Are there similarities between the philosophy of Richard Dawkins and Hitler?

Question

Both advocated survival of the fittest and hated the Church

Answer 1

Yes but do you see Richard Dawkins going to military action? Also he is more intelligent than Hitler. Hitler hated the church because he hated Jews and anyone who was not 'aryan', whereas Dawkins hates religion and the trouble it can cause. Ironically, it was Dawkins who tries to prove Hitler was very religious, in his book 'The God Delusion'. However they did have one thing in common- selfishness or maybe stubbornness.

Answer 2

adolf hitler is a genocidal mass murderer.

Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist that does not believe in God.

He will not and has not lifted a finger to hurt anyone.

Individuals like you that even contemplate a question like this worry me deeply.

If you have ever had family members that served in the First and Second World Wars you would not be asking this question.

Answer 3

I think you'll find that it's Nature which advocates the survival of the fittest.  Man merely observes and records.

Answer 4

Not really. Richard Dawkins said " I believe in the survival of the fittest as an explanation for the evolution of life, but there have been people who have advocated the survival of the fittest as a kind of political creed, where they will justify a form of right-wing politics or economics on the grounds that it conforms to the laws of nature. And that I do object to, as indeed so does any other modern Darwinian. We don't want to see Darwinism being used to justify things like fascism, which it has been."

Answer 5

I would say no, because Hitler was able to control people through propaganda, and other processes that one could justifiably describe as "brain washing" or "mind control." (In fact, there's a theory that Hitler was a contender in a brain washing programme during the 1st world war that was designed to increase dominance and aggression in order to produce better soldiers. But that's a discussion for another time.) He used the Hitler Youth to "get them while they're young," (which is a policy used by McDonalds to gain the loyalty of their customers. ("Get them while they're young" - not the Hitler Youth in the case of McDonalds!)) Everything was ordered and regimental, and people behaved in such a way as to fulfill their perceived purpose within this society.

Dawkins, however, appears to be promoting the notion that we shouldn't be following the crowd, and conforming to society, but to be more of an independent thinker. For this purpose he's trying to break through what he sees as irrationalities in our perceptions in order to ...

Well, I find it hard to finish that sentence, since I don't really understand Dawkins' point. I feel that if I follow his way, then I'm allowing him to influence me in exactly the same way that he objects to people being influenced by others (namely what he calls "religion.") However, his belief system of no "religion" does appear to be a religion in itself - and a religion that he is vigorously evangelising.

I disapprove of him for another reason other than just apparent hypocrisy. If we're all independent thinkers, how can we ever come to a satisfactory system of right and wrong.

"I'm an independent thinker, so I think that breaking into your house and robbing you is OK. Tell me how this is irrational!"

If everyone is an independent thinker, you get too much conflict in differences of opinion. If I'm a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim (amongst other religions) I can point to a passage that says "Don't break into your friend's house and steal all his stuff - and here's why..." - argue with that!

Whereas, obviously one would never advocate the practices or philosophy of Hitler, he did manage to keep rigid discipline (which he used to his own malicious ends.)

Muslims have a system of rigid discipline. Jews do too.

(Christians don't really, but the belief, if properly understood and implemented is a fantastic way of keeping an ordered society without needing to implement a violent discipline.)

I think that people are wrong when they say that religion is the cause of all the trouble in the world. I think it's more accurate to say that the misunderstanding of religious practice is the cause of a lot of trouble.

We need laws, we need order, and we need a method to motivate people to keep them. In other words, we need people who conform to society rather than keep independently thinking all over the place. Hitler used this for purposes of evil, but if you think of what an ordered society like his could have achieved if they'd put their goals in different directions. For example, they had some of the best technology in Europe at the time, and after the war German scientists were fought over by the Russians and Americans because they knew it would be the Germans that could give their technology the edge over the other.

It's the vigorous independent thinking that causes disorder in the world, and society is not functional without order. I don't believe everyone should be drones, but I think we should be independent within various constraints - we shouldn't try to over throw the structure of society (unless it's inherently evil like Hitler's regime) because if we do, we're asking for trouble. Religion is a good way of keeping order. For that reason alone, what is the point of Dawkins? If the religion you follow makes you feel good, and/or behave yourself, (and it could even be true) ,then why try to irrationalise it? Why take this away from people?

Answer 6

They both breathed, taking in O2, and exhaling CO2. There are quite a few, similar, commonalities. You share those, too, BTW.

No, Hitler's version of "survival of the fittest" (promoting his bogus concept of "superior race" has no similarity to Dawkins understanding of science.

Their reasons for hating the church are completely different.

Answer 7

probably

Answer 8

Not really. You could argue there are similarities between Hitler and the Church in the way they have both promoted mass killing spree's in an attempt to achieve there goals.