Tags
anecdotes, catholic culture, catholocism, charles darwin, charles dickens, christianity, controversy, evolution, gnosticism, hypocrisy, inspirational, pro-life, religion, richard dawkins, roman catholic, social darwinism
To say that reading this article was a shock to me, would be the understatement of the decade. I could not believe what I was reading.
Social Darwinism, which all compassionate people hoped was dead, is alive and well, it would seem.
But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself. I don’t know what sort of reading background is normal for my dear readers, but maybe you’re not all sure what Social Darwinism is.
Social Darwinism is the savagery that Hitler used for an excuse when he had millions of Jews, gypsies, vagrants, the mentally ill, all kinds of other innocent people, and anyone who tried to protect or hide them slaughtered in what he termed “The Final Solution,” but which history better remembers as the Holocaust.
Basically, Social Darwinism examines the theory of evolution, which states that natural selection will gradually winnow out those in a population who are unfit to live. In the wild, weak animals never last very long, and sick ones are the first to be picked off by predators. This results in the strongest animals surviving to reproduce. This is all well and good–in the wild.
However, Social Darwinism takes the idea that natural selection is a good thing to the extreme. Social Darwinism states that inferior human beings deserve to die as well. And, as dystopian novels are constantly reminding us, the human condition is such that no human being is inferior, and certainly that no human being is “worthless”!
From Social Darwinism springs the idea (much abjured especially by Charles Dickens in his work, specifically in A Christmas Carol) that we should not help the poor; that they are “unfit to live”, and we should just let them die. I don’t know about you, my fair readers, but this idea with its blatant disregard for human life and lack of belief in the value of all life horrifies me. After all, sometimes conditions are horribly unfair. They hit a man or woman when he or she is down, while seeming to reward those who cheat. For instance, even though my dad has every reason to be employed, we were forced to rely on our savings for a year while he was unemployed. (He’s a very competent computer security and risk management expert. He could have prevented one security breach at a company he worked for if the people in charge had actually listened to him. Forgive me for not giving better credentials, but Internet privacy and safety and all that.) Life has a way of knocking people down when they don’t deserve it. And people, contrary to all expectation, have a way of getting up again.
If you are all for Social Security and wellfare and that sort of thing, let me tell you… Apparently Richard Dawkins… isn’t?
Because it seems Richard Dawkins thinks that giving birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome or another mental health issue is “immoral.” According to him, we should abort all such pregnancies. (I find this especially frightening and horrifying, as such a belief was trademark of one of my–fortunately fictional–totalitarian governments which was depicted in Angels’ Reflections, and which, realistically speaking, would be a likely component of the totalitarian governments of the future. For more information about Angels’ Reflections, visit my Novels page.) From there, it’s just one step away from the concentration, and eventually death, camps.
To me, this is barbarism of the worst kind. To kill a child for merely having a genetic disorder is savagery, in my mind. Mr. Dawkins even called it “civilized.” Yes, if you want the worst of the Roman Empire. Yes, if you want to live in Sparta–which, by all accounts, was a very brutal city. One of the worst human “instincts”–the one of which we should be most ashamed–seems to be that at every level in history, we tend to slaughter our young.
In ancient times, in many cultures, including the ones now considered to be the root of most modern cultures, a baby that was perceived as “weak” was left exposed to the elements to die.
When Herod was afraid of being replaced on his throne, what did he do? The Slaughter of the Innocents.
Children killed in hospitals and death camps alike in Hitler’s “Final Solution.”
Gender-specific abortions, targeting (guess what?) mainly unborn baby girls.
And now, abortions targeting those children who are mentally ill or who have a genetic disorder that isn’t always nearly as debilitating as we are told.
Do we see a pattern here?
It seems Richard Dawkins has an interesting brand of “morality”. (Man, it’s hard not to make ad-hominem attacks when something this odious comes out… I’m trying. Possibly not succeeding. But trying.)
Let’s take this out even further, shall we?
Is there one person currently living on this earth who has never told a lie? Not even a little “white lie”? Not even a lie of omission?
Is there one person who has not been tempted to steal or embezzle at times?
Is there one person who has never been tempted to use violence, whether on others or himself or herself?
Wait, wait, wait. Those are all things that can leave you behind in the “grand” scheme of things. (Like, say, if you were registered in The Hunger Games.) Let’s talk in language Social Darwinists would understand.
Is there one human being in this world who has never made a bad business decision?
Is there one person who has never, ever made a mistake? (From a strictly amoral viewpoint.)
Is there one person who has not had to have their life saved in some way?
Also, how should we measure who deserves to live and who deserves to be aborted? Should we determine it by the righteousness of the individual? Righteous people don’t always do things that are for the amoral “good” of people in general. Should we reward those who put themselves ahead of others, or vice versa? Should we reward those who are physically strong, or those who are intellectual and intelligent? The two don’t always go together. There have been intellectuals with bad health, and strong people with bad health, and strong people who were also intellectual. (This is a big, glaring problem with moral relativism, FYI.) There are simply too many variables to measure.
And all this was before I saw his Twitter feed. (The link is at the bottom of the article I linked you to above.) Really, Mr. Dawkins? “Dislikes pretentious obscurantism”? (Well, I agree, Gnosticism was a gnarly heresy, but does it really justify hard-core materialism?) “Treats all religions with good-humored ridicule”? I’ve seen and heard some of your ridicule before, and in places it was anything but good-humored. And even if it was good-humored, it was violently–yes, I’m using that word–violently anti-religion. Dare I say, in places you were even as bitter towards religion as I am currently bitter and outraged at your inane Twitter logic.
Basically, what I’m getting at here is that, on some level or other, every human being alive today is unfit for survival. Every last person alive has known failure. I’m sure that at this point Mr. Dawkins would say, “We’re only talking about eliminating those least fit to live!” To which I would have to answer, “Who are we to say who deserves to live and die? We are mere grains of sand in a vast dune, mere moments in the ocean of time. To use the Christians’ imagery, we are mere dust. Who are we to say that one of our number deserves death when, perhaps on another level, we equally deserve death?”
We are mere dust, mere creation. But we were shaped by the hand of God, and thus though we are equal in guilt, we are also all equal in destiny. Autistic children have been known to be incredibly bright. Children who, all the doctors prophesied, would be no better than vegetables, have grown up and thrived. Inspiring stories can be found everywhere. I’m certain that our scientist friend would object that “The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’!” But truly, there would not be so many instances of excellence, found in the strangest of places, if there was not some “divine spark” to be found in all men, women, and children, making all men, women and children worthy to have at least their lives and dignity respected?
Shout me down for comparing Dawkins’ philosophy to Hitler’s. I’m just calling it like I see it. But I can not be silent when I hear about this horrid fiasco going on with our educated scientist friend.
Survival of the fittest is a horrible philosophy, Mr. Dawkins, when applied to the “real world” of humanity and politics. I hope you realize that soon.
Disclaimer: The author apologizes for any bruised toes caused by this article. She does not, however, apologize for presenting her views, though she admits to being a mere human idiot (despite having a high IQ and better grades than most of her classmates,) and thus parts of this post may be inaccurate or misrepresented. She would also like to point out that this is not, technically, any kind of personal attack, especially as the words “is going to hell” did not appear in conjunction with anyone’s name, in keeping with the general theme of nonjudgmental-ness, and she opposes the principles or philosophy proposed by the victim subject of this post. She would also like it if her readers were to research the origins of the theory of evolution and the history of Social Darwinism–if they dare. π
I’M STUCK IN THE DARK AGES AND PROUD OF IT! X-P Hey, that should be a badge… π
Thanks for reading, and may God Bless you, whether you believe in Him or not! π
If you make that badge, I think I’ll need it. π
π I’ll have to see what I can do! π
Have you seen God’s Not Dead?
Not yet. I would like to, though. π It sounds like a good movie, though I hear that some people do hate it… I guess it depends on your worldview. π It’s not a “safe” little thing to like, like “Lord of the Rings” and “A Christmas Carol” are, because those are classics, even if they do portray right-wing values… And some people are scared of taking a stand.
Exactly.
I happened to enjoy it though, so I recommend you watch it. π
Okay! π Thanks for the recommendation.
Richard Dawkins really needs to forgo his delusions and acknowledge his Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:22 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
2 Timothy 3:7 “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Thanks for the comment! π (Your avatar is sweet, by the way! π )
And very pertinent verses. π I am notoriously bad at memorizing verse numbers, so thanks for posting! π
Interesting. If you will allow me to critique a bit…I will eventually be working in my school’s Academic Writing Center so I will have to critique peoples’ arguments (in papers) soon enough :). If it helps you with debate/argumentation in further posts or even in the academic realm, then that’s awesome!
At the point where you started talking about who hasn’t committed this sin or that mistake in the business world, it didn’t seem like it was relevant to what Social Darwinism or Dawkins is about, unless I have misunderstood Dawkins’ beliefs, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what he means, rather I expect he’s talking about the people with mental disorders and such. Also, in the part where you say that his attacks against religion are violent, well, that’s perhaps how you should say it there. Something like “his criticism of religion is actually quite violent” because it makes it clear that you’re purely talking about how violent they are. As it is, it’s almost like you’re using “his ridicule of religion is anti-religious” as an argument but just tacking on that it’s violent ridicule. See what I mean?
Otherwise, the post seems legit.
Thanks, Andrew. π I may update this post and make it into a research paper or actual article, if I ever have time (and access to WorldCat). And I will definitely be taking your advice, if I ever get the chance. π
The relevance of the part where I talk about who is making mistakes is supposed to just communicate that we shouldn’t be judging other people for what they do or do not have, or what they have done, because we’re just as bad. π I may have to clarify this a bit. Thanks!
The whole concept sickens me. All life has value and who are we to judge who should and should not live. This also opens the door to other things for example what if short people are next. The action of killing babies is uncivilized and to try to hide it with moral relativism due to defects is sickening. Many people with mental and physical disorders live happy and productive lives. I bet it was very hard not to make a cheap attack on this subject and I respect you for keeping your view on this proper (that is what God would want). God loves everyone, not just the perfect or what we consider perfect. What makes Mr. Dawkins so powerful that he thinks he can judge who should live? I can easily see the comparison to this mentality to Hitler. To be fair so people can understand where I am coming from I am against abortion in the first place. I view abortion as murder, people argue about womenβs rights I argue for the babyβs rights. Does the child get a voice, no and people try to hide the fact that they are killing babies by changing the name to fetus to help them justify murder. This method is cognitive dissonance in the highest order.
Indeed. This “new-mind” de-facto barbarism is the beginning of something that I think most of us don’t even want to imagine, it’s that horrible. I will never be able to understand why anyone would actually want those outcomes–the scariest part is that some of these people don’t even seem to have selfishness as a motive… I guess it takes all kinds to make a world, people whom I try not to consider completely insane included.
Thank you for commenting!
That is truly sickening… my little brother has Down Syndrome, and he is one of the sweetest kids ever! The idea that people believe he has no right to exist is cruel and selfish of them. I think anyone with a mental disability, especially kids with Down Syndrome, remind us of the innocence of childhood and the good in human nature. That people want to destroy that small reminder of God’s grace is… well, it shows how twisted some people can become.
Yes, indeed. I was partly thinking of your brother when I wrote this post. Some cousins of mine also have Down Syndrome, and since my mom is into her forties there was a chance that Raya might have had Down Syndrome. Personally, I think that Richard Dawkins is taking himself too seriously, and mental and genetic disorders not seriously enough.
Thanks for the thought then π
And kids with Down Syndrome aren’t all mentally backwards kids who can’t do anything for themselves… each one is different. I’ve met a couple different kids with Down Syndrome, and they all had different personalities, just like anybody else!
Is it bias of me to think my little brother is the smartest and sweetest of the lot? π
No, it’s not bias. It’s sisterly love. π
And this is just what Mr. Dawkins is missing. This is why his logic is flawed. Every kid is different. So what if they have an incomplete extra copy of one chromosome?! That doesn’t mean that they’re not people too!
One day, Mr. Dawkins is going to get smacked in the face by everything he’s overlooking–just like the meeting of the Elven-King with old Noakes in the end of Smith of Wooton Major. Whether or not he’s able to cling to saving grace is his own affair, so we won’t judge him. But I can’t stop myself from pitying him.
This is an awesome post, Erin. I’ll tweet it! Stuck in the Dark Agesβ¦that’s great!
π Thanks! π
How the black-burnt pumpernickel can people even think such things? I have no words to describe how terrible this is.
Very well-written post, though. I completely agree with what you said.
“How the black-burnt pumpernickel”! That is such an awesome phrase! π
Thank you. π I know… I was sickened to hear about this. How can people who claim to be “enlightened” still be in the middle of Classical barbarism? I guess we all get hung up on the same problems at intervals in history.
Rome got bloated, then it fell. It’s amazing that the US lasted this long–in comparison to other republics in history, it has endured twice as long as some and five times as long as others. And this is just the sort of thinking that makes us our own enemies.
Thank you!
Very true. I guess it’s just human nature to think this way- though that doesn’t make it any less terrible. It does make you wonder what kind of world we’ll have left in a hundred, fifty, even twenty years.
Yes…
Though, from past experience, if the world doesn’t get taken over by Calormenes and ended soon (X-P), then some hero will rise up and make things better again. π
“It does make you wonder what kind of world weβll have left in a hundred, fifty, even twenty years.”
I don’t know about a hundred or fifty years, maybe 20, but still, I’m not so sure you have to worry that much that Social Darwinism will sweep the globe in revolutionary ecstasy, lol.
Fortunately, the nut jobs who actually espouse this theory are few and far between. Most people are more into their healthcare hobby horse. π
Pingback: Why I: 8/23/14 | The road goes on
I cringe whenever I see Richard Dawkins’ name. I identify as agnostic, and I have to say, he is a TERRIBLE representation of atheists/agnostics. Most of us are pretty spiritual and have total respect for religion (and aren’t Social Darwinists), and it makes me sad that the most radical man is the most vocal. But I guess that’s just the nature of things. Christianity and Islam and all religions are often seen by the most extreme examples, and it’s really sad. It makes people believe other groups are much different than they are, when that isn’t true at all. (Case in point: your belief that we are all as equal and deserving as each other, no matter what we were born with/as. That’s exactly what I believe, and I’ve been fazed with religion from time to time because it sounds like many religious people veer away from that. But that’s just the extremes doing the talking again.)
Thanks for the post! It sounds like we are on opposite-ish sides of the political spectrum, but I’m glad to see a well-informed opinion. π I hate all the mudslinging in politics in general. All sides need to spend more time having real dialogue so we can actually come to solutions. But sadly all media sources are SO biased now that we keep trending far away from that (HuffPost for me, The Blaze for you; both only show one side of the story, sadly).
Thank you for the comment. π I’m glad you found this inspirational and encouraging. π
I try to research both sides of the story, but it’s not always easy to find well-informed articles. Whenever I write an article, I feel confronted by my own bias and inability to find sufficient evidence for one side or the other.
I know what you mean about the most extreme people being most vocal and getting most attention! They give the rest of us in the group a bad name. π And more often than not, there are things everyone agrees on (well, except for the nut-cases, obviously. :-P) I find that much of the time, liberals and conservatives have similar goals; they just plan to reach those goals in different ways. π
“I find that much of the time, liberals and conservatives have similar goals; they just plan to reach those goals in different ways. ”
I have been saying that for years. If we could only focus on our similarities rather than our differences we might actually be able to get along.
Indeed. For some reason, though, people like to argue… it’s almost like they treat it like their daily bread… It had better not be, though…
I know, I’m being stalkery and commenting on past posts. My bad. π
That guy sounds…interesting. Someone I would stay away from. You make very good points, and I agree with you almost 100%!
Although, I do believe in letting women choose to have an abortion or not. Having an abortion just because a child is different I think is wrong, but if a woman doesn’t want to have a child because she can’t support them or just doesn’t want kids, I think she has every right to an abortion.
That’s not a bad thing. I do that all the time. π
Thanks.
I know there are people who feel that way, but I have to disagree. I believe that each child is precious and human life begins at the moment of conception. I know some people get really violent over this, but I always try to be polite and respectful, so you don’t have to be scared that I’m going to attack you personally. I just disagree with your beliefs. π
(Back to the bit about the ones who are violent and loud giving the rest of us a bad name. In the Christian pro-life community, we poke fun at that by calling ourselves “praying terrorists.” π I think we’ll change more minds by just bearing silent witness than by blustering.)
While I agree Dawkins can lack tact when when getting his point across – I don’t think he deserves the vilification he’s receiving here. A lot of the comments posted, to me, are reactions (by the manipulated) based on sensationalised soundbites; and the man, if the time had been taken to actually read his works and thus have a bearing on his true character, does not identify with nature being red in tooth and claw at all. Most often he just reports his observations and draws reasonable conclusions from them.
Perhaps he doesn’t deserve the vilification he received at my hands, you’re right.
On the other hand, the books aren’t actually what we’re discussing here, though. We’re really talking about what he posted on his Twitter–namely, that he called it a crime to bring a child who has Downs Syndrome (aka “genetically inferior”) into the world. I believe he said “Abort it and try again,” which is both disgusting and offensive to many people on so many levels. Personally, I do not understand how just killing off children because they have an extra copy of one chromosome is a reasonable conclusion.
I understand that oftentimes, journalism can cross the line into sensationalism and an article will be written to evoke a specific reaction, thereby “manipulating” the readers’ emotions. However, in the article there is a link to the whole Twitter conversation, where it can be read. I doubt that Mr. Dawkins has taken it down, because, no matter his faults, he is a man who will always speak what he believes to be the truth. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant; he does not back away from controversy, and for that much, I can’t help but admire him. In that, he is certainly braver than I am.
[I found this post via the NaNo forums, in case you were wondering ;)]
I’m an ignostic scientist (more wildlife science/ecology, but I play in the evolutionary biology and taxonomy sandpit, too). So much of what Dawkins says “on behalf” of nonbeliever scientists is icky and not how I feel at all–although he probably wouldn’t like me very much since he strongly dislikes anyone who isn’t a hard atheist. Can’t pretend to be sorry about that, though.
What gets to me is that a lot of what he says, as you’ve mentioned, comes across as Social Darwinistic, even though he’s often stated that he’s against Social Darwinism (because nobody who actually understands evolution mistakes it for a moral code). But. You cannot logically argue that it’s “immoral” to keep any baby because of natural selection. Come on, dude. You call yourself a scientist?
Oh, right. I forgot that even though he constantly blasts religious people for voicing non-science/logic based beliefs, he does the same. All. The. Time.
It wouldn’t be so bad if people didn’t see him as the typical nonbeliever scientists. Ex. one of the tweets: “there it is folks – how atheism can lead to fundamentally evil assumptions”. It isn’t atheism or science. It’s just him being an epic tool. I mean, he’s also ridiculously sexist and all-around rude, even to his peers. He was on a panel with Ann Druyan a little while ago and he would not stop trying to interrupt her or shut her down while she was talking. Totally unprofessional and uncool.
I could go on forever, but I’m losing daylight and my dog needs a walk haha
Thanks for commenting! π
About the idea of Social Darwinism really being a sort of moral code extrapolated from the theory of evolution–that’s interesting! I hadn’t actually thought of it like that, but I suppose that’s how it works. (Ironically, people can say they don’t belong under a label–any given label–and yet examine their actions and they fit, right enough.)
Thanks again for your comment! π (I wish I had a dog… ours passed away a few years ago π¦ )