The Luther connection has been well discussed on this blog, beginning here. In summary, Luther was wrong. He was wrong within the understandings of his own overarching theory, which is Biblical ethics. Hitler was wrong, but his overarching theory contained no corrective for what he did wrong.

Thus if the discussion is about the historical linkages (which it is) then let’s stipulate that Luther and Darwin both had an influence on German thought at the time. The extent to which Luther contributed to 20th century anti-Semitism is controversial among historians, of which I am not one, so I do not expect to be able to resolve that matter here.

If the discussion is about the overarching theory (which it also is) then recognize that Christian ethics includes an ethical corrective which a naturalistic worldview (like naturalistic Darwinism) does not contain. Again, Luther was wrong within the framework of his overall beliefs; Hitler was not wrong within the framework of his own beliefs.

I have emphasized that the persecution of the Jews is a long but less honoured tradition. Jews have been EXPELLED from every single country in Europe at least once collectively. Take, for instance, the merchant of Venice -play by William Shakespeare. The Shylock stereotype was written in a time when the Jews had been EXPELLED from England for 300 years or so. Shakespeare never saw a Jew.

The Sefardi Jews were expelled from Spain in the very date when Christoffer Colombo lifted up his anchors and sailed away from Spain. The Jews had to leave and their possessions were stolen.

In 1800-1900 maybe even 1,5 million Jews were murdered in Russia only in the pogroms. But the pogroms did NOT have the biologization in it! It was the new thing in the Haeckelian and Rassenhygiene -driven German phenomenon, in the areas where the Monist League had spread.

See the statistics of expulsion of the Jews from various countries and cities:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-Jews-statistics.htm

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (M.Sci. Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

You seem unable to distinguish between a statement of fact, such as “humans are animals,” from a statement of philosophy, such as “human lives are worth no more than the lives of insects.” If you can’t make such basic distinctions in reality, then finding a basis for morality is the least of your worries, or rather, of our worries about you.

I agree humans are animals. I am sorry to hear you are worried about me, though. Ontological beliefs may quite validly lead to beliefs about value. If you are not able to follow that progression of thought, then this is going to be very difficult to proceed with. I think it’s not a question of ability, however….

Anyway, earlier in that comment you had written,

A woman from PETA argues that we should treat animals as having all the rights of humans — right to life, right to liberty and pursuit of happiness — and you say she’s making the same argument Hitler made.

If ontology takes us into such a Bizarro world, let’s avoid the word.

You can avoid ontology if you want, but I’m not about to. You cannot make it unimportant just be wishing it so. Ontology is the study of being; informally you could say it is the philosophical study of what things are in themselves or in their ultimate nature. There are (at least) two broad competing views on human ontology. One places humans in the same ontological category as animals: we have different properties but at bottom we are the same kind of thing; there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals. The other recognizes humans as animals but also unique in significant ways. For Jews and Christians, that includes being made in the image of God, having the capacity for spiritual relatedness, and so on. Darwin and the animal rights activists (generally) are in the first group, as is Singer. Their ideologies flow from their ontologies.

But once again you’ve twisted my words. I said that there are concerning parallels between Hitler’s dehumanization of the Jews, and the dehumanizing stance that others have taken as a consequence of Darwinian-based ontological beliefs. You turned that into “you say she’s making the same argument Hitler made.”

You are repeatedly caricaturing and distorting what I say. I do not see any good reason to make myself available for that kind of “argument,” which is actually not argument but something else altogether. This is ending for good now. I’ll check in to see what shows up on your blog in your “call for help,” but this is enough for this blog.

Let’s avoid the word “ontology” for a moment — I think some people are applying an arcane definition to it that clutters discussion. You’ve accused people who argue for greater rights of arguing for fewer rights, on the grounds of ontology. You think I’m confusing? Have you read that argument through?

A woman from PETA argues that we should treat animals as having all the rights of humans — right to life, right to liberty and pursuit of happiness — and you say she’s making the same argument Hitler made.

If ontology takes us into such a Bizarro world, let’s avoid the word.

Let’s talk reality for a moment. Humans are mammals. Recognizing that scientific categorizing — a categorization first made by Christians, by the way (please don’t argue that there’s a link from Linne to Hitler) — is different from making a legal argument. You seem unable to distinguish between a statement of fact, such as “humans are animals,” from a statement of philosophy, such as “human lives are worth no more than the lives of insects.” If you can’t make such basic distinctions in reality, then finding a basis for morality is the least of your worries, or rather, of our worries about you.

This is the reality that the Bible recognizes, for example, in Ecclesiastes 3.17-21. I fear now someone here will try to drum that book out of the Bible.

Can we agree that humans are animals?

Wholly apart from whatever additional baggage being human may entail, can we agree that humans are a subset of that group of living things we call animals?

This is your opportunity to call me dense, but really, I don’t have a clue what you are saying here, or to be more specific, I can’t see how it fits into the prior discussion. (Maybe it’s because of all the commotion around here–we’ve done a major cleaning of the garage today, and there have been teenagers running around the house through all of this time.)

Anyway, we have been saying that there is an ontological difference between humans and other animals, an ontological difference that naturalistic evolution would erase. All humans, in our view, are of immeasurably higher worth than any animal. It has nothing to do with where someone was born, so I don’t see how that enters into the discussion at all.

Jesus is ontologically the King of Kings by virtue of his being (ontologically) God.

The Final Solution may not have argued according to this scheme. Fine. Even if Hitler did not draw his dehumanizing ways from evolutionary theory (which I’ll leave as moot for now) there remains a very concerning parallel, between evolution’s dehumanizing of all homo sapiens and Hitler’s dehumanizing of the Jews; and we see similar kinds of thought patterns erupting in Peter Singer and PETA (not to mention the really radical animal rights activists). I stand by that also, and furthermore I believe the current form of this dehumanizing (if not Hitler’s) is highly dependent on evolutionary theory as a philosophical backdrop. Not divorced from reality; just observing what comes out of ideas as their consequences.

As I noted earlier, the reductio ad absurdum of this “ontological argument” is that no one can ever argue for greater human rights, because noting that the lowest of the low is human and therefore equal to the highest of the high is exactly the same ontological argument.

If you refuse to recognize the difference in the arguments, recognizing that arguing for greater human rights is different than arguing for fewer rights, then by that argument, Jesus was nothing, because after all, He was born in a barn, with a manger for a crib. And you can’t argue He was King of Kings, because that’s an ontological argument . . .

Arguing for greater rights is different from arguing for fewer rights.

And, of course, the Final Solution didn’t make that claim anyway.

Not only is this entire discussion based on a gross distortion of evolution, and completely ungrounded in any history of the Holocaust, it’s completely divorced from reality, too.

I urge people to actually read the book. Darwin did not write in favor of eugenics in Descent of Man. If you’re stripping out Darwin’s complaints about the abuse of aboriginals in clashes between cultures, you could force something in there contrary to what Darwin wrote. But Darwin did not endorse eugenics among humans.

Yes he did. I read it and you’ve had it read to you.
Darwin and his eugenics are on this Telic Thoughts thread.
http://telicthoughts.com/cue-outrage-in-three-two-one/

It’s a short thread, the evidence starts here:
http://telicthoughts.com/cue-outrage-in-three-two-one/#comment-71844

As for whether or not Darwin was an influence on Hitler, the evidence abounds.
You’re a fan of Telic Thoughts. Where are your refutations on those threads where the issue was front and centre for weeks?
http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/#comments
http://telicthoughts.com/more-on-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/#comments
http://telicthoughts.com/textbook-discussion-of-eugenics/#comment-181388

As you’ll see if you follow the arguments and links there, it’s easy enough, any way you slice it. Haeckel was the premier biologist and evolution-popularizer in Germany of his day. He supported de Gobineau’s Aryan ideas and his own eugenic ideas with Darwin’s science and was a member of the eugenics society. He wrote that Darwin was his inspiration, that Darwin was the originator of “struggle to exist” and that he, Haeckel, studied natural selection every day. Darwin wrote back that he was greatly influenced by Haeckel and that Haeckel, among few, truly understood natural selection. Hitler used this phrase, “struggle for existence” over and over again in his writings, as well as “natural selection”. He practically quoted Haeckel on evolution and monism in his paraphrases.
Don’t like that? Go from Darwin to his cousin Galton then. Galton was writing about his African adventures when he read Origins… and became a eugenicist. The American eugenics movement developed out of his ideas and they even named their foundations after him. Hitler wrote these eugenicists fan letters regarding their works, which he read while starting Mein Kampf.
Darwin did not distance himself from either Haeckel or Galton but cited their influence and lauded them greatly in Descent…(as he did “our great philosopher, Herbert Spencer” – you know Spencer, right?).

Charlie, Darwin said evolution encourages the morality of Jesus, especially with regard to what we call the Golden Rule. That’s not what I see you describing. Check the book again. Chapter 5, on the rise of morality, and how moral behaviors are necessary in a social species.

You check chapter 5 again for eugenics.

That’s absurd, completely without reference to anything Darwin ever wrote, and quite contrary to what he did write.

That’s exactly what he wrote if you bother to read him. Morals can be anything they evolve to be.
In chapter 4 he tells us that, evolved another way, it would be moral for us to murder:

It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.* Nevertheless, the bee, or any other social animal, would gain in our supposed case, as it appears to me, some feeling of right or wrong, or a conscience. For each individual would have an inward sense of possessing certain stronger or more enduring instincts, and others less strong or enduring; so that there would often be a struggle as to which impulse should be followed; and satisfaction, dissatisfaction, or even misery would be felt, as past impressions were compared during their incessant passage through the mind. In this case an inward monitor would tell the animal that it would have been better to have followed the one impulse rather than the other. The one course ought to have been followed, and the other ought not; the one would have been right and the other wrong; but to these terms I shall recur.

As he says, the one would be right and the other wrong. And these are habitual and instinctual gifts bestowed by evolution based upon pleasure, inward satisfaction and social approbation.
As he continues through various moral questions and cultures Darwin makes clear that there are no moral absolutes, and that what is determined at one time and place to be a moral good is just that.

Here’s some Hitler for you:
Zweites Buchs:
http://www.zogsnightmare.com/books/NEWBOOKS2_4_08/newbooks!/ZweitesBuch.pdf

The struggle for existence and continuance in life waged by billions upon billions of organisms
takes place on the surface of an exactly measured sphere. The compulsion to engage in the struggle for
existence lies in the limitation of the living space; but in the life struggle for this living space lies also the basis
for evolution.
[Darwin, anyone?]
…
In the times before man, world history was primarily a presentation of geological events: the struggle of natural
forces with one another, the creation of an inhabitable surface on this planet, the separation of water from land,
the formation of mountains, of plains, and of the seas. This is the world history of this time. Later, with the
emergence of organic life, man’s interest concentrated on the process of becoming and the passing away of its
thousandfold forms. And only very late did man finally become visible to himself, and thus by the concept of
world history he began to understand first and foremost only the history of his own becoming, that is, the
presentation of his own evolution. This evolution is characterised by an eternal struggle of men against beasts
and against men themselves. From the invisible confusion of the organisms there finally emerged formations:
Clans, Tribes, Folks, States. The description of their origins and their passing away is but the representation of
an eternal struggle for existence.

..
First of all a very violent struggle for existence sets in, which only individuals who are the
strongest and have the greatest capacity for resistance can survive. A high infant mortality rate on the one hand
and a high proportion of aged people on the other are the chief signs of a time which shows little regard for
individual life.
Since, under such conditions, all weaklings are swept away through acute distress and illness,
and only the healthiest remain alive, a kind of natural selection takes place. Thus the number of a Folk can
easily be subject to a limitation, but the inner value can remain, indeed it can experience an inner heightening.
But such a process cannot last for too long, otherwise the distress can also turn into its opposite. In nations
composed of racial elements that are not wholly of equal value, permanent malnutrition can ultimately lead to a
dull surrender to the distress, which gradually reduces energy, and instead of a struggle which fosters a natural
selection, a gradual degeneration sets in. This is surely the case once man, in order to control the chronic
distress, no longer attaches any value to an increase of his number, and resorts on his own to birth control. For
then he himself immediately embarks upon a road opposite to that taken by nature. Whereas nature, out of the
multitude of beings who are born, spares the few who are most fitted in terms of health and resistance to wage
life’s struggle, man limits the number of births, and then tries to keep alive those who have been born with no
regard to their real value or to their inner worth. Here his humanity is only the handmaiden of his weakness, and
at the same time it is actually the cruellest destroyer of his existence. If man wants to limit the number of births
on his own, without producing the terrible consequences which arise from birth control, he must give the
number of births free rein but cut down on the number of those remaining alive.
Only a conscious Folkish race policy [eugenics] would be able to save European
nations from losing the law of action to America, in consequence of the inferior value of European Folks vis-à-
vis the American Folk. If in place of this, however, the German Folk, along with a bastardisation systematically
conducted by Jews with inferior human material and a lowering of its racial value as such caused thereby, also
lets its best bloodbearers be taken away by a continuation of emigration in hundreds upon hundreds of
thousands of individual specimens, it will slowly sink to the level of an equally inferior race, and hence to that
of an incompetent and valueless Folk. The danger is especially great since, because of the complete indifference
on our side, the American Union itself, inspired by the teachings of its own ethnologists, has established special
standards for immigration[eugenics]. By making entry to American soil dependent on definite racial prerequisites on the
one hand, as well as on the definite physical health of the individual as such, bleeding Europe of its best people
has, indeed, perforce been legally regulated. …
To this lowering, imposed by Nature, of the general value of our Folk by forced emigration in consequence of
our economic policy, is added birth control as a second disadvantage. I have already set forth the consequences
of the fight against the child. They lie in a reduction of the count of individuals brought to life, so that a further
selection cannot take place. On the contrary, people take pains that all who are once born are kept alive under
any circumstances. Since, however, ability, energy, and so on, are not necessarily connected with the first born,
but instead become visible in each case only in the course of the struggle for existence, the possibility of a
weeding out and a selection according to such criteria is removed. Nations become impoverished in talents and
energies. Again, this is especially bad in nations in which the dissimilarity of basic racial elements extends even
into families. For then, according to the Mendelian Law Of Division[Mendel, while a great historian of ancient Sparta, was even better known for his science], a separation takes place in every family
which can partly be attributed to one racial side, partly to the other. If, however, these racial values vary in their
importance for a Folk, then even the value of the children of one family already will be dissimilar on racial
grounds. Since the firstborn in no way must grow according to the racially valuable sides of both parents, it lies
in the interest of a nation that later life at least search out the more racially valuable from among the total
number of children, through the struggle for existence, and preserve them for the nation and, conversely, put the
nation in the possession of the accomplishments of these racially valuable individuals. But if man himself
prevents the procreation of a greater number of children and limits himself to the firstborn or at least to the
secondborn, he will nevertheless want to preserve especially these inferior racial elements of the nation, even if
these do not possess the most valuable characteristics. Thus he artificially hinders nature’s process of selection,
he prevents it, and thereby helps to impoverish a nation of powerful personalities. He destroys the peak value of
a Folk.
…
It will be the task of the National Socialist Movement to carry over into a policy applied in practice the
knowledge and scientific insights of race theory, either already existing or in the course of development, as well
as the world history clarified through it.

Now read Darwin again.

They were arguing that dogs, pigs and rats deserve BETTER rights, and should not be used as beasts of burden, as food, or as objects for scientific research.

That is, of course, 180 degrees the opposite of the Nazi Holocaust.

Once again you are talking about behavior (better treatment) not ontology. PETA’s argument is rooted in the metaphysical belief that there is a sameness on some ontological level.

PETA could have advocated that humans deserve WORSE rights, and should be treated like dogs, pigs, and rats. Their ontological argument would have been the exact same as the argument above – they deserve worse rights because they are ontologically similar/same. The treatment/behavior would be different, but that’s not what is being argued here.

The woman’s claim–and PETA’s–is that all animals are on an equivalent ontological level. I did not turn that into a claim that all rights should be restricted. Nor did I say there was any argument anywhere for genocide.

No, that’s not her claim.

When the garbagemen of Memphis protested, carrying picket signs that said “I am a man,” they were not arguing for anything other than an expansion of human rights.

PETA was not arguing that boys should be treated badly. Nor did they anticipate what you seem to assume, that noting the relationship between other mammals and humans, was a devaluing of the the human. They were arguing that dogs, pigs and rats deserve BETTER rights, and should not be used as beasts of burden, as food, or as objects for scientific research.

That is, of course, 180 degrees the opposite of the Nazi Holocaust.

I find your argument repugnant. When people claim that rights should be extended to the less privileged, you turn that to a claim that all rights should be restricted. That’s not the woman’s claim, and I find that twist to be dishonest. Any expansion of human rights, any claim of human rights, is a claim for genocide, in your reading. That’s complete balderdash.

If I had made the argument you say I made, I would find it repugnant too.

The woman’s claim–and PETA’s–is that all animals are on an equivalent ontological level. I did not turn that into a claim that all rights should be restricted. Nor did I say there was any argument anywhere for genocide.

Ed, I encourage you to re-read the entirety of what I’ve written about Hitler and Darwin. I have explicitly said that Hitler’s evil did not follow logically from Darwin’s teachings. I have noted that there was an historical connection nevertheless. I have noted that there were scientific and philosophical mistakes made in the course of that historical connection. You have accused me of making those same mistakes all over again, which I think reveals that you haven’t read what I wrote.

And then I noted how naturalistic evolution opens the door for ethical problems in at least two ways. One is that if it is taken to be the sole explanation for all of life, it undercuts the grounding for all real ethics. Relativism remains, but it’s the kind of ethic whereby Hitler could have been (and has been) seen as being right from within his own cultural framework. I stand by that claim. Note that I have stated it in abbreviated form here; the full argument has been given previously.

The second is that the ontological status of humans as uniquely valuable is eradicated. This does not entail any particular crimes by any means. It does, however, open the door for dehumanizing persons, which is very closely parallel to what Hitler did to the Jews.

You are appalled at things I believe, but you have not read carefully enough to know whether I do in fact believe them. I would ask you to be more discerning, please.

If I argue that the common man has the same human rights as a king and should be honored and treated in that fashion, I am not arguing for the murder of either.

What, then, are you arguing for? Equality in what way? Get specific, Ed, instead of just giving us platitudes. What should be equal about rats, pigs, dogs and boys?

Again, it’s about ontology, not about behavior. She made them equivalent.

Balderdash. If I argue that the common man has the same human rights as a king and should be honored and treated in that fashion, I am not arguing for the murder of either.

I find your argument repugnant. When people claim that rights should be extended to the less privileged, you turn that to a claim that all rights should be restricted. That’s not the woman’s claim, and I find that twist to be dishonest. Any expansion of human rights, any claim of human rights, is a claim for genocide, in your reading. That’s complete balderdash.

Here is Darwin’s theory in a nutshell — and note, there is no room for such claims.

Darwin said, first, species have great fertility. There are more offspring than can grow to maturity.

Second, he said populations generally remain stable, at about the same size over time (we’ve removed the barriers for humans here, but of course that’s exactly the opposite of your claim).

Third, Darwin observed that food supplies are almost always limited (this is a natural brake on overpopulation, but one brake we’ve generally removed for humans — again, contrary to your claim).

Darwin noted that where populations push food supply, there is competition for food between individuals. This competition almost never rises to murder; murder would be a very odd occurrence in almost all species. Murder for food is virtually unknown, even among humans.

Fourth, Darwin noted that no two individuals are identical. Variation runs rampant throughout life. (This is quite contrary to the general theme that humans should be treated as all alike, interchangeable, and not of intrinsic worth.)

Fifith, Darwin observed that the traits that make individuals uniqure are, often, heritable. This is the basis of much of the Old Testament’s discussion, of course.

So, Darwin said, in a world where food is limited, in the competition to eat, any individual with an advantage in gathering food, or using food, will be more likely to survive to breed. If they survive to breed, the traits that granted the advantage will be passed along to the offspring.

When those variations passed to offspring add up enough, we can say we have a new species.

From which of those principles do you claim Hitler drew his inspiration? Which of those, do you claim, advocates murder?

I don’t think you understand what Darwin’s theory is — Stein and his accomplices in the movie surely do not — and I do not understand any of those points that Hitler agreed with, nor do I see how any of those claims would apply to the Holocaust, which did not set out nor end up to be an “us or them” sort of competition.

Of course, she said that in urging that we treat rats and pigs and dogs better, not that we kill the boy.

Looking through the microscope the wrong way.

Again, it’s about ontology, not about behavior. She made them equivalent.