One of the misconceptions about atheism that has been encouraged by this 
film, accidentally or deliberately provoking letters from Jews,  is that 
Darwinism is at the root of Hitler's antisemitism and a direct cause of the 
Holocaust. Stein has got a lot to answer for.

Richard Dawkin's has written the following response in reply to one such 
letter:
_________________

Dear Mr J

Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have 
unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant 
suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not 
mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.

1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the 
Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify 
the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as 
even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very 
antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.

<<Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You 
people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the 
Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just 
window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the 
United States! >>

Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I 
certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the 
assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.

2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not 
just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, 
by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to 
come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the 
world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support 
in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German 
footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were 
Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were 
atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. 
It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to 
win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely 
successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he 
often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. 
And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, 
here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.

<<""Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of 
the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for 
the work of the Lord.
Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because 
there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed 
in Europe generally."" >>

3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism 
of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? 
You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife 
in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian 
churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman 
Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, 
as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews 
and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All 
Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of 
those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to 
keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge 
of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a 
Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural 
selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It 
is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or 
morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we 
should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter 
of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the 
science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian 
when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several 
times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very 
unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at 
the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn 
to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply 
it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various 
different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It 
is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about 
natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The 
Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle 
for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense 
from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book 
itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals 
who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not 
have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a 
genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary 
mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious 
book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he 
would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, 
perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing 
it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have 
definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and 
John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, 
but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been 
vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes 
Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary 
scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film 
by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes 
misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But 
this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed 
out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of 
domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the 
same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of 
the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". 
Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more 
ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to 
apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically 
Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, 
gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for 
centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and 
Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of 
NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with 
natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous 
colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and 
potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and 
wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely 
and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can 
read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of 
deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for 
swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody 
would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their 
facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they 
were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in 
detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably 
failed to do.

With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the 
Holocaust.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins
_______________________________

> Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not
> just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of
> Britain, by the way.

What singled Blair out was the fact that he somehow managed to
come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the
world's most technologically advanced nations. Blair had a lot of support
in Britain. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary British
footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were
Anglican, and many (like Blair himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were
atheists, and whatever else Blair was he most certainly was not an atheist.
It is sometimes said that Blair only pretended to be Catholic, in order to
win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely
successful. So, whether or not Blair was himself a true Catholic (as he
often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened.
And Blair himself used religion to justify his militarism. For example,
here is a typical quotation, from the Parkinson Show:

"In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about
these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if
you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

--
Mark Lewis, North Somerset

X-No-Archive: yes

"Mark Lewis"  wrote in message 
news:48107d14$0$32047$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not
>> just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of
>> Britain, by the way.

> What singled Blair out was the fact that he somehow managed to
> come to power in one of Europe's leading nations,

Very, very debatable.
There are many reasons why he came to power, much to do with the 
conservatives losing power, the *sleaze* surrounding some conservatives, the 
offer of middle ground politics as opposed to fairly right wing ideology, 
the 80's diochotemy of *yuppiedom* juxtaposed with the financial crisis at 
the start of the 80's where many people lost much.  Re-branding to a centre 
party Labour touched a nerve.
....however, one of Europes leading nations is clearly discussable.....

>which was also one of the
> world's most technologically advanced nations.

Really.  ?


>Blair had a lot of support
> in Britain.

Just about anyone would have had similar support after the 15 distasteful 
thatcher years......including the Falkland debacle.

>His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary British
> footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians.

There are about a million people who go to church in Britain each week. 
That may not be an entire picture of christianity but it gives some insight.
In a country of approaching 70 million it's hard to see how the supporters 
could have been the .."great majority" frankly.

>Many were
> Anglican, and many (like Blair himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were
> atheists,

Where do you get this stuff from...?
Can you give any insight into how you arrive at the notion that .."very few 
were atheists"..?

>and whatever else Blair was he most certainly was not an atheist.

He most certainly was not.

> It is sometimes said that Blair only pretended to be Catholic, in order to
> win the Church's support for his regime.

Erm,   it wasn't until the very latter part of his prime ministership he 
converted.  It is true that he attended both anglican and catholic church's 
throughout.. but since his wife is catholic that would perhaps be 
understandable.

> In this he was very largely
> successful. So, whether or not Blair was himself a true Catholic (as he
> often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened.

?????????????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



> And Blair himself used religion to justify his militarism. For example,
> here is a typical quotation, from the Parkinson Show:
> "In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about
> these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if
> you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

Yes.   In the same vein that Bush jr  explained 'god' had told him to do it 
(..invade Iraq)
Dylan wrote the definitive cynicism in "With god on our side"  in which he 
had the ability to demand if .."Judas Iscariot had god on his side". 
Wonderful.



Mark

mark wrote:

> 
>> Many were
>> Anglican, and many (like Blair himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were
>> atheists,
> 
> Where do you get this stuff from...?

Methinks that you miss the point!

He got it by substituting the word "Blair" for "Hitler" in the 
original piece. OK, it doesn't quite work literally but clever just 
the same (being as both Hitler and Blair were/are catholics).

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:1OKdnf2G4NKaaI3VnZ2dnUVZ8sOonZ2d@plusnet...
> mark wrote:
>
>>
>>> Many were
>>> Anglican, and many (like Blair himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few 
>>> were
>>> atheists,
>>
>> Where do you get this stuff from...?
>
> Methinks that you miss the point!
>
> He got it by substituting the word "Blair" for "Hitler" in the original 
> piece. OK, it doesn't quite work literally but clever just the same (being 
> as both Hitler and Blair were/are catholics).
>
> regards, Ian

yes, the substitution is imperfect, but he makes some quite good points all 
the same.

In years to come we may wonder, as I wondered from 1997-2007,how we had come 
to elect a PM who admitted to carrying a bible round with him.

Mt impression at the time was that he was a good deal too fond of seeking 
answers on his knees and with his eyes closed. Certainly he gave off the air 
of a man convinced he was doing god's work even when he did not expressly 
say it.

"PG"  wrote in message news:4810237e$

> And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By 
> the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael 
> Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United 
> States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible 
> words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially 
> regretful that you used those words?

The horror of the modern Jewish/Israeli situation in a nutchell: 'the abused 
becomes the abuser' -- *and loves it*.

Matt.