0
Using what argument can Atheists oppose Social Darwinism while accepting the Theory of Evolution?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Understanding the Underlying Religious Perspective
In Christianity, the pious are supposed to see meaning in the very way that the world is structured to justify how societies should be run. This makes logical sense if you assume the faith positions of Christianity, namely that: God created the Earth, everything happens according to His will, and man is supposed to emulate God's will. As a result, they have an idea of an equivalence between the situation that is and what should be striven for. The only deviation between this equivalence is where God in The Bible makes clear what should occur in the perfect city. Since Atheists do not have a god who does this, Christians assume this equivalence is the natural belief pattern of an Atheist. Therefore, Social Darwinism, which is the application of Evolutionary Principles of Natural Selection to the human experience would appear to be something that Atheists would naturally advocate.
The Atheist Explanation
According to the Christian, if "X" is a natural condition and Atheists only accept naturalism as an explanation for what is true, then by this virtue, Atheist ethics should match the natural condition. The equivalence is false. Of course, what this position fails to notice is that Atheists do not believe that moral or ethical concerns are derived from the natural conditions since one is a question of optimal societal values and another is a question of how the world works. Atheists can make moral and societal claims based on maximizing a different set of factors in a society than the methods nature employs to organize itself. For example, Atheists can base morality on minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure or increasing fairness and decreasing inequalities. Compassion is something that Atheists have just like everyone else.
It should also be noted that Social Darwinism is also clearly not related to Evolution by Natural Selection if we examine the two concepts. Social Darwinism asserts dominance within a species based on arbitrary tribal units (countries) as opposed to individual characteristics. Genetics are not being selected for or against. The competition between the races is artificially rigged against the less technologically advanced than based on environmental factors. The fight is over societal domination as opposed to adaptations to match the environment. Culture and religion are personal choices, not contingent on genetics or instincts. However, Social Darwinism came into existence in the late-1800s age of pseudo-science which sought to justify European right to conquer the world. If such conquest were seen to be as natural as evolution by natural selection, then there should be no reason to oppose it.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do atheists reject the design argument?
Primarily, the "design" argument is religious-faith-based construct and simply a new name for creationism. Atheists simply do not accept religious-faith-based arguments to explain the natural world. Atheists tend to reject the design argument mainly because of our current knowledge of the theory of evolution. The vast majority of natural things which appear designed, such as wings, have been shown to be the process of evolution by natural selection. There remain some things which appear designed that haven't yet been explained by evolutionary theory, but atheists typically argue that these are minor, and will be explained eventually since there is abundant evidence that supports evolution and it can be reproduced in the laboratory. Another common line of argument is that the few things we cannot currently explain by evolution may never be explained, and for the time being it is better to say "we do not know" than "this means God did it". Scientific research is an ongoing process. For an interesting and comprehensive discussion of 'intelligent design aka creationism" see the link provided below for the decision in Kitzmiller vs Dover.
How does Carnegie use the doctrine of social Darwinism to support his argument?
Carnegie used the doctrine of social Darwinism to justify his belief in the "survival of the fittest" in business. He argued that successful industrialists like himself were naturally superior and deserved their wealth, while those who struggled or failed were not fit for success. This belief allowed Carnegie to argue against government intervention or regulation in business, promoting a laissez-faire approach.
A supporting component of an argument which outlines the reasons for accepting the conclusion is known as the?
Premises. These are statements or propositions that provide evidence or support for a conclusion in an argument.
Why is atheism impossible?
The short answer is it isn't; there are clearly millions of atheists. There is a theological thought that if there are all powerful gods, there wouldn't be any atheists, so the fact that there are is an argument against gods' existence.
What is the difference between blocking and building and accepting?
Blocking is where you ignore that fact that you are losing the argument against your friend, building is where you build together to find a way to sort things out and accepting is where accept that fact that you are losing that argument against your friend.
When was creationism done?
When Charles Hodge wrote "What is Darwinism?" in 1874 and argued that evolution can not explain the complexities of the eye is when creationism was first used as a tool against evolution. Before that, Thomas Aquinas and later William Paley used the design argument to 'prove' God's existence, as a small group in the United States are doing today, and the story of Creation was believed to be literally true by all Christian sects. However, it was not called 'Creationism' as there was no opposing theory at the time.
Why do some people claim that accepting Darwinian Evolution necessarily requires accepting Social Darwinism as an acceptable political theory?
Because it is a strawman argument designed to make people who accept evolution look like Nazi sympathizers. Charles Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is merely an explanation for the mechanics behind evolution. It posits that animals who adapt to changes in their environment will survive longer than those who are not well adapted for said changes. This is often called "survival of the fittest." Fitness in this context does not mean something is physically larger or stronger, only that their adaptation has allowed them to survive long enough to produce more children. For example, a smaller, weaker animal with more offspring would be considered "fitter" than a larger, stronger animal with less offspring. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, posits that only physically strong and mentally brilliant people should survive, while mentally and physically handicapped people should not be able to propagate (the Nazis were known to euthanize the latter type). Therefore, they are both two completely different concepts. However, creationists who have no formal background in science tend to confuse the two since they do not fully understand the basic principles of Darwin's theory. They claim the two are mutually inclusive in order to deter people from accepting evolution. The average person (religious or otherwise) is less likely to accept something if they think it is linked to the Nazis. Creationists do this not necessarily because they dislike the Nazis (which I'm sure they do), but because evolution contrasts with their religious beliefs--i.e., the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh created all life in its current form. See the linked paper below for more information on the subject.
What scientist besides charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace were the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
Is there a credible scientific theory that opposes evolution?
The argument against the theory of evolution is Creation ex-nihilo ['out of nothing'] by God, sometimes called the Intelligent Design, or ID, theory. = =
What is the religion of atheists?
Atheism is the belief that there is no God or a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.Atheism is not a religion. If you see that the question "What is the religion of non-Catholicism" is meaningless, then you grasp the idea. There are some faith-based individuals who make the argument that atheism is indeed a religion since it places an individual in a certain position before the deity, but this argument is rhetorical and dramatic, meant to help persuade others to take a theistic position. The argument may have a specialized meaning to people who already believe. The concept of atheism as a religion has no meaning whatever to atheists.
Which God does an atheist believe in?
Atheists do not believe in any god. Some atheists believe that there is no evidence that any god exists and that therefore there is no reason to believe in a god. Others believe positively that there is no god.Some Christians try to trick atheists by asking them to describe the god they do not believe in. If successful, the argument then becomes one about properly defining the "true God". This is dissembling, because, atheists do not believe in God, no matter how defined.Answer:Atheist by definition do not believe in god. It is like asking "who is a bachelor's spouse?"
How and when did the argument between creation and evolution begin?
Just after the beginning of the 20th century a religious revival called fundamentalism gained traction in America and the battle commenced. Of course there was opposition before then, but now the opponents of evolutionary science were literalists in their biblical interpretations and well organized in their opposition to the theory of evolution by natural selection. There is no real argument, Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains much of the fact of evolution. Creationism is pure nonsense.
