Sitapati Prabhu wrote:
“Science Daily.com has an interesting article entitled: “How to spot a hidden religious agenda“, which contains the following:
The ID crowd, for instance, loves to draw a line from Darwin to the Holocaust, as they did in the “documentary” film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Even if such an absurd link were justified, it would have zero relevance to the question of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.
That’s correct.
My answer:
Dear Prabhu!
Richard Weikart, author of “From Darwin to Hitler“, argued that a link between Darwin and Hitler can be either historical or logical. He argues for a historical link and not so much, if at all, for a logical link. The historical link in indisputable. As I argue in my post “Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 2)” there is also some what of a logical link – at least between some of Darwin’s ideas to some of Hitlers ideas. However, I would never say that Darwinism by logical necessity leads to Hitler even though it definitely leads to some horrible things. But looking at human psychology I think it obvious that if the wrong people get Darwin’s ideas in their hands (which they did) then Nazi Germany or something similar follows. Darwin’s ideas were insane on many points – and sick people acted on them and sometimes made their own little extra spin on them.
It would, of course, be a logical fallacy to claim that Darwin’s ideas are wrong because they lead to negative consequences, but in the light of Krishna Consciousness we know that the truth doesn’t contain evil doctrines. This might not be helpful for a non-Krishna Conscious audience. Therefore you can view my presentation of the moral consequences as going hand in hand with a scientific response to Darwinism. People, including some devotees, might argue that “Darwin is wrong, but so what? Why spend so much time on his ideas?” So I think it is important to give them a package where you can see that not only is Darwinism wrong, but also harmful – and thus must be addressed and defeated.
14 responses so far ↓
Sita-pati das // 05/03/2009 at 08:55 |
I call this particular reductio ad hitlerum the “Wendell Turley fallacy”.
If someone were to argue against Krishna Consciousness on the basis of linking Srila Prabhupada with the gurukula abuse, I would call fallacy.
So I have to do the same thing here.
The link between Srila Prabhupada and the gurukula abuse is historical and is more direct than any link between Darwin and Hitler.
Anything invoking Hitler or Nazis, especially so early in the thread, is infantile anyway… ;-)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Ajit // 06/03/2009 at 21:02 |
Dear Prabhu,
“If someone were to argue against Krishna Consciousness on the basis of linking Srila Prabhupada with the gurukula abuse, I would call fallacy.”
I’ve already dealt with that objection:
Ajit: “It would, of course, be a logical fallacy to claim that Darwin’s ideas are wrong because they lead to negative consequences, but in the light of Krishna Consciousness we know that the truth doesn’t contain evil doctrines. This might not be helpful for a non-Krishna Conscious audience. Therefore you can view my presentation of the moral consequences as going hand in hand with a scientific response to Darwinism.”
“The link between Srila Prabhupada and the gurukula abuse is historical and is more direct than any link between Darwin and Hitler”
The historical link might be more direct in some ways, but what happened in the gurukulas were not only incompatible with Prabhupada’s teachings, they were contrary to them. On the other hand what happened in Nazi Germany were not only compatible with, but many times directly deduced from or directly taken from Darwin’s theory. So even though there might be somewhat of a historical link between Prabhupada and the gurukula issues, there is no logical link at all. When looking at Prabhupada’s teaching as a whole and on his particular instructions about how to manage children in ISKCON schools we can find absolutely no justification for the evil deeds performed in some gurukulas. On the contrary we find clear unequivocal instructions that such things should not go on in ISKCON schools. So the analogy between Prabhupada and the gurukula issues on the one hand and Darwin and Hitler on the other is a very flawed analogy.
“Anything invoking Hitler or Nazis, especially so early in the thread, is infantile anyway…”
I’m sorry to hear you have become a victim of Godwin Law which atheists like to invoke in order to protect themselves from being confronted with the logical consequences of their atheistic ideas. Godwin, of course, did not intend his “law” to be used as it is often used by atheists, namely in the sense that you can never refer to Hitler unless you want to loose the debate. Secondly, how is it possible to not invoke Hitler when writing an article about how Hitler and the Nazi’s (among other morally crippled people) used many of Darwin ideas as part of the foundation of their sick world views and actions? Godwin specifically said that such an invocation, obviously, is valid.
Be careful with the atheistic literature!
Your true friend,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
Sita-pati das // 06/03/2009 at 21:13 |
Mate, killing Jews in Europe is a pastime that predates evolutionary theory.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of a mechanism for genetic modification over time. It’s not a moral framework.
Sita-pati das // 06/03/2009 at 21:30 |
I t hink it’s unfair to link Nazism and evolutionary theory. You point out that it’s a logical fallacy yourself. What’s the intention of making the link then? Watch out for those Relgious Fundamentalists – they are as dangerous to spirituality as they are to science.
The Vedas do not support an interventionist Deity in the way that the Christians assert with their doctrine of Intelligent Design.
Ajit // 06/03/2009 at 21:40 |
Dear Prabhu,
I can’t understand how you can come up with such straw men.
I’ve never argued that killing Jews were Darwin’s invention. What I’ve argued is that Darwin gave a “scientific” justification for things like racism and eugenics which were used by Hitler. Remember that killing Jews was not Hitler’s only evil deed.
I not talking about evolution, but about Darwinism which I take to be an ism based on Darwin’s ideas. That said evolution theory has implications for morality, especially if evolution is taken to mean “naturalistic evolution” as it is more often than not; on naturalism morality becomes relative. Evolution also tries to enter the realm of morality be explaining it in evolutionary terms. You might have heard of “evolutionary ethics”. But evolution can, obviously, not give us a normative morality but only a descriptive morality – which is something very different.
Ajit // 06/03/2009 at 21:47 |
Dear Prabhu,
I link Darwin and Hitler – not any kind of evolution theory. It would only be a logical fallacy if I argued that Darwin’s ideas must be wrong, because Hitler used them. I never did that. Please read me carefully. I simply argue that Hitler took some key issues from Darwinism and used then to justify his evil deeds. I further argue that Hitler did not always misinterpret Darwin. Darwin actually said some really sick things that Hitler and many others later used.
Krishna is certainly a Deity that intervenes. He even inters this world occasionally and is always here in some of His forms. He’s even within every atom as Ksirodakasayi Visnu.
Intelligent Design doesn’t state that God intervened. ID is not about God.
From the Vedic point of view we don’t have to say that Krishna did it. It might be some demigod – which it is.
One more important thing is that even if Krishna did not intervene He could still leave evidence, for example in the form of amazing design, of His existence in this world. This was what Prabhupada consistently said was the case. If you want to reject these words from him (?) that’s up to you.
Sita-pati das // 06/03/2009 at 23:40 |
I’m sorry, but I just can’t get past your linking of Hitler to this.
You must be aware of the cultural effects of such a comparison. “ooooh Hitler, that’s bad”
That effect has become so cliched and overused that the corollary is now in effect, making arguments linking things to Hitler just makes your case seem infantile.
If there are really things wrong with it then you should be able to demonstrate them without having to resort to what has become a favorite of popular rhetoricians.
I’ll consider other arguments, but this one is disappointing. My advice is to stay out of the emotive populist space that reductio ad hitlerum (even if it were valid) takes you to – it’s filled with nutjobs.
Ajit // 07/03/2009 at 00:47 |
Initially I only referred to Hitler as one out of many who used Darwin ideas to promote evil . But some protested so I did document those consequences of Darwinism that effected morality and I did so without reference to any other than himself . These were:
1. Leaving God out of the picture
2. Moral relativism
3. No evolutionary progress without war, famine etc.
4. Favoring eugenics
5. Racism
6. Sexism
I find it extremely important to document this because it makes people more aware of Darwin’s sick ideas and how a naturalistic world view leads to disastrous results. It’s also historically important to show the link between Darwin and Hitler (as well as to Darwin and many other sick people) in order for us to prevent Darwin’s ideas being used in a similar way in the future.
My experience tells me that it’s not a bad thing to link to Hitler in debates if it’s done a a valid way. Only in certain atheist debate circles does some people raise the objections you’ve raised in this regard.
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
Sita-pati das // 07/03/2009 at 01:41 |
1. Prabhupada’s instructions on karma were used to justify abuse and neglect in the gurukulas, and to suppress opposition. Children were told: “This is your karma”
This is a misapplication of Prabhupada’s teaching. Similarly, the Nazi’s eugenics are unscientific and are not a natural or inescapable consequence of Darwin’s theory, any more than gurukula abuse is the natural and inescapable consequence of Prabhupada’s teachings.
Darwin’s evolutionary theory is essentially the scientific paradigm of the modern world, but we don’t see that the world is a Nazi concentration camp as a result.
2. Darwin’s evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Any social or political prescription represents an interpretation of the implications. Scientifically speaking it would have to be advanced as a hypothesis, and then its efficacy checked. Nazism and their activities are not science.
3. The swastika was also used by the Nazis, and has been banned in modern Germany as a result. However, it was appropriated by them.
I imagine that you would argue that this was a misappropriation, as you would argue that the use of Prabhupada’s teachings on karma to justify gurukula abuse was also a misappropriation. Given that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is even more established in the scientific community today than it was in the 1940s, and we don’t see Nazism as a result, it would appear that it was also misappropriated.
I don’t think it’s fair to link Darwin with Hitler, any more than it fair to blame Prabhupada for what happened in the gurukulas.
It’s unscientific. Your argument that “evil results” indicate a wrong theory would also give credence to discrediting Prabhupada for what happened in the gurukulas.
As you yourself pointed out, the “moral consequences” of a theory, which are often a matter of interpretation, are no indication of its validity.
Ajit // 07/03/2009 at 02:18 |
Dear Prabhu,
Like I said: Prabhupada’s teaching as a whole does nothing to support any kind of mistreatment of children in any ISKCON school. We seem to agree on this.
However, I do not accept the analogy for the reasons I have already stated. Darwin’s ideas did have moral implication and he did take a stand on certain moral issues. You want to separate Darwin moral views from his theory, but he didn’t do that himself which is evident from his books, especially “The Descent of Man”. The reason why we don’t see Nazism so much today is that people found out that Darwin was wrong on many things, that there really was no scientific justification for the racial theories put forward by Darwin and his followers and most important that most people could see the evils of Hitler. But the evil consequences of Darwinism are still everywhere. Children are taught in schools that they are not their bodies and that morality has evolved and is relative, and it’s all based on Darwin. Without Darwin these things would never have been in science classes. They would have been in philosophy classes. On naturalistic evolution you can easily argue for abortion, euthanasia, liberal sex life etc. There is no end to the nonsense which comes from evolution theory and which influenced us in a negative way. We can’t attribute everything to Darwin, but he is responsible to some degree for propagating his speculative ideas to the whole wide world so that evil minded people could use them. It’s just like if I go to a bunch of terrorists and give them a recipe of a very easy to make and powerful bomb then I’m somewhat responsible if they make and use it. I should have known better. Darwin should have known better. He made it possible to “scientifically” reject God, reduce morality to opinions, be a racist, use eugenics, be a sexist and promote wars, artificial famine and the like. All in order to make the species or the race survive better. To do what he did was stupid and evil, especially if one doesn’t do anything to prevent the potential evil consequences that can occur when the wrong people get such ideas in their hands. Darwin mislead people and for this he must suffer.
Sita-pati das // 07/03/2009 at 05:43 |
Whereas prior to this the world was a moralistic utopia, devoid of racism, sexism, wars and artificial famines….
Actually, racism seems to have decreased since Darwin’s time, with the end of slavery and apartheid in Western scientific nations. Whereas in nations and in segments of national populations that don’t have a scientific education and instead rely on fundamentalist religious dogma, of whatever denomination, racism, sexism, and other forms of xenophobia seem to be the norm, rather than the exception.
Darwin’s evolutionary theory remains the dominant scientific paradigm in the West, yet in Western liberal democracies these things have diminished. Could your “cause and effect” accusation in fact be wrong? Especially given that Professor Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost contemporary proponents of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, is neither sexist nor promoting war, whereas the evolution-rejecting and fully theistic militant Islamic movements are fully down with both?
Ajit // 07/03/2009 at 10:03 |
Dear Prabhu,
These things were there, but as I said Darwin’s contribution was that he delivered them in a “scientific” package and so made it possible for them to increase big time. When Darwin published his books racism, and eugenics increased very much. What stopped all this – to a great degree, but though not totally – was precisely Hitler’s extreme use of it. That was too much for people. The reason why modern thinkers are not into wars, sexism, racism etc. is simply that they have become politically incorrect. But it is still here today – eugenics is still popular among quite a few thinkers and in America there are institutions like “Planned Parenthood” that uses Darwin’s ideas and evolution theory to promote eugenics. I’m sure many religion contain sick doctrines, but at least they’ve never given the things a scientific justification.
Sita-pati das // 07/03/2009 at 11:57 |
Can you provide specific quotes? I have a copy of the audiobook of Origin of the Species, but I have a number of other things to get through first.
Ajit // 08/03/2009 at 09:48 |
Dear Prabhu,
Yes I do! They are also to be found many places on the internet. They occur primarily in “Descent of Man” and in his correspondence with friends, family and other.
If you stop writing all these comments I might get time to find them ;)
Ys, AKD