Home
» Intelligent Design » Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”
Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”
| October 24, 2007 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
As irksome as Richard Dawkins can sometimes be, one must nevertheless admire his occasional outbursts of honesty. Over at First Things Fr. Ed Oakes refers to an interview Dawkins gave to an Austrian newspaper, Die Presse (July 30, 2005), in which he said: “No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. . . . A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.”
42 Responses to Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Re #29:
Thanks for the link, Bork. That article is pretty ridiculous.
And another reason I should be very wary of anything from Wikipedia (especially if no references are given).
Bevets said:
[b]“No decent humans want to live in a society, which functions after darwinistischen laws. I am passionate Darwinist, if it concerns to explain, how the life developed. But I am passionate anti- Darwinist, if it concerns, in which form of society we to live want. A darwinistische society would be a fascist state.”[/b]
Correct me or does this reflect Kant’s position regarding rationalism vs. morality? The thing is, that it was universal moral law that kept Kant from being an atheist.
Just a short comment, after having read the German original. Dawkins does state what is quoted, expect that he seems to agree with the reporter that in stead of saying darwinism leads to fascism it rather leads to radical neo-liberalism:
…..
Reporter:Not rather a radical neo-liberal state?
Dawkins: Yes, you are right there.
Apparently he seems to regret his ‘hasty?’ remark and prefers to restate it into terms that many will probably consider offense as well, for different reasons.
BarryA [and Jerry, re 30]:
I always find it irritating when a one-sided revisionist thesis or
assertion is used to improperly impugn, diminish or dismiss our Judaeo-Christian heritage and its material contribution to the rise of modern liberty.
For, BarryA [in 25] is RIGHT, manifestly right, when he said:
My irritation is especially warranted, IMHCO, when it responds to the rhetoric of those who are quick to trot out a litany of the sins of Christendom [which ought not to be confused with the Christian Faith and/or its sources! Cf. the just linked . . . e.g. Rutherford's Lex Rex on just how well based Absolutism was [NOT!] on the overall teaching of the Judaeo-Christian sources in light of Covenant Theology of nationhood and the state].
Surely, we can do better than this, Jerry!
Now, on the point I really wanted to address, Fascism. Here is Enc Brit, 2001:
This is a fair summary, and it leaves room to accept the point that the same enc makes about Nazism: In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian Fascism. Nazism, however, was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice . . .
The second excerpt also brings out the point that the idea that Fascism is always “right-wing” is actually misleading: National SOCIALISM. (And indeed, there were socialist and capitalist factions within the Nazi party. Notice the NSDAP platform plank on nationalising Department Stores . . .)
What Enc Brit does not bring out, of course is the pedigree of that emphasis on “nation” and “race” and where it leads in light of Darwin’s notorious comments on the same in his 1871 The Descent of Man. For, survival of the fittest strains inthe struggle for existence boils down to extinction of the “unfit,” by whatever means; and thence to a relativistic law of the jungle morality predicated on “might makes right.”
Nor does it bring out the import of the intellectual pedigree of the will to power of the one man who binds the bundle of the nation or race together as an instrument of his iron will. But that all too neatly lines up with the excerpt from Dawkins that BarryA makes in 26.
In short, Dawkins cannot live with the moral consequences of his evolutionary materialistic worldview when it comes to power and the state.
That should warn him that something is flawed in the system at its roots: he finds himself bound by moral intuitions that by his own theory have no proper force, so he needs to think about the worldview level comparative difficulties import of such a fact that we are bound by moral law. (Cf. BarryA in 26 and my linked on Evo Mat’s incoherence.)
In that context, we can now look back at BarryA’s point that fascism, plainly as more loosely considered, is a new name for an ancient phenomenon – the autocratic rule of the one or the few over the many.
Plainly, he has left off the question of how that elitism and absolutism are rationalised, which is a significant gap. So, let us ddd in the point about race or nation and we are back at a pretty recognisable definition, but one that would exclude some types of authoritarian states, e.g. the Roman Principate was autocratic but was also plainly multicultural and multi-ethnic.
However, let us note Wiki on the subtle point: Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity through oppression and coercion, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. (Of course, as a rule there is a mythical — factually poorly grounded — ideological element in those attributes.)
A common history or myth or religious identity unbridled by the egalitarian import of the Golden Rule — especially, respect and care for others outside of one’s circle of identity [cf. here the story of the Good Samaritan, about a racial enemy and heretic who did the unexpected but manifestly decent and good thing . . .] — can therefore also serve as the locus for what we could reasonably call a neo- fascist or a proto- or paleo- fascist system. [NB, here, the moderate, often Franco-phile Algerians used this sense when they labelled the extremists that they were fighting with in the 1990's, Is^lamo-fas^c^ists.]
In that light we can go back to Dawkins and note that it would only be race/nation insofar as it is genetically connected, that would directly relate to Darwinian natural selection, as per say his The Descent of Man.
On the other hand, the ethos of Darwinism unbridled by equalising influences will lend itself admirably to the other bases for bundling the mass behind the autocrat and his reigning elite.
A bit of a split decision, but trending to BarryA, I’d say.
GEM of TKI
Jerry, you are parsing the term “fascism” far too finely. Dawkins is not a political scientist. He is not using the term in a highly technical sense. He is using the term as a synonym for “brutal authoritarianism.” This is a common usage. The American Heritage dictionary states: “Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.” Dawkins’ idea here is the same one elucidated by Richard Weikart in “From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany.”
BarryA,
If you want to give it a rest, by all means.
But before I go on this my experience is that the term fascist is used by the left any time they don’t like someone. Dictators like Pinochet who actually transformed Chile into probably the most vibrant country in South America are fascists because he used a military dictatorship to do so while Chavez and Castro, both military dictators are men of the people.
The left wants desperately to associate Nazis and fascist with what is termed the “right” or conservative viewpoints so it is thrown out at any time they don’t like something. How many times have you heard Bush referred to as fascist or nazi. It is interesting that Mussolini was originally a communist and then tried to implement another form of socialism which is also characteristic of being left and so was Hitler’s form of government a left socialist institution. Both were nation oriented which is not supposed to be part of communism so the left tries to pigeon hole this form of socialism as “right” becausse of this. The racism of Hitler, not part of Mussolini, is also used to try to paint fascism as part of the right.
I would be careful with dictionary definitions because they are reflecting this attitude of the left to paint anything they do not like as fascist.
In re: 32
Kant does write of being constantly amazed and impressed of “the starry skies above me and the moral law within me” (from the conclusion to Critique of Practical Reason. He does suggest, or intimate, that God is the Author of both. But he doesn’t think that this can be known.
Russell once described himself as a theoretical agnostic and a practical atheist. Kant, by contrast, was a theoretical agnostic and a practical theist.
Jerry (and BarryA) and Carl:
Sorry, I am back with that Akismet problem — and no help from them so far this time. [Patrick, do you know why this has recurred, and so fast?]
I like the developments overnight. A few comments if you don’t mind:
1] Jerry, 36: Fascism and the Left
You have expanded my point in 34 admirably. I agree, even though Mussolini spoke of being “right,” Fascism is strictly speaking left-wing. And, let us not forget that there was a monarch on Italy’s throne all the meanwhile! (Or, that today’s classical social welfare Scandinavian and Dutch states are by and large Monarchies!)
It is worth noting, too, that Lenin in the 1920′s did not implement a massively centrally planned Stalinist style Grosplan five-year plan economy, he wanted to control the capitalists, not to shoot and replace them en bloc. Of course, sufficient control is tantamount to ownership, as Roman Law recognises.
Fascism classically aimed for cartelisation of key [especially strategic] industries, then applied strong state control. (Sounds familiar?)
2] BarryA’s point, 35
BarryA is probably right that Dawkins was speaking loosely: “Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.” I suppose that last “and” really means “and/or.” In short, “fascist” has — like “fundamentalist” — more or less become a hyper-plastic smear-word (i.e. a verbal ball of stinking mud) used for dismissive, hostility-stirring thought stopping.
Just the sort of thing Aristotle warned us against in his The Rhetoric, when he advised that our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are very different from those we make when we are pained and hostile.
You are ever right, that there is a tendency to abuse the word — especially by those closest to what fascism is, as a political ideology of the LEFT — as a polemical barb.
[NB: I like Vox Day's "revised" political spectrum, which now that absolute monarchism is off the table, puts anarchism on the extreme right, with libertarianism then modern conservativism (i.e. more or less, classical liberalism) in centre-right, then shading off into the various degrees of more liberal to more strict socialism as state control rises towards outright Stalinist communism. There are degrees, even of communism -- cf. Yugoslavia and Stalin or Mao. Back in the bad old days, classical liberal democracy was a radical notion, now it is conservative! oddly, Communism's utopian golden age was one where the state withered away into nothing -- which never happened and could never happen with real, radically imperfect people.]
3] Carl on Kant, 36:
Actually, as we can see from the Stanford Enc of Phil article on the topic, Kant composed a Moral Argument to God:
Now of course this falls short of knowledge more or less naively understood as certain and true belief relative to demonstrative proof from unchallengeable premises — i.e foundationalism, naively and narrowly understood.
But, as I discuss here, in a revised form of a lecture note/handout, such an attempted definition of either knowledge or proof is both artificial and indefensible. Indeed, such and approach is — if applied generally — self-referentially incoherent. If applied selectively to what one wishes to reject [but not to what one sees as plausible], it becomes selectively hyper-skeptical and inconsistent. In either case, self-contradiction, thus absurdity, results.
Looking at Kant through the lens of inference to best explanation in light of worldview level comparative difficulties [cf. earlier in the just linked note], the argument at once comes into its own as a practical “proof” that God makes the best sense of the moral order we experience.
So, it is not so much that Kant is “a theoretical agnostic and a practical theist,” but that we see here the limitations of human reasoning, proof and knowledge. Thence, we come at length to a humbler, Plantinga-style reformulation: knowledge as well-warranted, credibly true and trustworthy belief. But, with room for correction and extension, due to our finitude and fallibility.
_____________
Bottom-line: Dawkins cannot live with the credible social/political outcome of his system of thought and its inherent amorality: might makes right.
That should raise a warning flag that the system is unable to account for reality as we experience it. Thence,the point of Kant’s moral argument applies.
GEM of TKI
No idea, but I just emailed akismet again.
Berceuse: Suicide could be described as an act of “self de-selection” within the Darwinian scheme of Natural Selection.
What he is saying is exceedingly simple. Darwinian Law says that the elite (of a particular environment) will survive to pass on their traits and all others will perish. To make this the law of a society says that those traits we deem to be most beneficial SHOULD survive and be passed on and all others should not.
As thinking and reasonable beings you won’t find many people on either side of this tired argument that would want to live in a society like that. Allow religion or whatever dogma you wish to create govern our societies as long as they follow simple moral ideals.
Dawkins is not flipflopping, he’s simply saying there is a place for philosophical dogmas in thinking society.
(first post, I’m going to have a lot of fun here)
[...] So we see that Dawkins is not just any sort of fool. He is a simpering gutless fool. He wants to have his atheism with its concomitant materialism, but he does not have the courage to face the earth shattering metaphysical conclusions that follow ineluctability from his premises. Instead, he tries to smuggle foundational ethics (of a particularly Christian variety at that!) in through the back door. He shirks not only in ethics but also in politics. See here. [...]