25 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeVery well. The buck stops here...
Ask Bosse de Nage .....
I'll give you an anecdotal example of how the theory of evolution has been co-opted for ideological purposes. The catch-phrase "survival of the fittest"--which is populist journalese, not a scientific term--has been used to justify white supremacy, like this: "whites are a manifestly superior race, as shown by their advanced technological accomplishments; as such, they are "fitter" than the rest; therefore it is only fit that they survive at the expense of those less fit". Such thinking fitted in well with apartheid ideology in South Africa (often in conjunction with a peculiar religious twist on the sons of Ham).
25 Jul 06
"British economist Thomas Malthus’s 1798 theory that world population growth would outstrip food supply spread alarm among Teutonic supremacists. Charles Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest was distorted to suggest that "inferior" peoples deserved extinction. Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton proposed the science of eugenics. Malthus and Galton had only proposed controlling population growth, but later proponents of the "master race" would interpret this to justify mass murder and genocide.[29]"
The whole article is worth reading:
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/ManifestDestiny.html
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzGave you a rec for the mentioning of Bruno.
Well, some people do take evolution and make it into an ideology. That's their problem. Other people took the concept of god, and turned it into an ideology too, and that was used to justify burning "witches" and the crusades. And the spanish inquisition. And the burning of one, "bruno". And the house arrest of Galileo. And many, many other despicable acts.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhoa there! Here's a little quandary with your post: by what standard do you condemn witch burning, the crusades and the persecution of "scientists"? If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were alluding to an absolute norm of moral right and wrong. Methinks you have a bigger problem on your hands than fickle little religious people who do "despicable" acts -- you have no absolute standard of finding their acts "despicable"; they were merely doing what they thought was good and you are merely objecting because you think it is evil.
Well, some people do take evolution and make it into an ideology. That's their problem. Other people took the concept of god, and turned it into an ideology too, and that was used to justify burning "witches" and the crusades. And the spanish inquisition. And the burning of one, "bruno". And the house arrest of Galileo. And many, many other despicable acts.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou're quite right--removing "despicable" would greatly improve scottishinnz's post.
Whoa there! Here's a little quandary with your post: by what standard do you condemn witch burning, the crusades and the persecution of "scientists"? If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were alluding to an absolute norm of moral right and wrong. Methinks you have a bigger problem on your hands than fickle little religious people who do "despicable" act ...[text shortened]... [/i] thought was good and you are merely objecting because you think it is evil.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by David CI think we've lost Ivanhoe, David C. I was so looking forward to something substantial from him, too.
Despite Bosse's insightful posts, all I see is misguided application of the misinterpreted results of the ToE. Are you suggesting that proposed eugenics somehow drives the scientific inquiry of the ToE? Ludicrous.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseRemoving the emotive adjective makes his statement a more or less accurate observation. The adjective betrays his attitude towards the subject matter. Try replacing "despicable" with "meritorious".
Not in the least. His moral objection to ideologies is unfounded -- unless he himself subscribes to one of them.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseNonsense. He's merely demonstrating that morality is ever-changing, and judging the morality of the Dark Ages (derived ENTIRELY from the christian bible, I'll remind you) by today's moral standards. Unenlightened they were, wouldn't you agree? If you don't, I'll have you burnt at the stake, BTW.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were alluding to an absolute norm of moral right and wrong..
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere should be no difference from his perspective. Morals require ideologies. If scott is non-ideological, then he is also amoral; thus he can't (or at least shouldn't) express moral outrage.
Removing the emotive adjective makes his statement a more or less accurate observation. The adjective betrays his attitude towards the subject matter. Try replacing "despicable" with "meritorious".
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou don't have to be amoral to make an accurate observation! As for his evident moral outrage, he can justify it for himself.
There should be no difference from his perspective. Morals require ideologies. If scott is non-ideological, then he is also amoral; thus he can't (or at least shouldn't) express moral outrage.