Darwin: "the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society"

[davidford]

PLP:

natural science cannot address ethical questions.

What can “address ethical questions”?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com

1997 Edward O. Wilson: “scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world… Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny.”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07%40posting.google.com

1916/ 1922 Nordau; infanticide, slavery, and genocide
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132847220.475151.206790%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Reagan’s allegation that there exists
some [Reagan]“natural law,” some [Reagan]“higher law of morality”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132849740.419205.114320%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

 

[steveandersen]

3.1 or 3.2 or both?

That’s a lot of definitions. I try not to assume which definition(s) a person I can ask questions of has in mind when using the word ‘evolution.’

Many words have multiple meanings and we seem to get by OK. It can be the very heart and soul of comedy.

But you’re right in that clarity is sometimes appropriate

The way I understand it 3.1 means the theory of evolution (i.e. the mechanism) and 3.2 means the fact of evolution (i.e. the observable data).
Since the two are so thoroughly entwined sometimes making the distinction is not possible and/or important

As for the meaning of species, while it may get a little hairy when discussing things that don’t reproduce sexually, it is generally well understood as a population that is inter-fertile. I don’t know the distinction between strains rather than species but I don’t have to, someone else is an expert in that…I’ll take their word for it that we can and do distinguish between them.

I’m not sure why folks get all bent out of shape about that “their own kind” business. Creatures always reproduce with their own kind by definition…it is just that the kind itself changes over time.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

“it is an abuse of language to say that humanism holds that humanity is a god in the same way that Catholicism holds that Jesus was a god.”

Do you see “an abuse of language” here?:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A claim: No true atheism-adherent believes in gods.
Question: What if one ‘god’ is the atheist himself?

Re: [Hitler]“God” or [Hitler]“Providence” referring to Hitler himself:

Q: “Do you believe in a supreme being?”
A: “Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is mankind.”

…

Q: ‘Do you believe in a supreme being?’
A: ‘Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is ME!’

…

On your part, yes. To say that Jesus is a god is to say that Jesus is all-powerful, all-knowing, transcendent, immanent, creator of the universe, etc. To say that humanity is a god to the humanist is to say that humanity is the thing most worthy of worship (or something along those lines). The word “god” is being used to mean different (though mildly related) things in different contexts.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

You were responding to my question, [df]“Suppose someone converts to Judaism.
Does that person then have a Jewish ‘ethnicity’?”

What’s an “ethnic Jew”?
Was the Old Testament’s Ruth an “ethnic Jew”?
Was Ruth a Jew, in your view?

(who’s Ruth? I’m not a Christian - or a Jew - so I’m not really that familiar with the Bible)

An ethnic Jew is someone descended from Jews, I imagine.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

Wilberforce “was an Englishman in the 1800s”-- do you consider him a racist?

…

Who’s Wilberforce, and why would the presence of a single non-racist in Victorian England show that most Victorian English were, in fact, racist? Moreover, given that Malthus was a sort of proto-Social Darwinist (he wanted the poor to have fewer kids), it seems likely that he was a racist.

Meaning of “evolution”?

…

steveandersen:

1. Biology.
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

 

[davidford]

steveandersen:

But you’re right in that clarity is sometimes appropriate

The way I understand it 3.1 means the theory of evolution (i.e. the mechanism) and 3.2 means the fact of evolution (i.e. the observable data).
Since the two are so thoroughly entwined sometimes making the distinction is not possible and/or important

As for the meaning of species, while it may get a little hairy when discussing things that don’t reproduce sexually, it is generally well understood as a population that is inter-fertile.

Suppose 2 populations of organisms appear only in the fossil record. How would someone determine if the 2 populations of organisms are, or aren’t, “inter-fertile”?

What’s the name of “the mechanism”?

What’s 1 line of evidence for “the fact of evolution” being a “fact”?
Do you consider it a “fact” that Bush is the worst President ever?

 

[davidford]

Claim: “it is an abuse of language to say that humanism holds that humanity is a god in the same way that Catholicism holds that Jesus was a god.”

Q: Do you see “an abuse of language” here?: [snip Morain & Morain etc.]
A:

EnterTheBowser:

On your part, yes. To say that Jesus is a god is to say that Jesus is all-powerful, all-knowing, transcendent, immanent, creator of the universe, etc. To say that humanity is a god to the humanist is to say that humanity is the thing most worthy of worship (or something along those lines). The word “god” is being used to mean different (though mildly related) things in different contexts.

Do you see “an abuse of language” here in Exodus 32 and 34?:

Exodus 32 (New International Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032;&version=31;
3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods, ** O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD.” 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

Exodus 34 (New International Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034;&version=31;
12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
17 "Do not make cast idols.**

 

[davidford]

(who’s Ruth? I’m not a Christian - or a Jew - so I’m not really that familiar with the Bible)

Many people that consider themselves
“a Christian” are “not really that familiar with the Bible.”

If you’re interested in learning about Ruth, see the Old Testament book in the Bible bearing her name.
It can be accessed online from
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ruth;&version=31;

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

Who’s Wilberforce, and why would the presence of a single non-racist in Victorian England show that most Victorian English were, in fact, racist? Moreover, given that Malthus was a sort of proto-Social Darwinist (he wanted the poor to have fewer kids), it seems likely that he was a racist.

“why would the presence of a single non-racist in Victorian England show that most Victorian English were, in fact, racist?”
It wouldn’t.

“Malthus… wanted the poor to have fewer kids”
“the poor” where? in England? in the British Empire? in all of Africa?

“Who’s Wilberforce”
See Koster, below.
Wilberforce “was an Englishman in the 1800s”-- do you consider him a racist?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Koster, Jr., John P. 1989. The Atheist Syndrome
(Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.),
199pp. Two paragraphs on 33-34:
_ _ _ The captain of HMS Beagle was Robert Fitzroy,
_ _ _ somewhat of a scientist himself and a man of great courage
_ _ _ and irascible temper. Fitzroy believed that every word of
_ _ _ the Bible was literally true. He also believed that the Bible
_ _ _ justified slavery. Darwin had been raised to hate slavery in
_ _ _ theory, and what he saw of the practice in Brazil, where
_ _ _ slavery was still widely practiced in the 1830s, outraged
_ _ _ him. The fact that Fitzroy rather obtusely used the Bible to
_ _ _ defend slavery may well have reignited Darwin’s childhood
_ _ _ prejudice against the Bible and against unquestioning
_ _ _ Christians.

_ _ _ But the linkage between Christianity and slavery, if indeed
_ _ _ it was established in Darwin’s mind, was not a logical one.
_ _ _ While Darwin and Fitzroy were cruising around arguing
_ _ _ aboard HMS Beagle, Britain outlawed the export of
_ _ _ slaves from Africa under the prodding of William
_ _ _ Wilberforce, a devout Christian who literally worked
_ _ _ himself to death fighting to end slavery throughout the
_ _ _ world. In the United States, liberals like Elijah Lovejoy

_ _ _ and armed radicals like John Brown and his sons supported
_ _ _ their antislavery sentiments with Biblical quotes and
_ _ _ Biblical faith. While the atheistic Darwin of the later years
_ _ _ cringed under his shawl, suffering an endless catalogue of
_ _ _ psychosomatic ailments, fearless Christians like Dr. David
_ _ _ Livingstone and General Charles Gordon roamed Africa to
_ _ _ stamp out slave trading and slave raiding by Arab traders
_ _ _ and by the Africans themselves. Livingstone, in particular,
_ _ _ was a man of such intense Christian conscience that even
_ _ _ the Arabs he was struggling to put out of business
_ _ _ respected him for his integrity. Indeed, it was Christianity
_ _ _ that put an end to slavery around the globe.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

Claim: “it is an abuse of language to say that humanism holds that humanity is a god in the same way that Catholicism holds that Jesus was a god.”

Q: Do you see “an abuse of language” here?: [snip Morain & Morain etc.]
A:

Do you see “an abuse of language” here in Exodus 32 and 34?:

Exodus 32 (New International Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032;&version=31;
3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods, ** O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD.” 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

Exodus 34 (New International Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034;&version=31;**
12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
17 "Do not make cast idols.

At times it can be difficult to say. Did the Israelites mean an immanent, transcendent God? An all-benevolent one? I imagine their conception of God was a bit more anthropomorphic than most modern ones. I would guess, however, that they meant a similar thing by “god” when referring to Aaron’s gods as they did when referrring to Moses’s god.

 

[steveandersen]

davidford:

Suppose 2 populations of organisms appear only in the fossil record. How would someone determine if the 2 populations of organisms are, or aren’t, “inter-fertile”?

I’m not sure, not my field really. But there are some whiz-bang biologist hanging around here who might know. (Although I sometimes suspect that you are more interested in questions rather than answers) My guess is that the answer would include that fact that you would never have just two populations in a vacuum and that there would be other data to consider. After all the burden on a scientific theory is to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence so two data points don’t give you a whole lot to go on.

davidford:

What’s the name of “the mechanism”?

Natural Selection

davidford:

What’s 1 line of evidence for “the fact of evolution” being a “fact”?

Phylogeny
The chronological and geographical arrangement of all organisms as directly observed in the paleontological and microbiological record amount others

The evidence can (and does as a matter of fact) fill up museums and universities

davidford:

Do you consider it a “fact” that Bush is the worst President ever?

That would be an opinion

As for mine….

I decline to comment

 

[EnterTheBowser]

“why would the presence of a single non-racist in Victorian England show that most Victorian English were, in fact, racist?”
It wouldn’t.

Pardon my misspelling: Why would the presence of a single non-racist (or even a small but vocal minority) in Victorian England show that most VIctorian English were not, in fact, racist?

“Malthus… wanted the poor to have fewer kids”
“the poor” where? in England? in the British Empire? in all of Africa?

In Britian, at the very least, though I imagine he would want those he deemed more worthy to have more children and those deemed less to have less everywhere.

“Who’s Wilberforce”

…

It would appear that Wilberforce was not a racist, though strange as it may sound, he might still be considered one by modern standards - one might be for abolition yet still believe that dark-skinned individuals were in some way inferior.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

Many people that consider themselves
“a Christian” are “not really that familiar with the Bible.”

If you’re interested in learning about Ruth, see the Old Testament book in the Bible bearing her name.
It can be accessed online from
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ruth;&version=31;

No, Ruth was not an ethnic Jew.

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

No, Ruth was not an ethnic Jew.

Was Abram/ Abraham “an ethnic Jew”?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Genesis 11 (New King James Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011;&version=50;
27 This is the genealogy of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran begot Lot.
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in his native land, in Ur of the Chaldeans.
29 Then Abram and Nahor took wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and the father of Iscah.

30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
31 And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there.
32 So the days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran.

Genesis 12 (New King James Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=12&version=50
1 Now the LORD had said to Abram:
“Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Genesis 15 (New King James Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2015;&version=50;
4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This one [an Abram servant] shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.”
5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
7 Then He said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”

Genesis 17 (New King James Version)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017;&version=50;
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless.
2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.”
3 Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying:

4 “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”
9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

At times it can be difficult to say. Did the Israelites mean an immanent, transcendent God? An all-benevolent one? I imagine their conception of God was a bit more anthropomorphic than most modern ones. I would guess, however, that they meant a similar thing by “god” when referring to Aaron’s gods as they did when referrring to Moses’s god.

Meaning of “immanent”?
Meaning of “transcendent”?

Do you think that a golden calf that is worshipped can be:
“immanent”?
“transcendent”?

Do you think Moses thought “Moses’s god” was:
“immanent”?
“transcendent”?

Below, Darwin speaks of a “god-like intellect… of… Man.” Do you think Darwin committed “an abuse of language”?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1874 Darwin.
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-21.html
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system-- with all these exalted powers-- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

Pardon my misspelling: Why would the presence of a single non-racist (or even a small but vocal minority) in Victorian England show that most VIctorian English were not, in fact, racist?

It wouldn’t.
What percentage of “VIctorian English were… racist”?
During which years did Queen Victoria live?

EnterTheBowser:

In Britian, at the very least, though I imagine he would want those he deemed more worthy to have more children and those deemed less to have less everywhere.

Do you think Darwin “want[ed] those” Darwin “deemed more worthy to have more children and those deemed less to have less everywhere”?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1883 Darwin: “When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad.”
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Darwin on selection of Spartan children
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135004225.246782.327080%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin: “genius… tends to be inherited… insanity and deteriorated mental powers… run in families”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135964069.481127.220330%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Kill/ death to [Darwin]“imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135791290.639930.285730%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

an exercise: parallels between 1871 Darwin & 1924/5 Hitler?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=1134448996.907734.300780%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
4 more Hitler-Darwin parallels
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135092414.972723.104980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin: [Greg]“the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

EnterTheBowser:

It would appear that Wilberforce was not a racist, though strange as it may sound, he might still be considered one by modern standards - one might be for abolition yet still believe that dark-skinned individuals were in some way inferior.

Do you think that Darwin thought “dark-skinned individuals were in some way inferior”?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
[Darwin]“Some savage races, such as the Australians,” in:
Hitler & Darwin on
[Hitler & Darwin]“master”
over
[Darwin]“subjugated… men”
having
[Darwin]“utility to their masters”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135100164.057260.78490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Darwin: “the New Zealander… compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

1883 Darwin: “When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad.”
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

1871 Darwin: [CD]“the civilised races of man”-- e.g. [CD]“the Caucasian”-- [CD]“will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”-- e.g. [CD]“the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]“man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

Was Abram/ Abraham “an ethnic Jew”?

…

I imagine so.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

Meaning of “immanent”?
Meaning of “transcendent”?

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immanent

dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=transcendent

Do you think that a golden calf that is worshipped can be:
“immanent”?
“transcendent”?

I imagine so.

Do you think Moses thought “Moses’s god” was:
“immanent”?
“transcendent”?

Beats the hell out of me.

Below, Darwin speaks of a “god-like intellect… of… Man.” Do you think Darwin committed “an abuse of language”?

…

I think that it is clear that Darwin meant that human intellect was capable of thorougly comprehending the world. I do not think he meant that humans were omniscient.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

It wouldn’t.
What percentage of “VIctorian English were… racist”?
During which years did Queen Victoria live?

I am unfamiliar with the answers to both of these questions.

Do you think Darwin “want[ed] those” Darwin “deemed more worthy to have more children and those deemed less to have less everywhere”?

…

Probably

 

[EnterTheBowser]

And with that, I wash my hands of this thread.