Quote of the Day

“No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.”- Eleanor Roosevelt

The Best Evidence for God in One Paragraph

Lawrence Auster’s highly-recommended website, View from the Right, just opened a new discussion: “Arguments for the Existence of God that are Logical, Easy to Understand, and Unanswerable.”

I wasn’t satisfied with the arguments that were being used, so I emailed Mr. Auster to voice my opinion…

I believe in the existence of God, but the arguments used in your blog post are not "logical, easy to understand, and unanswerable." Rather, they are flimsy, vague, and abstract. If you (or anyone else) wants to validate scientifically the existence of God, you have three solid arguments at your disposal: First is the Anthropic Principle (discovered by Brandon Carter in 1973) which proves (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the laws of physics were "pre-planned" to be "life-friendly" at the conception of the universe because even the slightest tinkering of those laws would make life anywhere impossible. Second is Intelligent Design in biology (best articulated by Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and others), in which the conception of purposeful Design is vastly superior to the blind, meaningless Darwinian paradigm of natural selection. In the past few decades, the evidence from DNA, irreducible complexity, and the fossil record plus the LACK of evidence for Darwinism has shifted the debate radically in favor of a divine solution. Finally, the vast collection of data from Near Death Experiences (NDEs) shows--again, beyond any reasonable doubt--that consciousness is independent of the brain and survives death, and thus, the materialist paradigm ("matter is all there is") is destroyed beyond any hope of repair. The philosophical implications of these breakthroughs is played out in my novel, The Mustard Seed.

A few minutes ago, Lawrence was kind enough to post my email on his website.

-Todd


**UPDATE, AUG. 14, 2009**



Since yesterday, Lawrence and I have exchanged a few emails, and someone named Sage McLaughlin has also provided some commentary (click on Lawrence’s website to read the whole exchange). In case – for some odd reason – my writings get deleted from Lawrence’s site, I’ve posted all of my comments bellow…

I read through Sage McLaughlin's post, and, I have to say, I don't think he characterized my views very well, or drew the right conclusions from them. First of all, I never said there is "scientific proof of God's existence." In fact, I agree with Sage that such a statement is impossible. Rather, I offered "three solid arguments" to "validate scientifically the existence of God." In other words, I am offering what I can consider to be the best arguments to "validate" God's existence through reason, not faith. If you have faith (as Sage apparently does), God bless him, but a lot of people don't have faith, and it's appropriate for us to persuade those people using the tools they are most familiar with--namely, science and reason. This entire discussion between us proves that when faith is absent (after all, we're not obligated to take Sage's opinion on faith), reason is the only means of communication.

I used three arguments for God's existence: The Anthropic Principle, Intelligent Design, and Near-Death Experiences. I'm not sure why Sage was so dismissive of these arguments. In the case of the first two arguments, if I understand him correctly, he's basically saying, "Yeah, they sort of imply God exists, but it doesn't clinch the argument." The only problem is I never claimed it would clinch the argument. As we all agree, the argument about God's existence cannot be clinched. However, just because we don't have certainty doesn't mean we can't go with the probabilities. In the case of the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design, the probability that material forces can be responsible for the creation of life and the universe are so astronomically remote, any truly objective person would affirm that there is a non-material agent at work (specifically, God). To use an example: If you won the lottery 15 times in a row, I suppose you could shrug and say, "It's all chance," but an honest person would say, "I think the game is fixed." And in a sense, the game IS fixed. And that's important.

In the case of the final argument--Near Death Experiences--Sage is just plain wrong. Why? There are two overarching facts. First, these people are dead. Let me repeat that: DEAD. Whether it's for five minutes, 20 minutes, or some cases longer, they are dead. If you are dead, you cannot hallucinate. You cannot have any sensory or mental experience. Period. Second, there are many, many cases where dead people were later able to document events outside their body--i.e, they were able to describe what was happening in our hospital rooms, what their families were doing at home miles away, etc. This is so well-documented a ten minute Google search would suffice.

In conclusion, it's clear that Sage and I are people of faith who think faith is critical to saving our civilization. I respect him for that. But ultimately, I think he is too quick to dismiss my arguments, and in doing so, he is limiting our ability to actively engage and change our culture for the better.

Later – in response to some further commentary by Lawrence - I wrote…

I think your last post was fair and reasonable. However, I would like to reply to your conclusion, "I can't get all that excited about Back to Deism."

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I presume the source of that statement is an assumption that Deism does not feature a personal God; that God is effectively a "blind watchmaker." However, my faith (which I wouldn't describe as Deism, per se) DOES feature a personal God who loves us. Indeed, that is the evidence provided to us by Near-Dear Experiences and other major mystical events.

But there's an even larger point. For me, the "excitement" doesn't rest in faith directly. Faith itself is not the primary. What is primary is a life of rational self-empowerment. The conviction (supported by experience) that each person, through the use of his mind, is able to succeed and find happiness on this Earth. In other words, our happiness is not contingent on others. We are truly the authors of our own destiny--to the extent that we wish to pick up the pen and write our destiny. That--for me--at least, is something worth getting excited for.

Later still…

I agree that Deists usually use the Anthropic Principle to validate their philosophy. However, I would argue that people shouldn't limit their interpretation of the Anthropic Principle to Deism (the "blind watchmaker" thesis). We know the act of creation was "fine-tuned" to support life. To quote the physicist Freeman Dyson, "the universe knew we were coming." Life - and specifically, conscious human life - was planned from the start. As such, I think we can infer that God cares for his creation (human beings) and is invested in our progress. Indeed, once we recognize this powerful fact, it is
practically illogical to limit our faith to Deism.

-Todd

Separation, Rational Self-Interest, and Love

The Mustard Seed is a novel, not a philosophical treatise – a story about people, not a tract about ideology – and therefore some of the components of “Spiritual Rationalism” were not fully explored to my satisfaction. One of those ideas is that “according to reason, ‘rational self-interest’ is the best ethical system for human beings; the best way to go live our lives on a moment-to-moment basis with all of the choices and decisions that come with it.” As I explained in a Dec. 2008 blog post…

“Why is ‘rational self-interest’ the best system? Because Reality is a condition of separation. Every human being is separate from one another. No human mind can truly connect with another mind, at least in any meaningful sense of the word. And yet, strangely, the universe seems to work quite well this way – with each individual acting, well, as an individual. Think about it: The person who knows the most about you is you. The person who knows the most about your physical and emotional needs is you. The person who is most trustworthy to handle those needs, and to take care of those needs, is you. In a very real sense, the world works best when people put themselves first and foremost – and follow the path of rational self-interest.”

Let me expand on this paragraph.

First, I assert that “the universe is truly a place of separation.” Personally, I don’t think that should be controversial – at least among people who bother to think about it for more than 15 seconds. When I touch the burning stove in my kitchen, I feel pain, but nobody else does. No one else is affected. When I feel angry about losing my car keys, that anger begins and ends with yours truly. When I learn the capital of Moldova, that knowledge doesn’t automatically get downloaded into the brains of other people. To repeat: we live in a world of separation.

The controversy lies in the idea that “the universe seems to work quite well this way” – the way of separation. For the average person, it is fine to observe that human beings are “separate” –– but it’s almost scandalous to assert that “the world works best” that way – that it is a “good thing” for us to be separated – and thus, we should be comfortable putting our own needs above the needs of others. Why do I say that? Especially when later on, I write about the importance of love…

In Chapter 9, Heather Manning says, “Love is the language of God – inspiring us to craft the highest vision of ourselves, and to shape the world in that image.”

When talking about her niece, Heather says: “As I spent more time with Elizabeth, I could see how my love enriched her life – increasing her knowledge, steering her moral compass, and nurturing her happiness. Seeing my values reflected in her – and enabling her success – increased my own happiness, as well.”

Later on, Heather summarizes her philosophy in 3 words: “Reason. Faith. Love.”

If love is so powerful – and such a strong catalyst of happiness - why do I spend so much time talking about “rational self-interest?” Why do I apparently endorse a “universe of separation?” Shouldn’t we destroy that universe? Shouldn’t we strive to overcome it?

Well, first of all, let’s back up. I do not believe that “love” is the purpose of life. Rather, I believe that happiness should be the purpose of life. Love isn’t “good” for its own sake; it’s “good” because it is a driver of happiness – the happiness of the individual. The feeling of love is a feeling of self-empowerment – the feeling of “leaving the physical limits of my body to recreate a part of me inside another person’s soul.”

Since love is an “expansion” of the individual – an expression of our values, projected outward into the world – it is an inherently selfish act (or to put it more delicately, a “self-interested” act). But yes, the product of that love (the benefit of other people – whether it’s experienced by a spouse, friend, or child, or anyone) does serve the purpose of tearing down the walls of separation in life. So there is a paradox – at least seemingly. The world “works best” when “people put themselves first” but through that very action, they also benefit the lives of others. Needless to say, however, I don’t view that as a paradox. As other people before me have pointed out, “good things tend to go together.” We shouldn’t be surprised that what is "good” for me (and I mean truly “good”) is also “good” for others.

But back to our main point…happiness (not love) is the point of life…happiness is found in the feeling of self-empowerment…a feeling that is expressed through the act of creation…the God-like act of taking a paintbrush to the world and redesigning it in the colors of our own image…that feeling is a product of the mind – the rational mind – which interprets and masters the Reality of Separation, and through that understanding, discovers who we truly are, decides who we wish to be, and judges the best path to get there. If we condemn the universe of separation, bypass it completely, and focus totally on love, love, love – we miss out on the bliss of self-ownership, the joy of being the author of our own lives, and indeed, we cripple our ability to give love and receive love.

To quote Heather Manning: “There is no ‘I love you’ without 'I.' 'I' comes first."

One final note: This is a work in progress. I may need to elaborate more on these points. And I certainly welcome the feedback of other people who think I missed a piece in the chain of logic, or used the wrong piece, or perhaps I’m just hopelessly wrong period!

-Todd

The Root of Happiness

Near the end of The Mustard Seed, the main character, Brian Raines, reflects on the past year of his life, and concludes:

“The root of happiness is the conviction (supported by experience) that you are competent and morally entitled to succeed on this Earth.”

Recently, I asked a friend of mine for his opinion of that quote. And much to my surprise, his reaction was quite negative.

First, he misunderstood the quote itself, by interpreting it to mean that “EVERYONE is morally entitled to succeed.”

To clarify, I wrote back, “the quote is referring to the individual’s conviction that HE personally is morally entitled to succeed.”

But this didn’t satisfy my friend:

“One of my concerns with your definition is that there is no way for one to determine if what they’re experiencing is in fact success…If one thinks it is success, when it’s not, then his or her convictions are inaccurate. And inaccurate convictions would lead to a false happiness, based on your definition.

In my response, I addressed each point.

On who determines “success.”

“The individual himself is the one who ‘determines if what they’re experiencing is in fact success.’ Now, if we want to discuss what the individual SHOULD consider to be ‘successful,’ then that is an issue which is separate from (although closely related to) the tangibility of happiness. But whatever that definition is, the individual himself is the one who will use it to judge his performance – and that, in turn, will be a major influence on his overall level of happiness.”

On the accuracy of that determination…

“Ah…now we’re getting closer…yes, hopefully…and thus, there is a feedback loop…the lack of success = less happiness = a reevaluation of what qualifies as success = new definition = more happiness…thus, the paradigm of happiness can be seen as a “learning experience.”

And on the topic of “false happiness.”

“I’m reluctant to use the term ‘false happiness.’ The happiness you had as a 3-year old playing with G.I. Joe may seem 'false’ if you played with G.I. Joe today…but it was real enough at the time…the 'realness' of that happiness is what I’m trying to explain…I’m groping, admittedly…but I think any solid definition of happiness has to account for the wide variety of human experience – across ages, cultures, etc.”

Later, I expanded on that point...

“You’re associating the original quote with moral relativism, which is not the intention. It is a merely an observation of the human condition. An observation which has to take in a wide variety of human behaviors and emotions – the happiness of a brand-new mother (selfless), the happiness of a man just elected to political office (selfish), the happiness of a Nazi soldier bayoneting a baby (evil). Etc, etc.”

So where do things stand now?

Well, I don’t think I’ve convinced my friend. However, I still want to use this email exchange as a way to elucidate a point I probably should have made clearer in The Mustard Seed – which is that while happiness is (to some extent) SUBJECTIVE (see the G.I. Joe analogy above) – a person can increase their happiness by practicing OBJECTIVE moral values.

What would motivate someone to practice OBJECTIVE moral values? I would venture to say “the raising of consciousness.”

For example, a 10-year old boy might find happiness by punching his younger brother…but at the age of 20, he no longer finds happiness in that activity, because he’s been taught (correctly) that it is immoral to inflict suffering on other human beings…but even so, at that same age of 20, he still finds happiness in killing deer with his shotgun…then, later on, when he turns 30, he no longer finds happiness through hunting, because he learned (through his college roommate) that animals feel suffering too, and it’s immoral to inflict suffering on any creature…finally, when he turns 40, when he has his own son, who he loves deeply, he finds happiness through teaching his son about the beauties of nature, and going camping with his son to personally experience its beauty.

Now, granted, that might seem like a trite example…but I think it hints at a larger point…which is that happiness is a function of our “convictions supported by experience,” and that “the raising of consciousness” churns the wheel of conviction AND the wheel of experience towards more positive activities…and those positive activities are more likely to facilitate happiness… indeed, I would certainly wager that the happiness of that 40-year old man engaging in a loving, productive activity is greater than the happiness he experienced as a 10-year old indulging in mindless, juvenile activities.

Why?

As I explained in The Mustard Seed, people have a “power instinct” – the need to spiritually inject a part of themselves in the lives of others. The content of that “power instinct” usually changes over the course of a person’s life. And in some cases, it becomes corrupted (say, through emotional or physical violence). The key is to channel the power instinct towards a positive purpose. Therefore, because the 40-year old has a grander, deeper ability to express his “power instinct,” his level of happiness is greater than it was as a 10-year old (when his “power instinct” was limited to primitive, uncreative purposes – such as injuring his younger brother).

If that is true, then it is certainly reasonable to insist that happiness is linked to morality (or should I say, “TRUE morality”), even if the experience of happiness is subjective, and, in some cases, people can even find happiness through genuinely evil acts. The greatest form of happiness is the most moral - which is the most beautiful. And that is love itself.

-Todd

**UPDATE, JUN. 13, 2009**

In my humble opinion, the pleasure that some people find through committing evil is so common and evident throughout history that it almost trite to post even one example, but as my email discussion with my friend proves, some people (perhaps most people) are quite hostile to this fact. With that in mind, I will post a brief section from one of the most famous novels of all-time: Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.

In this passage, one of the main characters, Ivan, is exploring man’s capacity for cruelty, and he says to his brother Alyosha (warning, not for the faint of heart):

“People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that’s a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that’s all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it. These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mother’s eyes. Doing it before the mother’s eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They’ve planned a diversion; they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby’s face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby’s face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn’t it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say.”

Apparently, these events actually happened; Dostoevsky simply adopted them for his novel.

At the Uncommon Descent website, Barry Arrington hosts a debate on whether the Turks’ behavior can be morally justified.

“There are certain things that, as Dr. J. Budziszewski says, ‘you can’t not know.’ You can’t not know that ripping babies from their mother’s arms, throwing them in the air and catching them on a bayonet is evil. Everyone reading this post knows this to be true without the slightest doubt or reservation. Jack is simply and obviously wrong when he says a soldier is free to choose moral standards in which such an act is good. There is no such freedom.

Anyone who says that it is not self-evident that the soldier’s act was evil is lying. It is quite literally unthinkable to imagine a moral system in which such an act is good.

Just as the statement ‘two plus two equals eight’ is wrong in an absolute sense, the soldier’s act was evil in an absolute sense. The fact that the soldier’s act was evil transcends time, place, circumstances, opinion, and every other variable one might imagine. From this I conclude the act violated a transcendent moral standard, and from this I further conclude that a transcendent moral standard exists.”

Personally, I disagree with Mr. Arrington assertion that the Turks “can’t not know” that their act “violated a transcendent moral standard” (I explain my opinion here). Furthermore, while I think that Mr. Arrington's theory deserves a serious debate, ultimately, it’s a side-show. After all, how many people are going to defend the Turks’ behavior? The real question isn’t: Can this behavior morally justified? Rather, the question is: Why does this behavior exist at all? Why does it occur in every part of the world in every period of history?

That would be a far more interesting moral debate.

A useful paradigm of ethics and happiness must explain the Turks’ behavior: What Heather Manning called the “joy of evil.”

But we can’t do that until we acknowledge that the “joy of evil” actually exists.

-Todd

Should We Aspire to Be Happy All the Time?

Since I started this blog in November, I haven’t talked much about myself – at least not on a personal level. There’s a couple of reasons for that. First, this is a deliberately anonymous blog (for professional reasons). And second, I’m a pretty private person (with a few exceptions, of course). But I’m going to open up a little bit today.

Recently, the quality of my full-time job has been going south. There have been some personnel changes that have left me feeling annoyed, frustrated, unmotivated, and sometimes even depressed. Needless to say, I don’t like feeling that way. And I’m actively trying to improve my situation. But in any case, I’ve been reflecting more on the meaning of happiness, and the best way to attain it.

In The Mustard Seed, Brian Raines defines happiness this way:

"The root of happiness is the conviction (supported by experience) that you are competent and morally entitled to succeed on this Earth.”

I like that quote. In fact, it’s one of my favorite quotes in the whole book. And I stand by it. But I think (in light of recent events in my life) that I should provide a more detailed definition.

For starters, let’s review what Heather Manning said about life itself:

“I would say that a self-interested life is a virtuous life, and there are three virtues which are critical: honesty, responsibility, and justice….These three values…provide us with a sense of ownership over our lives, and the confidence to surmount any of life’s challenges…When we choose to practice those values at all times, in all circumstances, we possess the final, all-encompassing virtue, which is loyalty to virtue itself. That is known as integrity."

After adopting this philosophy, Heather continues…

“Overall, I was satisfied with myself and I was optimistic about my future. But deep down, I had to acknowledge a simple fact: I still wasn’t happy. I mean really happy – the kind of happiness that treats every day as a gift, and very experience as a blessing. Instead, I saw life as a constant, lonely struggle with no greater purpose than my own wish to win that struggle. For a long time, that was all the motivation I needed. But not anymore. Now it wasn’t enough that my life mattered to me; I wanted my life to matter. Period. I knew the only way to find some greater meaning was through God.”

At the risk of spoiling the book, eventually Heather finds that meaning.

So…by adopting the right philosophy (and combining it with faith in a Higher Power), Heather achieves “the conviction (supported by experience) that she is competent and morally entitled to succeed on this Earth.” And with it, she finds happiness, as well. “The happiness that treats every day as a gift, and every experience as a blessing.”

But is it realistic to treat “every experience as a blessing?” Should we aspire to be happy all the time?

I am tempted to say “yes.” That is certainly the goal. And it should be achievable. But when reflecting on my life today (specifically, my job), I have to confess that while I certainly maintain the CONVICTION that I am “competent and morally entitled to succeed on this Earth,” most days, from 9-6 PM, I do not have that EXPERIENCE. I am not using my talents in a way that is consistent with my values. Of course, I realize that I’m not the only person who ever felt that way. I bet most people feel that way today. And of course, I have other outlets for my talent – this blog, my girlfriend, my family, etc. But it is sobering to realize that my full-job is not meeting my expectations. And so the question becomes: How should I respond to that? How should any person respond? Should we be happy?

Again, I am tempted to say “yes.” As an old philosopher once said, “This too shall pass.” We should not get hung up on the day-to-day trivialities and disappointments of life. We should stay focused on the big picture. If we are living a moral existence, that alone should be sufficient for our happiness. By preserving our integrity (regardless of where we are or who we’re with), we will stay confident in ourselves and confident in the benevolence of a Higher Power.

As Brian Raines once said: “At the end of the process, we must put our faith in God – because we know, through reason, that God is worthy of that faith.”

There’s one caveat, however. And it’s an important one. There’s no point in hiding from Reality. While we should aspire to be happy in all situations, we shouldn’t fake joy if the situation doesn’t call for it. In my case, there’s no point in treating recent developments at my job as a “blessing” or a “gift.” I should be honest in expressing my disappointment. And I should never feel guilty about it.

This brings me to a final point: There is probably a distinction between happiness and joy. We should aspire to be happy every day for all of the reasons I’ve mentioned above. But the emotion of joy itself (what some call “extreme happiness”) should be a rarer feeling – and for good reason. The feeling of joy should be reserved for specific events on a day-to-day basis that reinforce the conviction that “you are competent and morally entitled to succeed.” We should aspire to feel joy. But we should recognize that joyful living (as opposed to simply “happy living”) is a rarer, and more profound, occurrence.

So what’s the bottom line? At least for me? Well, I need to do some soul-searching. While I STILL feel happy, I am entitled to feel joy too. Even at work. That should be the right of all human beings. And I am going to work even harder to make it happen.

-Todd

The Despair of "The Selfish Gene"

For some reason, I felt inspired to look up Richard Dawkins’ book, The Selfish Gene on the Amazon.com website.

In a previous blog post, I had mentioned The Selfish Gene as one of the books I read during my teenage years that reinforced my atheism and my overall pessimistic outlook on life.

As I scrolled down the Amazon.com page, I found this “reader review” by Michael Edwards of Australia, and the 49 comments that followed it.

Fascinating stuff…

“I wish I could rate this book at 5 stars and 0 stars at the same time. It is a fascinating book, very well-written, and it conveys a real sense of how life works on the biological level.”

“On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly complex world we live in.

But at the same time, I largely blame ‘The Selfish Gene’ for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago.

The book renders a God or supreme power of any sort quite superfluous for the purpose of accounting for the way the world is, and the way life is. It accounts for the nature of life, and for human nature, only too well, whereas most religions or spiritual outlooks raise problems that have to be got around. It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the effects of this book on me.”

“If there is nothing beyond death, no spiritual dimension to anything, and everything is just a blind dance of atoms, I fail to see how this by itself can give one a real sense of purpose, however fascinating the dance that Dawkins describes - and it *is* fascinating; let there be no mistake about that.

Because of this, I have the curious feeling of dichotomy about Dawkins' book that it is certainly fascinating on one level, but that I cannot give even qualified emotional commitment to the outlook on life that seems to lie behind it. I would in the end rather have the hope of something wonderful and purposeful that only some spiritual outlook can offer, even though it may be a deluded fantasy, than the certainty of a scientific vision that eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty, eternal death of nothingness in the end. This scientific view may be completely rational; but rationality is not the only important consideration to shape our outlook on life.”

“In my more depressed moments, I have desperately wished I could unread the book, and continue life from where I left off.

It has been said that each of us has a God-shaped hole inside, and that we spend most of our lives trying to fill it with the wrong things. I firmly believe that God-shaped hole is there, that we have inner longings of a wonderful sort almost impossible to describe in words. Whether a God exists to fill it, I do not yet know. But what I am sure of is that, as wonderful as Dawkins' view of nature and of life may be on its own level, it will not fill that God-shaped hole.”

I can relate to a lot to what Mr. Edwards is saying, although, luckily for me, I’ve “grown” beyond The Selfish Gene. I can only hope that Mr. Edwards does the same.

**UPDATE: APRIL 2, 2009**



While reading through the archives of Denyse O'Leary's Post-Darwinist blog, I found a few nuggets of information that relate to this post: namely, that Darwinist dogma - when allowed to seep into the minds of young people without giving the other side to make a counterargument - can lead to devastating consequences.

First of all, with the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings coming up in a few weeks, it's useful to read David Arrington's blog post, Darwin and Columbine...

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; 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!”

Elsewhere he wrote: “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” I could multiply examples, but you get the picture.

It was no coincidence that on the day of the shootings Harris wore a shirt with two words written on it: “Natural Selection.”

But there's more...

In 2007, a Finnish high school student who killed 8 people was apparently motivated by Social Darwinism...

In the rambling text posted on the site, Auvinen said that he is "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist.
"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," he wrote. "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."

But the most poignant story is the one about Jesse Kilgore...

Jesse Kilgore, a college student whose loss of faith and subsequent suicide has been linked to his biology class and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. After his professor challenged him to read the anti-theistic book and rule out the possibility of God’s existence in light of the evidence for evolution, Jesse experienced a crisis of faith. Now his father is arguing for academic freedom for intelligent design and critiques of Darwin’s theory.

A podcast with Jesse's father can be found here.

**UPDATE, JUN. 10, 2009**


Barry Arrington, who represents the families of 6 Columbine victims, says...

"The moral implications of Darwin’s theory are there for all to see. Eric Harris was a brilliant young man (Dylan Klebold was a follower, more or less along for the ride). Harris paid attention in class and he learned both Darwin and Nietzsche (and wrote about both in his journal). He put two and two together and got 'kill everyone whom I deem to be inferior.' In our public school system Harris was steeped in the moral darkness and nihilism of Darwin and Nietzsche. Tragically, he was not exposed to any countervailing influences, He took what he learned and, however misguided his actions were, he acted upon his lessons.

This is the lesson of Columbine at least insofar as our schools are concerned: It is very dangerous to spout untempered nihilism in class, because someone just might take you seriously and act on your lesson."

-Todd