October 17, 2007
-
HERETIC!
This guy has forgotten what happens when you deviate from cultural orthodoxy. Even if (maybe especially when) that orthodoxy (like the one from which he's deviated) is irrational and groundless.
SERIOUS, NON-HUMOROUS, BORING, BUT PERHAPS NECESSARY EDIT:
My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Watson is right. I have no idea whether he's right or just a cockeyed lunatic, and I couldn't care less. I have exactly zero interest in defending him. My point is entirely about the inconsistency of atheistic evolutionists being angry with him. Their orthodoxy is one of radical egalitarianism -- everyone is the same -- which is an irrational and groundless position for an atheistic evolutionist to hold: if evolution is true, what's unreasonable about Watson's position? And their angry response at someone who denies radical egalitarianism is likewise irrational and groundless: if atheistic evolution is true, then there is no morality, and so what grounds are there for accusing anyone of wrong?
I'm not saying I think they should be reasonable and accept Watson's argument; I'm saying that if they don't like his argument they should think about the fact that arises from their own premise.
All this presupposes, of course, that this angry response is coming from non-Christians. If it's coming from Christians, then my point doesn't apply, because Christians have grounds for moral judgments such as all these people are making about Watson (whether their judgments are right or wrong doesn't matter -- they have grounds for making them).
Comments (12)
Hmmm. Personally I don't agree with either side. One side is trying to materialistically determine intelligence, and arriving at unorthodox conclusions, while the other side, the "tolerant" side, screams for the burning of the intolerant. Especially when the difference between tolerance and intolerance becomes the difference between egalitarianism and...non-egalitarianism.
What a hysterical heretic.
Dennis, thanks for the comment. I don't know whether I agree with either side, because I don't know how intelligence is, or should be, measured. I'm not sure anyone really does. I don't have any quarrel with the idea that different people have different intelligence quotients, or even that different ethnic groups do -- it seems likely. And notice that the scientist who argued for different levels of intelligence isn't being intolerant; he's not saying anything at all about whether or not we should tolerate them, he's just stating what he thinks is a fact.
But really, none of that was my point; I was simply amused by the fact that his opposition, which presumably is largely evolutionist and atheist, doesn't have a philosophical leg to stand on. And furthermore, they aren't even willing to consider his point -- they reject it as "offensive", as something not even to be given the time of day. That's the unscientific attitude.
I agree with your statement that it is an unscientific attitude to reject something because it is offensive, instead of actually attempting to scientifically verify it. In my opinion as it relates to this specific issue, it is entirely possible that this scientist is correct, but I don't know enough about the issue to come down definitively on either side. However, I find it strange indeed that his critics accuse him of not really knowing the literature... I don't know the guy but I'm guessing someone of his caliber does indeed know the literature. However, the problem with these kinds of scientific facts (whether they are believed is often more important than whether they are actually true) is that they can lead people to devalue certain classes or types of human beings. This is wrong. But the basic understanding needs to be that if it is indeed true that African races are less intelligent, this does not make them any less valuable as human beings, because they are made in the image of God just like every other human being! The secular scientists cannot make this claim, and thus attempt to define human value in terms of ideas such as intelligence or beauty, and this is why they are probably very disturbed about Watson's analysis.
Pamelala05, thanks so much for leaving the comment. I agree 100% with everything you said; I probably made my point very badly, if at all, lol. We Christians certainly hold that all people are valuable as image-bearers of God, so we have a philosophical reason and right to be shocked at the idea of abortion, or racial bigotry, or child abuse, etc. But what possible ground do they have if they reject biblical faith in God? And yet they have the unmitigated temerity to be all morally indignant about theories like this although they would be the first to attack any absolute basis for morality such as Christians offer. What amazing inconsistency. I suspect your theory is right on the mark; their attempts to value human life in other ways are under attack by his theory, but it's a theory which really is absolutely consistent their own bankrupt worldview.
Yes, well put. : )
RYC: Thank you! Congratulations to your two daughters. At least it's probably easier to double up with all the planning. : ) I like the Faure Requiem as well.
He would have been much better off if he had said that he had discovered some genetically programmed lack of intelligence among Christians. Wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in scientific circles...certainly wouldn't have been on GMA this morning...along with Joel Osteen. Hmmmm, perhaps that would have been evidence.
But maybe I'm a little too sarcastic this morning.
I'll play the devil's advocate for a minute, and try to speak soley from an evolutionary viewpoint...
I'm wondering who created the intelligence tests in the first place. One of the things I heard years ago is that a fundamental flaw with testing IQ is that the tests are geared toward white people, thus placing people of other skin colors, certainly blacks, lower on the test. Maybe the best solution for their dilemma is to say we all have different kinds of intelligence, different ways to express that intelligence, therefore, we are all equal. Maybe that concept is buried in a quote from the scientist under fire himself:
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
Oh, the only other statement made in the last few years that generated as much inflamation from folks with an evolutionary mindset was the one by Rush where he made a simple statement about why blacks were better at sports, and it was something like, "four hundred years of breeding can't be wrong." Remember that? I'm almost positive he was spot on with that statement, but to use an old phrase, " 'em's fightin' woids!"
Although I'm hardly an authority in the matter, actually, although I hardly know anything in the matter, I don't like the idea of intelligence quotients based on genetics. Like you say, I suppose its possible, but I'm turned away from the idea. When it comes to intelligence, something I believe rests in an immaterial mind, I get antsy when people start connecting chemical reactions and genetics to it. (Although the state of the body can clearly affect the mind as much as the vice versa is true.)
Oh, and I agree--he isn't necessarily being intolerant. But thats what the "orthodox" people think. They think that because he isn't egalitarian, he's a racist and intolerant, which leads to another issue. When the tolerant became intolerant of the intolerant, when they discriminate against the discriminators, they are doing just the same thing.
Interesting point about intelligence measurements. It seems entirely possible to me that an I.Q. test could indeed be designed to measure a particularly western type of intelligence--maybe pattern of thinking is a better way to say that. Not to be relativistic, but there are certainly enough differences between the way men and women, or Greeks and Hebrews, or any other pair of humans approach thought, that a single measurement universally applied is bound to show a gap somewhere. I daresay westerners would score quite poorly on a test designed in an African context.
Attempts to "close the racial gap" in test scores and so on are actually rather racist. They assume that the "white" approach to education is the transcendent standard by which all are to be measured, and brought into conformity with if found wanting. Huh.
Thats a really interesting point A-the-P, I never thought of that. Outside of a contextually modern understanding of racism (which I don't agree with), I don't think its racist to say that one culture is superior to another, in the same way, I don't think, if you are correct, that it would be racist to say that one pattern of thinking is objectively superior to another.
Comments are closed.