Darwinian Inspiration
by Bradford9/11 prompted Richard Dawkins and others to bemoan the harmful effects of religion. One of those was alleged to be the tendency for "religious wars." Of course the Crusades have been mentioned as quintessential examples. Over time this blogger and many commenters at Telic Thoughts posted historic examples of nations being led into war by atheists or non-religious leaders and questioned the reliability of the Dawkins inspired linkages of violence to religion. However, to be honest, sometimes religion can be linked to the motives of a violent person.
Preconceptions die hard. But as long as there are those clinging to their guns and religion preconceptions let's indulge in an exercise of logical consistency. If you think the religious linkage is valid then you likely think that religious inclinations attracting some to Darwinian inspired violence is also valid. Or do you? Evolution News and Views features James J. Lee, Hostage-taker and Darwinist. From the entry:
Witness the recent examples of Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter James von Brunn, Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris, Jokela High School shooter Pekka Eric Auvinen. Historical figures who drew inspiration, if indirectly, from Darwinian theory include Charles Manson, Mao Tse-tung, Joseph Stalin, Josef Mengele, and of course Adolf Hitler. I've written about this many times before and received much abuse for it, not least when I took up the theme on the Huffington Post. (An editor advised me they will not let me do that again.) There's also an interesting connection between Darwinism and modern occult theories.
Fashionable opinion habitually directs our attention to the evils committed in the name of religion. It's no less relevant to note that such things, and worse, have also been done in the name of other ideologies and worldviews, Darwinism being prominent among them.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Let's mention a couple of other things about Lee, shall we?
His manifesto has a bullet point on immigration, which mentions "immigration pollution and anchor baby filth." How do you like that, Bradford?
I think neither that, nor his proclamations for Darwinism are particularly relevant. The guy was simply nuts.
Comment by olegt — September 2, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
September 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Not much. Nor do I think much of attempts to discredit legitimate border concerns with the demonization tactic.
Over the years there have been quite a few swamp creatures who thought the Crusades had relevance to modern culture. My own view is that nut cases will act out their nuttiness and justify it by reference to the ideology of their choice. I'd be more interested in hearing from a Dawkins acolyte.
Comment by Bradford — September 2, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Bradford wrote:
I doubt that your wish will come true. You've banned pretty much all of the swamp people and now your blog turned into a right-wing echo chamber. Bilbo, a token liberal, is clearly on the way out.
Comment by olegt — September 2, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:21 pm
I presume that since Lee felt that humans are "pollution", he probably felt that the ones that breed more prolifically "pollute" the most. Namely immigrants.
Sounds like typical environmentalist leftist overpopulation-scare-tactic crapola to me.
I'm curious, Olegt… were you really trying to intimate that Lee might have felt perfectly at home at a Glenn Beck rally?
Comment by chunkdz — September 2, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:47 pm
I'm serious, chunk. As serious as the Discovery PR hacks trying to tie him to Darwin.
Comment by olegt — September 2, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:14 am
Should this be the last generation?, by Peter Singer. Wherein Singer goes on and on about the various advantages of making sure this is the last generation of humanity, a decision he only backs away from with a vague appeal to "optimism" while repeatedly suggesting that the continued existence of humanity may not be justifiable.
Of course, Lee went over and over again how "human birthing" should not be glorified, how sterilization programs (Eugenics, another one of those things that had absolutely, positively nothing to do with Darwinism) are needed, how civilization should be "disassembled", etc.
I'd say the only reason Lee is being derided as a nut who has nothing to do with Darwinism, while Singer and various environmental/animal "rights" extremists are lauded as passionate or thoughtful beings, is because Lee used violent means. But really, even that's not true: It's that he used violent means but failed miserably. If he pushed for everything on his list politically or through the media or with activism, he'd just be another "thoughtful, passionate" thinker.
Hell, people would be bitching up a storm about his unjustified banning from telic thoughts.
Comment by nullasalus — September 3, 2010 @ 1:14 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:02 am
null, you're late to the Singer-bashing party.
As to Lee, he was a nut. Here is a 2008 article in a Maryland newspaper: Money-throwing protester gets probation, fine.
\
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2010 @ 7:02 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:33 am
olegt,
I can never be late to the Singer bashing party! He's the gift that keeps on giving, because until he walks into a building and takes hostages, certain people won't call him what he is – a nut.
As for Lee being a nut, sure – let's go with that. The difference is that I'd say he was clearly a nut because he thought humans were a blight on the planet, advocates eugenics, condemns people for having (Wretched! Horrible! Polluting!) babies, and other such craziness. Why do you think he's a nut, olegt?
Because he gave away a lot of his money in a protest months ago? Because the protest was over global warming and, I suppose, how humans are a blight on the planet? Because he got arrested?
Comment by nullasalus — September 3, 2010 @ 7:33 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:42 am
Read the article, null. It mentions state psychiatrists working with Lee after that incident.
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2010 @ 7:42 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:51 am
olegt,
I read the article. There's one mention of state psychiatrists:
Now, I asked you why you think Lee was a nut. Is it because he was, after his protest arrest, evaluated by state psychiatrists before being released? That he was heavily influenced by Gore's book? By "Ishmael"?
Comment by nullasalus — September 3, 2010 @ 7:51 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:25 am
What, a guy who literally throws away his life savings, lives in a homeless shelter, and pays the homeless to beef up his protester crowd is normal? You are off to your usual mental gymnastics, null.
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2010 @ 8:25 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:37 am
olegt,
No, that's not normal. Neither is anything the PETA or many animal rights protesters do, what Greenpeace does with whales, or otherwise. Are they all nuts? By all means, let me hear that out of you. I'd love to see it. I'd say that if Peter Singer, Al Gore, or even Richard Dawkins gave up their fortunes to advance their cause, even with protests, we wouldn't hear "They were crazy lunatics!" We'd hear about how passionate they were.
And this all comes back to my point: Apparently, Lee's manifesto isn't nuts. Neither are Singer's views. Do I have you right there? Believing in eugenics isn't nuts and condemnable? Or demanding a decrease in population, even by force of government? Suggesting that perhaps ours should be the last human generation? Clear-thinking there, eh?
Comment by nullasalus — September 3, 2010 @ 8:37 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:08 am
null,
Lee's manifesto is nuts. Not just the content, the style shows he is off his rocker. I condemn it wholesale.
What else can I do for you?
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2010 @ 10:08 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:14 am
olegt,
Not a thing more, olegt! You condemn Lee's manifesto "wholesale". You condemn eugenics, reducing the global population by force and government policy, the idea that humanity is equal to or of lesser value than animals, the idea that the earth would be "better off" without humans, presenting parenthood and giving birth to children as horrible/bad, dismantling the US economy, halting breeding of humanity, etc. Good job!
Give all that, you'd also condemn Peter Singer, and along with him Dawkins and others who praise the man's ideas and those who are inspired by him.
Just what I wanted, and music to my ears. Thank you.
Comment by nullasalus — September 3, 2010 @ 10:14 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:27 am
null, wait! There's more! The sun rises in the east and sets in the west!
You'll be sorely disappointed that I won't condemn Singer and Dawkins. Singer, by the way, concludes in his essay that
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2010 @ 10:27 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
olegt,
Of course you won't – that would require some consistency on your part with regards to these beliefs you supposedly condemn. It's almost as if the manifesto and the actual beliefs hardly concern you – it's the PR and which way the wind is blowing at the moment.
Apparently the problem with Lee is exactly as I said it is: He was a bumbler, he made a bad move. But hey, suggesting that the continued existence of humanity may be immoral? That humanity has no special place in the world, and that the lives of animals may be equal or better on the balance value-wise? Taking firm, even coercive steps towards overpopulation or eugenics in the style of Singer (which in many ways goes beyond Lee's manifesto)? Hunky-dory, it seems.
But again, olegt, thank you. You really are the gift that keeps on giving.
Comment by nullasalus — September 3, 2010 @ 10:39 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:42 am
You're welcome, null. I enjoy our conversations, too. Your mental gymnastics are fun to watch! Keep up the good work.
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2010 @ 10:42 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:06 am
Olegt:
So was the one by Marks and Engles and so are ones issued by Al Qaeda. That does not address the issue though. The question is what inspires nuttiness? What motivates violence? Spinning this incident based on nuttiness undercuts Dawkins 9/11 argument.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2010 @ 11:06 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:15 am
Olegt:
He is not unless that is his desire. ID critics and leftists can comment to their hearts content as long as they are not trollish or uncivil. The fact that there are ID critics who have been commenting at TT for years, and still do, is evidence of that. And by the way those critics include some of the more capable debaters from your side. Trash talking is not their style.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2010 @ 11:15 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:42 am
Incidentally Olegt, would you dismiss the Lee incident based on nuttiness if he had been a fan of the DI or a follower of Rush Limbaugh? I suspect you and like minded people would be exploiting the incident to the max.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2010 @ 11:42 am
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Bradford,
I hate to deal with a hypothetical question and I don't think you should impugn to me what I have not yet done. Especially when you have no precedent on which to do so.
An apology would not be out of order.
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Olegt, OK, I'll retract my remark about what I suspect you would do (but not about like minded people as I have too much evidentiary past statements from them). Nevertheless you could answer a hypothetical as I did in my first comment in which I wrote that my own view is that nut cases will act out their nuttiness and justify it by reference to the ideology of their choice. That indicates that my assessment of David Koresh and Osama bin Laden (violent religious people) can be accounted for by the same dynamic that explains Lee. And that is not Dawkins' argument.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Lol! Lee was pro-Darwin by his own admission. He was also an atheist, anti-human, anti-war, pro-Malthus, anti Oil, global warming alarmist, radical environmentalist, anti-Capitalism…
…but he hates immigrant babies so he must be a right wing tea-partier!
Folks, it is always, ALWAYS, important to remember that these are not rational people we are dealing with.
And I'm not talking about James Lee.
Comment by chunkdz — September 3, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Olegt:
Incredibly rude and insulting to Bilbo. Bilbo is here because of his interesting and insightful views on ID, not because TT needed another "token liberal".
Apologize, pig.
Comment by chunkdz — September 3, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I would leave, but they pay me way too much to be their token liberal. I just can't make that kinda' money in a liberal blog.
Comment by Bilbo — September 3, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Records in U.S. District Court in San Diego show that a James Jae Lee was sentenced in August 2003 to 18 months in federal prison for trying to smuggle an illegal immigrant in a hidden compartment in a car through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.
He's looking less and less nutty (by lefty standards) all the time – huh Oleg?
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 3, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Perhaps this is what set Lee off: Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 3, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
September 6th, 2010 at 2:16 am
Marx and Engels, you mean?
Comment by nickmatzke — September 6, 2010 @ 2:16 am
September 6th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Yeah, good correction Nick. Marx and Engels.
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2010 @ 9:31 am
September 10th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Oh, nonsense. Darwinism is an extrodinarily minor cause when compared to religion, conquest, patriotism, and personal aggrandizement.
And bringing up James J. Lee in this context is just a pathetic misdirection.
Comment by don provan — September 10, 2010 @ 2:20 pm