Lincoln and religion

[LincolnMan]

Good morning. I figured it was a typo!

[My Name Is Kate]

I've been thinking about the Gould article ever since it was posted, and evolutionary theory in general. As far as I can tell, what Darwinism boils down to, is that once something is alive, it generally wants to stay alive any way it can. It has no answer for how things became alive in the first place. And it has no answer for how morality fits into the picture. If all things that are alive, no matter how rudimentary their consciousness might be, shared the same basic morality, for example, live and let live, then it would work for the good of all. But what about when a guy like Hitler comes along? Wouldn't evolutionary theory uphold him as an exceptional example of someone "fit to survive"? Never mind that he ended up committing suicide. If he had succeeded in his goal of world domination, wouldn't he be the ultimate example of how best to survive? Maybe he didn't survive and succeed only because he wasn't ruthless enough, or cunning enough.

Anyway, that's as far as I've got in my thinking...

[LincolnMan]

My "before coffee" response would be "yes"- Hitler is an example of the "fit to survive" thinking. I think he held evolutionary beliefs himself-that the Germanic people were the top of the evolutionary pyramid and therefore their rise to power was justified and natural.

[Rob Wick]

Just dropped in to say hello and to point out there is a world of difference between Social Darwinism, which is more a product of the philosophy of Herbert Spencer among others, and evolutionary biology as proposed by Darwin. Indeed, Darwin rejected the notion of "survival of the fittest" when it came to society.

Also, Lincoln was familiar with Darwin's work, as Herndon had ordered On the Origin of Species when it came out in 1859. He urged Lincoln to read it, and while Lincoln looked over it he didn't finish it. That isn't to say, however, that the question of evolution didn't interest him. Lincoln did read a book called Vestiges on the Natural History of Creation, which was published anonymously in 1844. It's author eventually was revealed as a man named Robert Chambers

While many people see Chambers's book as an early paean to evolution, and therefore dismiss it and its effect on Lincoln, William E. Barton believed it was more of a religious tract and wrote an entire chapter on it in The Soul of Abraham Lincoln, defending Lincoln's reading of it.

Best
Rob

[My Name Is Kate]

But WHY did Darwin reject the notion of "survival of the fittest" when it comes to society? His theory of origin of species strongly implies that there either is no God, or that God set creation in motion, then left it to fend for itself. So why shouldn't his theory also apply to society?

[L Verge]

Don't laugh Kate, but I was raised in a predominantly Catholic, Episcopal, and Methodist region (Southern Maryland), so there was little talk of evolutionary OR social Darwinism when I was a child. Even in school, we were very quickly taught about a man named Charles Darwin; and it was geared more towards the social angle -- I suspect because there was a lady named Madeline Murray O'Hare making a lot of headlines in favor of being atheist, so let's avoid the religious angles of evolution.

I am an Episcopalian, and we are not known for being heavily into religious theory. Therefore, I avoid religious conversations. However, to bring the subject back to Lincoln: I have often thought that Lincoln was a Deist, as were many of our forefathers. As for his thoughts on social Darwinism, I think he is a perfect example of this -- both in his rise to superiority as well as his early beliefs that the Negroid race was inferior to the Caucasian.

Lincoln is praised today for his humbleness, but I suspect that he was more proud of his rise out of humble origins.

[My Name Is Kate]

I'm not into religious conversations either. It's just that any "little" thing is enough to shake up my faith, so I have to do everything I can to try to debunk it. It's pathetic...

[Mike B.]

(03-23-2013 03:51 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  I'm not into religious conversations either. It's just that any "little" thing is enough to shake up my faith, so I have to do everything I can to try to debunk it. It's pathetic...

Kate,
Let me reinforce what what Rob Wick said about "social darwinism" which is very distinct from biological evolution. Here is a part of a letter written to Ben Stein by Richard Dawkins, one of the chief evolutionary biologists today:

"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."

The creation of civilizations thousands of years ago has allowed human beings to survive who couldn't before that. "Social Darwinism" was a theory that was put forward in the late 19th century to explain why helping the poor was a waste, naturally it found favor among the very rich.

However, it is also a bit of a misnomer to say "survival of the fittest" just means the most strong biologically. Humanity has thrived through communication and cooperation. That may be in our genes as well.

I would also say that the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican church and most mainline Protestants, most branches of Judiaism officially accept evolution. So there is no need to be upset about it really.

[LincolnMan]

Well stated Mike. Perhaps Hitler's regime was the best example of what can happen to a nation applying Darwinism?

[Liz Rosenthal]

I just had a little discussion with my historian husband about this. He confirmed what I thought, which was that Hitler did not subscribe to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism has been used by governments and the economically well-off as an excuse to do nothing to tamper with society. It was a justification for laissez-faire economics. Survival of the fittest in the social sense meant that the fittest would always rise to the top - by themselves. Social programs benefiting the poor would just interfere with this "natural" process.

Hitler was anything but laissez-faire. He was a totalitarian, fascist dictator who took control of the German economy, as well as most other aspects of German life, and essentially ran the economy for the benefit of powerful corporate interests and the so-called Aryan race. His dictatorship was an example of extreme nationalism. He did not believe that those who were most successful proved their fitness, unless those who were most successful were Aryan. Many European Jews were economically and socially accomplished in Germany, Vienna, and other large, cultural meccas. But since Hitler literally considered Jews vermin, whether they were rich or poor, he did not believe that they showed their fitness for anything. The Nazis believed that they were perfectly justified in confiscating Jewish wealth, and imprisoning and murdering Jews.

To put it another way, Hitler acted as many another ruthless dictator in history has acted, by squelching dissent, getting rid of undesirables, annexing territory and then eliminating or attempting to eliminate undesirable populations in the new places that the military took control of. There was nothing laissez-faire about it. Hitler's aim was to artificially create a world order according to his own vision. If he had been a Social Darwinist, he would have allowed peoples and nations to "evolve" in an organic way, with no manipulation, let alone mass murder.

[My Name Is Kate]

The problem is that I do not see how Darwinism (I'm not interested in Social Darwinism) can co-exist with any kind of religious beliefs. The reason is, as I've said before, that it implies there is either no God, or that God initiated creation, then left it to fend for itself. In other words, there was no plan. It's like God was thinking, "We'll just see what happens", and the fact that we humans exist was merely by chance. And if that is the case, then, in an absolute sense, Hitler was just as "good" as anybody else because morality does not originate with God.

[Mike B.]

(03-23-2013 06:38 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  I just had a little discussion with my historian husband about this. He confirmed what I thought, which was that Hitler did not subscribe to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism has been used by governments and the economically well-off as an excuse to do nothing to tamper with society. It was a justification for laissez-faire economics. Survival of the fittest in the social sense meant that the fittest would always rise to the top - by themselves. Social programs benefiting the poor would just interfere with this "natural" process.

Hitler was anything but laissez-faire. He was a totalitarian, fascist dictator who took control of the German economy, as well as most other aspects of German life, and essentially ran the economy for the benefit of powerful corporate interests and the so-called Aryan race. His dictatorship was an example of extreme nationalism. He did not believe that those who were most successful proved their fitness, unless those who were most successful were Aryan. Many European Jews were economically and socially accomplished in Germany, Vienna, and other large, cultural meccas. But since Hitler literally considered Jews vermin, whether they were rich or poor, he did not believe that they showed their fitness for anything. The Nazis believed that they were perfectly justified in confiscating Jewish wealth, and imprisoning and murdering Jews.

To put it another way, Hitler acted as many another ruthless dictator in history has acted, by squelching dissent, getting rid of undesirables, annexing territory and then eliminating or attempting to eliminate undesirable populations in the new places that the military took control of. There was nothing laissez-faire about it. Hitler's aim was to artificially create a world order according to his own vision. If he had been a Social Darwinist, he would have allowed peoples and nations to "evolve" in an organic way, with no manipulation, let alone mass murder.

I would agree with this.

There is a book I once had called, "Hitler's Table Talk" which was a lot of transcriptions he had talking to his closet advisors. He had a lot of strange notions of course, that weren't "Darwinian" or scientific.

He saw the Jews as a sort of parasite race. There is nothing in evolutionary biology that would say that. He also saw the Slavs of Eastern Europe as infearior and the land should be owned by Germans, for libensrum or "living space." So a war to wipe out Poles, Russians, etc. was necessary for his world view.

To get back to Lincoln...
I would say Lincoln was not a social darwinist economically. As a Whig he supported internal improvements such as canals, roads, and so forth paid for by the state. As President he instituted Federal money for higher education.

Lincoln's main economic idea was the "right to rise" and he saw the state or government having some sort of role in that. In short, he wasn't Ayn Rand.

[Craig Hipkins]

Interesting thoughts and speculations on this thread. I first became acquainted with evolution at quite a young age. I grew up in Worcester County, Massachusetts and when I was about 8 or 9 we visited the Higgins Armory which contains the largest private collection of medieval armor in the United States. One of the things that baffled me as an 8 year old was how small the suits of armor were. People have generally gotten larger over the centuries, at least in the western world. This collection of armor dates back only into the last millenium. Imagine what humans might look like if we could travel in time 100 or 200 centuries hence?

I don't believe that any rational, well meaning individual would advocate creating a society based on Social Darwinism. Nietzsche's superman could never work in a world with a population of nearly 7 billion. People, simply, are not going to starve, and will naturally rebel when anything like a superstate becomes too overbearing.

Like Mike B. stated, Lincoln was definitely not a Social Darwinist, and most definitely would not have been a supporter of the Ayn Rand ideology. Therefore, I do not believe that he would support the current agenda promoted by the powers to be in the United States today.

Craig

[Gene C]

What do you think about the following observation?

"Mr. Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, in any way change his religious ideas, opinions or beliefs from the time he left Springfield to the day of his death.
I do not know just what they were, never having heard him explain them in detail;
but I am very sure he gave no outward indication of his mind having undergone any change while here."


I was surprised to find this is from a letter dated May 27, 1865.
It's from John Nicolay to William Herndon, "Herndon's Informants", p 6.
.

[RJNorton]

Gene, I feel he did change. I think his faith grew during his time as President. I think this is seen in the Second Inaugural. I am surprised also that Nicolay said this. If Nicolay did not talk to the President about the topic then how would he know if his beliefs changed or not? Actually, I think Lincoln was changing by 1862 as evidenced by his Meditation on the Divine Will.
Maybe Nicolay was just saying what he thought Herndon wanted to hear?