The modernist attack on religion was based on the victory of science, and particularly of neo-Darwinism. Yet science was open to the same challenge as religion; it could explain only half the world. The scientists, or some of them, sneered at religion for being unable to explain the developments of nature. Yet science itself was unable to produce a science-based morality for society. Marxism attempted to create a scientific social order that ended in monstrous and bloodthirsty tyranny. Social Darwinism either meant eugenics and the slaughter of babies who were not thought fit to survive, or it meant nothing. The Social Darwinism of George Bernard Shaw, or indeed that of Adolf Hitler, has been rejected by mankind.
21 comments
It can explain the computer you´re typing in, the fact you´re not dead over 18, internet you´re employing and the newspapers you´re using. So, please, don´t call it HALF THE TRUTH.
1. In terms of the victory of science over religion evolutionary biology is the least of your worries. Astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, et al shreded religion long before Darwin published his work.
2. The challanges science & religion face are totally different: science struggles to explain reality, religion struggles to run from reality.
Of course social darwinism has been rejected: it's bad science and bad philosophy.
But tell you what, go read "The Science of Good and Evil," and then we can begin to have a discussion about the biological origins of what we label "morality."
Man is not capable of moral law.The world kills children based on age and location.Homosexuality,adultry,foul language,cruelty,greed,filth ect.are celebrated as good.Good is called evil and evil good.To have true morality,there must be a moral law giver.JESUS IS THE ANSWER
Make up shit much?
Idiot.
"The Social Darwinism of George Bernard Shaw, or indeed that of Adolf Hitler, has been rejected by mankind."
- Whereas the social darwinism of Ayn Rand has been not only accept but sanctified by Christian fanatics.
William Rees-Mogg , a.k.a. 'Mogadon Man'*, is such a dried-up wizened old prune of a Monday Club-esque Tory these days - who sits in the House of Lords, dribbling what's left of his sanity through his ears, along with the remnants of his bodily fluids through his mouth - he's an irrelevance in 21st Century politics.
Why, he still thinks it's the 1950s, believes that Harold Macmillan - being ever so [i]modern[/i] with his social reforms and all - is just a young lefty whippersnapper, and that Karl Marx's grave in Highgate Cemetery is just another Communist Plot! X3
@Nedraed
"Maybe he's going senile"
'Maybe '?! [/Spartan Laconic Wit]
*- Contd. P.94 (Keep it up. Ed ) [/"Private Eye"]
"Yet science was open to the same challenge as religion; it could explain only half the world."
When the fuck did you lot explain ANY of the world? Science won't even brag they've reached half, you people are proven to know much less and deny what is proven just to be total dicks!
That's a shame, William Rees-Mogg is an interesting character.
You may wish to know I don't think he's a creationist, he's just an idiot.
Victory of science? Over what? What were they competing about?
Religion says it has the answer. Science says "let's find some answers". Science doesn't say it Can Explain Everything, religion does. Science says it wants to explore everything, question everything, test everything. Religion says Obey.
Scientists mostly don't care about religion one way or the other. Only when religion tries to butt in into scientific matters do scientists press it for evidence.
It's not the business of science to produce any morality; that is a social matter. Marxism tried to create an economic social order, but fell on people's inborn egoism and egocentrism. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Charles Darwin, and everything to do with tyranny and persecution.
The Creationism of Adolf Hitler has mostly been rejected too. Only fundie dolts bother with creationism nowadays.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.