Hitler, Evolution, and Christianity

He was planning to exterminate it:

Well, apparently he was.(I've edited this. My remarks were improper).This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-20-2005 09:34 AM

I think there is a link here as well, but it is not nearly so crude and obvious as Hitler's use of natural selection. The link lies in the idea of "dialectical materialism": I don't quite get this (yet), but it seems from this that Marx certainly thought there was a link.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-21-2005 12:04 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-21-2005 12:09 PM

As regards the prestige of science in the first part of the 20th century, I ran across the idea that people "fastened upon Marx's convoluted and half-baked theories because of the new turn-of-the-century faith in science as the answer to every problem, including human ones" (11).That's exactly what I'm referring to.Also this: Robert Conquest, "Reflections on a Ravaged Century," quoted in Robert Harvey's "A Short History of Communism," St. Martin's, 2004.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-21-2005 02:52 PM

Exactly.

You don't have to know about something to be impressed by it. If something gains a great aura of prestige--as Science did--then anything that attaches its name to it will be enhanced, even if the attachment is false. It is like endorsements in advertising.But Nazism and the rise of communism are different, since Hitler was voted in (more or less), and communism came about through revolution.So Hitler did have to appeal for votes, and he used mostly, as far as I can tell, racist arguments ("Jewish Marxism," "Jewish democracy", etc). He also used Christianity.But you can't say that about the communists. None of that Christianity for them. It was supposed to be "scientific" ideas that composed their platform. That gave it great appeal, along, of course, with the sense of injustice against the poor that was going to be fixed--probably the most important element.

I'm still trying to figure out what this comment by Marx means. It seems to mean that Darwin did away with the idea of purposeful design in nature ("teleology"), and this, says Marx, is a "scientific basis for the class struggle in history." How so? Is he saying that the lack of design in the animal kingdom corresponds to a lack of design in human society--so there's no reason why human society can't be designed anyway we see fit?Also Marx says somewhere,"Darwin did not know what a bitter satire about humanity, and his own countrymen in particular, he was writing when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence which the economists hold up as the highest achievement in history, was the normal condition of the animal kingdom. Only a conscious organization of social production, in which production and distribution are planned, can lift human society above the rest of the animal kingdom . . ." (qtd. in Isaiah Berlin, "Marx," 4th ed, 102-03).In other words, the "struggle for existence" applies to the animal kingdom but need not apply to human society (just the opposite of Hitlerism). Socialism can do away with this struggle for existence.This sounds very different from the Marxist-Leninist ideas you describe.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-22-2005 08:23 AM

You begin with Hegel but you reject his idea of "Absolute Spirit" as something totally without evidence. However, you keep his notion of a dynamic dialectics in history, which can be "proven" by references to historical events.Along comes Darwin, who shows us that there is no design in nature--and thus no Designer.This reinforces the idea of the materialistic part of dialecticial materialism. Everything is physical; therefore, what people struggle for are physical things.Because we are all in a struggle for physical things, all notions of morality and legality must be jettisoned as sentimental illusions created by the upper classes, which are brainwashed into the poor.Religious belief is one of these illusions.Since ideas about individual worth and treating people kindly and so forth are mere sentiments, the only standard we have is the necessary progress of history. This we call "scientific morality." Are you in tune with the unfolding events of history, or are you not? If not, you can be labelled as useless and destructive to the dynamic process of socialization.As a result of such ideas, untold millions were tortured, starved, or executed.There are 3 (not 2) categories:1. the scientific
2. the irrational secular
3. the religiousSince the first half of the century, there has been a backlash against science. The problem is that science is being confused with these irrational secular systems--confused because they were referred to as "scientific" by their proponents.To call an irrational secular system, such as Nazism or communism, "religious," is very misleading. Some wish to do this to blame religion and thus keep science free of guilt. Science is free of guilt, but this type of labelling is as misleading as calling an irrational secular system scientific.An irrational secular system is neither religious nor scientific.Such are the dangers of secularism.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-22-2005 11:29 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-22-2005 11:50 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-22-2005 12:05 PM

The general topic is "the misuse of scientific ideas."Hitlerism was one example, Marxism another.I'm not bashing Darwin or Darwinism; I'm bashing the misuse of scientific ideas.

My goal was to show that Nazism and Communism can legitimately be called neither "religious" nor "scientific" (some call them "religious").1. I wanted to show that Hitler used a perverted notion of natural selection, applying it to races.
2. I wanted to show that Hitler was not a Christian.
3. I wanted to show that Marx used Darwinism perversely to re-inforce the idea of dialectical materialism.
4. I wanted to show the devastating effect of such misuses of science.

I'm glad you responded. I need to thrash it out some more--and do some homework on Marxism.I think we can lay to rest the idea that Hitler was a Christian, though.

It occurs to me that what I have called the "irrational secular" might also be called the "artistic." These ideologies (and some of the writings) of Nazism and Communism might be called artistic productions that claim to be "scientific." They are artistic productions in that they are eloquent, they are emotionally forceful, and they are fanciful.So we have the scientific, the artistic, and the religious.We can think of the categories in terms of genre.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-23-2005 08:34 AM

I've been reading an essay by Engels entitled, tellingly, I think, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific."Engels sets forth the idea that earlier theories of socialism, which he calls Utopian, were inadequate because they were unscientific.Marxism is the scientific kind. What's scientific about it?: The idea of "dialectics," which seems to me here to be, at bottom, a synonym for evolution: I think we see here a clear influence, but it was more an influence of reinforcing the idea of evolution of society rather than Darwinism suggesting such an idea in the first place.The term "metaphysical," being opposed to dialectics and evolution, is puzzling. Essentialism? Special creation?

By "art," you mean a method of persuasion; but by "art" I mean a way of arriving at truth (a faulty way).

I agree. The way I came up with the label "art" was to ask myself, what other types of discourse are there besides religious discourse and scientific discourse? I came up with "artistic discourse."Artistic discourse is fine and can be very beneficial as long as it is not mistaken for scientific discourse, which in the cases we are discussing, it was, I think.But it also must not be mistaken for religious discourse.