Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler

“In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.” Series: “Voices” [11/2004] [Humanities] [Show ID: 8987]

Darwin – an objective scientist?

Darwin – an objective scientist?

Darwin is often portrayed as a sort of textbook example of a perfect scientist who after objectively observing and studying the diversity of life came to conclude that the most logical explanation for this diversity is that life must have evolved over time from a common ancestor through natural selection. A few weeks ago I saw a video where a person defended Charles Darwin and portrayed him as an honest scientist who simply objectively observed the diversity of life, tried to make sense out of what he saw and then came to accept evolution by natural selection as the most plausible and scientific explanation.

How objective was Darwin?

Most people are under the wrong impression that Darwin was the father of evolution theory. That’s not true. The idea that life arose from matter and evolved from it had been existing for thousands of years. It can be found in the writings of materialist philosophers from in India, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Egypt and later Greece. Even though these materialist philosophers did not agree on everything we find in their writings ideas of how life arose from matter in water, that humans evolved from fish, that species evolved from one another, that there was a struggle for survival amongst the living beings and that there was a hierarchy of life from the most simple to the most complex. The writings of these philosophers were well known to many western thinkers and scientists like Benoit de Maillet, Pierre de Maupertuis, Comte de Buffon and Jean Baptiste Lamarck and others who all embraced and propagated the idea. Charles Darwin was greatly influenced by these thinkers.

Not only was Darwin influenced by earlier and contemporary thinkers, he was influenced by materialistic ideas from his very childhood. Both his father, Robert Darwin, and grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, were Freethinkers and members of the Mason order. Erasmus Darwin, who was a physicist and one of the highest ranking members of the Masonic organization, was himself influenced by and played an important role in the formation of the evolution theory. In the 1780’s and 90’s he wrote two books, “Temple of Nature” and “Zoomania”, in which he argued that all life came from a common ancestor and developed through the laws of nature alone. Later the founded the “Philosophical Society” to help him spread his ideas. So Darwin wasn’t acting alone. There was a whole anti-religious movement centered around so called Enlightenment ideas to help propagate a materialistic world view. Darwin’s important contribution in this connection was that he was the first to offer a usable “scientific” justification for the idea.

While the above does not in disprove evolution by natural selection it does show us that Darwin is often misportrayed. The fact is, however, that he did not coin the idea of evolution by natural selection due to his objective observations in nature. He already had the idea in mind from his very childhood and from earlier and contemporary Enlightenment thinkers. He might, therefore, not have been as objective as many would like him to appear.

It is also crucial to keep in mind that at Darwin’s time (like today) there really was no evidence to justify evolution. Darwin did some observations, but he himself admitted that there was a lot of problems with his theory. He dedicated a whole chapter in his book “The Origin og Species”, which he called “Difficulties on Theory”, to  a discussion on the many problems with his ideas. He hoped that in the future they would be solved. In spite of the lack of evidence Darwin nonetheless believed in his own theory. His belief was thus unscientific in nature and mere philosophical speculation. Today there’s even less justification for his ideas and thus both Darwin and his modern followers can’t decorate themselves with the label “scientist”.

Can we use Darwin to argue for vegetarianism?

Written to a devotee who tries to create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwins teachings:

—

Dear Prabhu! Pamho, agtSP!

I don’t think you can use Darwinism to argue in favor of any morality. It’s the naturalistic fallacy to try to derive an “ought” from an “is”. On Darwin we might as well argue that just as animals commit no moral wrong in killing, so we humans, who on Darwinism are also just animals, do no wrong in killing. In fact, many atheists will say that an alien race superior to us would do no wrong in killing us, so they would have no problem with your argument.

This reminds me of the movie “Predator” where some aliens come down to hunt humans for fun. They are far superior to humans. So just like we can hunt animals, they can hunt us. Of course the movie challenges us humans – hunters and meat-eaters – to admit they are inconsistent if they claim these aliens are doing something wrong. But it can do not more than that; you can’t change it into a Darwinistic moral argument for vegetarianism.

—

Further thoughts:

Some might argue that it’s good if we also can establish vegetarianism on a Darwinian view, but it is crucial to understand that from a naturalistic world view no normative morality can be derived. If God does not exist then everything is permitted. The whole problem with saying that we can derive a normative morality from Darwinism is that it contradicts our scriptures and will allow the atheists to tell us that we don’t need God as the ontological foundation of morality. Thus we will hamper our own preaching.

Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 1)

The following is a comment I wrote to a devotee at dandavats.com. View her comment to ISKCON Hungary here.

Pamho, agtSP!

Our process is to repeat the words of our spiritual master and therefore not contradict his words.

My first contention is that you are contradicting Prabhupada’s words when you claim that Darwin’s theory is not “to a large extent” “responsible for the moral decline of human society.”

My second contention is that you’re wrong when you claim that it is “unproven” that Darwins theory is “to a large extent” “responsible for the cause of the moral decline in our society.”

The first contention

Prabhupāda: “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick on your face. That’s all. That is our philosophy. The more we kick on Darwin’s face, the more advanced in spiritual consciousness. He has killed the whole civilization, rascal.”

Prabhupāda: “That is nonsense. Darwin was a number-one nonsense. Yes. Rascal. He has confused the whole world.” Prabhupāda: “Full nonsense, this rascal. How much havoc he has done to the human society. A grand rascal, this Darwin. And he is taken as the basic principle of anthropology. The whole world has become…”

Prabhupada: “The Darwin’s theory, this theory, that theory, simply they are bewildered, thinking this body is the self.” Prabhupada: “So the modern civilization, according to Darwin’s theory, they are advancing to become animal. That’s it. Therefore they are claiming their forefathers are coming from monkeys.”

Prabhupada: “Because they are standing on a wrong theory, all their calculations are wrong, and people are suffering. The rascal Darwin’s theory. So many, based on this foolish theory, wrong conception of life. So we have to challenge, protest. defeat. This will be our work. Our worshiping of Kṛṣṇa, that is our internal affair. The external affair—we need to establish this theory. Otherwise they’ll be leading this society. Misleading. They are misleading, not leading, misleading. So we have to stop this misleading.”

To sum up: According to Prabhupada Darwins theory has killed the whole civilization, that is has confused the whole world, that is has caused a lot of havoc in human society, that is bewilders people be making them identify the body as the self, that it makes people become animals, that it misleads people and makes them suffer. Darwins theory has created so much trouble that Prabhupada want us to stop it.

Thus I think it is proven that my first contention is correct: You are contradicting Prabhupada.

Arguments for my second contention is coming soon.

Ys, Ajit Krishna Dasa

Prabhupada and “The Moral Argument”

When I  first wrote “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God” I experienced that some devotees were very critical of the argument. Some argued against its validity, others against its premises. Since many devotees are not so experiences in the use of logic and reasoning I realized how important it is to show them that and how Prabhupada used this argument. I made some research and now I’ve written a text on called “Prabhupada and “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. It’s too long to post here, so I’ll provide a link to it and a short excerpt:

Excerpt:

“Prabhupada would often use logic and sense perception when arguing for God’s existence. He used many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God such as the Design Argument (Teleological Argument), the First Mover Argument (Cosmological Argument) and the Moral Argument (Axiological Argument). The article at hand deals only with how Prabhupada used the “Moral Argument”.”

“I will attempt to go one step at the time first showing 1) how he defined “absolute moral laws”, then 2) how he argues in favor of the truth of premise 1, then 3) how he argues in favor of premise 2 and at last 4) how he infers the conclusion that God exist from the premises according to the standard rules of logic.”

Link

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d83tkq3_18gxzdzkc8

Please note that the text is part of a larger text and not completely finished. But it is definitely readable.

How to Deal with Philosophical Deviations in ISKCON?

Lately I’ve witnessed what I can only consider to be philosophical deviations being preaching by ISKCON devotees on the internet. This is, obviously, not the first or the last time that has been seen. But it disturbs me. Some might say that it’s not proper etiquette to mention names, but I think it’s more fair for all parts if readers of this blog can get access the texts written by these devotees in order to evaluate the situation themselves. If these authors really think they are correct they’ll be likely to want people read their texts rather than to just hear my opinions on them. Therefore I will provide links and names in the following.

On dandavats.com Rasasthali Devi Dasi is claiming, contrary to Prabhupada’s words, that Darwinism has not to a large extent caused the moral decline of our world. On his blog Janakirama Prabhu (who is the husband of Rasasthali Devi Dasi) argues that you can create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwinism. On atmayogi.com Sitapati Prabhu argues that Krishna Consciousness and Bhagavatam is not a science and that we as devotees shouldn’t present them as such. He also seems to be a gay rights activist in a way that runs contrary to Prabhupada views on the matter and he accept quite a lot of the evolution theory as being true – even though it contradicts sastra and Prabhupada. He has written a lot about these thing, so you have to investigate his blog for yourself. On news.iskcon.com Janakirama Prabhu and someone who calls himself Kapil (I don’t know if he’s a devotee) argues that Intelligent Design is not science and criticises Expelled the Movie.

The above mentioned philosophical deviations are only a few among many being preached on the internet and other places by ISKCON devotees. It is our duty to ask ourselves where such misunderstandings and philosophical deviations – smaller or greater as they might be – comes from? 

One answer would be that people in Kali-Yuga are very prone to accept the atheistic conclusions they’ve heard for their whole lives in our soul killing educational institutions. A philosophically weak kanistha-adhikari is by definition easily confused when confronted with opposing arguments and has a tendency to compromise or even be converted. When such a kanistha-adhikari feels social pressure he or she might want to find some sort of compromise to remove that pressure. Thus it’s tempting to create a fantasy that mixes devotional and atheistic arguments.

I think ISKCON has a lot of work to do in order to make sure that new devotees are properly educated in Krishna Consciousness.

Another answer would be that there’s a lot of  bad, but well-meaning, preaching going on in ISKCON (among all the good preaching). Often we are so eager to get new devotees that we use all sorts of speculative preaching styles which gives people the impression that ISKCON is a much more compromising religion than it actually is. In this way we attract a lot of dangerous pseudo-spiritualists who sooner or later hampers our preaching due to their non-devotional attitudes. I think ISKCON devotees should be less speculative in their preaching efforts and that we should focus on “boiling down the milk”. 

“Now I want that we shall concentrate on making our devotees Krishna conscious and ourselves becoming Krishna conscious, and not be so much concerned with expanding ourselves widely but without any spiritual content. Just like boiling the milk, it becomes thicker and sweeter. Now do like that, boil the milk.” [Letter to Rupanuga, 72-05-09]

Can ISKCON afford to not address the views of devotees who are preaching philosophical deviations? I think ISKCON needs to be better at protecting itself from such deviations. After all Prabhupada said that ISKCON can only be destroyed from within. If we keep our doors too open bad elements will creep in. Unfortunately it has now become increasingly difficult to check the spreading of deviating views since every new bhakta and bhaktin can now voice his or her opinion on his own blog and on internet forums. 

What to do? Let’s work together in a true spirit of wanting to protect ISKCON and helping devotees get back to Prabhupada. I’ll address the texts of the devotees in forthcoming posts.