence that Hitler ever read this passage, let alone based any of his ideology or actions on it. I'm going to assume you have none.

And you still have not offered anything showing Hitler claiming that Darwin's teaching required the eradication of the Jews, though my request that you do so appears in the text you are responding,

Maybe not but it plainly shows his views are actually a form of practical atheism, no mention of Gods moral laws, just laws of nature and in fact this quote shows one of his main criticisms of the Church and Christianity.

You initially claimed that Hitler thought that evolution was "the hallmark of modern science and culture" and that he "defended its veracity as tenaciously as Haeckel." The only quote you offered in support does not at all show either of these claims to be true, so you change to another claim: Hitler believed more in nature than in "God's moral laws." So I'm going to assume you have no evidence for your original claim about Hitler's specific devotion to the theory of evolution.

According to Marc Lappe in his article on Eugenics in the Encyclopedia of Bioethics, "the most important root of eugenics was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton's ideas on genetics were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine of elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin."

What exactly was the logic which Lappe found, connecting Darwin and eugenics?

No, I am not saying it should be suppressed but people need to be taught and warned about that it has caused serious problems especially when applied to human behavior. Hitler has not been the only one to justify bad things with the theory. The famous lawyer from the Scopes trial Clarence Darrow used it to try to get two young murderers off in the famous Loeb trial.

I searched the text of Darrow's closing argument for "Darwin" and "evolution" and found nothing.

 

[El Cid]

According Traudl Junge Hitler's last secretary said that sometimes Hitler engaged in discussions about religion and evolution. One time she said that Hitler stated "Science is not yet clear which branch humans originated from. We are obviously the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, evolved from the reptile to the mammal, perhaps thru the apes, up to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature and the same laws are valid for us as for all living organisms. And in nature the law of struggle reigns from the beginning. Everything that is incapable of life and everything weak is eradicated. Only humans and especially the Church have made it their goal to artificially preserve the weak, the unfit for life, and the inferior."

Can you give the book and page where Hitler is quoted as above? I'm interested in where you got this from.
.

Rough translation of the German title: The Autobiography of Hitlers Last Secretary by Traudl Junge, edited by Melissa Muller 2002.

 

[Whatsisface]

Rough translation of the German title: The Autobiography of Hitlers Last Secretary by Traudl Junge, edited by Melissa Muller 2002.

Have you read the book? I've just skimmed through a transcript of it, I might have missed it but I didn't see anything of the sort. It does seem rather detailed and long for precise recollection.

So I'm still wondering where you got this from. If you've read the book and have it can you give the chapter and page number? If you haven't read the book where did you get the quote from?

 

[El Cid]

He didnt use the term gene pool but that is what he was saying in less modern terms. In Mein Kampf he says "Nature looks on calmly with satisfaction....in the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb.... and struggle is always a means of improving a species health and power of resistance and therefore a cause for its higher development."

I asked for quotes to show Hitler "Literally hated it", it being Christianity. The above is not such a quote. I have asked you for quotes before and you don't give them. I think you are filling in the gaps with your own interpretation of what you think Hitler must have thought.

I misunderstood, I thought you wanted a quote from Hitler that was equivalent to referring to gene pool. Hitler hated Christianity from childhood. His childhood friend August Kubizek says Hitler refused to go to mass with his mother and read books about the church's witch hunts and the Inquistion and this made him very angry at the church. As an adult he said "The evil that is gnawing at our vitals are the priests of both creeds." He planned to destroy the churches later after the war. In 1942 he said "practical politics demands that, for the time being at least, we must avoid any appearance of a campaign against the church."

Ok how about we are animals. If evolution is true then we are animals and therefore no such thing as morality.

This is plain wrong. What makes any creature a moral agent is having the ability of abstract thought, enabling said creature to reflect on the consequences of their actions. Being an animal is irrelevant.

Just because an animal calls something morality and behaves in a certain way because of certain conseqences, does not mean that such a thing actually exists. A dog looks in a mirror and believes another dog exists, but we know that is not true. What is your evidence that morality actually exists?

Btw, you seem to think we are not animals, and yet we have much in common with animals. For example, skeletons, muscles, skin, hair, internal organs, eyes, ears, nervous system, mouth, teeth, digestive tract etc etc. The biggest difference is our brain size.

Yes we have an animal body but we have something animals dont have, personhood.

Evidence?

We don't know how brains give rise to consciousness, but we do know that damage to certain areas of the brain will produce a predictable loss of function associated with that area. People can change personality after said damage. Look at what happens to someone's cognitive ability after a stroke, which damages the brain. This is a very strong correlation.

Yes, but that is just one interpretation. It could be that the brain is like a computer keyboard to the outside world. If the keyboard (brain) gets damaged then it would appear like the keyboard operator (mind) is also damaged, but in fact that would not be true.

I think I did earlier in this thread. I may have been in response to Komodo's post.

You think you did earlier? This thread is coming on 2000 posts, I'm not going on what will probably be a wild goose chase.

This is yet another example of you not giving quotes to back your assertions about what Hitler said and thought. If you gave the quote to Komodo, you can give it to me.

I am not saying that there are not some moral problems that require nuance but that does not mean morality is subjective.

I think some moral questions are clearly objectively wrong, some are more subjective because they may have differing points of view within them worthy of consideration.

See above. If God does not exist, then there is no such thing as morality so how can something be objectively wrong? It would just be your subjective opinion.

The most basic standard of morality is the Ten Commandments which is a product of the objective moral character of the Creator.

What in the Ten Commandments, that aren't to do with worshiping God, could man not come up with on his own?

Because Man was created by the Judeo-Christian God, it feels that we "come up" with morality, but actually that is because He has given us a moral conscience. But we still need to judge that conscience according to an objective standard because of our limited knowledge but without God no such standard exists.

 

[Whatsisface]

I misunderstood, I thought you wanted a quote from Hitler that was equivalent to referring to gene pool. Hitler hated Christianity from childhood. His childhood friend August Kubizek says Hitler refused to go to mass with his mother and read books about the church's witch hunts and the Inquistion and this made him very angry at the church. As an adult he said "The evil that is gnawing at our vitals are the priests of both creeds." He planned to destroy the churches later after the war. In 1942 he said "practical politics demands that, for the time being at least, we must avoid any appearance of a campaign against the church."

Ok.

Just because an animal calls something morality and behaves in a certain way because of certain conseqences, does not mean that such a thing actually exists. A dog looks in a mirror and believes another dog exists, but we know that is not true. What is your evidence that morality actually exists?

Just because you say this, doesn't mean wat you say is correct, right?

Yes we have an animal body but we have something animals dont have, personhood.

An awful lot of pet owners will disagree.

Yes, but that is just one interpretation. It could be that the brain is like a computer keyboard to the outside world. If the keyboard (brain) gets damaged then it would appear like the keyboard operator (mind) is also damaged, but in fact that would not be true.

Do you have any other speculations?

See above. If God does not exist, then there is no such thing as morality so how can something be objectively wrong? It would just be your subjective opinion.

If something is objectively wrong, then it's wrong whether God exists or not.

Because Man was created by the Judeo-Christian God, it feels that we "come up" with morality, but actually that is because He has given us a moral conscience. But we still need to judge that conscience according to an objective standard because of our limited knowledge but without God no such standard exists.

I disagree.