Evolution and Morality

[Papersock]

I've been reading the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and writing a review and rebutal to it. I'm trying to keep a level head during the whole thing, but chapter 7, "Mother Teresa vs. Hitler" is just infuriating.
For example, here are some passages from the chapter and my responces:

Hitler, like other Darwinists, illegitimately personifies nature by attributing will to it (i.e. “nature does not wish”). But his main point is that there are superior races and inferior races, and the Jews, being an inferior race, have no right to exist if they don’t want to fight. In other words, racism and then genocide is the logical outworking of Darwinism. On the other hand, love and then self-sacrifice is the logical outworking of Christianity. Ideas have consequences.

No.
Respect for all living things is a logical outworking of evolution. Or it is to most people who to most evolutionists. Humans can take any idea and twist it to suit their own superiority complex. How many white-supremacy groups are dominantly fundamentalist Christian?
People have been racist long before Darwin was even born. If a person thinks he is superior to another group of people that person will use anything to justify their belief, be it the Bible, or the theory of evolution, both twisted to suit the person’s belief.

…parents should be able to kill their newborn infants until they are 28 days of age! These beliefs are perfectly consistent with Darwinism. If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species.

Darwinism is not a belief system or philosophy. It is a field of science. Any philosophical or social ideas derived from it is just humans attributing non-existent qualities. If evolution is true, it does not mean we can kill our children. It does not mean that one race of people is superior to other. It does not mean we are better than “lesser” animals. It does not mean anything.

Personally, I dislike the terms “Darwinist” and “Darwinism” and I wish people who do believe in evolution would not use it. “Darwinism” is a name given to the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin.

 

[Zeno]

Very interesting. I will look forward to reading your full rebuttal if you wish to share it.

Any study of the genetics behind evolution reveal that no race is inferior. People will use any justification that suits their dogmas.

What Hitler did has nothing to do with atheism or evolution. Also, his atheism can be disputed. Maybe he didn't follow his Catholic upbringing, but that doesn't immediately render him an atheist.

The love and self-sacrifice aspects of religion do little to explain the ethnic cleansing done in its name.

If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species.

Yes we do! How many other species have our capacity for consciousness? How many other species can develop the concept of morals?

I just fail to understand how the idea that we weren't created as the apple of some deity's eye means that we have no basis for logical thought or compassion.

 

[Sunstone]

This is just more anti-evolution crap. It says more about the fantasies of the anti-evolution crowd than it does about evolution. The stuff is being put out there for people who have no understanding of evolution -- to poison the well so they won't want to study or understand evolution. It's an immoral tactic.

 

[Sunstone]

Hitler, like other Darwinists, illegitimately personifies nature by attributing will to it...

This one sentence is solid back to back lies. Hitler might or might not have personified nature. But he certainly didn't get that personification from Darwin -- Darwin does not personify nature.

 

[doppelganger]

[/font][/size][/color]This one sentence is solid back to back lies. Hitler might or might not have personified nature. But he certainly didn't get that personification from Darwin -- Darwin does not personify nature.

He got it from Herbert Spencer and particularly the works of Madison Grant.

 

[Prometheus]

http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

Draw your own conclusions. My interpretation from both sites is that He was a Christian because He believed in God and Christ. He didn't follow any particular church as he thought the Christian churches fell short of Christ's doctrine, which he held in high regard. He never denounced Christ and he spoke badly of Atheism, but the thing to remember is that he was first, and foremost, a Socialist. So though he was technically a Christian, he was willing to destroy anything that stood in the way of his dreams for the state. Even churches.

 

[Sunstone]

If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species.

How about humans start behaving morally better than other species?

 

[Papersock]

Very interesting. I will look forward to reading your full rebuttal if you wish to share it.

I am posting the whole rebuttal here, in my forum: http://headdoctor.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=45
I'm not sure if I should post it in this forum or not.

 

[Dante]

[/font][/size][/color]This one sentence is solid back to back lies. Hitler might or might not have personified nature. But he certainly didn't get that personification from Darwin -- Darwin does not personify nature.

I think the irony is that under the assumption theism is wrong, that's exactly what theism is founded on. That is, the personification of nature.

 

[Papersock]

I think the irony is that under the assumption theism is wrong, that's exactly what theism is founded on. That is, the personification of nature.

Hm, that's a good point. Why didn't I notice that?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., that's exactly what theism is founded on. That is, the personification of nature.

Actually, no. But what does any of this have to do with "Evolution and Morality"?

 

[spewing_pharmasutra]

"How many other species have our capacity for consciousness? How many other species can develop the concept of morals?"



That is an awfully popular idea. How could a person think that they and their species has the most capacity for conceptualization and consciousness? In order to think such things, you would have to assume that you know everything there is to know about every other type of consciousness. Plants don't exercise will. Animals are idiots. It takes a great deal of arrogance to assume these things simply because there is not enough physical similarity to what we assume is the best model of thought creation, the human brain.

I have found no evidence that the typical forum goer, college graduate, or high powered executive have any more capacity for consciousness than the average weed.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species.

Humans are morally inferior to my cat. In fact, I would love for this author to show me one animal that has told one single lie: just one! That's just the bitter facts.

 

[lunamoth]

Humans are morally inferior to my cat. In fact, I would love for this author to show me one animal that has told one single lie: just one! That's just the bitter facts.
[/font][/size][/color]

With cowbirds being one of many other exceptions to this rule:

from wiki:
The cowbird eggs do not look much different from the hosts' eggs, and the host will normally incubate the eggs. The cowbird chicks grow quickly, and may consume most of the food the host brings. If starvation does not kill the other birds, in some species the cowbird will use its large size to push the other chicks out of the nest. The Giant Cowbird does not appear to harm its host oropendola or cacique chicks.

 

[Papersock]

Humans are morally inferior to my cat. In fact, I would love for this author to show me one animal that has told one single lie: just one! That's just the bitter facts.

Animals deceive other animals all the time.

 

[logician]

Hitler, BTW, was a Christian, his religious hero was Martin Luther, a strong anti-semite.

 

[rojse]

I cannot believe that the author tries to say that Hitler is evil because he is an aetheist. That's like saying that Hitler was evil because he was a painter, or a vegetarian. There are people that are quite generous and kind, despite being aetheists. I myself have done a great deal of charity work, although I am an aetheist. And I have not killed any Jews and Gypsies.
Aetheism is a lack of belief in God. Painting is merely putting pigments onto a surface. Vegetarianism is not eating meat. Darwin's evolutionary theory says that all animals evolve due to changing circumstances. Aetheism does not advocate murder, nor does painting, vegetarianism, or Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Animals can do things that we perceive as evil. I remember reading about one type of bird that bullies other's to raise it's own eggs. If they other birds do not raise the eggs of this bird, they destroy the eggs of the bird. My cat tortures mice for pleasure. No one taught these animals to do those actions, they chose to do them on their own.