Social Darwinism and World War I

[whag]

Well I have no idea what they believed, it doesn't matter.

You should know precisely what they believe. Divine right is the most popular and most ancient justification for war, and white Europeans often openly expressed their disdain for primitive pagan cultures.

When one species of bacteria displaces or destroys another species they are doing what is natural, as were the white Europeans.

Yea, teleology is weird, I concur. Who enacted that disgusting natural displacement? According to Christianity, God created the natural order that you and Jorge are stupidly comparing to the Trail of Tears and Treblinka.

[Jorge]

Every war waged on earth before 1870 occured without the justification of Social Darwinism.

That is very true, of course, for the simple fact that it would have been impossible to use Darwinism to justify wars before Darwinism ever existed. That doesn't change my OP. Watch ...

Most of us have heard Dawkins' famous quote that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist". Atheists existed before Darwinism - of course! But Atheists could not JUSTIFY themselves and their beliefs as well they could after Darwin. Do you see the analogy?

Wars and atrocities certainly existed before Darwinism. But with Darwinism people could now JUSTIFY the wars and atrocities using "scientific" Darwinian Principles and Darwinian-Speak. Wars now became "a natural order of the unending fight for survival of the fittest over the weakest ... a "good thing" since the resources are limited and the weak of the species must be eliminated so that the strong of the species may procreate". In short, there is now a "scientific" justification.

If SD triggered an upswing in atheist belicosity, that should easily be demonstrated. Excluding Christian saber rattlers (Bush, Putin, etc) just for the sake of argument.

I have ... no comment on that.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Since Jorge can't discuss scientific facts, he has to bring up (putative!) misapplication of natural principles as a ruse.

The master of intellectual dishonesty, which he generously projects to others, strikes again!!

K54

Okay, fine. Consider yourself OFF this thread, effective immediately. C-ya!

Jorge

[phank]

Groan. Darwin proposed that populations change over the course of generations due to differential reproductive success. His proposal is pure biology, and has nothing to do with better-armed soldiers winning military battles. Since history is written by the winners, who invariably believe they won because they deserved it, any rationalization ratifying their superiority is a Good Thing.

[Jorge]

"Social "Darwinism" is a philosophy and is not the same thing as evolution which is a scientific theory. It is also based far more on the works than Herbert Spencer, who sought to extend the Theory of Evolution (which deals with the natural world of plants and animals) into realms of sociology and ethics, than it does with Darwin. In many ways Social Darwinism is like Social Newtonism: the belief that in nature gravity makes things fall down, so we should push people we don't like off cliffs. IOW, attempts to discredit the ToE based on the fact that some have misapplied the theory are clearly misguided.

I've said this to you many times in the past: You have a knack ... you are a Master ... at creating Straw Men.

I won't waste my time repeating things that I've already written in earlier posts on this thread. Simply go back and read those posts (there aren't that many) and you should easily see why your post above is at least a few notches lower than unadulterated nonsense. What you have posted here is nothing more than your knee-jerk reaction to defend your fanatically-religious adherence to Darwinism in one of its many forms. I cannot help you, R06.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Groan. Darwin proposed that populations change over the course of generations due to differential reproductive success. His proposal is pure biology, and has nothing to do with better-armed soldiers winning military battles. Since history is written by the winners, who invariably believe they won because they deserved it, any rationalization ratifying their superiority is a Good Thing.

"Groan" back at you.

See posts # 12, 14 and 17 - read for comprehension ... try harder.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

But Darwinism (allegedly) is science ... it certainly is considered by most to be science (yourself included). The "social Darwinism" is nothing more than a projection of the Darwinian Principle into all areas of the social sphere (economics, politics, ethics, etc ... etc.).

Try to hide this all you want, it remains a fact.

Jorge

Once again Jorge can't refute the science so he attempts to smear the theory by associating it with people who misused it.

Kinda like saying all of chemistry must be wrong because the Nazis used Zyklon B gas in the chambers.

Jorge isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

[rogue06]

That is very true, of course, for the simple fact that it would have been impossible to use Darwinism to justify wars before Darwinism ever existed. That doesn't change my OP. Watch ...

The exact same thing could be said about "Pasteurism" and Germ Theory. It was impossible to use Germ Theory to justify wars before Germ Theory ever existed. And it was Pasteur (along with Robert Koch) and Germ Theory that Hitler and other Nazis repeatedly cited to justify many of their atrocities.

Most of us have heard Dawkins' famous quote that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist". Atheists existed before Darwinism - of course! But Atheists could not JUSTIFY themselves and their beliefs as well they could after Darwin. Do you see the analogy?

A statement made after every major scientific landmark. The same things were said after Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler showed that the sun didn't orbit the earth. The same thing was said after Newton proposed his Laws of Gravity. Find a major scientific accomplishment and you'll find someone whining that it'll be used to justify atheism including such wildly divergent things like the philosophy of Descartes (Cartesianism) to Benjamin Franklin's invention of the lightning rod.

Wars and atrocities certainly existed before Darwinism. But with Darwinism people could now JUSTIFY the wars and atrocities using "scientific" Darwinian Principles and Darwinian-Speak. Wars now became "a natural order of the unending fight for survival of the fittest over the weakest ... a "good thing" since the resources are limited and the weak of the species must be eliminated so that the strong of the species may procreate". In short, there is now a "scientific" justification.

And as noted Pasteur and Germ Theory has been cited as justification as well. The Nazis claimed that they were eradicating a "racial tuberculosis” and a "bacillus" as they slaughtered the Jews.

And while citing a survival of the fittest sort of mentality they weren't thinking of Darwin but thought of Sparta as their role model.

In his "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book"), an unedited transcript of Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928 after "Mein Kampf," Hitler himself cited the Greek city state of Sparta as his inspiration, adding that he considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State":

"Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses."

Hitler explicitly recommended that Germany should imitate the Spartans by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans."

Hitler praised the Spartans saying that they had created "the first racialist state.” During the invasion of the U.S.S.R. he saw that country's citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything."

This thought is echoed in "Der Generalplan Ost" ("Master Plan East"), the Nazi plan for the colonization of Eastern Europe, where it is stated that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while ... the Russians were the Helots"

It should also be noted that Heinrich Himmler, the infamous Reichsführer of the SS and one of those most directly responsible for the Holocaust, also called Nazi Germany the "new Sparta."

[Roy]

No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein.

But not nearly as much as has religion. Funny how Jorge never mentions that.

What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all.

Galline faeces.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures.

As opposed to the far greater number of times when religion was used to justify exterminating those who were not of the 'chosen race', or who worshipped 'false gods', or who ritually mutilated their reproductive organs in a different way, or who thought prophethood should descend through family rather than friendship.

Darwinism does not cause wars or atrocities. The same cannot be said of religion.

Roy

[seer]

You should know precisely what they believe. Divine right is the most popular and most ancient justification for war, and white Europeans often openly expressed their disdain for primitive pagan cultures.

But it doesn't matter. Men use religion, ideology, greed, politics, race, etc... to dominate their fellow man.

Yea, teleology is weird, I concur. Who enacted that disgusting natural displacement? According to Christianity, God created the natural order that you and Jorge are stupidly comparing to the Trail of Tears and Treblinka.

What are you taking about? What the white Europeans did was as natural as what the bacteria did - whether they used religion or politics to justify those acts is meaningless. And remember according to Christian theology something is amiss in the world. In your world this is all completely natural.

[shunyadragon]

No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

Jorge

The problem is the misuse of science, as well as religion, to justify violence and wars does not in any way indicate that either science (evolution) nor religion is false, or at fault. Terms like Darwinism, Social Darwinism are the basis of describing the science of evolution as somehow false or at fault, or used to justify evil. These terms are not really the terms of science to describe, investigate, nor understand evolution.

[klaus54]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

K54, you were asked to leave the thread by the OP. Please stop posting in this thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Roy]

The problem is ...

The problem is that this thread is intended purely to create a false association of Hitler with Darwin, instead of with Pasteur or Luther.

Roy

[whag]

But it doesn't matter. Men use religion, ideology, greed, politics, race, etc... to dominate their fellow man.

It certainly does matter if you blame evolution for justifying conflict. Evolution wasn't invented to justify war. It antedated war by hundreds of millions of years.

What are you taking about? What the white Europeans did was as natural as what the bacteria did - whether they used religion or politics to justify those acts is meaningless.

It's not meaningless if your point is that the discovery of evolution ramped up evil. Obviously, that's not what happened.

And remember according to Christian theology something is amiss in the world.

Is bacteria displacement something that's "amiss," seer? How about the lion killing the antelope?

It's hard to know what you think is "amiss" in nature, exactly. Do tell.

In your world this is all completely natural.

Bacteria displacement is completely natural. We live in that same world. Your error is in saying that phenomenon justifies human wars. You lost all of us on that one.

[seer]

It certainly does matter if you blame evolution for justifying conflict. Evolution wasn't invented to justify war. It antedated war by hundreds of millions of years.

But that is not what I'm doing. I'm looking at the bigger picture.

It's not meaningless if your point is that the discovery of evolution ramped up evil. Obviously, that's not what happened.

Well like any ideology it certainly can have negative effects. Not necessarily so though.

Is bacteria displacement something that's "amiss," seer? How about the lion killing the antelope?

It's hard to know what you think is "amiss" in nature, exactly. Do tell.

We have been through this before whag on Apologetics 301 (your thread I believe). Don't pretend that we haven't.

Bacteria displacement is completely natural. We live in that same world. Your error is in saying that phenomenon justifies human wars. You lost all of us on that one.

How is killing or displacing our fellow man and taking his property, territory and females not as completely natural as what the bacteria does?