Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

WND examines Norway’s terrorist:

Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’

{See Updates below at 2:30 PM on actions; & at 10:30 PM on Breivik’s manifesto}

Norwegian’s manifesto shows Breivik not religious, having no personal faith Posted: July 24, 2011 © 2011 WND

WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto shows the media’s quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a “Christian” may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims. . . . many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway’s Labour Party – as a “right-wing, Christian fundamentalist.”

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God’s existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.
——————————————————–
[Note: Also, the Finnish school shooter and the Columbine shooters attributed their actions to Darwinism. Barry Arrington here was the lawyer for the Columbine victims and

read through every single page of Eric Harris’ journals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

In the age of Darwin worship, the memory hole awaits this stark fact. But maybe not this time. – UD News.]

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” . . . The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas. . . .

“I am very proud of my Viking heritage,” he writes. “My name, Breivik, is a location name from northern Norway, and can be dated back to even before the Viking era. Behring is a pre-Christian Germanic name, which is derived from Behr, the Germanic word for Bear (or ‘those who are protected by the bear’).” . . .Likewise, media reports frequently characterized McVeigh as a “Christian,” though he adamantly denied any religious beliefs or convictions – placing his faith in science. . . .Breivik adds, “I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious.”

In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, “What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?”
His answer is hardly the response of a “Christian utopian”: “‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level.”

Religious worship and study is never noted in the manifesto as part of Breivik’s routine in preparing for his mission of mass murder. . . .Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith . . .Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons, which many Christians consider to be a cultic organization.

More specifically, he calls himself a Justiciar Knight . . .”As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus,” he writes. “. . . Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not motivated by Christian faith.
“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person, as that would be a lie,” he says. “I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. . . .

Read more: Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’
———————————————-
2:30 pm July 25th: Raising the title question raised issues faster than I expected. I support the excellent comments below by AussieID and kairosfocus.
Ideas have consequences. Should we not judge people by their actions?
Jesus observed:

Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.

Luke 6:44 NIV
Jesus commanded:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[”

Luke 10:27 NIV

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:34-35 NIV

Did Anders Behring Breivik obey Jesus’ command? The General Secretary of the World Council of Churches Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit,

“accused Norwegian gunman Anders Behring Breivik of blasphemy Monday for citing Christianity as a justification in his murderous attack on government buildings and a youth camp that left dozens dead. . . .” these actions in no way can express what is our Christian faith and our Christian values,”

For journalists to categorize Breivik as a “fundamentalist Christian” is a direct abuse of the public trust.

Did not Breivik apply “might makes right”? Communist regimes espoused Atheism and Darwinism. They collectively caused more than 94 million deaths to their own people as documented in The Black Book of Communism ISBN: 978-0674076082 –three times as many as all deaths in wars during the 20th century.
Objective statistics and actions suggest that Breivik acted on the social principles of Darwinism, not Christianity.
——————————————————————
10:30 PM July 25, 2011
Notes on: Anders Behring Breivik /Andrew Berwick A European Declaration of Independence
Breivik focuses on the expansion of Islam in taking over Christian countries in the Middle East, Africa, and then into Europe:
2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began

This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. . . .Islam is certainly in a position to force unbelievers into Dhimmitude (as is happening in dozens of Muslim countries in varying degrees), and even to wage new jihads, this time with weapons of mass-destruction. . . .Islamic terrorism has started with Mohammed himself.

He cites: Muslim 3584; Islam & Islamic 3274; Christ & Christian 2447; law 695; Immigrant & Immigration 678; Jihad 602; Mohammad & Muhammad 311; Allah 300; Dhimmi & Dhimmitude 266; Sharia 140; Colonial Colonization 149; Maronite 112; Coptic 56; Orthodox 72

Breivik is concerned by:
“1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe” e.g.,

You cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism… . . . More than 90% of the EU and national parliamentarians and more than 95% of journalists are supporters of European multiculturalism and therefore supporters of the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe;”

He cites: Marx & Marxist 1108; Multicultural 938; Political 1358; Correct 225

Breivik then addresses:
4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the
coming decades

This book presents the only solutions to our current problems. . . .The compendium/book presents advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organisational
and rhetorical solutions and strategies for all patriotic-minded individuals/movements.

He admires the Knights Templar as repulsing Islam and recovering Jerusalem. He uses: Europe 4275; Resistance 327; Solution 232; Patriot/Patriotic 224; Knight 610; Templar 221; Justiciar 326; Crusade 230; Malta 31; independence 84; Norway 219; Viking 13; martial 24; Hitler 53; Jesus 62; Darwin 4

Though dismissed as a “nut”, Breivik is tapping into the “clash of cultures” between Islam and the West. He had more than 7000 facebook friends before publishing his manifesto. There are numerous books on Islam and Europe and over 143 million hits on Islam Europe.

He may have committed his atrocity thinking to attract attention to his manifesto. This neither condones nor explains Breivik’s demonic/murderous actions, but might explain some of his frustrations.

————————————-

UPDATE September 20, 2011:  kairosfocus asked ((163) , (213) So I changed from “Norway shooter a Darwinian terrorist?” to “Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?” to emphasize that this is a question not a statement, and it refers to the social not biological consequences of Darwin’s writings (within severe title length constraints). I wrote this post to challenge the assertion that Breivik was a Christian terrorist when Breivik himself said he was not a religious Christian. I showed that there is significant evidence that Breivik loved/supported Darwin. (169); quotes Breivik talking as a Social-Darwinist, emphasizing “we”:

Social-darwinism was the norm before the [sic] 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel [in context, 80 – 90%]. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist.

; That is NOT to say that Social Darwinism was Breivik’s only or primary motivation as numerous posts below explore. Yet the moral and social consequences of Darwin’s writings strongly impacted the 20th century and continue to do so. DLH

Comments
PS: it is instructive to quite what I actually wrote in point 10 as reworded above, for comparison as this shows what the problem really is:
10 –> And, it is high time that incidents like this stop being used to smear Christians, this is at least the second time in less than seven months, or did we so soon forget what was done in the Arizona case!
(And for record: by pointing out the roots of social darwinism in Darwin, the implications of the redefining of terms by this madman, the implications of his fundament remarks on Darwinism, nationality, logic, rationalism etc, and the reworking of "christian" etc, I have not smeared "evolutionists," but I freely confess to highlighting that since Plato 2,350 years ago, it has been warned that evolutionary MATERIALISM is amoral, prone to triggering ruthlessly amoral factions, and the agenda that "the highest right is might," with over 100 million victims in the past 100 years. I believe that I can document every point just made, as fact.)kairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Time for me to move on to better things, like laundry and dishes. I have to say the general lack of appreciation of the tawdry, point-scoring nature of the OP has been most unsatisfying, though perhaps illuminating. I might be back tomorrow to see if things have moved on any. Maybe not.Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
I'd like to publicly and sincerely apologize to everyone here for not jumping on the "left-wing Darwinian fundamentalist nut job acts out darwinian principles" bandwagon, and to Allen MacNeill personally for insinuating that in his boasting about how he could teach his students how to engage in the scientific endeavor generally and in the field of biology in particular without regard to any moral or ethical implications of their work that he is somehow indoctrinating them into believing that there are no moral or ethical implications. Or, I could just have that spanking. Please.Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Forgive me for barging in. Allen_McNeill To be clear, if an action is right then it seems to me that it is right regardless of whether a deity says so (or not). Killing almost a hundred innocent people (the overwhelming majority of them children) is not right, regardless of whether a deity says so or not (even if they were Canaanites). There can be no moral/ethical justification for such an act, including one fallaciously linked to a scientific theory. Here's a good link: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-obligation-and-euthyphro-dilemma.htmlJohnPen
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Allen you're way too huffy and puffy about this, I think you does protest too much. He should be able to say whatever he wants until Elizabeth, or you or whoever, finally answers his questions. You wouldn't be here if you thought he's talking nonsense, you wouldn't bother with it.lamarck
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Prof Gumby: Pardon me but where in the above or anywhere else did I suggest that ethical responsibility is a sole duty of scientists? I'll save a search: NOWHERE. You have set up and knocked over a strawman. However, scientists, as the gatekeepers of the most prestigious knowledge base in our civilisation do have a particular responsibility regarding the impacts of science in society. And, i tis convenient to hide behind a veil of immoral equivalency, when in fact the major global problem is that for days now we have been inundated all over the world with a smear of Christians, specifically. We deal witthe main issue and then deal with secondary matters. On such secondary matters, I endorse the suggested retitling proposed by MI on 103 above:
Norway shooter a Christian fundamentalist and young earth creationist?
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
I hereby formally request that Mung be moderated (at the very least) or permanently banned from this forum on the basis of comment #98.
Can I just have a spanking instead? -------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. "Your mission" Mung, "should you decide to accept it" is to detail how you "teach" your "indoctrinating biologists class" and distinguish why it is a "doctrine" rather than "science". DLHMung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
I hereby request that Allen MacNeil be moderated or banned for the intellectual dishonesty he has demonstrated by willfully avoiding the logical outcome of his own observations:
19 Upright BiPed 04/21/2010 2:52 pm Allen, I appreciate that you see information as a causal force that is not reducible to material/energy. I also appreciate the fact that you see meaningful information as a distinct entity from noise. In previous threads you have made the point that meaningful information must be first perceived in order to exist. It is, in fact, a product of perception. What I do not understand is why you say that a) meaningful information is recorded in DNA (that which is transcribed into function) and b) that meaningful information is necessarily the product of perception, but then you equivocate on the conclusion that the meaningful information recorded within DNA was first the product of perception.
. . . . . . .
32 Upright BiPed 04/22/2010 8:52 pm Allen McNeil, if you don’t mind, I am still awaiting your clarification at #19 33 Upright BiPed 04/23/2010 9:12 am Allen MacNeil, if you don’t mind, I am still awaiting your clarification at #19 35 Upright BiPed 04/24/2010 6:35 am …again Professor MacNeil, it would be great to have your clarification at #19. Thanks. 38 Upright BiPed 04/25/2010 12:09 pm Prof MacNeil, would you be so kind as to clarify your position at post #19 Thanks 39 Upright BiPed 04/26/2010 7:47 am Allen MacNeil, Could you please give a clarification at post #19. It seems to be an important point, and I would like to better understand your position. Thanks 46 Upright BiPed 04/27/2010 10:59 am Professor MacNeil, Would you please be so kind as to give a clarification at post #19. Thank You. 47 Upright BiPed 05/01/2010 3:06 pm Allen MacNeil, Would you clarify your position above at #19 please. I have asked several times for this clarification on this thread (as well as others). The need for a clarification emerges from you own statements, and it would seem to be a rather important point within the debate. Consequently, it appears odd that you would avoid making your position clear – or, are you uncertain about your position yourself? Your response would be appreciated.
Upright BiPed
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
KF,
2 –> Note, scientists as professionals had better be able to join the is of science to the ought of morally governed professional, institutional and community conduct by responsible human beings, on pain of even worse things than social darwinist eugenics, genocides and nuking of cities.
Moving off topic, why do you feel that this is the sole responsibility of scientists? Surely the ethical implications of using scientific discoveries is a matter for society as a whole? Back on topic, I would suggest editing your point 10 as follows: 10 –> And, it is high time that incidents like this stop being used to smear anyone. With particular reference to this forum, this includes evolutionists. Does anyone have a problem with that?Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
I hereby formally request that MacNeill be banned for his comment at #88 and his endorsement of comment #85. I would endorse a ban of any who cannot control their behavior such that they make disparaging comments about or cast aspersions on this blog or its moderators. I also recommend that the blog title be renamed "Norway shooter a Christian fundamentalist and young earth creationist?" so that we can do away with all of this mock outrage. Thanks in advance. --------------------- Don't waste your "chips" DLHmaterial.infantacy
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Moderators: I hereby formally request that Mung be moderated (at the very least) or permanently banned from this forum on the basis of comment #98. --------------------------- Indoctrinate:
1) to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. . . .
Evolution as commonly taught presupposes naturalism and excludes intelligent design or creation. That clearly is a "viewpoint" or "Ideology". Be careful over crying "wolf". DLHAllen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Eocene: Okay, several matters. Looks like the response problem is part of a much bigger picture, Well, we are in the face of global terrorism and a wave of demoniacal mad men now. The Problem of people going along is not just the pulpits, it is the classroom, the lecture hall, the TV news, the newspaper, etc etc etc. Three of the few were Barth, leading theologian of the time, Boenhoffer, leading German theologian of the time, and Niemoller the WW I U Boat hero turned pastor. Such men should have been listened to. But hen all over Europe at the same basic time, they were mocking that old dinosaur warning about the strategic threat rising in Germany, Churchill. There is a HUMAN problem of being in denial of unpleasant realities, and worse, unpleasant threats that are hardish to see. Some time I will tell you about how people here failed to take the volcano seriously, and are in many cases still doing so. (Let's just say I once had a government minister on national radio all but denouncing me by name for neurotic fantasies of destruction by the volcano. The city where that dismissive broadcast was made, is now under 20 - 40 ft of volcanic deposits.) I have had to accept what I cannot understand about such an attitude. But it is a reality. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Eocene,
The problem with academic Darwinism today is that though they won’t publicly promote a racist attitude, they unconsciously do anyway when they promote all those racist evolutionary graphs & charts which depict someone from Africa with a Negroid background as being the living transitional proof between white Europeans and Apes.
Proof please or retract. Something published by an "academic Darwinist" in the last 10 years.Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
F/N: For further record, a few points for pondering: 1 --> On grounding worldviews with reference as well to grounding oughtness, cf here. 2 --> Note, scientists as professionals had better be able to join the is of science to the ought of morally governed professional, institutional and community conduct by responsible human beings, on pain of even worse things than social darwinist eugenics, genocides and nuking of cities. 3 --> In this context, let us note the amoral shaping influence of evolutionary materialism, which has for generations been ideologically tightly coupled to darwinist style evolutionary theory. 4 --> Indeed, it is fair comment to highlight that the institutional influence of this ideology has led to an attempt to redefine science on evolutionary materialistic terms, so the issue of the amorality of this worldview cannot be so easily brushed aside or dismissed, nor the tendency to lead to ruthless power-seizing factions that Plato commented on 2350 years ago. 5 --> I already pointed out above with citations the roots of social darwinism in darwinism itself, and have already pointed to the path not taken, in light of the contribution of Wallace, the co-founder of evolutionary theory, who viewed "The World of Life [as] a manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose," actually highlighting moral duties stemming from that view -- I especially liked his call on the churches to stand up for the creation of a society of decency, starting with then revolutionary ideas like the provision for old age and a decent living wage. 6 --> In addressing the mad man, I highlight again how the media plainly failed to do due diligence to see how this man re-interprets Christianity to try to co-opt it into his socio- cultural, ideological, racial-national VOLKISH agenda. 7 --> It is in that light that I point out the implications of the redefinitions he supplies for logic, rationalism [and by implication rationality] science, culture, etc. 8 --> He has explicitly reinterpreted, and redefined so we need to look at how he defines to understand the terms he uses. Even Christianity does not mean what we expect. 9 --> So it is a reasonable expectation that we should understand his usage of key terms in light of his declared definitions, whether of Christianity or of logic, science, culture, fundament or whatever. 10 --> And, it is high time that incidents like this stop being used to smear Christians, this is at least the second time in less than seven months, or did we so soon forget what was done in the Arizona case! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
I must now go to Cornell to teach my indoctrinating biologists class. =PMung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Kario "First as you seem Norwegian, my condolences in your time of mourning." === Actually I'm American, but married a Scandinavian.[and a posterchild of a typical "Lebensborn" blonde/blue eyed project if I do say so] (kidding) We actually live about an hours drive from Oslo. --- Karios "Please help see that some common sense measures are taken so the sort of situation where the cops took 90 minutes to arrive does not happen again, and the situation where you have sitting ducks in a shooting gallery does not happen again." === The problem here in Scandinavia is they are not use to this type of rubbish happening in their lands as it does over in the States, UK, central or east Europe or for that matter any third world country. They simply find it hard to understand or comprehend and don't really know how to come up with tough guy responses where other countries like the States would be Johnny on the spot. My wife and I had a 2:00am attempted break in to our house one morning and scared the crooks away. We called the Police and the response was, "Okay, well, are they still there?" "Ah No!" "Well okay then, just come to the station tomorrow and fill out a report." My wife's daughter called the fire department last summer to report that some homeless bums had started a fire in the forest. The response on the phone was this. "Okay well, is it still burning?" , "Ah YES!" , Well couldn't you just put it out?" , Ah No I can't." - "Alraight well someone well be there after awhile."[actually took them 50 minutes to drive a five minute run] The laws here are pretty stupid as well. Here in this kind and loving Socialist society if you kill someone you might get 3, 5 or 6 years, but if you cheat on those greedy coveted income tax monies you'll probably at the very least pull 20 years. Rumor has it that this Idiot Jerk Terrorist will only get 21 years. I could sit here all day and make comparisons to other country responses, but you get the full picture. --- Karios: Next, I am sorry, the locus of cultural blame is a lot closer to home than those often harassed men and nowadays women who stand in our pulpits." === The official state Scandinavian Church is actually a joke and doesn't even remotely reflect a shadow of what is found in the bible. --- Karios: "If you look up the Barmen Declaration, you will see that the warning against Hitler and co was issued by actually many of the leading Christian theologians of the time starting with Karl Barth." === Yes I've seen this before here - "A limited number of Protestants, such as Barth and Bonhoeffer, objected to the Nazis on moral and theological principles" Catholics will even come up with their token pacifist Priest who stood up to the Nazis. The big problem though is , what about the other 60+ million just in Germany alone ??? It's the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of ALL those Bohemoth organizations who bare the brunt of the responsibility(bloodguilt) and no one has done anything about it. The common people unfortunately will only do and follow what their leaders tell them. They have not been trained to read the bible for themselves and follow it's commands. The belief is that it's not the responsiblity of the average Joe/Jane Church goer, it's the job of the Priest, Pastor or Reverend to do their religious thinking and study for them. They will simply obey. Hence we have the present screwed up world that we all live and survive in when it should have been different. Let's be honest here. Christendom had their shot here. They ruled with an iron fist and had power over all of academia, but they blew it. No Atheist/Agnostic/Muslim/Pagan is at fault or to blame for Christendom not taking care of business properly. Back to OP. Yes Darwinian concepts and thinking played right into the hands of the racist movement that was going on in through most of the 19th and 20th century. That was the perverted thinking of the times. But there was no excuse for any Christian Organization to adopt and promote Darwinian ideas and that's EXACTLY what they did and no amount of history rewriting will change this. The problem with academic Darwinism today is that though they won't publicly promote a racist attitude, they unconsciously do anyway when they promote all those racist evolutionary graphs & charts which depict someone from Africa with a Negroid background as being the living transitional proof between white Europeans and Apes. The world will never come together as long as such racial biggoted concepts/beliefs are promoted around the Earth. I have asked this question over and over and NEVER get a straight answer any evolutionist. On any of those evolutionary charts, why is it that ONLY a white muscular stud looking European Male the only representation of modern mankind ??? Why not a chinese, or a Mexican ??? Why not a modern black man or Philipino ??? How about an India or Pakistani ??? See really evolutionary theory is about being white and on top of the pile.Eocene
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
I must now go to Cornell to teach my introductory biology class. We're covering hormonal regulatory systems today. Perhaps surprisingly to some, we will not be discussing any moral or ethical conclusions to be drawn from the topics we will be covering today (including the moral implications of having testosterone as one's principle sex hormone).Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Whether or not he be a Darwinian, I fail to see this as his primary motivation.fmarotta
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
KF, Re 90, read what DrBot wrote in 92 above. Sadly revealing for the Onlookers.Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
For the record (and to make my position as clear as possible), I strongly believe that the only justifiable headline for a thread like this is "Norway shooter a narcissistic sociopath" and that asserting either that "Norway shooter a Christian fundamentalist" or "Norway shooter a Darwinist terrorist" are both symptoms of a much deeper social pathology, one that necessarily results in unnecessary (but apparently deeply satisfying) demonization of people with whom one disagrees on non-moral grounds. Committing a moral wrong to counter another moral wrong does not make it right.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
the problem of a global smear with serious implications
Why keep smearing if you find it so objectionable?
... and my remarks were in part a warning that this man uses terms refashioned to his own ideology. So, if we are to understand what he means in what he says we need to look beyond the surface, such as his abuse of the Maltese cross from p. 1 on, etc.
Unless I'm misreading something you basically seem to be arguing that although he makes no explicit statements about grounding his ideology in 'darwinism', he actually is because you have carefully analysed what he wrote and determined that he is definitely a 'darwinist' despite the fact that he doesn't identify himself as such?
this man uses terms refashioned to his own ideology
8)DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
To be clear, if an action is right then it seems to me that it is right regardless of whether a deity says so (or not). Killing almost a hundred innocent people (the overwhelming majority of them children) is not right, regardless of whether a deity says so or not (even if they were Canaanites).
I think the whole point (or the hole in the point of) theistic morality is that if God says it is right, then it is right, even if it is actually mass murder. The really tricky part is figuring out what God thinks is right, as opposed to what people think God thinks is right. Lots of people believe they know what God thinks is right, but many of them disagree with each other. Of course even if God appears in the sky to millions and says 'Go kill some Babies' how do we determine if that is what God actually wants us to do, or if it is just a test of human morality.DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Mr MacNeill (et al): Pardon, but in your rush to turnabout the issue into immoral equivalency, apparently you have not paused to notice that I specifically identified the story of the origin of the nuclear weapon as an ethics case study that needs to be in the curriculum of science education. That telling oversght, I think, is a key indicator for the astute onlooker, who is the real audience for this for record remark. And BTW, nuclear physics is not strongly connected to evolutionary materialist ideologisation of science, science education and our civilisation. Beyond this, I think that it is further telling that, having pointed out that this demented man has laid out something as declaratively foundational, and that this should be taken seriously among the influences that shaped his behaviour, we still find the game of saying there are x references to this term and to that. But already we know from 25 ff above that the term you so emphatically headlined as having 1000+ references, Christianity/ Christian etc, is redefined by this man on his terms into a term of cultural/racial/ ideological identity; i.e. this term is actually an example of the point that was so impatiently brushed aside, and my remarks were in part a warning that this man uses terms refashioned to his own ideology. So, if we are to understand what he means in what he says we need to look beyond the surface, such as his abuse of the Maltese cross from p. 1 on, etc. Looking like a lamb, speaking with the voice of the dragon, in short. (And, think about the original context for that metaphor.) And, as we look at the balance of the thread above, the point made in the OP is underscored: the problem of a global smear with serious implications -- a problem that needs to be corrected in major international institutions -- is being brushed aside in the rush to push handy stereotypes against Christians, design thinkers and the like. For record, Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
This recently made video, from Rich Deem's website, seems most appropriate: Are People Basically Good or Evil? The Evidence (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Fl2OadGvM Rich Deem's main website: Evidence for God from Science http://www.godandscience.org/ ============== notes: The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris's 'flourishing' moral argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE Cruel Logic - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI =============== Atheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU Though Christians have certainly fallen way short of the Christian ethic to love you neighbor as yourself during history,,, That faqilure of Christians comes no where near the unmitigated horror visited upon man by state sponsored atheism within the last century. The sheer horror would be hard to exaggerate,,, Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/bornagain77
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Re comment #85: I was saddened but not surprised to see the title of this OP. But on the basis of past experience, on the last point I must regretfully disagree.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Prof Gumby: Please look at what the man actually says about what is declaratively foundational in his thought and agenda for society and how it shapes his understandings of logic, rationality, rationalism etc etc. Note also how he refers to nation and to culture in that context. WHERE he says is nowhere near so crucial as what he says. I have a fair comment right to hold that whenever he uses thoughts in this cluster the influences are present. And that other influences of like ilk are present too, such as that we should note how this eerily echoes the thoughts in Darwin's 1881 letter on beating the Turks hollow as a manifestation of the natural selection, Malthusian forces in action. So, let us see how he starts on p 5 by count:
Multiculturalists/cultural Marxists usually operate under the disguise of humanism. A majority are anti-nationalists and want to deconstruct European identity, traditions, culture and even nation states. As we all know, the root of Europe's problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence (nationalism). Most people are still terrified of nationalistic political doctrines thinking that if we ever embrace these principles again, new “Hitler’s” will suddenly pop up and initiate global Armageddon... Needless to say; the growing numbers of nationalists in W. Europe are systematically being ridiculed, silenced and persecuted by the current cultural Marxist/multiculturalist political establishments. This has been a continuous ongoing process which started in 1945. This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. This book presents the only solutions to our current problems. You cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism…
He is speaking from the right, indeed, but with a voice that is plainly deeply shaped by the fascist vision -- ironically, strictly a left wing ideology -- of the identity politics leading to a social darwinist clash at VOLKISH level, with a socio-cultural overlay and ideological factors. He plainly sees an alliance of the post 1945 left with its multiculturalism, with the Islamists, i.e. a twisted version of the Eurabia thesis. He is probably college educated, and may have had discipline problems with not toeing the partyline [at least from his viewpoint; he refers to Star Chamber courts]. It then seems that to him these are built on the foundation of the clash of nations, understood in ultimately a social darwinist sense. When on 39 he turns to Islam, he does so in these terms, where again I highlight the key tems:
I must admit, when I first started the study on Islamic history and Islamic atrocities more than 3 years ago I really had my doubts about the “politically correct” information available. I started to scratch the surface and I was shocked as I uncovered the vast amount of “ugly, unknown” truths concerning Islamic atrocities. There is a common misconception regarding Islam and Christianity. A lot of people believe today that Christianity still is and was as evil as Islam?! I can attest to the fact that this is absolutely incorrect. Jihadi motivated killings, torture and enslavement count for more than 10 times as Christian motivated killings. However, the politically correct Western establishments want us to think otherwise. The essence of multiculturalism is that all cultures and religions are “equal”. In this context our Western governments launched a great “campaign of deception” against their own people with the goal of creating a falsified version of the Islamic and European Civilisation, in order to make them equal. According to them, this is needed in order to successfully implement multiculturalism. Islamists, Arab Nationalists and Marxist theorists have been at the forefront of falsifying our history since WW2. Especially Edward Said's book Orientalism published in 1978, have been the driving force in this process. In the past, Europe has had a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has had a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile. For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europe’s colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous and direct competitor to our interests. Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed. On a local scale the threat lasted even longer. Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and Iceland. And this was at the height of the British Empire. More than 1,5 million Europeans have been enslaved since the first Jihadi invasion of Andalusia, most of which were brought to North Africa.
I think we can see levels of influence in his thoughts, and it is reasonable to highlight the significance of his solution proposal for the grounding of European culture in the future, wherever it appears in his actual writing. BTW, it seems he has never heard of the power of the executive summary! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
To be clear, if an action is right then it seems to me that it is right regardless of whether a deity says so (or not). Killing almost a hundred innocent people (the overwhelming majority of them children) is not right, regardless of whether a deity says so or not (even if they were Canaanites). There can be no moral/ethical justification for such an act, including one fallaciously linked to a scientific theory.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Whilst it is quite offensive to see how this event is being hijacked and politicised in the name of Intelligent Design (which is what this blog is all about after all) I can't say I'm at all surprised: I was expecting to see a thread like this here and it is serving to reveal some of the commentators true colours. Can Uncommon Descent descend any lower?DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Re comment #79: Will Provine has asserted that there is "no ultimate foundation for ethics". The word that seems to bother people in this quotation is "ultimate". Will is very clear that there are many proximate foundations for ethics. This is simply mainstream ethical theory, which encompasses deontological, teleological, theological, and many other foundations/justifications for human behavior. Personally, I find the use of the phrase "ultimate foundations for ethics" to be essentially meaningless, as it does not define what "ultimate" means. Does it mean "logically necessary"? If so, then I respectfully disagree with my old friend. Does it mean that there is some foundation/justification that supersedes all others? If so, then I would respectfully point out that this would mean that the fact that a deity (or deities) asserted it to be valid is unnecessary and therefore irrelevant (c.f. the Euthyphro dilemma).Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Good catch Chris! OK, there's your replacement headline: "Norwegian shooter a testosterone terrorist?"Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply