Matt 24 Watch, 69: Implications of dechristianisation through the influence of evolutionary materialism in the name of "science"

Over the past several weeks, we have been looking at a very painful matter, one that is bound to hurt or even enrage many good people. (But, on pain of repeating some very dark chapters of recent history indeed, we must forge ahead, with all continued apologies in advance for hurt feelings. )

For, the pain that would stem from not learning from the mistakes we must never make again, would be far, far worse.

(Arguably, indeed, since the ongoing American Abortion holocaust -- a mere fraction of the global total -- is both (1) a result of the undermining of the value of human life due in decisive part to the influence of evolutionary materialist thought and (2) this ongoing horror now dwarfs Hitler's unspeakable horrors: nearly 50 millions versus a "mere" 12 - 14 millions or so -- indeed it begins to approach the Soviet Union's 60 million death toll -- we are already paying a terrible price for what we have forgotten or dismissed on the Creation-anchored value of human life . . .)

A convenient specific reference is the recent media exchange between ABC TV News Anchor Charles Gibson and US Vice Presidential Candidate, Alaska Governor and evangelical Christian, Mrs Sarah Palin:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

But -- without seeking to endorse any politician or programme -- it is evident that those words were plainly taken utterly out of their context and propagandistically twisted into the very oppositite of what they properly meant in context, as can be seen in the Powerline discussion here (again, pardon highlighting to help us see what we might miss otherwise):

[Gov. Palin, in church in Wasila, June 2008:] “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God . . . . That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Newt Gingrich -- former speaker of the US House of Representatives and a History Professor in his own right, has properly lashed Mr Gibson for his out of context distortion by making reference to precedents set by Presidents Clinton, Kennedy, F D Roosevelt and Lincoln, in a YouTube video clip here. (NB: Well worth the five minutes to watch it.)

Q: What lurks behind those words and the way they were twisted?

A: Again, two "favourite" excerpts from Rev Dr Rod Hewitt, a recent Moderator of the United Church of Jamaica and Grand Cayman, are revealing -- once we realise that Mrs Palin, as just noted above, is an evangelical Christian:

During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of [traditional] faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith. The conservative apologists of these religions have sought to roll back the impact of the theories of evolution, rationalism and textual criticism that they claim seek to erode the divine authority and 'certainties' of their faiths. They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals . . . .

The worldview of the Fundamentalists is characterised by an overwhelming patriotism, a strong [US] military that must dominate the world and a deregulation of business in order that through globalisation, world trade may be effectively controlled by western multinational corporations.

During the cold war era fundamentalist religious ideology gave strong support to the anti-communism foreign policy of the USA. With the demise of communism, it has focused its energy in offering strong support for Israel thus preventing the USA government from becoming an honest broker in the Middle East. [Gleaner, Sept 26, 2001]

Here, we must of course first pause to reject the many blatant strawman distortions, improper immoral equivalencies across "religions," outright errors, and -- sadly -- bigotry-laced prejudices that lurk in these caricaturing words. [Cf my corrective discussion on the smear-word "fundamentalism" here. Also, cf. remarks on the highly complex situation in the Middle East with Israel here and here.]

But also, let us take strong note: we see the explicit, pride of place role played by -- surprise [NOT!] -- "the theory of evolution" in shaping the strident, often slanderous objections and "gotcha" journalism tactics directed to evangelicals who dare to tread into the public square.

In short, a key social purpose of evolutionary materialism and those influenced by it, is to drive the Judaeo-Christian worldview from the public square. In that cause, Mr Gibson stooped to slandering Mrs Palin as promoting Holy War, when she was doing just the opposite: seeking to pray that the USA, its military and its leadership would be on God's side, that of justice [cf. Rom 13:1 - 7 as discussed here.]

Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address -- to which Mrs Palin was alluding -- which is inscribed in stone at his monument in Washington DC, is also a sobering and instructive contrast to the misleading rhetorical point Mr Gibson was making:

. . . four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it . . . Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Oh, that the current -- equally deeply unpopular -- "long war" in the face of the declared Islamist attempt to subjugate all of humanity under their agenda for the Ummah and its restored Caliphate [cf copy of the map here and its original context here (NB: the wayback machine somehow failed to save the images)], would be similarly led in a spirit of deep, humble repentance, charity and reformation!

However, deeper concerns lurk, tied to the pride of place point given to the theory of evolution in the words of a theologian.

If you find that astonishing, it would be helpful to read Edwin Yamauchi's summary on the roots of modernist, "Liberal" theology, in his classic work, The Stones and the Scriptures, pp. 27 - 30:

“Higher” or literary criticism is the study which attempts to determine the questions of authorship, of the date, and of the composition of any literary texts on the basis of vocabulary, style, and consistency . . . . In biblical studies higher criticism received its classic exposition in 1878 in the work of Julius Wellhausen [through the Documentary/JEDP Hypothesis, which dated the key elements of the Pentateuch from the 9th to the 6th centuries before Christ] . . . on the basis of Wellhausen’s concept of the evolution of Israel’s religion. According to this viewpoint, which was influenced by Darwin and Hegel, the religion of the Hebrews evolved at first into a national henotheism . . . and only much later in the time of the literary prophets and the Exile into an ethical monotheism . . . . Wellhausen, who was a great Arabic and Hebrew scholar, reconstructed Israelite life on the basis of Arabic poetry. He refused to believe that either Egyptian or Akkadian had been deciphered [which had of course long been the case by that time!] . . . .

In New Testament criticism the scholar who corresponds . . . to Julius Wellhausen . . . is F. C. Baur of Tubingen (1792 – 1860). . . . Baur having established an evolutionary scheme of development believed he could date the New Testament documents according to their place in this pattern. On this basis he accepted only four of the epistles as genuinely Pauline . . . John’s Gospel was dated as late as the second half of the second century. The Acts of the Apostles was also assigned this late date . . . Baur’s views were quite dominant throughout the nineteenth century and have left a lasting legacy for the twentieth century , though many of his assumptions have been disproved . . . . . Johannes Munck . . . argues that the Tubingen concept of a struggle between Jewish-Christian nomism and Gentile-Christian antinomism has now been compressed by scholars into the thirty years between the death of Jesus and the death of Paul.

Indeed, it is worth pausing to note that "rationalism," too, which comes in second place in Dr Hewitt's words, is not at all a scientific theory, it is instead at root the philosophical
position that, as OED summarises, "opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response . . ."

In its philosophical root, such rationalism is "the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge."

Carrying over into Theology, it is "the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion. "

(Now, recall, that we are finite, fallible, on abundant evidence morally fallen, and that we are too often ill-willed. On such a basis, the quality of our reasoning is always open to dispute, and points to open-minded, critically aware humility rather than prideful certitude.)

In short, we see again and again that there is a deep, sharply polarised rift in our civilisation, driven by the rise of the philosophy of evolutionary materialism -- often in the misleading guise: "science" -- and its many influences across the whole culture over the past 150 years,
including perhaps even through words from the pulpit.

And, as we discussed last week, that philosophy is inescapably self-refuting and deeply undermining of basic morality and the key value of the right to life:

a --> Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature -- from hydrogen to humans by chance plus mechanical necessity.

b --> Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.

c --> But human thought and decisions, which clearly are observed/experienced phenomena in the universe, must now fit into this picture.

d --> Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "decisions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.)

e --> Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have, the "conclusions" we reach, the "decisions" we make and actions we thereafter undertake -- without residue -- are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, logic or right vs wrong.

f --> As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.

So, on materialist premises, even materialist thoughts themselves are produced and controlled by forces that are utterly irrelevant to purpose, truth, logic or right vs wrong. For instance:

. . . Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?

Such a fundamental logical incoherence should give us serious pause. Especially, before we are dangerously misled by distortions and dismissals of what those who don't adhere to evolutionary materialism and/or rationalism have to say, e.g. the much derided "Christian fundamentalists."

For, over a hundred million ghosts from the century just past rise up to warn us on where that might lead. END

Matt 24 watch, 68: Is there a causal link between the rise of Darwinism, materialism in the name of science and the undermining of morality?

Today's topic is even more painful and controversial than what we have been looking at over the past few weeks, here, here, and here.

But, as any surgeon can tell us: sometimes, we must wound to heal -- on pain of allowing even worse things to happen. So, given what we have seen, we must proceed; with all due caution, respect and apologies in advance for hurt feelings.

Of course, we must immediately pause to anticipate a likely -- and very understandable -- "how dare you" objection: we are not at all claiming that evolutionary materialism or its fellow travellers are the root of all evils in modern Western society, nor are we seeking to distract attention from the real (or even the imagined) sins of the Christendom and/or the church and/or "religion." Far from that, we know all too well from introspection, observation and scripture that "[t]he heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" [Jer 17:9, KJV].

We are finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed -- all of us.

The issue, then, is to mutually face the truth, then diagnose, repent from and remedy where possible, or at least to restrain. And, the key concern is that we are addressing a prestigious and widely trusted power centre in our civilisation that, on objective evidence [as we have seen over the past several weeks here, here, and here], may well have been dangerously undermining moral restraints over the past 150 years.

A good place to begin our painful reflections is to return to the same opening passage of the book by a Biology-trained author who studied under Huxley himself that we cited last week. So, let us zoom in a little bit on H G Wells' opening remarks in his epochal science fiction novel, War of the Worlds. Pardon the highlighting, which will help us see what we might otherwise miss:

. . . across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas.
And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars . . . .

And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?

Here -- in what is probably in part a veiled warning on the dangerous nature of the matches the elites of Europe were playing with at the turn of the C20 -- we see that an evolutionary materialistic, socially Darwinist view raises serious implications once we allow our morality to be shaped by the view that the survival of the fittest logically and scientifically entails extinction of the inferior, and thence, lends support to a genocidal policy. This view (as we already saw here, here, and here) is of course just what Darwin projected in the 1870's and is what Hitler advocated in the 1920's then -- horrendously -- carried out in the 1940's. And. lest we congratulate ourselves on progress in recent decades, we should realise that similar materialist thinking plainly influenced the Gulags and killing fields of the Communists right up to at least the 1980's.

Worse yet, too much of the abortion-promoting rhetoric and policy in our own day uncomfortably reflects the same will-to-power, might-makes-right, ends-justify-means thinking that undergirds Wells' subtle satire. How else can one explain that, biologically, from conception, an unborn child is plainly a separate human life (however dependent on his or her mother), but as a culture we too often refuse to afford it -- voiceless and powerless as it is -- adequate protection of said life? And, if there is doubt on the value of life in the womb, are we not therefore morally bound to err on the side of protection, through the "do no harm" principle that lies deeply embedded in the Golden Rule?

A deeper issue lurks, as "science" is etymologically and popularly "knowledge."

That is, "Science" is perceived by many as the effectively ultimate authority on what is credibly true, well-warranted belief -- i.e. knowledge. So, in many circles, to say that something is "unscientific" is tantamount to saying it is false, dangerous nonsense. In short, science is among other things, an instrument -- and so also an institution -- of power.

That potential for abuse tempts ruthless ideologues, who are too often only restrained by prudence in light of perceived balances of power. So, if such think they can get away with it, they will have no compunction about capturing science, diverting it from being an empirically anchored, open minded and open-ended search for the truth about our world, to serve their ideologies and associated agendas. Also, since power is itself a temptation, it can easily corrupt those who are of a better temperament, blinding them to what they are doing. Then, many others will find themselves pressured to go along with the politically correct party-line of the day, out of the "needs" to survive, to find approval by their intellectual peers, and to thrive in their chosen careers as scientists or educators or the like.

Arguably, that is precisely what has happened over the past several generations with Science. Namely, science has been captivated to serve the ideology, agendas and ends of materialistic philosophies.

For instance, through the concept of "methodological naturalism," we can see that "science" in our day has often been explicitly re-defined as a search for "natural explanations," or "natural causes" of what we observe and/or experience. What that subtle wording means, in practice, is that science is no longer viewed by such scientific institutions and their spokesmen as an unfettered search for the truth about or world in light of empirical testing, but instead as in effect the best evolutionary materialist account of how chance and mechanical necessity could have given rise to the world, from hydrogen to humans.

(Finessing words that one may read about being "agnostic" on whether philosophical naturalism is true simply disguise the implications of this commitment, often by making a tendentious contrast: natural/supernatural; when all along there is a very relevant alternative that is being suppressed: nature/art. That is, as Plato pointed out long ago in The Laws, Book X, some things happen by nature [in which we today include both chance and necessity], and others by art [i.e by intelligent, intentional action]. Moreover, the point is that once the triumphant announcement is made that evolutionary materialistic forces adequately account for reality -- they don't, and never have, by the way [cf. more details here] -- then it is asserted or assumed that unless one is "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked," we need look no further to understand our place in the world. And, dismissive contempt for those who dissent, historically, is the first step to oppression.)

Already, this is replete with moral implications: the diversion of a key institution that historically sought intellectual freedom in the name of the unfettered pursuit of truth, to serve an ideology that instead suppresses truth or potential avenues to truth is already a grave corruption. Then, when to suppress dissent, what dissenters -- such as the intelligent design thinkers -- have to say is slanderously distorted by those who know or should know better, that makes the matter even worse. Career-busting and the like (there are now many notorious cases) simply take it to the level of petty tyranny and bully-boyism; with serious implications for what would happen if such were to gain unchecked power in the community at large.

A grim warning.

But it gets worse. For, evolutionary materialism inherently and inescapably undermines the foundations of morality.

Of course, this seems an outrageous statement, and atheists and their supporters will quickly roll out the refuting argument: atheists can be just as moral as the rest of us -- or even more moral, as we can see from the following litany of the sins of Christendom, etc.

This objection fails, for at least two key reasons:

First problem: the issue is not [p] whether atheists can be moral, but instead [q] that they are here adhering to an ideology in the name of science that tends to undermine the foundations of moral responsibility and restraint -- both historically (i.e as a matter of on the ground fact) and logically (i.e. as the outworking of the principles and assumptions in the worldview). In short, we see a strawman argument that misunderstands and/or misrepresents what it objects to.

Second problem: The argument betrays a fatal naiveté and want of serious reflection about the human moral dilemma. For, sober reflection will reveal that -- at our best -- we struggle to do the right, and too often fail. Worse, our consciences testify that a lot of the time, we are not even struggling to try to do the right. Yet worse, sometimes we are blind and/or deceive ourselves, imagining that we do the right when we should realise that we are in fact doing the wrong. In short, as Solzhenitsyn aptly said, there is an all too powerfully explanatory reason for the long history of the sins of cultures, institutions and individuals: the line between good and evil passes, not between nations and classes, but right through the individual human heart.

On the main point:

a --> Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature -- from hydrogen to humans by chance plus mechanical necessity.

b --> Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.

c --> But human thought and decisions, which clearly are observed/experienced phenomena in the universe, must now fit into this picture.

d --> Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "decisions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.)

e --> Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have, the "conclusions" we reach, the "decisions" we make and actions we thereafter undertake -- without residue -- are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, logic or right vs wrong.

f --> As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.

g --> It is consequently no surprise to detect the consistent theme that all of reality is ultimately meaningless in modern and post-modern Literature, in contemporary Philosophy, and in the Arts generally.

h --> Equally unsurprisingly, when materialistic evolutionary frameworks are applied to academic/professional disciplines such as Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Linguistics, Economics, Law, Management, or Media and Communication -- not to mention to politics [or, should that be "follytricks"] -- it is the implications of such materialism that invariably are the root of a now characteristic, amoral, will-to-power, might-makes-right, cynically manipulative or nakedly tyrannical Machiavellian approach.

i --> The same bitter seed has shot up a general, vague relativistic assumption that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions and the result of accidents of social evolution. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self- and/or socially- destructive public policies.

j --> Next, "truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please.

k --> Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home.

l --> Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history," one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit one's preferences.

m --> Finally, human life itself becomes meaningless and valueless, so the weak, sick, defenceless and undesirable — for whatever reason — can simply be slaughtered, whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the death camp.

But, what if the evolutionary materialist view of origins is actually correct; isn't it, after all, "science"?

Actually, first, it is philosophy, not science.

But, by imposing methodological naturalism on scientific investigations of origins, scientific explanation of origins has been forced to censor the facts from speaking before they can open their mouths. And, once the materialistic imposition is removed, at once it becomes pretty obvious that cell-based life that uses highly sophisticated informational macromolecules to implement the information technology at the heart of life "reeks" of design. For, functionally specified, complex information in our observation has but one source: intelligence. We might not be able to scientifically identify who the designers of observed cell-based life are, but that life is designed is both intuitively evident and scientifically sound.

Once science is no longer being censored, that is.

Then, once we turn to the fact that our observed universe evidently had a beginning, one that was exquisitely finely tuned for cell-based life, that leads us to see that the best explanation for that is an extrea-cosmic, highly intelligent and purposeful creator. (The alternative, that we are seeing just one of a quasi-infinite number of "bubbles" in a wider eternal cosmos, is not only an after the fact resort, but immediately leads to the question of what is responsible for the "bubble"-making factory.)

In short, evolutionary materialism has no right to claim to be scientific fact or the only credible scientific alternative. Indeed, there are excellent reasons to reject it as our worldview framework for doing science -- not least, as we just saw, it destroys the foundation for not only morality but for the minds we must trust and use to think even materialist thoughts.

That is, it is a self-undermining, self-contradictory and necessarily false philosophy.

One that arguably undermines not only science but rationality and morality. One we would be well advised to subject to far more searching scrutiny than too many are wont to apply. END
___________

UPDATE: overnight cleanup, additional links.

F/N: KF Blog sub-Series on the Holocaust and its history of ideas roots, Mt 24 W 65, 66 [note the significance of the 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims],  67, 68; cf also video lecture here. 

Matt 24 Watch, 67: From H G Wells' War of the Worlds to Hitler's World War

Nowadays, especially in "New Atheist" circles, it is very fashionable to dismiss (often quite angrily) concerns that Darwinian-based thinking, its transformation of how many people view human origins and the resulting impacts on western culture contributed materially to the mindset of a Hitler or a Stalin, thence, sadly, to the associated horrors of the last Century.

However, hard as it may be for many to accept, the lines of influence -- as say History Professor Richard Weikart documented in details (e.g. in his From Darwin to Hitler) -- are real, and remain of concern to this day.


U/D, Jan 10, 2012: Given various attempts to deny or dismiss, let me embed Weikart's Lecture on "From Darwin to Hitler" as a key point of reference:



For, to refuse to learn from history is to set up the conditions to repeat its worst chapters.

So, it is wise for us to now pause and observe that in 1898, famed science fiction novellist H G Wells opened the narrative of his famous War of the Worlds, thusly:

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas.
And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them.
And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?

In short, the survival of the fittest, ruthless struggle to survive thesis, analysis and predictions in Descent of Man -- and whatever precursors were there in earlier decades, it is indisputably Darwin whose work effected the scientific and cultural revolution -- had by the turn of C20 so pervaded western culture that a very popular science fiction work by a celebrated author could begin from the Darwinian thesis. At least, we see here a sense of moral concern, and hints of a warning of what could easily come about in the century to follow.

Would, that we had heeded this warning!

Now, of course, it is almost too chilling to draw the comparison we almost instinctively want to shy away from, yet again. [Cf the last two posts here and here.] But, Darwin's coolly "scientific" predictive analysis [delivered without one note of compunction or caution] is there, in black and white, in Ch 6 of his 1871 Descent of Man:

Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . .

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

And, with fear and trembling, we must also project forward, not to imaginary races on Mars looking 35 million miles sunward, but to Hitler in the mid-1920's, in Bk I, Ch XI of the infamous Mein Kampf. For, here, we can see him as he looked towards Germany's future conquests at the expense of its "untermensch" neighbours -- especially the Poles:

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.


The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . .


In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.


If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .

By now, we doubtless feel sick, heartsick and disgusted with this demonic madman. But, we must learn one final lesson, one pointed out by Lord Keynes in the conclusion of his epochal General Theory, as he reflected on the long term impacts of economic theories:

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

Not just in economics, Lord Keynes. Not just in economics. END

__________

F/N: KF Blog sub-Series on the Holocaust and its history of ideas roots, Mt 24 W 65, 66 [note the significance of the 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims],  67, 68; cf also video lecture here.

Matt 24 Watch, 66: Lessons from Poland's forgotten holocaust

One of the revealingly all- but- "forgotten" dimensions of the Nazi holocaust is the fate of one-fifth of Poland's population in the aftermath of Hitler's invasion of September 1 1939, which sparked off the Second World War.

Observe, for instance, how the reliably politically correct online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, presents the relevant information, in its article on Poland:

The Sanacja movement controlled Poland until the start of World War II in 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded on 1 September and the Soviet Union followed on 17 September. Warsaw capitulated on 28 September 1939. As agreed in the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Poland was split into two zones, one occupied by Germany while the eastern provinces fell under the control of the Soviet Union.
Of all the countries involved in the war, Poland lost the highest percentage of its citizens: over six million perished, half of them Polish Jews . . . The main German Nazi death camps were in Poland. Of a pre-war population of 3,300,000 Polish Jews, 3,000,000 were killed during the Holocaust.

The telling gap in the above -- who were the other half, please? -- is aptly exposed and stingingly indicted by Polish descendant and Jewish convert, Terese Pencak Schwartz; in her online site, holocaustforgotten.com:

Why the Polish Holocaust is rarely recognized by American media and wire services or mentioned in Holocaust literature has baffled Polish Americans and Poles, especially since so many books and articles have been published about the Holocaust . . . The World Almanac and Book of Facts. The relevant sentence reads, “During the war, some 6 million Polish citizens, half of them Jews, were killed by the Nazis.” But note the nuance of the wording -- it is as though the words “three million,” “Polish Christians,” and “dead” cannot be mentioned in the same sentence in anything written about the Holocaust. Even direct mail pieces from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum cannot acknowledge the Polish dead -- their annual direct mail piece reads, “You see, the Nazis tried to wipe out not only the Jews but also the physically and mentally handicapped, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, Gypsies, Soviet POWs and people who didn’t agree politically.” No mention of three million dead Poles . . . .

When Holocaust Remembrance Week was approaching this year, the first news release ("Israel Re-Examines Holocaust Story" 4-29-00; 12:24 p.m. EDT) from the Associated Press read, "The new Yad Vashem museum will also deal with the persecution of other groups targeted by the Nazis, including Gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and others." Again, there was no mention of three million dead Polish Christians who, by the way, vastly outnumbered the combined number of dead Jehovah’s Witnesses (2,000), Gypsies (400,000), homosexuals (10,000 at the most, according to Peter Novick in The Holocaust in American Life), handicapped, etc., usually cited in Holocaust literature. Are these three million Polish Christian souls not worthy of honor at Holocaust remembrance ceremonies and in Holocaust literature? Hath not Poles eyes? Hath not Poles hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? If Poles are poisoned, do they not die? [Emphases added.]

Worse yet, the same site reports that the disproportionate magnitude of Poland's losses in the war was actually a calculated Nazi genocidal policy, one announced by no less a figure than Hitler himself:

“The destruction of Poland is our primary task . . . . Kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need.”

In short, the same demonic, genocidal racism that led Hitler to seek to wipe out the Jewish nation also led him to target the Polish nation at large for destruction. As a result of this, one fifth of that nation perished, half being Jews [90% of the Jews of Poland], and half being overwhelmingly Catholic Christians. These three millions being up to sixty percent of the commonly estimated five million non-Jewish victims of the holocaust. All, horribly foreshadowed through the chilling Darwinism-inspired twisted worldview expounded in Chapter XI of Hitler's infamous Mein Kampf, My Struggle:

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . .

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish ["Celts"], the Scots and the English ["Saxons"] in Ch V of Darwin's 1871 Descent of Man -- which should be understood in light of the chilling do-nothing English policy in response to the peak of the Irish Potato famine], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .

But, the lessons we need to remind ourselves of go further than just that Hitler's agenda was racist and that that racism was in significant part Darwinist-inspired, in a context that had dismissed the restraints imposed on German culture by the ethics of the Gospel, as Heine warned on in the 1830's. For, the commonly met, repeatedly emphasised itemisation of relatively minor, mostly politically correct victims while being silent on the second major group of victims of the Hitlerian Holocaust proper, is telling about our own times -- and about the extremely dangerous Civlisation-wide trend of rising anti-Christian bigotry.

This bigotry, of course, now routinely comes out in the best-selling writings of the so-called New Atheists. There, it can be seen in how readily long litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom [which admittedly, sadly, are legion -- as are those of any other major, longstanding cultural movement of humans: i.e. us finite, fallible, fallen, too often ill-willed sinners] are trotted out; even as the major positive contributions of Christians to the development of civilisation are suppressed or even -- too often, in the teeth of reasonably accessible evidence to the contrary -- falsely attributed to other forces or agencies in history. But, this is not just a matter of a few unbalanced men who hate or rage against God (often, as a stand-in for the fathers they equally resent . . . ).

For, even in the most educated circles, it is too often often forgotten that Modern Liberty and Democracy owe much to the Reformers and other Christian or materially Christian-influenced thinkers on civil government, such as Locke, Blackstone or even Jefferson and Madison. Similarly, the major contributions of the Christian faith to the rise of modern science are often suppressed or dismissed in the haste to project an imagined age-long war of Christianity against science, with a distorted account of Galileo's fate being exhibit no 1. In the Caribbean, the role of Gospel-inspired, Bible-believing Dissenters [i.e. Evangelicals] in the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and then that of chattel slavery [cf here, here and here, and here, for instance] is too often not only dismissed but denigrated. (And those who try to correct the record, sadly, are too often slandered.)

But, perhaps the most telling instance I can find is the following abuwsive transfer of terrorism from one entire faith to another by use of that ever so handy smear-word, "fundamentalists", by the Rev'd Dr Roderick Hewitt, and published in Jamaica's leading newspaper only a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks in the United States:

The human tragedy in USA has also served to bring into sharp focus the use of terror by religious fanatics/fundamentalists. Fundamentalism or fundamentalists are terms that are applicable to every extreme conservative in every religious system . . . . During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of these faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith . . . They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals. [Gleaner, Sept. 26, 2001, italics added.]

But in fact, there is little or no material parallel between Islamist radical terrorist suicide bombers and the members of our local Bible believing churches across our region. And that should have been obvious to any reasonably educated person, much less a leading, doctorate level theologian in Jamaica; not to mention, the Editors of Jamaica's leading newspaper!

In short, the bigotry is real, widespread and potentially extremely dangerous.

What, then, must be done?

1 --> First, we must remind ourselves of aspects of the past that we dare not forget. For, as Santayana and others remind us, if we refuse to learn from history we are doomed to repeat its worst chapters.


2 --> Next, we must do everything possible to make sure that we have a fair, objectively true and balanced view of the past.


3 --> That means we must indeed recall the sins as well as the contributions and triumphs of Christendom.


4 --> In so doing, we must in particular remember the reforming and cleansing impact of the Gospel and of those who sought to live by it.


5 --> Similarly, when we celebrate the contributions and triumphs of science, we should also remember that science and worldview agendas supported in the name of science have not been blameless in our history.


6 --> In particular, we should learn the lines of influence from Darwin to Hitler, and from Darwin to Stalin and co. So, we will learn that not all that is labelled science or is based on what is so labelled is blameless. Science is -- and must always be -- accountable before the bar of ethics and morality.


7 --> Thus, too, we must restore a sound basis for ethics and morality, in the teeth of the acid that eats away at the foundation of ethics as a limit on public policy and personal behaviour in contemporary culture: evolutionary materialism.


8 --> Here in the Caribbean, we must stoutly resist the pressures that are now mounting up to push us away from the tested foundation for ethics in our culture: the Gospel and its biblical framework.

Perhaps, then, some balancing remarks by Prof Bernard Lewis in his famous essay on The Roots of Muslim Rage, are soberlingly appropriate:

. . . revulsion against America, more generally against the West, is by no means limited to the Muslim world . . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst . . . .

Slavery is today universally denounced as an offense against humanity, but within living memory it has been practiced and even defended as a necessary institution, established and regulated by divine law. The peculiarity of the peculiar institution, as Americans once called it, lay not in its existence but in its abolition. Westerners were the first to break the consensus of acceptance and to outlaw slavery, first at home, then in the other territories they controlled, and finally wherever in the world they were able to exercise power or influence -- in a word, by means of imperialism . . . .

In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. [Kindly follow the link and read on. By the way, I recently read Samuel Eliot Morison on the southern voyages of exploration, which brings out the many sins of the explorers and conquistadors with great force, the more effectively for being given with a measure of sympathetic judgement on these men as great but greatly flawed men, not mere one-dimensional "blue-eyed devils." Perhaps, it is not too much to hope that our region's historians could emulate such a maturity of tone?]

Will we learn? Can we do better? Let us hope -- and pray -- so. END
_________

F/N: KF Blog sub-Series on the Holocaust and its history of ideas roots, Mt 24 W 65, 66 [note the significance of the 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims discussed above],  67, 68; cf also video lecture here.

Matt 24 Watch, 65: Some nearly forgotten Lessons from History -- Darwin, Hitler and the Holocaust

Early this year, Ben Stein released his documentary film on academic persecution of the Intelligent Design movement in the United States, Expelled.

In May this year, Israel celebrated its 60th anniversary in a world in which many now routinely compare and in some cases even openly equate the Jews of Israel to the Nazis. This November, Americans will go to the polls to elect a new President in the midst of multiplied concerns on global warming, a controversial global war on terrorism and fears of economic chaos. Next February 9th, many will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Darwin.

The four events are subtly but deeply interconnected in many ways, and they are pregnant with lessons for us here in the Caribbean as we move deeper into the 21st Christian Century. (This, in turn brings to mind George Santayana's cutting observation that history teaches two key lessons: first, those who refuse to learn from it are doomed to repeat its worst chapters; second, by and large we refuse to learn from it.)

The key connexion lies in the line from Darwin to Hitler, which is (understandably) sharply contested by many enthusiasts of Darwin.

Indeed, it is now a principal -- and in some cases intentionally distracting -- objection to the movie, Expelled, that it was dishonest to draw such a line of historical influences. (This is related to the so-called Godwin's Law, by which anyone who draws a parallel from Hitler to a current situation may be dismissed as outside the pale of civil discussion.) But, while there are of course always going to be inappropriate parallels drawn as a way to smear opponents -- such as the easy equation of the Zionists and the Nazis that is now all too commonly seen -- Santayana reminds us that sometimes, history does have some sharp and perhaps painfully pointed lessons to teach us.

Lessons we forget at our peril.

So, let us begin with Chapter 6 of Darwin's second major book, the 1871 Descent of Man, in which he drew out the ways in which the theory of evolution he laid out in the epochal 1859 Origin of Species, applied to man. In short, after he and his allies had won the general scientific debate (and, debate is about persuasion, not necessarily proof . . . ) he now spoke to the implications for us of the now increasingly dominant theory and its associated worldview. So, let us now excerpt and emphasise:

Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . .

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Thus, the following excerpt from a now somewhat notorious letter of July 3, 1881 to a certain Mr William Graham, is not to be dismissed as a tossed off, momentary, ill-considered thought:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

In short, Darwin, plainly, was a foundational Social Darwinist, and coolly drew out -- without serious compunction -- that his theory explained and predicted genocide between the diverse races/species of man, as a way by which more or less “natural” selection would work to improve the human race.

This gives very pointed focus to the fact that it was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who, impressed by the theory of evolution and its implications, pioneered the eugenics movement. Indeed, in the next generation, Darwin's son Leonard, led the movement. This is in itself troubling, as the modern Social Darwinism-based eugenics movement has been associated with serious abuses such as racist targetting of “inferior” breeds, groups and classes of man to be reduced or eliminated, and with giving “scientific” credibility to racial and social discrimination.

Generally, such now discredited ideas are often viewed as illegitimate extensions of the science, but in light of evidence such as the above, we can no longer accept such attempts to distance Darwin from such extensions of his thought.

Things get worse, sadly worse, when we look at a key passage from Chapter XI of Hitler's notorious Mein Kampf (which I refuse to link):

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . .

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .

Some have objected that [a] Hitler's racism was more rooted in, say, Luther's vitriolic antisemitism than in Darwin's theories, [b] that he was a Creationist (and even a Christian) not a Darwinist, and [c] that he was extending animal breeding principles to humanity. They have therefore suggested that it is incorrect, improper and even dishonest to draw out any causal or historical links from Darwin to Hitler.

But in fact, it is quite clear that Hitler was no Christian (propagandistic stump speeches notwithstanding), and that in the above he is drawing out his ideas from Darwin's ideas of natural and sexual selection in the struggle for existence and the resulting preservation of favoured races in that struggle [this last is actually the subtitle for Origin!], not from the Creation-anchored ethics of the Bible.

Also, while Luther and other Christians who indulged in vitriolic anti-semitism have no excuse (and helped set up a climate in which men like Hitler would gain a hearing), such a view of Jews can find no biblical warrant. Indeed, we must never forget that our Saviour, as touching his human descent was a Son of David!

Also, it is often overlooked that by the 1920's to 30's Germany had long been in a state of increasing apostasy under the impact of highly destructive hyperskeptical Bible criticism, so much so that by the 1840's Marx had observed, following Fuerbach, that criticism of religion was the premise of all criticism, and that in Germany, that criticism was largely complete.

A decade before that, Heinrich Heine in the conclusion to his Religion and Philosophy in Germany, prophesied chillingly as follows:

Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …

The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …

… Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …

At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in farthest Africa will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [HT: Commenter, Tribune7 at UD.]

Further to this, we must note the grim implications of how Hitler in Mein Kampf hints at the premise that the more advanced races/species of man should in his view act, as the fox to the goose, or the cat to the mouse. The way this echoes and amplifies ideas already present in Darwin's corpus, and foreshadows the sad events of the 1930's and 40's, should give us pause.

All this, of course, also reeks of Nietzsche's will to power ethics, the associated idea that might makes right, and that philosopher's notorious contempt for the Christian ethics of compassion and protection of the weak. Thus, we may quote a key cite from Nietzsche's posthumous Will to Power:

The biblical prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" is a piece of naïveté compared with the seriousness of Life's own "Thou shalt not" issued to decadence: "Thou shalt not procreate!" —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no "equal right," between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality!

The direct echo of the struggle for existence ethics above is plain.

What a contrast do we find to say Richard Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, which Locke cites as a key authority in his second essay on civil government, Ch 2 Section 5, to ground principles of natural law based rights and justice:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

So, we must first understand the implications of moving away from anchoring our view of man in our sharing in the common image of God our Creator, to the Darwin-inspired image of the ape.

Therefore, as we move towards the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we plainly need a more objective appraisal of his ideas and their consequences.

The onward link of the above to the postwar UN Mandate to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, and the resulting Arab invasion of Israel (on a declared intent to wipe the Jews out) and resulting survival of Israel, refugee crises -- both Arab and Jewish -- and struggle to this day are also in many ways fairly obvious. For, while there is not an explicit Darwinian component, it is plain that a world shocked by what antisemitism led to, was for a few years far more inclined to hear the plea of the Jews and other oppressed peoples than has historically usually been the case. Indeed, this is a key root of the movement towards national independence across the world in recent decades.

The links to the current US election cycle lie in a less well known story, that of the rise of Hitler as a messianic political leader in an era of chaos, confusion and painful struggle to survive.

For, in the aftermath of the First World War, a defeated, demoralised Germany was in chaos. By 1923, it had seen a major Red uprising [e.g. the Spartacists of 1918 – 19], an attempted Nazi putsch, and hyperinflation that destroyed its currency and wiped out the savings of the middle classes. Private armies of the left and the right stalked its streets, and the military became dependent on one of these private armies, the Brownshirts or the SA, for the required reserve in the face of especially the Red threat. So, as the 1930's dawned, the Nazi party and its semi-autonomous SA were the largest single bloc in the much divided Reichstag and the key unofficial manpower base the Versailles Treaty-limited army would have to count on in time of peril. So, the fatal “lesser of evils” compromise was struck, in which a coalition between the Nazis and parties of the right was made, and Hitler was given the Chancellorship, despite the concerns of many that he was little more than a dangerous guttersnipe and ruthlessly manipulative charismatic demagogue. (Indeed, the aging President Hindenberg refused to see him except in the presence of a more “acceptable” Minister.)

In short order a half-mad Dutch Communist youth burned the Reichstag in an ill-considered act of protest, and Hindenberg died. Hitler took advantage of the first to ram through an Enabling Act that gave him power to rule by decree in the face of the crisis. After the second, he in effect unofficially took over the reins of the Presidency in addition to the Chancellorship. His economic policies began to restore prosperity, and his repudiation of the Versailles Treaty received widespread acclamation.

But then, on the excuse [based on false information] that the SA was plotting to seize power, a bloody “counter-coup” was launched, and Germany suddenly found itself in the grips of a demonic, ruthless dictator. The rest, as we may say, is history: 60 millions dead and a devastated continent worth of history.

History that should serve to warn us that if our region walks away from the Biblically anchored understanding that we are all made in God's image and so we all have a duty of neighbour love to one another that leads to justice and caring, it may have terrible consequences. Similarly, we must remember that the “lesser” of two evils may be utterly destructive, so we must insist that those who we support for high office, even in times of crisis, must be men ands women of highest character and proved track record. Third, political messianism and associated blind following of political leaders, is an utterly wicked and destructive idolatry. Fourth, as Romans 13:8 - 10 warns, politics cannot safely exempt itself from the basic civil duties of justice and decency. Fifth, we must realise that not all that calls itself “Science” or based thereupon is either right, or beneficial. Finally, in this hi tech, scientific age, we need to look very, very soberly at the implications of the still rising tide of evolutionary materialism -- which likes to view itself as “science” -- in our culture.

So, God willing, let us take a little time to further explore such themes. END
_______

F/N: KF Blog sub-Series on the Holocaust and its history of ideas roots, Mt 24 W 65, 66 [note the significance of the 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims],  67, 68; cf also video lecture here.

Matt 24 watch, 64: A 'Lost Christianities' Course -- Dan Brownism meets Jesus Seminarism in academic robes

A few days ago, I chanced to borrow the just arrived July 2008 PC World Magazine from our local public library.

I was shocked and saddened to see, on p. 53, an advert for a course by a certain Dr Bart D Ehrman -- a professor and chair of Dept of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill -- which is being promoted and distributed on DVDs as an exceptionally instructive course for life-long learners, by The Teaching Company.

The opening remarks in the advert will suffice to bring out why I am so appalled:

In the first centuries after Christ, there was no New Testament. However, books of Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypses were widely read, and were fervently followed by groups of early Christians. But they would not be among the books that formed the New Testament.

From the many different scriptures then available, Christians held beliefs that would today would be considered bizarre: that there were two, 12, or as many as 30 gods; that a malicious deity, rather than one true God, created the world; that Christ's death and resurrection had nothing to do with salvation -- others insisted that Christ never died at all . . . [Emphasis added.]

Then, on going to the web site and finding the course page, I found a highly significant change to the opening claim: "In the first centuries after Christ, there was no "official" New Testament." [Emphasis added.]

By that key inserted word hangs a long and very revealing tale indeed.

For, first, it tells the alert and informed reader that what has happened here is that, now that skeptics such as the Jesus Seminar have publicly denigrated the C1 history and NT record of the foundation of the Christian Faith, Gnostic heresies and documents are being treated by at least some professors of Religion as if they are an authentic witness to the origins of our Faith.

That is precisely what noted NT scholar John Wenham warned against:

. . . Conclusions [of many contemporary theologians] are the result of a long process of critical study whereby the authority of parts of the gospel text has been eroded bit by bit till nothing dependable is left. The end result is a downgrading of the canonical gospels which may ultimately put them in the category of Christian romances or merely on a level with the Gnostic gospels [as the Jesus Seminar has done with its The Five Gospels]. This means an abandonment of the belief that the gospel-writers were competent witnesses of the events they relate. But to depart from this belief is to depart from historic Christianity into something quite other . . . [Easter Enigma, 2nd edn (Paternoster, 1996), pp. 11 – 12, emphases, parenthetical notes & link added. Cf. my discussion on a case in point in the Jamaican press several years ago, here.]

But, for instance, as Paul Barnett reports in his now classic Is The New Testament History?, p. 33 ff, if we were to simply look at the first circle of writing Church Fathers, AD 96 - 112 or so: Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius; we could easily see that twenty-five of twenty-seven of our NT books are cited or alluded to by them, and in a way that makes no doubt that hey were viewed as authoritative, authentic scriptures. Indeed, the two that are omitted, happen to be two of the shortest. And, these documents continue to be cited and recognised as God-breathed writings in an unbroken chain down to our day.

By sharpest contrast, so soon as Gnosticism surfaced as a challenge to the Christian Faith, it was confronted by church leaders as destructive heresy. Indeed, it is said that when Marcion had come to Rome bearing a handsome gift to the church leaders, when they learned of his views, teachings and agenda, they returned the gift!

Further to this, much of what we know about Gnosticism comes from the many refutations written by eminent church leaders.

Worse, yet, we are in our day increasingly aware of the hebraic roots of the Christian Faith; the recent Gabriel stone story being simply illustrative of that. By sharpest contrast Gnosticism is a mish-mash of all sorts of influences, with a strong strain of Greek philosophy, as comes out in the blasphemous concept that the Creator God YHWH is an inferior deity, the demi-urge of some Greek thought, who made what was viewed as the evil material world. Gnostic "salvation" therefore, in simple terms, largely consisted in finding hidden knowledge that allows one to escape the spiritual powers in various realms as one's spirit flees the prison of the body at death.

This utterly contrasts with the publicly proclaimed, resurrection-anchored facts and hopes of the Gospel of salvation:

1CO 15:1 . . . I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

1CO 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

1CO 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1CO 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep . . . 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

This directly cuts across the web of ideas and themes of Gnosticism, and it comes from the eyewitness lifetime record of the official testimony of the 500+ witnesses of the resurrection, dating to the mid 30's. Indeed, we may note that given the shame and disgrace that attached to a crucified person in pagan thought, and the Jewish view that to be hanged on a tree was a sign of being utterly accursed of God, only the strength of the testimony to and power of the resurrection could have got the Christian faith going in such a cultural matrix.

So, let us note in passing Frank Morison's still unmet, nearly eighty year old challenge to the skeptic:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]

For further instance, we can readily see many challenges to Gnostic-style influences in the prologue to the Gospel of John:

JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

JN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it . . .

And, in Paul's epistle to the Colossians:

COL 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

COL 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation . . .

In short, the issue is not just one that minority views were suppressed by the dominant clergy of the emerging Roman Catholic Church, as say one would infer from a too trusting read of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

Instead, the Gnostic claims simply were without historical authenticity and were correctly rejected as an oil-water blend of incomaptible and confused claims, only lent a superficial smearing of plausibility by a veneer of Greek ideas, learning and philosophy. So, once the credibility of the NT records was acknowledged, they could not stand. Unsurprisingly, that is precisely why -- now that the C1 records have been hyperskeptically, unjustifiably denigrated in many quarters -- the Gnostic claims are once again surfacing.

Further to this, though, as I searched the Internet, I became very aware of just how much ill-informed opinion and teaching is out there. Even, modern attempts to revive Gnosticism! (Come to think of it, there is a declared Gnostic church near River Road in Bridgetown, Barbados.)

That brings me back to the current initiative: one of the reasons we urgently need to found a solid cyber college that can work with churches, parachurch ministries, UCCF, ISCF etc is to equip Christians across our region to confidently respond in an informed, confident way to the many de-Christianising forces that are just a Google or Yahoo search and a web click or two away. Worse, some such claims are doubtless creeping into our College and even High School classrooms.

We ignore the surging tidal wave from the North at our peril. END

__________

PS: There was a partial dome collapse and 40,000-foot sub-plinian eruption here in Montserrat, over the last week or so, apparently triggered by fresh magma moving up into the dome that has been sitting there for a year and a half or so. We are based several miles north of the danger zone, behind the next mountain edifice, so there is minimal risk. Prayer for wisdom and endurance for Montserrat's long-suffering people and our leaders is of course welcome!