What Do the Discussions About Forced Sterilization and Eugenics in Lundahl (2022s) Have to Do With Finland Joining NATO??
Kevin R. Henke
October 18, 2022
In Henke (2022b), I stated:
“No gods, angels, demons or a Bible are also needed to figure out how people should try to function in our environments. We should develop rules (morality) through reason and not Biblical dogma so that we can live peacefully with each other and our environment.”
Lundahl (2022j) then replies to my statements:
“The morality is here said to be rooted in reason. Now, the question is not whether an agency external to our reason is needed to enlighten it - it may be the case, and as Christians, both Lewis and I believe after the fall each has some kind of need of that. The questions are rather:
· where do universally valid rules of reason come from?
· does reason deal with any moral rules prior to its own developing of moral rules?
The point of chapters 3 and (I think) 4 is, the laws of chemistry and electronics and physics and the constraints of evolution do not put us into the reach of discovering what is universally valid. For our reason to do this, we need to be more than that. The sentence ‘[o]ur brains, thoughts and surroundings are all ultimately controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics,’ needs to be false, at least if implying ‘and nothing else.’”
In Henke (2022ay), I answered Mr. Lundahl’s question: “Where do universally valid rules of reason come from”:
“The “universally valid rules of reason” that Lundahl (2022j) references are solely human discoveries. There’s no need for anything beyond human reason (Dennett 2006). The rules are “universal” because they happen to work in a variety of circumstances from generation to generation. In ancient times, humans learned to develop morals so that members of the tribe could get along with each other. Otherwise, the tribe would fall apart. People needed to cooperate with each other to survive. They also learned how to make spears, avoid the berries that were poisonous, develop strategies for hunting, etc. Both of their technological and socialization (moral) skills came from reasoning and they passed that knowledge onto their children. Their children added to the knowledge and passed that onto their children, etc. In other words, ancient people discovered morality in the same way that they discovered how to make a spear – through reason and trial and error.
In more modern times, we discovered that slavery was not a good idea from rational debate and empathy for our fellow human beings, and certainly not from prayer and the Bible (Avalos 2011). We also learned that it’s not a good idea to dump toxins into the atmosphere and oceans. Through physics, chemistry and biology, we learned that pollution may not just “go away.” Each generation learns valuable and often painful lessons through reason, trail and error, and debate, and we try to pass that wisdom and knowledge unto the next generation along with our positive technological advances. There’s no evidence that any of our advances in reasoning and technology came from God or something ‘beyond Nature.’
As for the Fall of Adam and Eve that Lundahl (2022j) and Lewis (1960) mention, there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. The young-Earth creationist version of the Fall is especially silly, where stars in distant galaxies supposedly become supernovae solely because Adam and Eve listened to a Talking Snake in Genesis 3, ate the wrong piece of fruit, and plunged the entire Universe into chaos and destruction.
When humans rationalize, we first observe and identify a problem or a mystery. We then thoroughly confirm our observations with more and independent observations from other humans. Did they really do or say that? Did that really happen? Over time through testing, trial and error, and being empathetic to our fellow humans, we developed “universally valid rules of reason”, which are the products of human activity. We then use the rules we’ve learned to solve additional problems and mysteries. The evidence indicates that we humans have no gods, angels or extraterrestrial intelligences helping us. We are alone and we are most effective in solving mysteries and problems when we work together and engage in science, evaluate historical data for accuracy, develop and use mathematics/logic, and strive to come to a consensus through rational debate and not through prayer, prophecy, astrology or other nonsensical methods.
As an example of humans using reason to solve a problem, Russia recently threatened Finland if they joined NATO. Even if the threat was nothing more than a bluff, because of the invasion of Ukraine, the Finnish government took the threat seriously. So, how did Finland respond? Did the Finnish government call for their people to engage in fasting and prayer to deal with the Russian threat? As far as I know, no. No doubt, there were certainly people in Finland that prayed for God to deliver them from the Soviets in 1939-1940 and 1941-1944. That didn’t work. Finland lost those wars and they lost a lot of lives and territory to the Soviets. So, the majority of Finns were probably smart enough not to try the religious options again. Instead, the history of 1939-1944 told them that their military could not stand up to Russia alone. Joining NATO was the logical option. The Finnish government and people recognized that forming an alliance with the nuclear powers of the USA and United Kingdom, as well as the rest of NATO, and not prayer, would be the best deterrent to Russian aggression. The Finns also recognized that a tyrant like Putin could not be trusted to keep any peace treaty or honor any other diplomatic settlement. There would be no “peace in our time” with Putin. Tyrants, like Putin, see diplomacy and being nice as weaknesses and they exploit agreements. Tyrants only respect their opponents when their opponents have extensive military power and a capability of destroying them. The goal of the Finns is to deter Russia and prevent a war. Finland becoming part of the NATO alliance is the best and most rational alternative for maintaining their peace and security. The Finns recognized what every child on the playground or our ancestors in the caves discovered long ago, it’s rational to have powerful friends if you’re being bullied or threatened.” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022s) then replies to my bolded section with statements that are bizarrely irrelevant:
“Let me answer with a quote from wiki:
‘Eugenics programs including forced sterilization existed in most Northern European countries, as well as other more or less Protestant countries. Other countries that had notably active sterilisation programmes include Denmark ("that country's forced sterilization of 60,000 people in 1935-76"),[73][203] Norway,[204][205][203] Finland[206][207][208][209]("In Finland, to change one's gender markers in the juridical system (also known as gender recognition), trans people are, still, forcibly sterilised. In the laws regarding gender recognition, this requirement is called the 'inability to reproduce', a choice of words that makes it sound a lot less threatening than 'forced sterilisation'"),[209] Estonia,[210] Switzerland,[211][212] Iceland,[213] and some countries in Latin America (including Panama).’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
The pulling in of trans persons into this, is ludicrous, since the victims of forced sterilisations in the 30's were not asking for any legal recognition, that could only be had by allowing such a procedure, they were asking for release from hospitals, or sometimes perhaps even forced while in such hospitals. As said, a sad story about what "science providing the moral landscape" can do to it.
It would have been smarter of them to not presume to adress God against tyranny, while exercising one over large parts of their population. And indeed, not to think Protestantism is the ideal mindset for adressing God.
I think Finland's losses of territory through the Soviets are somewhat roughly proportional to losses of fertility through Finland's own policies. And even more, some who would under Finland have been threatened with sterilisation were under Soviet rule no longer so threatened.” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022s) isn’t answering my statements about Finland, NATO and Putin in Henke (2022ay). He's completely going off on an irrelevant tangent about eugenics and forced sterilization. Now, I’m not going to defend forced sterilization in Finland or any other country. Nevertheless, what do forced sterilization and eugenics have to do with Finland joining NATO in order to avoid possibly being attacked by the warmonger Putin? What do forced sterilization and eugenics have to do with the wars between Finland and the USSR in 1939-1940 and 1941-1944? Nothing. Furthermore, Lundahl (2022s) needs to actually read Harris (2010) and find out what Dr. Harris actually means about “moral landscapes” rather than misappropriating Harris’ concept. Also, where’s the evidence that prayer, whether from Protestants, Roman Catholics or anyone else, works? Finally, is Mr. Lundahl really suggesting that the Finns would have been overall better off under Stalin’s tyranny with his torture chambers, mass executions and forced labor camps?
According to Wielaard (1997), about 1,460 people were sterilized in Finland from 1935-1970. Now that’s 1,460 too many, but that’s insignificant to the millions that starved to death and were murdered by Stalin and the many thousands of innocent Ukrainians and others murdered by Putin. Also, what about the disastrous consequences of Stalin’s anti-Darwinian Lysenkoism? Mr. Lundahl’s views of Finnish, Soviet and Russian morality and history are totally warped and disgusting.
Reference:
Avalos, H. 2011. Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship: Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 331pp.
Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon: Viking Penguin: London, UK, 448pp.
Harris, S. 2010. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Hunan Values: Free Press: New York, N.Y., USA, 291pp.
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.