The Wisdom of Hector Avalos
John on May 23, 2007 at 12:18 am
Professor Avalos hasn’t returned since his visit to the blog last week. Today I came across this post at the Discovery Institute offering some further insight into the mind of the man who thinks we shouldn’t assume human life is more valuable than AIDS:
Avalos’s promotion to full professor comes just in time for the publication of his new book on the Bible later this month. According to the publisher’s description, Avalos argues in the book
that our world is best served by leaving the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilization instead of the “living” document most religionist scholars believe it should be. He urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader society to recognize the irrelevance and even violent effects of the Bible in modern life.
Somehow I don’t suspect he’s really singling out Islam here. That would be risky.
The post offers some other brief excerpts from one of his books. It’s hard to get a handle on what he’s saying from these small snippets:
“The purpose here is to show that the Nazi policy of genocide was based on premises quite similar to those in the Hebrew Bible.” [p. 316]
“the Nazi Holocaust represents the synthesis of attitudes found in both the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures.” [p. 318]
“[Scholars Katz and Wolpoff] fail to see the parallels between certain practices promulgated in the Hebrew Bible itself. Indeed, the supreme irony of the Holocaust is that the genocidal policies first systematically enunciated in the Hebrew scriptures were reversed by the Nazis. Nazi ideology simply had better technology to do what biblical authors had said they would do to their enemies.” [pp. 318-319]
“Hitler saw himself as trying to counteract Hebrew racism, which he saw as the main counterpart and enemy of the German race.” [p. 319]
“Nazi ideology is similar to creationist ideology, which believes that scientific findings support the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood.” [p. 318]
It sounds a bit like the wife beaters defense: “Look what you made me do!” There is some evidence that Hitler viewed the Bible as a story of race purity. However his interpretation was clearly filtered through a Darwinian lens. In his notes on the Bible he even capitalizes the word “Nature.”
I wonder if Avalos connects Hitler’s Darwinian view of history to his views on the struggle for blood purity? Perhaps, as a good scholar who follows the facts, he did. I’m curious (just not curious enough to buy his book).
The post concludes with this final bit of wisdom:
Since all religious beliefs are ultimately unverifiable, the greatest scarce resource of all is verifiability. And one way to remedy or minimize unverifiability in any decision-making process, especially that leading to violence, is to eliminate religion from human life altogether.”
Compare it to this one. Same basic viewpoint; similar conclusion:
Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can’t, or can’t yet, be explained—that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can’t satisfy them with the Party’s programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.
So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.
Those are Adolph Hitler’s words.
Category: Atheism |
Heh. I wonder if Avalos has been channeling Hitler lately. After all, he is a member of ‘the race.’ Can you put up a link to that post last week?
May 23, 2007 @ 9:14 amI’m not trying to steal traffic, but Hitler’s true affinity was for Islam.
May 23, 2007 @ 9:17 amHis general problem with Christianity and Jesus in particular seems to have been that he did not triumph as Nature intends the strong to triumph over the weak. It’s a very Darwinian reading of scripture.
Last week’s post is here.
May 23, 2007 @ 9:35 amHello, Mr. Sexton,
I will respond more fully to your last ID post soon enough, but for now, let me just note that your post about the supposed “Darwinian” lens through which Hitler viewed his plans are grossly misinformed.
You will find such an incomplete and biased history in books such as that by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), which is biased and uniformed about Christian and biblical history.
My book, Fighting Words, dismantles the notion that
it was Darwinism which was the only or main factor in
the Holocaust. I trace every significant feature of Hitler’s
plan to long history of Christian anti-Judaism.
For example, Richard Weikart, does not discuss the fact that Hitler’s plan is simply an updating of Martin Luther’s
seven-point plan for the Jews.
Yes, Martin Luther (1483-1546), the father of Protestantism, spouted forth a plan of action for the Jews that became the blueprint of the Nazi holocaust. For this reason, it bears repeating at length:
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury
and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.
This is to be done in honor of our Lord and Christendom, so
that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, blaspheming of his son and of his Christians....
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed...
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic
writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy
are taught, be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach
henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be
abolished completely for the Jews.
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that
all cash and treasures of silver and gold be taken from them for safekeeping...
Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a distaff,
or a spindle into the hands of young strong Jews and Jewesses
and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]”
Note that Luther’s murderous plan has mainly religious motives as justification. The plan, he says, is to be enacted in honor of Christ and Christendom. Note that Luther is already thinking of putting Jews to hard labor (compare Nazi labor camps—Arbeit macht frei).
My source:
Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Berman in Luther’s Works: The Christian in Society IV, edited by Franklin Sherman (55 volumes; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 123-306, quotes on pages 268-272.
It is not just atheists saying that Hitler was following Luther’s plans. Sherman, the Lutheran editor of Luther’s work, himself, observes (268 n. 173),
“It is impossible to publish Luther’s treatise today, however, without noting how similar his proposals were to the actions of the Nationalist Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s.”
And, of course, Hitler also claimed Luther to be one of his heroes. Note his own words:
Mein Kampf, p. 213: “Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner”
German (p. 232): “Neben Friedrich der Grossen stehen hier Martin Luther sowohl als wie Richard Wagner.”
Our English text is from Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Translated by Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971; Our German text is from Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Müller, 1936).
The specific idea of blood purity did not begin with Darwin or evolutionary theory. Such a notion was already present in Christian ideas about Jews. For example, Juan Martinez Siliceo, the archbishop of Toledo, proposed legislation in 1547 based very specifically on what is called “limpieza de sangre” (“cleanliness of blood,” “purity of blood”).
Statutes enacted in Toledo in 1449 also focused on blood purity as a means to discriminate against Jews who had converted but were not Spaniards by “blood.”
See further: Linda Martz, “Pure Blood Statutes in Sixteenth-Century Toledo: Implementation as Opposed to Adoption,” Sefarad 61/1 (1994): 91-94; Albert Sicroff, Los estatutos de limpieza de sangre: Controversias entre los siglos xv y xvii (Madrid: Taurus ediciones, 1985).
Some of Hitler’s specific terminology for “purity of the blood” (e.g., “Reinhaltung des Blutes”) corresponds quite closely to terminology (limpieza de sangre) applied against Jews in Sixteenth century Spain.
Likewise, in Islam we find that blood is also believed to be the locus of genealogical relationships. Thus, one Hadith speaks of Allah making blood sacred (harrama…dima’a). See M. Muhammad Ali, A Manual of Hadith, 316.
Hitler, therefore, probably mirrors Christian or Islamic ideas more than Darwinian ones here. As far as I know, Darwin did not speak of “blood purity” nor did he ever advocate genocide of the Jews.
If we travel further back in time, we find that the Bible is the principal exponent of the most systematic ideology of genealogical purity inherited by western civilization. One example is found in the story of Ezra’s shock at how the Jews had mixed with foreigners while in Babylon.
Ezra 9:1 After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
Ezra 9:2 For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons. Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands, and in this faithlessness the officials and leaders have led the way.”
Even if the Hebrew author did not understand modern genetics, it is clear that the author understands that the mixing of “seed” is a physical process. Likewise, the author seems to think of “pollution” in material terms in prohibiting miscegenation.
As in the case of ID, Mr. Sexton simply repeats information found in Christian apologetic material, but shows little acquaintance with the vast historical literature on the subject.
Could Mr. Sexton at least provide the specific source for the
May 24, 2007 @ 1:02 amquotes from Hitler?
Dr. Avalos,
Luther, while right on justification, was not always the most careful exegete. A brief survey of Romans 11 should lay to rest any question as to whether or not anti-semitism is supported by the Christian faith. Luther may well have supported it, but his contemporaries, like Calvin, did not:
http://www.chaim.org/reformers.html
http://www.chaim.org/owen.htm
The Jews were not allowed to intermarry with the Canaanite people because it would lead to spiritual adultery, not pollution of some race line.
God commanded the Israelites not to intermarry because they would follow after other gods:
Deuteronomy 7:3 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. 5But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.
Over and over again in the Old Testament, we see examples of Israelites being led off into the worship of other Gods by foreign wives:
1 Kings 11:4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
1 Kings 16:31 And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took for his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal and worshiped him. 32He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria.
Nehemaiah 13:26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin.
But for treatment of foreigners, God gave the Israelites this command:
Exodus 22:21″You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
The reason for the invasion of Canaan was given here:
Deuteronomy 9:4 “Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you. 5Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.”
So the invasion was not justified on racial grounds at all, it was rather because of God’s righteousness that he commanded that these people be destroyed. This hearkens back to the Flood narrative and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but is also typological of the Day of Judgment describe in detail in Revelation, where the wicked are destroyed and a holy people of every ‘tongue and tribe and people and nation’ are saved.
May 24, 2007 @ 9:11 amDr. Avalos,
I haven’t read “Darwin to Hitler” yet but I plan to this summer. Frankly, the idea of you labeling something biased is rather amusing. Do you consider yourself unbiased?
Hitler’s reading of the Old Testament in terms of a racial struggle was a Darwinian lens on the text. As another commenter has made clear, the reason for not intermarrying in the OT were fundamentally religious. The Israelites were not to be led away by other gods. Hitler read those ideas through a lens of the struggle between races which he believed was the will of nature and the core of all of history. We see it in his notes on the Bible itself, where he says:
That’s not Luther, that’s Darwin.
As for Hitler’s motivation being religious, that depends how you define “religious.” Hitler was a deist who, as the above quote shows, believed God had set certain laws in motion, laws which should not be resisted. He says this several times in Mein Kampf:
Using Clouser’s definition of religion (that which is not dependent), it seems Hitler viewed Eternal Nature’s commands, i.e. Darwinian struggle for survival , as the most fundamental truth to which we must conform ourselves.
That Hitler was not motivated by the Christian faith can be seen from the fact that he applied at least some of Luther’s seven points to the church itself, specifically numbers four and five. Hitler shut down religious schools and seminaries in Germany and in territories he conquered. He also attempted to eliminate the ordinary religious instruction available in public schools and replace it with party favorable teaching. He had a staff of up to 50 people whose job it was to rewrite the Bible. Hitler’s Bible included a rewrite of the ten commandments, adding “Honor your Fuhrer and master!”
Hitler was explicit about the fact that Christianity was antithetical to the “iron law” of Nature:
This idea that “the strong survive” was the will of Nature didn’t come from Luther or the Old Testament.
May 24, 2007 @ 10:07 amInteresting defenses of genocide. When my God
commands it, genocide is OK. So please asnwer this
question:
Is genocide always wrong?
YES
May 24, 2007 @ 10:58 amNO
We’re back to moral arguments again…
For comparison purposes, when the Supreme Court legalizes abortion, infanticide is OK? Answer this simple question:
Is infanticide always wrong?
YES
May 24, 2007 @ 11:41 amNO
My only question is why Dr. Hector is so interested in what is said on this weblog? Verum Serum must be the end all to be all! Congrats VS for holding such sway over the planet, that some folks are worried sick about it. :)
May 24, 2007 @ 11:45 amI will answer your question after you answer
May 24, 2007 @ 12:13 pmmine first. We must take our turn.
I prefer to do it the way Jesus did.
I’ll answer yours if you first answer mine.
May 24, 2007 @ 3:04 pmAnd just what did Jesus say about
the question: Is genocide always wrong?
YES
May 25, 2007 @ 2:05 amNO
Err, John, Hector, less of the playground stuff, OK? Just answer each others questions on the assumption that, in good faith, the other will then do the same.
On the Infanticide debate, elsewhere on this blog, bottom of the page, PRCalDude quoted Romans 13 to me. That would be an interesting passage to throw into the mix here.
In my opinion, some laws stink and offend God, but we can’t just pick and choose the ones we like and call them Biblical. We either abide by the laws our Governments pass, or we don’t.
May 25, 2007 @ 5:45 amThis is an argument by outrage. Tell me, by what objective standard are you judging our beliefs? Where does your morality come from?
May 25, 2007 @ 8:25 amWe obey God, rather than men, in certain cases.
May 25, 2007 @ 8:27 amYes, I agree, but doesn’t that rather undermine your argument elsewhere, citing Romans 13?
“1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,”
If you start making exceptions (as I contend you have to) for laws that seem offensive to God, then that passage is just a house of cards. We can’t have it both ways.
I’m really not trying to be argumentative, that’s what I actually think, and I find it hard to think that.
May 25, 2007 @ 9:52 amKeith,
I realize it may sound like “playground stuff” but Dr. Avalos has actually made a very smart debating move here. He is attempting to get me stuck on one of the horns of Euthyphro’s Dilemma (actually not me since PRCalDude was the person his question was originally directed to, but whatever…). This is a challenge to theism offered in one of Plato’s dialogues. Put simply: Is God subject to moral law or is moral law whatever God says it is.
The brilliance of the dilemma is that answering either yes or no presents serious philosophical problems. On the one hand if God is subject to moral law then his aseity is not preserved. On the other hand if morality is only God’s whim then God is essentially amoral in nature. This is one of the arguments Bertrand Russell made in “Why I am Not a Christian.”
The only solution is to break the dilemma by suggesting a third option. However, third options tend to sound a bit weasely, especially when the original challenge is put in a stark YES or NO format as Dr. Avalos has done.
Rather than get gored, I decided to turn the dilemma around on Dr. Avalos. Again, either answer presents a problem. If he chooses YES, he has to explain how he grounds absolute morality in materialism (and also how he explains his self-contradictory support for abortion, I’m guessing). If he chooses NO then he has to justify infanticide (in the same way he is asking me to justify genocide). Finally, proposing a third option looks like cheating and becomes a debate loser even if the actual answer may be more accurate and insightful. It would also allow me to propose a similar third option and escape the YES/NO trap without being accused of cheating.
All of that to say, it’s not quite as playground as it appears.
May 25, 2007 @ 12:10 pmBlimey, I’m way out of my depth here. I must admit, the Bertrand Russel reference rings a bell.
Hector Avalos sounds a lot like Richard Dawkins, a really friendly chap we enjoy the company of over here. If you ever want to become completely disenchanted with life and humanity you should read The Selfish Gene, it’s a hoot. Oh, and The God Delusion, that one’s good, too.
May 25, 2007 @ 1:50 pmKeith,
He’s trying to see if I’m a divine command theorist or a dentologist. Most Christian ethicists are dentologists these days. He’s trying to peg me into being a divine command theorist. Since I don’t know enough about Christian ethics, and since he acted as the authority in this situation by asking his question about genocide, I simply asked him where he derived that authority. John did essentially the same thing. His simple asking of the question the way he did was itself a claim to authority and the right to judge. I’m just trying to see if he’s going to be a consistent atheist.
May 25, 2007 @ 3:23 pmExactly. I sort of figured you’d caught it too.
Hey, it’s more fun when we agree!
May 25, 2007 @ 3:28 pmJohn,
Have you heard of Alvin Plantinga? I’m trying to find a good introductory ethics book.
May 25, 2007 @ 3:57 pmYes, I’ve heard of him and picked up snippets, mostly his theory of knowledge and the concept of Warrant. I’ve taken some graduate level Metaphysics and Epistemology and could recommend some reading in those departments but not Ethics.
I wish I knew of a good primer that wasn’t too dry because I’d like to pick one up myself. If you get a suggestion somewhere, pass it along.
May 25, 2007 @ 4:12 pmI wonder if Dr. Avalos has interacted with Plantinga.
Both he and Van Til were students of Kuyper. The existence, yea or nay, or God ultimately rests on the moral and epistemological arguments, I think.
May 25, 2007 @ 4:16 pm‘The Jews were not allowed to intermarry with the Canaanite people because it would lead to spiritual adultery, not pollution of some race line.’
The spiritual purity of Israel at the time of Jesus was a much more important goal than preventing expectant mothers being run through with a sword.
Is it always wrong to stick a sword into the belly of an expectant mother, even if she worships a Hindu god?
August 26, 2007 @ 2:14 amKind of a stupid question, isn’t it?
August 27, 2007 @ 12:15 pm