According to the Darwinist common wisdom that has become endemic in academia and is quickly seeping into popular beliefs, our consciousness, all that makes up our minds is a user illusion evolved to pass on our genes. Evolutionary cognitive science consequently makes short work of traditional notions of ethics, altruism, in fact all traditional human values. All this must be having some sort of impact on society.
Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and professor of neurology and psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School, was a wise man and had some thoughts on this based on his actual experience:
Quote:"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone.
I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment — or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."
(From his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi)
Of course, logically, the effects on society of a belief system are not necessarily linked to its ultimate truth or otherwise. In this case the Darwin Unhinged thread has gone at great length into the manifest falsity of Darwinism. It turns out that not only is it false, but it is also toxic to society.
Does Frankl have historical verification of his claim though?
I think it is hard to gauge cultural effects in cases like this...The language of Darwinism can be misappropriated by bad actors, but we see this with religion too. (Some would argue the creation of religion itself is misappropriation of the Divine message, to take this to potential extremes.)
I do think a lot of cultural influence does come from many corners, and varied sorts of ideas plant seeds - sometimes subconsciously. But it is hard to pull on a particular string and determine its effects.
Thinking about it some more, we can argue against some ideas based on past observed outcomes and projected outcomes.
"Nuclear war is great!" seems like one those obviously pernicious ideas.
(2019-01-12, 08:32 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]According to the Darwinist common wisdom that has become endemic in academia and is quickly seeping into popular beliefs, our consciousness, all that makes up our minds is a user illusion evolved to pass on our genes. Evolutionary cognitive science consequently makes short work of traditional notions of ethics, altruism, in fact all traditional human values. All this must be having some sort of impact on society.
Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and professor of neurology and psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School, was a wise man and had some thoughts on this based on his actual experience:
(From his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi)
Of course, logically, the effects on society of a belief system are not necessarily linked to its ultimate truth or otherwise. In this case the Darwin Unhinged thread has gone at great length into the manifest falsity of Darwinism. It turns out that not only is it false, but it is also toxic to society.
I read Frankl back in my youth. He said a lot of nice things about life and mind.
Quote: Viktor Frankl once recommended that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast of the United States be complemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast:
Quote:Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.[56][57]
OK - now that sounds practical!
(2019-01-15, 06:54 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]I read Frankl back in my youth. He said a lot of nice things about life and mind.
'[At] the moment biology becomes biologism, science is turned into an ideology. What we have to deplore ... is not so much that scientists are specializing, but rather the fact that specialists are generalizing.'
– Viktor E. Frankl
(2019-01-12, 08:15 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Does Frankl have historical verification of his claim though?
I think it is hard to gauge cultural effects in cases like this...The language of Darwinism can be misappropriated by bad actors, but we see this with religion too. (Some would argue the creation of religion itself is misappropriation of the Divine message, to take this to potential extremes.)
I do think a lot of cultural influence does come from many corners, and varied sorts of ideas plant seeds - sometimes subconsciously. But it is hard to pull on a particular string and determine its effects.
Here's some toxic effects, in the 1920s in America. Social Darwinism and eugenics, the application of Darwinism to our society, directly follows from the basics of Darwin's theory. Since humans are just smart animals, to save and improve the race, scientists should take control of society and enforce strict eugenics including elimination of the unfit. Holmes was one of the driving forces for the many eugenics programs implemented in the United States during the '20s and '30s.
(from Wiki):
Quote:"Justice of the Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes was a believer not just in Darwinism, but in Social Darwinism and eugenics. In 1915, he wrote that “wholesale social regeneration” could be effected “only by taking in hand life and trying to build a race.” What he meant, he explained six years later to Frankfurter, was not merely “restricting propagation by the undesirables,” but “putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination, etc. etc.” His denial of human rights thus extinguished even to the right to life.
As early as 1895, Holmes said, “I can imagine a future in which science... shall take control of life, and condemn at once with instant execution what now is left for nature to destroy.” Two years later, he wrote that in order to “see socialism successful,” society must “substitute artificial selection for natural by putting to death the inadequate".
As a Supreme Court Justice, Holmes read his belief in eugenics into the Constitution, writing the decision in Buck v. Bell (1927) upholding the forced sterilization of a young woman, Carrie Buck, on the grounds that she had a low IQ. Substituting his personal views in place of the Constitution, he wrote, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," referring to Buck, her mother, and her six-month-old baby. The Nazis, who sterilized more than 400,000 people, used Buck v. Bell in their propaganda. When that practice was condemned at the Nuremberg trials, counsel for the accused Nazis likewise cited Holmes' opinion in their clients' defense."
(2019-01-12, 08:15 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Does Frankl have historical verification of his claim though?
I think it is hard to gauge cultural effects in cases like this...The language of Darwinism can be misappropriated by bad actors, but we see this with religion too. (Some would argue the creation of religion itself is misappropriation of the Divine message, to take this to potential extremes.)
I do think a lot of cultural influence does come from many corners, and varied sorts of ideas plant seeds - sometimes subconsciously. But it is hard to pull on a particular string and determine its effects.
What about the practical psychological effects of Darwinism? I agree with the following editorial opinion piece/essay, though I think the author underestimates the pervasiveness of the effects, and he fails to mention the cognitive dissonance that inevitably follows believing in it but not being willing to accept all the logical consequences of the theory:
Quote:"...if the intelligent and the educated unite today in accepting (Darwinian) evolution, that does not mean (that all of them) are prepared to swallow all or even any of the dismal consequences inherent in the theory. Nor should they. For the sheer bleakness of existence as presented by Darwinism pushed to its logical conclusions is a formula for total despair.
........................
The truth is that once you embark on Darwinian nihilism there is no resting place. If there is no point in life, everything in the end has to go — duty, laws, arts, letters, society — and you are left with nothing, except ‘proceeding’. There are various scientific objections to Darwin, but the salient one, it seems to me, is moral. If life has no purpose, why value it? Why not brush it aside, wherever and whenever convenient?"
(From
Where the Darwinian Fundamentalists Are Leading Us in The Spectator in the UK)
(2019-01-17, 05:59 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Here's some toxic effects, in the 1920s in America. Social Darwinism and eugenics, the application of Darwinism to our society, directly follows from the basics of Darwin's theory. Since humans are just smart animals, to save and improve the race, scientists should take control of society and enforce strict eugenics including elimination of the unfit. Holmes was one of the driving forces for the many eugenics programs implemented in the United States during the '20s and '30s.
(from Wiki):
I read about the eugenics programs a few years ago when I happened to read a novel,
Second Glance, by Jodi Picoult which was a ghost story wrapped around a quite extensive commentary about eugenics in the early 20th century. I followed up with some more reading on the subject and was not surprised to learn that most darwinists would hastily distance themselves from eugenics and make it clear that darwinism does not extend to social darwinism of that kind. This blog article is an example of such distancing and, to be fair, their argument seems reasonable to me.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/02/beyo...of-humans/
Eugenics does show, however, how science in general can be used - much like the bible - to support all kinds of aberrant social behaviour.
(2019-01-17, 08:09 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I read about the eugenics programs a few years ago when I happened to read a novel, Second Glance, by Jodi Picoult which was a ghost story wrapped around a quite extensive commentary about eugenics in the early 20th century. I followed up with some more reading on the subject and was not surprised to learn that most darwinists would hastily distance themselves from eugenics and make it clear that darwinism does not extend to social darwinism of that kind. This blog article is an example of such distancing and, to be fair, their argument seems reasonable to me.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/02/beyo...of-humans/
Eugenics does show, however, how science in general can be used - much like the bible - to support all kinds of aberrant social behaviour.
Of course, Darwinists distance themselves from some of the clear implications of their ideology, ones that are unacceptable in our current society. Why exactly doesn't Darwinism extend to "social Darwinism"?
I don't find the arguments (only outlined) in the linked brief apologia to be very convincing. I think it is mainly an understandable pained reaction to the application of the principles of Darwinism to human society, which application is perfectly logical and reasonable in that mindset. In that mindset humans are only animals and in principle can be improved by selective breeding. This apologia is mainly rationalizations to avoid the uncomfortable implications of Darwinism for human society. Darwinists don't like the painful implications of their belief system to be pointed out.
For instance,
Quote:"The fallacy of selective breeding in humans was only realized when the wealthy were suddenly poor, and the reality of genocide had demonstrated the extreme end of eugenics—in other words, with the shock of the Great Depression and the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, which ushered in the Holocaust."
How, scientifically, is it a fallacy? Sure, these results may be shunned and unacceptable to current society. But how does this demonstrate that selective breeding of humans over many generations (if it could be accomplished however seemingly impractical socially and culturally) would not eventually over a very long time period as society and history measure it result in substantial improvements in disease resistance, reduction in certain birth defects, and improvements in certain characteristics or traits like intelligence? Intelligence in humans has been shown to be in large measure heritable. Or for that matter, increases in other for instance arbitrary and socially determined traits like aggressiveness, muscularity or even big buttocks? These sorts of things have certainly has been demonstrated with other animal species like dogs and horses and cattle. Why not humans?
I haven't seen any arguments that there hasn't been a gradual decrease in heritable "fitness" traits in humans since societies and civilized cultures started protecting the weak and "defective" from the normal culling of nature. Why wouldn't selective breeding of humans reverse this trend and be an intelligent application of Darwinist principles?
(2019-01-18, 12:05 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, Darwinists distance themselves from some of the clear implications of their ideology, ones that are unacceptable in our current society. Why exactly doesn't Darwinism extend to "social Darwinism"?
I don't find the arguments (only outlined) in the linked brief apologia to be very convincing. I think it is mainly an understandable pained reaction to the application of the principles of Darwinism to human society, which application is perfectly logical and reasonable in that mindset. In that mindset humans are only animals and in principle can be improved by selective breeding. This apologia is mainly rationalizations to avoid the uncomfortable implications of Darwinism for human society. Darwinists don't like the painful implications of their belief system to be pointed out.
For instance,
How, scientifically, is it a fallacy? Sure, these results may be shunned and unacceptable to current society. But how does this demonstrate that selective breeding of humans over many generations (if it could be accomplished however socially and culturally impractical) would not eventually over a very long time period as society and history measure it result in substantial improvements in disease resistance, reduction in certain birth defects, and improvements in certain characteristics or traits like intelligence? Intelligence in humans has been shown to be in large measure heritable. Or for that matter, increases in other for instance arbitrary and socially determined traits like aggressiveness, muscularity or even big buttocks? These sorts of things have certainly has been demonstrated with other animal species like dogs and horses and cattle. Why not humans?
I haven't seen any arguments that there hasn't been a gradual decrease in heritable "fitness" traits in humans since societies and civilized cultures started protecting the weak and "defective" from the normal culling of nature. Why wouldn't selective breeding of humans reverse this trend and be an intelligent application of Darwinist principles?
I don't have the knowledge to debate the finer points, nor do I stand in defence of all that the darwinists advocate (I think the Darwin Unhinged thread, which I started, should be an indication of where I stand). Still, I do think that people who work in that field should be able to defend themselves from accusations of supporting blatantly racist and inhuman theories which could be associated with horrific social engineering projects such as those undertaken by the Nazis or, further back, the eugenics policies in the USA.
Clearly, those very policies were founded on the fallacies of racial inequality - that black, Jewish, Serbian, Romany and other racial groups were inferior. The fact that elitist groups chose to interpret darwinism that way doesn't mean that the science inevitably pointed in that direction.