Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, April 20, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document 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".

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

Comments 101 - 150 of 1685 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

101. Comment #164938 by AshtonBlack on April 20, 2008 at 9:34 pm

 avatarThank you Professor.

That was very moving.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

102. Comment #164939 by MutantQ on April 20, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Fantastic letter, Professor.

What I find especially ironic, is that Shermer wrote several chapters in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" attacking Holocaust-deniers, whose tactics Shermer compares with Creationist's rhetoric. While I don't expect this fellow to be familiar with Shermer's work, but a little homework would have saved everyone from this his misplaced rancor.

Other Comments by MutantQ

103. Comment #164941 by utelme on April 20, 2008 at 9:45 pm

It seems to me that a major problem in getting the atheist/science based philosophy to be fully accepted by the general public is that there is insufficient exposure to these ideas in the main media, eg, tv, newspapers,etc. A lot more money needs to be spent on educating the general public, not just the intellectual elite. It also doesn't help that some prominent atheists are portrayed as arrogant elitists and being considered to be very close to, if not worse than,satanists. Religion has vast resources and has had a long time getting their act together. We need to get ours together.

Other Comments by utelme

104. Comment #164943 by BillG on April 20, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Hello All and thank you for your responses,

I’ll just post this one reply here and let it go. These “stacked” forums are difficult for maintaining conversations.

To Diancanu:

>>
So, how did you "pick and choose", how to "delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory".
<<

As a Roman Catholic I believe I could give an adequate answer to your question…but I doubt you would like it. But it would be entirely theoretical, as I have thus far made no such delineation. But Mr. Dawkins did so.

Also, if “all is nature” then it would make no more sense to speak of one’s “defying” the law of gravity or of thwarting the “designed purpose” of sex any more than it would to speak of the mis-application of Darwin’s theory.

To Ohnhai:

Thank you for the helpful distinction between NS and AS. But I wonder, if all is nature and nature is all, is that a distinction without a difference '" at least in the context of my question? So, natural selection in the field simply moves on without purpose while mankind strives, with intention, develop better crops and livestock. What bearing does that have on the question of correct intentions (biological only, according to Mr. Dawkins) verses improper intentions (political)?

>>
The good Dr Dawkins makes the point that now we understand (ish) evolutionary principles and are beginning to grasp their power over behaviour as well as form we can strive against that to wean out the more undesirable/anti-social tenancies, to tame the tooth and claw.
<<

But why? Understanding their power over behaviour as well as form what, within nature, would compel us toward a proper application to nature '" which is everything including our social tendencies?

To Count von Count:
>>
Here's a quick answer. Apply Darwin's theories if you want to explain biology (or similar hereditary processes). Essentially everything else is an improper application.
<<

Thanks, but that’s more of a quick directive, not an answer.

>>
Darwin's theories show us how things are. They are not to be taken as recommendations for behavior. (This is often referred to as the is/ought fallacy.)
<<

But if all that “is” is nature, then even in reference to behaviour, Darwin’s theories of how things “are” would encompass how we behave.

To all: Isn’t there some super- or extra-natural rationale by which we delineate between proper or improper applications of Darwin’s theories? If not, then isn’t any application within nature simply part of nature and, therefore, not improper?

Thanks again for your responses,

Bill G

Other Comments by BillG

105. Comment #164944 by theonlything2fear on April 20, 2008 at 9:47 pm

To jonwes, or are you actually Richard Dawkins' ego? Any substance, or all hyperbole? Evolving animals on this blog, Dawkins sheep, articulate and typically have a rational point to argue, backed up of course by their hyped credentials. As far as stupidity will get anyone, your comments could only be summed up unsubstantiated.

After the 2 showings of the Expelled documentary I attended, numerous groups were gathered outside the theater in discussion about what they learned from it. The conversation was engaging!

Typical atheistic evolutionary temper tantrums and name calling are contained in your form of dialogue. Yet when you correctly state the proof is becoming more apparant every day, you have elevated yourself to the understanding of why the scientific community will stop at nothing to gag Intelligent Design and any scientist willing to put the topic on the table of ideas.

Mr. Dawkins and the like, are protecting at all costs a miserably failing hypothesis called natural selection. Follow the money. Then, and only then, will the truth set you free.

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

106. Comment #164945 by robotaholic on April 20, 2008 at 9:57 pm

 avatar
Evolving animals on this blog, Dawkins sheep, articulate and typically have a rational point to argue, backed up of course by their hyped credentials.


Baa-aa-a-a-a--aa-a-a Ba-a--a--a--a


Intelligent Design and any scientist willing to put the topic on the table of ideas


will you tell me one scientific thing about intelligent design? -

how is saying that something is too complicated to be evolved science? -

even the name "intelligent design" precludes it from being anything a scientist could ...study?..write about...?/- I mean uhhh..

What exactly does an ID person study? huh?

what would a paper be about?- What is the subject?

the scientific community will stop at nothing to gag Intelligent Design

I think the ID community is imploding before your eyes.

The scientific community is gagging ID proponents by preventing their papers from being published?----?-that can't be what you're talking about can it?

I'm afraid I am going to go back to being one of DA-A-aa-Awkin's sheep

Other Comments by robotaholic

107. Comment #164947 by Geodesic17 on April 20, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Dear theonlything2fear:

I've heard your rhetoric before, so I'm not convinced that these are original thoughts.

One of the games that Creationists/ID supporters seem to play is to do a hit and run with an annoying comment and then cry foul-play when an "Evolutionist" becomes irrate and frustrated with them. It is likely something that you've learned from the Creation Institute or one of its "Sheep".

So, might you share with us what you learned from these two screenings?

Further, how does Intelligent Design describe the human brain and illnesses such as schizophrenia?

Other Comments by Geodesic17

108. Comment #164948 by Roland_F on April 20, 2008 at 10:05 pm

82. Comment #164864 by Diacanu
As Michael Shermer mentioned in his interview, there's a lot of Darwin in Adam Smith's invisible hand.

I think it's all a bunch of shit.
And by that, I mean libertarian philosophy period.


Adam Smith 'invisible hand' is not "libertarian philosophy", it just simply describes the market mechanism that supply and demand are usually equal out each other, the very basic foundation of every economic principle.
And the natural selection works very similar if there is not enough pray some predators will go home empty handed (empty stomached) and die from starvation so a balance is usually
automatically reached.
The 'survival of the fittest' is also true in economy : companies who are not innovating and can't adapt fast enough to changing demand preferences will be replaced by other companies who are 'fitter'. Example : European watch or electronic industry replaced by Japanese products, US gas guzzler pickup and SUV replaced by smaller cars when the gasoline prices are skyrocketing etc..
So the evolution principle in biology and economy are very similar.

Other Comments by Roland_F

109. Comment #164950 by MutantQ on April 20, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Why can't evolution explain BOTH capitalist competition and altruism? The two behaviors aren't mutually exclusive despite what some Randites or Marxists might have us believe.

Other Comments by MutantQ

110. Comment #164951 by theonlything2fear on April 20, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Mr. Dawkins. How brave! A shameful attempt at explaining away your own words, and deeply held beliefs. For some, family is highly valued, sacred, and relevant to their own origin.

Are your own words also "lying propaganda"?

Just one more question. Will your next book, sorry best seller, explain just how your imaginary (aliens of higher intelligence)friends seeded our lovely planet?

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

111. Comment #164952 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 10:12 pm

 avatarTheonlythingtofear!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, bwaaaaaaa......
Yes follow the money. Exactly. Because research scientist make so very much of that. I remember well my time as undergraduate working summers as a field biologist, the benjamins were rolling in. Every professor I met was bedecked as the most regal pimp.
Yeah follow the money.

Other Comments by MaxD

112. Comment #164953 by Geodesic17 on April 20, 2008 at 10:13 pm

theonlything2fear:

Does the Creation Institute pay you to post here?

I don't bother to use the umbrella name, as it clearly is the Creation Institute.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

113. Comment #164954 by Hypoluxa on April 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm

 avatarWell said Richard. I hope this person can realize that they have been duped.

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

114. Comment #164955 by robotaholic on April 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm

 avatarwhat is your problem theonlything2fear?- first you say:
typical atheistic evolutionary temper tantrums and name calling are contained in your form of dialogue.
and then you say proceed to do just that stating:
A shameful attempt at explaining away your own words,
"lying propaganda"
your imaginary (aliens of higher intelligence)friends


You're a hypocritical jerk.

Other Comments by robotaholic

115. Comment #164956 by Geodesic17 on April 20, 2008 at 10:18 pm

I believe that theonlything2fear is here to bait us into insulting him so he can cry foul-play and continue to fuel his persecution complex.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

116. Comment #164957 by Roland_F on April 20, 2008 at 10:19 pm

112. Comment #164950 by MutantQ
Why can't evolution explain BOTH capitalist competition and altruism?

??? Strange question:
Evolution is explaining natural selection in biology and not attempt to explain economic market forces versus Marxism. Even if there are similarities from economy market balancing of demand and supply of goods and biological predator-pray balancing, what has this to do with Marxism vs. capitalism ?

But to just follow similarities for some complete unrelated topics :
Artificial selection in biology would be like Eugenetics which could be than compared to artificial planning and steering of the economy in Marxism, both possible done with good intentions , however in practice quite unsuccessful.

Other Comments by Roland_F

117. Comment #164960 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 pm

 avatarHe will certainly get his wish if he keeps posting unsubstantiated jibberish.

Other Comments by MaxD

118. Comment #164961 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Hitler had some interesting views on the Darwinian concept that man had evolved from other animals.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen ' was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler was influenced by the ideas of the Reverend Thomas Malthus, as was Darwin, and indeed as was everybody in the 20th century.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

119. Comment #164962 by room101 on April 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm

theonlything2fear:

...um, still waiting for your ID "arguments" as posed by Robotaholic and geodesic17.

BTW, you've been trolled, dickhead.

Other Comments by room101

120. Comment #164963 by alovrin on April 20, 2008 at 10:25 pm

 avatarTOT2F
For some, family is highly valued, sacred, and relevant to their own origin.


Your mum tell you to say that?

Other Comments by alovrin

121. Comment #164964 by theonlything2fear on April 20, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Defending the herd already! Bravo! And with such zeal and emotion...

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! And the scientific community, that is the good old boys club, has postulated a "molecules on the backs of crystals" theory. Weird, but that's what arrogance can lead to.

And on following the money, your emotions blinded you from my comment about searching deeper for the truth in this, well, world view debate.

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

122. Comment #164966 by Geodesic17 on April 20, 2008 at 10:28 pm

theonlything2fear,

Are you here to attack us or to engage in rational discourse?

Either you haven't read anything on this site, or you've willfully ignored it after reading it. Which is it?

Other Comments by Geodesic17

123. Comment #164967 by theonlything2fear on April 20, 2008 at 10:34 pm

And now for the much anticipated name calling! Thanks for making my point on evolving sheep...

Trolling for the catch of the day takes bait, yours of course, has left a bad taste in my mouth. TTFN, and really do try to sleep on it.

P.S. Keep those donations coming into the foundation, I hear Mr. Dawkins might have to pen a new best seller to explain away natural selection and higher intelligence from other planets. Yes, I would read it, then warm myself with it.

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

124. Comment #164968 by Geodesic17 on April 20, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Bingo! He got his name calling points! Now he can claim that he was persecuted here after insulting and annoying everyone. Bravo! I predicted it, folks.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

125. Comment #164969 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 10:37 pm

There is a fantastic picture of Ben Stein, a spray can and a Nazi belt-buckle at
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/look-ma-i-can-q.html

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

126. Comment #164970 by room101 on April 20, 2008 at 10:39 pm

theonlything2fear:

On behalf of all "sheep" on this site:

Blow me.

Other Comments by room101

127. Comment #164971 by Roland_F on April 20, 2008 at 10:39 pm

124. Comment #164964 by theonlything2fear
Defending the herd already! Bravo! And with such zeal and emotion...

Who is here emotional ? You are just spraying nonsense rants to provoke angry reaction and then you cry 'atheist' are unreasonable and emotional.
You are just a TROLL !

Oh yes, the affable Mr. Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design!

That's make it clear, the 'speaker of the devil' as Prof Dawkins was called in Scotland from a theist, is an ID preacher, and he must be stopped with his ID nonsense, ad that's why theonlything2fear is posting here to rant against Prof Dawkins and stop ID.
I have the impression theonlything2fear doesn't know what ID is !

Other Comments by Roland_F

128. Comment #164979 by Russell Blackford on April 20, 2008 at 10:52 pm

One thing that no one seems to have noticed is that the Expelled people are not the first enemies of reason to argue that there is a connection between Darwin (or modern biological science in general) and Hitler. Anti-science intellectuals have been trying to establish such connections for some time. One of the worst offenders is the anti-science British journalist Bryan Appleyard.

Appleyard argues that Hitler was influenced by Eugene Fischer's The Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene and by the work of Ernst Haeckel. Appleyard advances the thesis that Nazism was not a misuse of science but somehow exemplary of it.

It's one thing to suggest that something Hitler got from Fischer or Haeckel influenced his bizarre worldview (as many other things certainly did, among them the traditional anti-Semitism that pervaded Christendom for hundreds of years). But in doing so, Appleyard ignores the various kinds of race hatred and xenophobia that have existed through most or all of known history, and which were certainly not a product of the scientific revolution in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or of the revolution in biology, geology, and other sciences in the nineteenth and twentieth. Nonetheless, Appleyard's fevered thinking - with all the Luddite diatribes it has generated throughout the man's lengthy career in highbrow irrationalism - is coloured by his perception of science in general as somehow tainted by Nazism.

I'm afraid that Bryan Appleyard is not the only one. You can be pretty sure that many intellectuals on the humanities side of things have similar beliefs. Call it trahison des clercs, as I do, but it's there.

Ben Stein and the rest of these fundamentalist propagandists have grabbed on to a thesis that is not original to them, and which will resonate in (parts of) the academy. This thesis has been lying around like a length of wood, just waiting for the fundies to pick it up and use it as a club.

A lot more needs to be done to debunk such misconceptions, which is one reason why I'm particularly pleased to see the efforts by Richard and others to explain the facts.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

129. Comment #164980 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 10:53 pm

 avatarRoland_F-


Adam Smith 'invisible hand' is not "libertarian philosophy",


Didn't say it was.
Why must seemingly everyone who disagres with me first mischaracterize my arguments?

Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', isn't libertarianism, nor is it Darwinism, because Darwin and libertarians weren't around when he wrote "on the wealth of nations".

Therefore, all attempts to connect them are external to Adam Smith, and IMO, by my personal observation, usually by libertarians.

And Shermer made that connection, and lo and behold, Shermer is a libertarian.

I like Shermer, but he loses me when he gets into the libertarian crap.

I think it dances into the very social darwinist crap the religites accuse us of.

But, that's just my personal assessment.
I went through a libertarian phase, and I found it to be cold and ugly, and offered me nothing whatever to look foreward to in life.

I suppose it's just dippy for people with obsessive compulsive workaholism, and simple desires that can be filled by mindlessly accumulating shiny trinkets, but for me it rang desperately hollow.

Again, that's just me.
I'm probably a mutant.
A lot of Americans see it as jim-fucking-dandy.

Other Comments by Diacanu

130. Comment #164981 by Geodesic17 on April 20, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Who is here emotional ? You are just spraying nonsense rants to provoke angry reaction and then you cry 'atheist' are unreasonable and emotional.


I think calling him a troll is what he is looking for. I predicted this. I saw the tactic used during a Creation vs Evolution "Debate".

Other Comments by Geodesic17

131. Comment #164989 by Cwazy Cat Lady on April 20, 2008 at 11:03 pm

 avatarAt times it is depressing to ponder one's life in a country in which a film like Expelled might reach more viewers than proper science education in schools...

While we, as defenders of reason and atheists, can respond to these attacks and continually act defensively, we must start becoming more proactive about fostering critical thinking in American youth.

Ben Stein is probably a lost cause. I, though, am concerned about the generations who will soon inherit the earth and this country...

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

132. Comment #164990 by InYourFaceNewYorker on April 20, 2008 at 11:10 pm

 avatarI'm an atheist and a (cultural) Jew. I guess by that guy's logic I want to kill myself!

But seriously, I hope Dawkins gets a reply to his letter-- a NICE reply-- though I'm not holding my breath.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

133. Comment #164991 by MutantQ on April 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Roland_F:

You're right, it was a dumb question sparked by Diacanu's rant about "libertarians." Forget I asked it.

Other Comments by MutantQ

134. Comment #164993 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 11:13 pm

What must it have been like to be a Jewish child growing up in a Nazi Germany?

Paul Copan has recently written a long article as a refutation of Richard Dawkins.

It can be found at http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45

For some reason, the wise words of Paul Copan come to mind 'What then of the children? Death would be a mercy, as they would be ushered into the presence of God and spared the corrupting influences of a morally decadent culture.'

In Christian eyes, what exactly is wrong with killing whole tribes of men , women and children?

Why, you are doing the children a favour!

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

135. Comment #164996 by Richard Dawkins on April 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm

 avatar
I realize there is a distinction between "artificial" and "natural" when speaking of modes of selection, but I disagree with number seven. While "aritifical" selection entails conscious selection by humans and natural selection entails unconscious selection, I feel "artificial" selection is fully a part of natural selection.

Nevertheless, nobody before Darwin REALISED the similarity between artificial and natural selection. Thousands of people before Darwin understood artificial selection. Nobody (with a couple of arguable exceptions) understood natural selection, and literally nobody understood how important it was. That was Darwin's genius. What Hitler used was the part that everybody knew (artificial selection), NOT the part that Darwin added (natural selection). That was my Point 7, which you don't disagree with, you simply miss.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

136. Comment #164997 by jonwes on April 20, 2008 at 11:17 pm

 avatartheonlything2fear,
Do you wish to represent your "side"?

You are berating, tactless, classless with nothing to back up your words as well as not having even a modicum of respect for your fellow human beings. If you're expecting an emotional response other than amusement from myself then I think you missed the mark. But keep up the good work, as people like you can only help people realize there is no positive correlation between religiosity and virtuousness.

Life is far too short for any further response to you other than robust laughter.

Other Comments by jonwes

137. Comment #164998 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 11:19 pm

William Lane Craig has challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate

William Lane Craig has a wonderful article about why it is not always wrong to kill whole tribes of men, women and children.

It can be found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

As modern day Christians write articles defending genocide, they should refrain from criticising genocide.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

138. Comment #165001 by Geodesic17 on April 20, 2008 at 11:22 pm

For some reason, the wise words of Paul Copan come to mind 'What then of the children? Death would be a mercy, as they would be ushered into the presence of God and spared the corrupting influences of a morally decadent culture.'


Sounds like a Conquistador. I'll contribute to all of this later, it is late where I am.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

139. Comment #165004 by Myotis Lucifugus on April 20, 2008 at 11:25 pm

wow...i actually thought that after the Dover case this would just go away. Beholed! reigion at its finest.

Other Comments by Myotis Lucifugus

140. Comment #165005 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm

 avataronlythingtofear,
You are simply here to incite some vitriol. Your tone is insulting, and not furthering debate. If you have a point make it. If not then go talk to your like minded friends and enjoy the world, well insulated from reality, you prefer to inhabit.

Other Comments by MaxD

141. Comment #165008 by alovrin on April 20, 2008 at 11:27 pm

 avatarTOT2F
my thoughts are from my brain and my brain only


It Shows

Other Comments by alovrin

142. Comment #165009 by Raiko on April 20, 2008 at 11:28 pm

 avatarI almost want to hug Richard for the effort because I fear it is not going to help much.

---

On a different note... I am starting to think this movie and what it does is really insulting. I am a German scientist-to-be and my grandmother had to leave everything behind, fleeing from WW2, while my grandfather got crippled, but luckily survived the war - with the thought that "If there was a God, he would not let this happen, so there is none!". Before that, he was Christian.

The suggestion that I would willingly and passionately contribute to German science or share the views of the people who did all thoughts of cruel things to my grandparents and my mother, is kind of really insulting when you think about it. Well, and if you think about the reasons for my grandfather's atheism, this idea just gets ridiculous.

So, to the Jew I'd say: My grandfather unfortunately DID contribute like a sheep to the abhorrence of the Holocaust, under the banner and belief of Christianity - but came out of the war as a shocked, disgusted, traumatized and crippled man who had woken up to atheism because of that. It really doesn't seem to fit with the atheists-caused-the-Holocaust theory at all.

Other Comments by Raiko

143. Comment #165010 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm

 avatar"Sorry, but my thoughts are from my brain and my brain only. I'm not stuck in a protected little circle of influence."---theonlything2fear

Okay, fair enough. I for one am willing to hear your original thoughts on why the idea that self-replicating crystalline molecules could not have been the precursors to carbon based life.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

144. Comment #165018 by robotaholic on April 20, 2008 at 11:45 pm

 avatarwhat really is so hard about blaming Hitler for what Hitler did? I mean really...

Does anyone doubt he was mad?

Other Comments by robotaholic

145. Comment #165020 by jonwes on April 20, 2008 at 11:48 pm

 avatarOne thing I'd like to say in addition is that I don't think we should feel bad or fearful about the popularity of this within religious circles. This was a movie custom-made for them and marketed to them. The fact that it made as much as it did (3.1 million last I saw) is interesting. It's a respectable amount for an indie film of it's budget, but not all that great considering how many theaters it opened in. Regardless, think about how many self-identified Christians there are, and you'll see this is a very small percentage of the audience who"on the face of it"should be interested in this movie.

The fact of the matter is that the large majority of the mainstream press is rejecting this movie (Rottentomatoes.com gives it a 9% out of 100% as I write this.) The film hasn't broken through to mainstream audiences and it likely won't. I'd be surprised if it makes half of what it did on the opening weekend, after the promise of Ben Stein bobbleheads and other lures for the faithful have worn off.

I think it feels like a bigger deal to people who visit sites like this or religious sites than it really is because we're the ones who care! Will it be shown widely in religious circles? Sure. Who cares. They've got hundreds of other videos that make zero impact on the public at large to go along with them.

If anything I think the general audiences will read the negative reviews, who treat Intelligent Design largely with ridicule or label the movie as misguided propaganda and actually the exact opposite effect of what the makers of Expelled wished for.

Other Comments by jonwes

146. Comment #165022 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 11:52 pm

 avatarEDIT-
Fuck it, I'm not gonna drag it off into a liberal/conservative side argument.

Some other time, perhaps.

This topic is depressing enough without that shit too.

Other Comments by Diacanu

147. Comment #165023 by RichardPrins on April 20, 2008 at 11:53 pm

 avatarIn case you missed Shermer's newsletter:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html

Also check out Scientific American's Six Things in Expelled Ben Stein Doesn't Want You To Know (and related articles there):
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Other Comments by RichardPrins

148. Comment #165028 by The Hogfather on April 21, 2008 at 12:10 am

 avatarWell done Richard Dawkins!

You have said what a lot of us already wanted to say on this issue. It really amazing how low the "Anti-science brigade" and the anti-atheists will stoop.

It is an intereting aside that Ben Stein and co are actually scapegoating- which is ironically exactly same thing is the Nazi's did. It's a simple case of- "well let's blame the holocaust on the most convenient target available, the group that are already most hated in the US, oh look it also happens to re-enforce our Anti-Darwinian agenda."

I think most of us Atheists are sick and tired of agendas full stop, I know I am. We just want to be left in peace to enjoy the Universe for what it is. We should not need to make nonsense up and then suspend our critical facalties in a process called- "faith".

Other Comments by The Hogfather

149. Comment #165030 by Ian on April 21, 2008 at 12:11 am

Hmmm:
I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest...


Darwinian evolution is an explanation for the adaptive variety of life. It does not and is not supposed to tell people how to live. It is a scientific theory, as is Einstein's General Relativity, but you wouldn't try to base your morality on gravitaional lensing, would you? Similarly, it is a simple mistake to base your morality on Natural Selection.

Today, most morality - secular and religious - is based upon the idea that certain acts are inherently wrong and awareness of the consequences of acts which may otherwise have no moral weighting either way.

No one bases their morality on Darwinism.

...Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?


Is it really necessary to have an explanation for compassion? Isn't it good enough to feel and act upon it?

I could use Evolutionary Psychology to speculate, but this would only explain why we feel compassion, not provide any imperative for it or tell us what it is that makes one act better than another.

Similarly, using God as explanation doesn't really tell us why any particular act is good or bad - only that God approves or disapproves of it, allegedly. If that is all there is to right and wrong, then there is no such thing as goodness in itself.

I prefer to think of goodness as being a real quality that acts can share in to various degrees or be devoid of. In this I follow the Greek philosophers, whose great ethical writings have had as much influence upon us all, even the religious.

If you look at history, it is clear that despite the dominance of religion, many very bad things have been done. Doesn't this fact make you wonder whether the religious, despite their convictions, actually have knowledge of right and wrong?

Other Comments by Ian

150. Comment #165031 by Diacanu on April 21, 2008 at 12:13 am

 avatarIan-

Beat ya to it.
:P

Other Comments by Diacanu
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: