|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitler, Evolution, and Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Since you used the term "Nazi dogma" in the OP, maybe you should clarify what you're looking for in this thread. I wasn't thinking about the distinction you are making between what the Nazi official ideology was and what they told the masses to convince them (perhaps I should have thought of it). I'll accept your opinion that they sold the masses on something other than the idea of the superior race. I don't think that affects my argument, which is about the use of pseudo-Darwinian ideas in Nazi ideology whether that was important for convincing the masses or not. The German people may not have known what the Nazis' ideology was but we do, and we also know, I think, that the idea of the superior race, as I described above, was a driving force in what they did. So their perverted idea of "natural selection" was an important factor in the events that occurred during the Third Reich.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Fair enough. I just don't think it makes any sense to discuss Nazi ideology in isolation from its implementation.
The OP says:
quote: In summary, my observations are: 1. Since you are making a "claim", you have already reached your conclusion. 2. Nazi "dogma" implies the implememtation of their ideas, not the ideas themselves. 3. As I have tried to show, in the implementation of those ideas, race was decidedly peripheral. Culture, religion, etc. were central. 4. In any case, Nazi ideas were a perversion of agricultural practices, not Darwinism. So far, I would say, your claim fails. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
4. In any case, Nazi ideas were a perversion of agricultural practices, not Darwinism. I've produced evidence in the form of quotes from Hitler. This claim about "agricultural practices," claimed by you and others, is not backed up by anything. They are assertions which you expect me to accept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
In the OP you quoted Hitler writing about natural selection. It is clear that Nazi practice was culling the "weak". Since the Nazi standards of weakness were completely arbitrary, it was a distinctly unnatural process. It is simply wrong to link that practice with Darwinism.
You also suggested that Hitler thought of race and species as being roughly equivalent. But in your own quote, Hitler refered to nature keeping the race and species strong. Either you misunderstand his meaning or his meaning is not as clear as you claim. And, if Hitler thought that race and species were the same thing, why would he be concerned about interbreeding? Surely, if "lesser" races were separate species, they would not be capable of interbreeding and weakening the "Master Race". Your quotes from Hitler only show that Hitler's thinking was muddled. The only reliable way to understand Nazi "dogma" is by how it was put into practice. That practice had nothing to do with Darwinism. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And, if Hitler thought that race and species were the same thing, why would he be concerned about interbreeding? Surely, if "lesser" races were separate species, they would not be capable of interbreeding and weakening the "Master Race". Hitler's ideas were not scientific, but he does compare races with species, as the quote shows. But what he was saying was that races should not interbreed, not that they couldn't. He says that in nature species do not interbreed; therefore, races should not interbreed either. His premise is that what is natural is good. I'm not saying what he says makes sense. But that is what he says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: I'm not saying what he says makes sense. I'm not trying to be argumentative - though I seem to be able to do that without trying - but you just finished saying in your last post that you're using quotes from Hitler to back yourself up. If he doesn't make sense, how does it make sense to quote him? My contention all along has been that you need to look at what Hitler said in public more than what he said in print, and you need to look at what he did more than what he said. Reading Mein Kampf to learn about Nazism is like asking a cow about dairy farming. I continue to "assert" that your OP claim is unfounded, because you base it on Hitler's words and Hitler was a loon. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I remember doing a paper in high school about Hitler and Christianity. I did quite a bit of research at the school library, the main branch of the Jackson library and the library at Milsaps College. Hitler no doubt saw himself as a Christian, and this site list many items I remember from my research.
As a disclaimer, please let me point out that this is an extreme anti-Christian website. I don't endorse anything they say, but their list of associations between Hitler and the church is pretty much dead on as I remember. My point is not at all to bash Christians (nor was that the point of my term paper). In that paper I was simply trying to explore one important aspect of Hitler's psyche. Here, my point is only that if you are going to tar Darwin with the sins of Hitler, surely you must also be willing to condemn the words of the bible which Hitler clearly used to justify his policies. "I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I continue to "assert" that your OP claim is unfounded, because you base it on Hitler's words and Hitler was a loon. No doubt Hitler was irrational, but without Hitler there would presumably be no Nazism. My claim is that Hitler used the idea of "natural selection" from Darwinism in his development of Nazi ideology. He perverted it, but he used it. And I am waiting for evidence that he used something else, some sort of traditional ideas that you and others have suggested: not just your assertion that he did, but some evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Well, stricltly speaking, you made a claim, or assertion, in the OP. I have tried to show that your own quotes do not back up your claim.
I have tried to explain my understanding of the situation. If you call that an "assertion", then it will remain unsupported. It seems to me that others have understood what you have not. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Robin,
It's been a decade or more since I read about WW 1&2 or watched PBS or History channel programs on them, so all this is dusty and cob webby.I'd guess it is available somewhere on the net. There were psuedo scientific theorist at that time along with astrologers and clairvoyants. I think Theosophy which had come up with a bizarre history of root races from Atlantis and Lemuria was involved. I think that somehow the notion of Aryan was brought in from India with it's obvious role in the caste system there. There were a lot of shadowy shady con artists, crackpots, mad scientists with a lot of bizarre ideas about race, Jews, etc. I don't recall if Christianity or Darwinism was involved. It was a sordid stew pot of wild theories. I know there are books that go into this but I don't know what they are. In the end it's just sick madness and I've seen no value in retaining this information. I may see if it's easily available on the net. Otoh, the ToE has been a paradign that has been used in thinking about society, economics, business, probably fashion. Before Darwin it was the paradign of Newton's clockwork universe. This is inevitable although quantum mechanics is probably too difficult to understand to ever be a widely applied paradign. Remember after we went into space people even sold Astro Burgers, and on and on same with the atom bomb. Yes scientific theories and landmarks get incorporated in popular culture, politics, arts, etc."If it's not one thing it's something else."(who said that?) lfen ABE: Okay, of course what was I thinking, the WWW is the home for every known crackpottery of humanity. The first site I googled also links Free Masonery and the Ottoman empire to Nazism. I'm making this up but I'll guess about a quarter of the crackpot theorist out there link their favorite hobbyhorse villian to Nazism. This message has been edited by lfen, 06-05-2005 03:54 PM ABE:http://www.shoaheducation.com/aryan.html Okay, check that out. I myself don't see where the idea of blood line purity and impurity comes from Darwin. Yes, it's genetics but it's not evolution. In any event the roots of Nazis race theory lie is some real (as in stinking with madness and psychopathology) crackpot theories. One would also have to check out the thinking about syphillis at the time. The author of the book POX, and it's an interesting book to read, thinks Hitler had contracted syphilis from a Jewish prostitute and that was the basis of his hatred. On the other hand the Christians had spread horrible stories about the Jews long before the time of Darwin. I think ToE could have played only a marginal role in this phenomena. It was not central stage but I'm not going to muck about further in the cesspool of Nazism. I've better things to do today. I just think you are mistaking the uses of ToE in all this. lfen This message has been edited by lfen, 06-05-2005 04:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It was not central stage but I'm not going to muck about further in the cesspool of Nazism. I've better things to do today. I'm mucking about in it because I think it is important. It shows you how one can take a scientific concept and distort it, and use it to create havoc. A scientific concept has prestige.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Well, check that website:http://www.shoaheducation.com/aryan.html
They have a lot on Nazism. But the subject is just far more complex than ToE. It really appears to have only a minor supporting role. I think the Bible is the prime source of the notion of ethnic cleansing as a God pleasing activity. I doubt that the Isrealites actually did it but it's a horrible irony that they were subject to an ethnic cleansing on quasi religious grounds to make way for a Master Race. I don't think Darwin had anything to say about a Master Race from Atlantis. Some conservative Christians on this forum like Faith think only good comes from Christianity and all bad comes from non Christian stuff. She seems to have started this idea that Darwin's theory is responsible for the moral situation of this day. But I'm reading GOD AGAINST THE GODS and the amazing thing is that after the Christians became the official religion of the Roman Empire they began persecuting and killing one another wholesale over various claims of heresy, so I'm getting really sick and tired of this notion that science is responsible for all the evils Christians do and then claim they are innocent and blame aethists for. The only thing that is really clear is that the early church lacked the technology for mass killing and science and technology have given us that. International Communism and Marxism is something I've always hated and it is a scourge but I don't see how Darwin inspired it at all. lfen lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Siguiendo la verdad Inactive Member |
I think it was quite apparent that Hitler said whatever necessary to gain power over Germany.
I also think it was obvious that he was using natural selection to murder "weaker" human beings, while also using incorrent biblical interpretations to murder Jews. Which gets directly to the point: It is extremely important the ideas that people have and will accept and that both of those categories of ideas be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
if you are going to tar Darwin with the sins of Hitler . . . That's not what I'm doing. Darwin is not responsible for Nazism and neither is Darwinism. Hitler was responsible. He used the idea of natural selection and perverted it. A scientific theory is like a hammer. You can use it to drive nails but you can also use it to knock someone in the head. The latter is a perverted use of a hammer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
robinrohan writes me:
quote:quote:That's not what I'm doing. Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically. In fact I wasn't speaking to anyone in particular. But this forum has seen more than a few religious wingnuts who equate Darwin's theory with naziism. In looking back over the thread I see that my comments might have been out of place. Sorry about that. I'll pay more attention before I go spouting off next time. "I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024