I have been rereading again: Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman–Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine
We have commented on this book here already.
Despite its limitations, and its failure to conform to the dogmas of the academic Nietzsche cult, this book is an eye-opener on certain points.
We have been discussing ‘liberal atheists’ today, and their fixation on Darwinism, with an unspoken Nietzsche strain in the background. It is a deluded combination of ideas, and one that historically, as this book makes clear, and Nietzsche scholars have suppressed, has combined genocidal fascism, Darwinian eugenics, and Nietzschean nihilism into an esoteric conspiracy of mass murder complete with exoteric cover story that has veiled the dynamics of what was really happening. We still don’t know the exact truth of the matter to this day. The rewriting of Nietzsche as some kind of liberal, by Walter Kauffman et al., in the wake of WWII is one of the more notable absurdities of this whole history.
Liberals need to be wary of the Nietzschean intellectual cult, its confusing embrace of Darwinism and eugenics, and the rest of it.
Nietzsche set a kind of standard for atheists, but almost all of his basic assumptions are wrong, and he was determined to sabotage liberalism. He got the whole modernity wrong, even as he spawned the postmodern fad in its embryonic form.
I think that liberals, in tradition of William Jennings Bryan, should be the dragon-slayers here, minus the cocky Nietzschean silliness of figures like Mencken at the Scopes Trial.
This is not a sermon about belief in ‘god’ by liberals, but the demand for a perspective that is historically robust, able to withstand the false histories of Darwinism and Nietzschean anti-modernism, and some awareness of the larger spiritual psychology of man, something that makes the Nietzschean eugenic genocidal project (always lurking like a viral strain in the cultural underground) a dangerous lunacy that could never work, for the simple reason that ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘natural selection’ are not the mechanisms of evolution.
Actually the left was long locked in a box comprising the narrowest scientism, Darwinism (despite Marx’s initial protests), materialism, and atheism.
And we can see how the left has suffered for that, a warning to liberals determined to let themselves be dominated by an increasingly cult-like science community determined to enforce Darwinian fundamentalism, Dawkins-style atheism, and the rest of it.
But liberalism was never a narrow cult such as Marxism became, something contemporary scientism is threatening to reinvent and impose on general culture armed with a new way to be ‘fanatic’: you must be ‘scientific’ and the science gang decides what you are to believe, for that reason. The resemblance to a priesthood is remarkable.
Liberalism emerged in the early modern in a remarkable symmetry with science, and the two found their harmony construed in the works of Kant.
The conflict of liberalism and religion is misleading, since in many ways the liberal tradition has deeper connection to the larger framework of the spiritual than religion does: I recommend very strongly a close look at the eonic effect and the history of liberalism in that context. It has a larger evolutionary status, and a connection to a larger spiritual framework, more than the ersatz ‘religion’ we call Christianity, which after all is a late creation of the world of the Roman Empire.
Returning to “on Growth and Form” after several decades it is possible to better comprehend what Thompson was trying to say. In his own words:
The fact that I set little store by certain postulates (often deemed to be fundamental) of our present day biology the reader will have discovered and I have not endeavored to conceal. But it is not for the sake of polemical argument that I have written, and the doctrines which I do not subscribe to I have only spoken of by the way
sciftp Recession speeds coal’s long-term decline
Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:17pm EDT
By Bruce Nichols and Eileen O’Grady – Analysis
HOUSTON (Reuters) – Declining industrial electricity demand and an abundance of cheap natural gas will threaten coal’s status as the dominant U.S. fuel to generate electric power, even after the economic recession ends.
sciftp Bringing science back into America’s sphere
Chris Mooney, author of ‘Unscientific America,’ talks about the significance of Pluto’s demotion from planet, the belief that vaccines are linked to autism, and the role played by religion.
By Lori Kozlowski
Dawkins’ extract, Creationists, now they’re coming for your children, “People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers, argues an author in his controversial new book”, etc,….
has already received comment (see previous post today)
Dawkins opens with an analogy to teaching Roman history, then slips into the case of the Holocaust denier.
These examples are revealing, and show where Darwinists tend to go wrong with Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
The analogy to someone denying the reality of Rome is a very poor one: few or none make such a denial, and the reason is that in world history we have evidence at the level of centuries, down to the decade, very often, and this makes the chronicle of events definite. To compare this with the case of natural selection in deep time is grossly inappropriate since in virtually no cases do we have obsrvations of natural selection both at the centuries level and over the tens of thousands of years of the whole transformation, producing (macro)evolution and in any case the observation of speciation over many tens of millennia or more is not an easy thing to observe! In fact, it is a metaphysical exercise, as Karl Popper made clear. To compare the two cases is revealing of how Darwinists think: they seem unaware of the fallacy of their logic.
BTW, check out my webpages on this: The Limits of Observation
From there, Dawkins proceeds to the analogy of the Holocaust denier, which is totally unfair, for this is a clear case of pathology, a puzzle in its own right, in the denial of events in recent time. To compare the doubter of evolution to such a person is grossly inappropriate, and a violation of logical procedure. Worse it is an attempt to scare critics off with the preposterous taint misapplied of anti-semitism.
Those who challenge evolutionary interpretations are simply not in the same boat since both roman history and the Holocaust have clear historical witnesses, while evolution by natural selection in deep time is not so observed. Evolution can be strongly inferred, natural selection being a secondary inference requiring a much higher standard of proof, and probably false.
Dawkins will have to do better than this, and the prospect of being compared to anti-semites should make the critics of evolution understandably outraged.
But, such tactics on Darwkins’ part are a sign, surely, of desperation, and the ominous possibility of making disbelief in the Darwin dogma illegal, a preposterous thought, must be lurking in the back of Dawkins fanatic mind.
People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers, argues an author in his controversial new book
Dawkins is at it again, distortions on the subject of evolution, even as he attempts to force us into belief.
To compare evolution doubters to Holocaust deniers is brazenly slanderous and a serious muddle of an already confused subject. Doubting evolution, while certainly not my perspective on the matter, can be a valid doubt about dogmas made as to events in deep time that have never been observed.
Let me say that I wouldn’t think of rejecting ‘evolution’ as an empirical reality, in the fossil record, but that whenever Richard Dawkins gets on the subject I am seized, if not by doubt, then by caution, because I will be subject to bait and switch, and secondary derivations such as belief in atheism that are uncalled for, and weaken my previous acceptance. (I am not a theist or atheist, it should be noted) It is important to be clear what on has agreed to. Here Dawkins, advisedly, in a novelty for him, doesn’t even mention ‘natural selection’. That makes aggreement easy. But we can be sure that the bait will soon be switched and we will be arm-twisted into the something more.
So, as usual, a relatively clear proposition, ‘evolution is a fact’ is getting amped up to mean more than we bargained for.
To me, the idea of evolution is deep time is one of the most clarifying ideas ever put forth, but the fact remains that its correct meaning is ambiguous, and the possibility is there of completely different interpretations of the non-evidence.
One thing that can propel some into doubt is the complexity of what is taken to be human evolution, and the hopeless muddle of reductionist scientists on the question.
Does man have a soul? To deny that he does in order to affirm the Darwinian view of evolution is a provocative act, and once done, it is not surprising that religionists will thereafter reject Darwinism, and probably also ‘evolution’.
Let us recall that it was Alfred Wallace who first (in the wake of Lamarck, of course, et al.) put the selectionist theory of evolution in its classic ‘Darwinian’ form, and that just for this reason issue of soul and natural selection was driven to demur on the question of human evolution. It is not clear how humans evolved. Sorry, but it is not clear.
Therefore if the founder of the subject, Wallace, had this kind of problem, we should not wonder that many others have this problem.
For myself, the reality of evolution remains a fact, but as to just how that happened is not clear at all.
And therefore to call anyone whatsoever who proceeds with caution in the lies being promoted here analogous to a Holocaust denier is an irresponsible act, one that will surely backfire.
In some countries being a Holocaust denier is an illegal act, subject to civil prosecution. For Mr. Dawkins to raise the stakes in his arguments in this manner must be a sign of desperation, and also a frustrated willingness to indulge in intimidation, a frequent tactic of Darwinists, who know they can threaten the reputation of public figures who dissent from their bottom line.
To raise the stakes to ‘Holocaust denier’ deserves an immediate and forceful challenge, and a demand by Dawkinst to back down.
Hucklebird, many readers of Schopenhauer have had variations of this sentiment. Schopenhauer is supposed to be an atheist, and he is, and yet he explains religion better with his inverted notion of a ‘god’ as with his metaphysics of the will.
It is a deep insight into what is going on behind god beliefs.
Stephen P. Smith said,
August 28, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Maybe the argument can be presented in steps?
Can we agree that Schopenhauer`s “will” is almost certainly real? If yes, then our problem reduces to what is this will? It is certainly not Dawrin`s will, and it is not “naturalistic” because what is declared naturalistic is yet again a return to dualism. We want to go to the non-dual.
Now Schopehauer was an artistic pessimist! Am I wrong?
Theists would be the optimists! They look forward to conforming to the self-evident will, and what is self-evident does not need science for its affirmation.
The Atheist and the Bishop
BBC Radio 4
from dawkins site
Series in which an atheist and a bishop come together to apply their own philosophies to the experiences of people they meet, with Jane Little chairing the discussion.
On a stage in a spacious Las Vegas banquet hall sits a nervous-looking, dark-haired Danish woman named Connie Sonne. The 46-year-old retired police officer made a name for herself as a psychic in Europe by claiming she knew the whereabouts of famous missing British toddler Madeleine McCann. Sonne also says she can read playing cards through sealed envelopes using only a crystal. If she can successfully demonstrate her skills in this controlled experiment at the South Point Hotel Casino and Spa, she’ll receive $1 million.
from Dawkins site
RDF TV – Distribution of Life: The Iguanas of Galapagos
Richard Dawkins, Josh Timonen
Richard Dawkins explains how the distribution of life on Earth’s continents and islands is exactly as we should expect if life evolved, and exactly how we should not expect if it had been created.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 27, 2009) — Candomblé, a religion practiced primarily in South America and inspired by older African beliefs, makes much use of animal sacrifice. Researchers writing in the Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine carried out interviews with priests, priestesses and adherents of the religion, documenting the role sacrifice plays in their beliefs.
Handwriting-based Tool Offers Alternate Lie Detection Method
ScienceDaily (Aug. 29, 2009) — For ages experts and laymen have been analyzing and trying to crack the code of handwriting characteristics, in order to detect an individual’s personality traits, or in most cases, gauge their innocence in the case of a crime. Although this science has often gone the way of pseudoscience, researchers are now discovering that with the aid of a computerized tool, handwriting characteristics can be measured more effectively.
Scientists Find ‘Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch’
ScienceDaily (Aug. 28, 2009) — Scientists have just completed an unprecedented journey into the vast and little-explored “Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch.”
gnxp
After years spent hunting for the buried remains of prehistoric animals, a Canadian paleontologist now plans to manipulate chicken embryos to show he can create a dinosaur
gnxp
Researchers searching for a cure for obesity said on Thursday they have developed a drug that not only makes mice lose weight, but reverses diabetes and lowers their cholesterol, too
Las Vegas Sun August 7, 2009
Unions want their money’s worth from politicians
Leaders vow tougher push on health care, labor law reform
By Michael Mishak Organized labor has always been one of the Democratic Party’s most powerful and reliable allies, bankrolling candidates and turning out votes — even, at times, at the expense of the union agenda.
But after nearly emptying their treasuries last year in pursuit of the White House and Congress, unions are pushing back, with a growing number of labor leaders threatening strict accountability if health care and labor law reforms fail.
RG mail
Harper’s Magazine September 2009
Minority death match:
Jews, blacks, and the “post-racial” presidency
By Naomi Klein
When I arrived at the grand offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the Palais Wilson, looking out at a drizzly Lake Geneva, Navanethem Pillay was hunched over the shoulder of her deputy, Kyung-wha Kang, dictating a press release. “I am shocked and deeply disappointed,” I heard her say, pointing at the screen while Kang typed. It was 3:00 p.m., and Pillay was having a very bad day.
“Done,” she finally declared, plopping down at her conference table. The press release was a response to some disappointing news. The previous night, the United States, under the leadership of its first African-American president, had announced that it would boycott the United Nations Durban Review Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, citing its alleged anti-Israel bias. The conference was to start the following day, April 20, 2009, with Pillay presiding. Known by critics as “Durban II,” this was the only United Nations gathering specifically focused on pushing governments to combat racism inside their borders, a task that had become increasingly urgent as financial crises continued to stoke ethnic tensions around the world.
RG mail
National Security Archive Update, August 26, 2009
The CIA’s Vietnam Histories
Newly-Declassified CIA Histories Show Its Involvement in Every Aspect of the Indochina War
I’ve never met a republican atheist. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. There could be lots of them. There might even be a republican atheist organization – I’m just not aware of one.
What? Nietzsche was the super-rightwinger, the founder of idiot atheism of the post-darwin Dawkins type.
I would note that while republican atheists are rare, republican hypocrites are legion, and not a few Nietzschean nihilists and crypto-eugenicist Darwinians produce impeccable credentials as to Sunday church, a complete Machiavellian deception on religion. I could hardly exempt all Democrats from such a judgment.
Liberals certainly have a problem here, and the onset of a mediocre atheism, of the type promoted by Dawkins et al., will prove diastrous in the long run. Is any of it necessary?
The Darwin/Dawkins axis of stupid evolutionists, now determined to posit atheism as a consequence of their scientism, is going to destroy a whole civilization. If you are so stupid to be unable to withstand this gang of adolescents, the situation is hopeless.
The solution, however, is not to twist arms to force people to embrace religion, but to embrace the tradition of robust liberalism in its deeper significance. Bail out into agnosticism, for starters. Those who wish to remain religious are fine the way they are, until someone can say something intelligent that is post-religious. Trying to promote a silly atheism of the Dawkins type is bad metaphysics, doomed to fail, stay away from it.
We need a post-darwinian liberalism, and a new worldview that is not a kind of degenerated scientism.
A robust dialectic is needed that fulfills the real Enlightenment, in which the onset of atheism was a side-show.
It might help to be able to stand up to the stupidity of Nietzsche, who more than anyone else has made atheism the ‘smart man’s trap’.
Another approach is to broaden the study of religion to include the full spectrum of human historical religion. This stands beyond canned beliefs or simplistic faiths as a resource for what it means to be human. The immensity of the Buddhist tradition being an example.
The current debate over ‘god’ is like an insect with pin in it, behind glass: Kant analyzed this metaphysical dispute for all time two centuries ago. The current parties to the ‘god’ debates have no historical memory of the analysis of their position.
But I’ve met several democratic atheists and each time I do, I find myself pondering how that particular ideology will affect the Democratic Party over time. That’s because the growth of atheism among democrats presents the party with a potentially serious dilemma: at least three distinct groups upon which the party depends for much of its voting strength – blacks, Catholics, and senior citizens – are traditionally very religious.
So what is the Democratic Party to do? You got me. At least for now, democratic atheism doesn’t seem to be that much of a problem, and as long as the party continues to market itself as the financial savior of its followers, it may never become one. But what happens if the democratic leadership fails to deliver on its promises? Will members of these groups become disenchanted with the party and its growing atheist ranks? Again, you got me? But it’ll be interesting to watch.
The success of the New Atheist books has spawned an industry of book-length, pro-religion replies. I have read quite a few of them at this point, and have emerged far more confident in my atheism as a result. Some of the books, like David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion, were obviously the work of hacks just trying to cash in. Others, like Alister and Joanna McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion or John Haught’s God and the New Atheism were written by folks who I regard as serious scholars. That they failed so completely to make a cogent case against any of Dawkins’ (or Hitchens’ or Harris’) main arguments was vaguely comforting to me. Seriously, I could have written a better refutation of The God Delusion and I consider Dawkins a hero.
I agree that the books on both sides are equally bad (and from what I read of Ward’s Why There Almost Certainly is a God it is no exception).
Why is this? Nothing could simpler, in fact: the use of the term ‘god’ stretches through so many semantic fields that it is in effect meaningless.
The debate, on the part of theists, seems to be that any positive reference to any kind of meaningless gibberish, as long as it includes the term ‘god’, is somehow religious affirmation.
Then the atheists make an equally dramatic goof: they attempt to negate this gibberish by making a strong metaphysical claim about the non-existence of undefined.
Nothing is accomplished on either side.