quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No, he based it on "testing." He predicted that we would find a genetic link "within a decade," not that one was already found.

Good thing one of us actually read the article . . .

It's still based on his ideas about genetics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

One could just as well say "I have often thought Christians would be much better off, if rather than always making excuses for why certain Christians insist Christianity (or the bible) can justify the likes of eugenics, or racism, or atheism, they simply admitted it was because Christian faith has the potential to bring out the worst in human nature."

Well, if one did say that, one would be saying something nonsensical.

quote:

quote:

The blame when such ideas are attached to a perfectly legitimate faith or science must rest with the individual misapplying it, not with the faith or theory at issue. The fact that these individuals appear to be the exception to the rule is an indicator that their conclusions do not actually derive from whatever it is they are appealing to for support.

These individuals aren’t the ‘exception to the rule’; the fact is that at one time eugenics was the ‘consensus’ and atheism is de rigueur among evolutionary biologists; these people aren’t ‘the exception’.

quote:

In order to think about whether treatment is ‘humane’ one has to consider two things; first one has to assert that humans can by choice conform their behaviors to a set of objective standards that define 'humane, and secondly, why humans are deserving of treatment beyond that which nature would dictate.

quote:

quote:

No, moral issues do not create a problem for evolution any more than for any other area of science. It is true that scientific discoveries can raise moral issues, but it does not prescribe answers for them.

It’s nice to believe that, but it ignores the reality that they already have been in conflict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
It's still based on his ideas about genetics.

quote:

And it is just as nonsensical applied to evolution.

quote:

Watson's opinions on racial differences are an exception to the rule, even among atheist scientists. The fact is that at one time, witch burning was the 'consensus' among Christians.

quote:

I don't know that we have objective standards that define 'humane' but we certainly have historic evidence that humans can and do conform their behaviour to current social norms in this respect. Nor is there any need to go beyond nature as it is human behaviour which defines human nature. Humans are, by nature, social beings who have developed modes of social behaviour that include co-operation and compassion. Nor are these qualities limited to humans. Tennyson's "nature red in tooth and claw" is not a complete or balanced picture of nature.

quote:

I would suggest that it is differing ethics which are in conflict, not science and ethics. It is true that in our age people try to justify their ethical choices by an appeal to science, just as they once appealed to "reason" or to "God's will". And such appeals are especially common when the proposed action is unreasonable and cruel.

quote:

He drew his own personal conclusion, based on testing, by predicting the discovery of a genetic factor to explain the test results.
He does not enjoy the support of the theory of evolution or genetics research. Your attempt to convolute one man's untenable conclusion into an indictment of the entire theory of evolution boils down to good ol' fashioned ad hominem, and nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
you and others are not arguing that Watson and other scientists who claim the genetic inferiority of certain races are wrong, understanding that there is a right and wrong moral view concerning racism, but merely that they are outside the mainstream

quote:

No, the argument is that, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, Watson's views are not scientific conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
if we rely on science alone, then we are subject to it's findings.

quote:

Of course. However, science is not an all-purpose tool. In particular, unless and until a moralometer is invented, science does not provide morality. Just because Poles scored 8 points higher on IQ tests than Spaniards (in one study), does not mean that Spaniards ought to be regarded as inferior (apart from the naked fact of the numerically 'inferior' score).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No, the argument is that, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, Watson's views are not scientific conclusions.

Which again misses the point; Watson as a scientist, considers them scientific, as have others - if we rely on science alone, then we are subject to it's findings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And it is just as nonsensical applied to evolution.

Really? You seriously believe that contending that Christianity encourages a belief in atheism is as reasonable as saying that evolution does so?

quote:

You see, it’s that sort of nonsense that causes me to think you are just calling in your responses; witch trials were never a product of ‘science’;

quote:

for most of Christian history they weren’t an issue at all, and when they were an issue they were usually the product of localized events.

quote:

But it really has nothing to do with the main issue; you and others are not arguing that Watson and other scientists who claim the genetic inferiority of certain races are wrong, understanding that there is a right and wrong moral view concerning racism, but merely that they are outside the mainstream – which is a weak argument because what is mainstream in science is always changing. It could just as easily be the other way tomorrow, where based on your reasoning, we would all be required to be racists.

quote:

Well, let’s be clear – you don’t have an objective standard to define what is humane, because you don’t have the intellectual basis to define such a thing.

quote:

Neither you nor any other evolutionist has a basis to consider humans equal, or as having inherent rights, or as deserving of special treatment in terms of legal and social protections.

quote:

And this is the point – your beliefs are lacking in terms of the ability to assert a transcendent and comprehensive framework by which we can both assert the sanctity of human life, and the reality of human uniqueness.

quote:

I am not sure how the Declaration of Independence could be considered ‘unreasonable’ or ‘cruel’ when compared to the horrors that transpire in places that consider human life no different than any other organism.

quote:

Major social policy is never made by scientific evidence to any great degree. Eugenics was picked up by powerful people and spread to willing recipients. Laws were passed and enforced, not because the "evidence" was so compelling, but because so many people already held racist attitudes and believed that the mentally and physically handicapped should be put away. LINK to article from another forum on the history of eugenics and connections between America and Nazi Germany.

In psychiatry, even into the 1950's, patients spent their entire adult lives in hospitals. But, as science developed better treatment (medicine), advocates were able to pursuade legislatures and the public at large that many people could live in their communities instead of "warehouses". Laws and treatment systems have changed accordingly.

My point is that science is neutral. It is neither the tool of Satan or the salvation of mankind. Everybody has a bias or two. In an open society, there are checks and balances that minimize some of the misuses of science. It's what people do with it through free will that makes the difference. To blame Christianity for this or evolution for that is simplistic scapegoating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think this brings us full circle; if we are to allow for the, "checks and balances that minimize some of the misuses of science" then to a certain degree we have to allow for science to be subject to the back and forth that is part of living in a free and democratic society. Scientists don't get to practice their science like demi-gods on Mount Olympus handing down dictates from on high when a consensus is reached.

Whether we are talking stem-cell research, global warming, nuclear weapons policy or intelligent design, science certainly has a voice at the table, but it shouldn’t be seen as trumping other voices merely because ‘scientists agree’, and when it comes to social, moral and political considerations, it would behoove scientists to maintain a much more humble approach than we are accustomed to hearing from them in recent years.

quote:

But it really has nothing to do with the main issue; you and others are not arguing that Watson and other scientists who claim the genetic inferiority of certain races are wrong, understanding that there is a right and wrong moral view concerning racism, but merely that they are outside the mainstream – which is a weak argument because what is mainstream in science is always changing. It could just as easily be the other way tomorrow, where based on your reasoning, we would all be required to be racists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Whether we are talking stem-cell research, global warming, nuclear weapons policy or intelligent design, science certainly has a voice at the table, but it shouldn’t be seen as trumping other voices merely because ‘scientists agree’, and when it comes to social, moral and political considerations, it would behoove scientists to maintain a much more humble approach than we are accustomed to hearing from them in recent years.

quote:

I take it you haven't read Bishop Spong lately.

quote:

But remember your general statement was not about atheism. It was that "evolutionary theory has the potential to bring out the worst in human nature." Considering the historic support of Christianity for racism, slavery, misogyny, war and genocide, I hardly think a Christian has any right to make that statement. And any attempt to weasel out of that history is engaging in the same exercise of "making excuses" that you blame in evolutionists.

quote:

The fact is that many a scientific theory, and any religious faith, any political ideology and any economic system has the potential to bring out the worst --- and the best --- in human nature.

quote:

I didn't say they were. I said they were a product of a Christian consensus, not a scientific consensus

quote:

That may be. There are no accurate statistics and estimates range from a few thousand up to 9 million victims of witch trials. The point, however, is that there was a definite consensus that witches were to be put to death and this consensus was supported by papal bulls and official legislation and consistent preaching. That is more than one has for any connection of racism with evolution. Would you want your faith today judged by that past consensus among Christians?

quote:

Watson errs in making statements which are not supported by scientific evidence. IQ testing is a rather questionable basis for his conclusions. But even if further investigation confirms his speculations, it does not follow that we would be required to be racists.

For one thing, it would probably show only that the average intelligence of various racialized groups are different. This is rather equivalent to showing that the average muscular strength of women is less than that of men. It says nothing about the ability of a particular woman to lift as much or more than a particular man, and on an intellectual level, it would say nothing about the ability of a particular individual of any race to complete a PhD course. So there is still no scientific ground for racism. People would still have to be judged on the basis of individual ability, not on the average for their race.

quote:

I don't think anyone has, including you. Intellect does not tell us that compassion is better than cruelty or that generosity is more humane than selfishness. In fact, given free rein, the intellect can easily dream up reasons why it is more compassionate to let the poor starve than to feed them. One can find such "logic" readily on some of the more right-wing political sites, especially those libertarians who take their cue from Ayn Rand.

Yet, both theistic and non-theistic faiths around the world tend to have crystallized around an ethic that remains remarkably consistent in its advocacy of kindness, compassion, generosity, justice and love. That is as close a thing as I know to an "objective standard" of humane living. Now we can speculate on why this ethic tends to be universally preached and why it is far from being universally practiced.

quote:

Not in science, no. And that is the point many of us have been making. Science is not equipped to provide us with moral or ethical answers.

quote:

Well, like most "evolutionists" (for want of a better term" evolution is not for me a matter of belief. It is only a matter of science. My beliefs do assert a transcendant and comprehensive framework within which I do assert the sanctity of human life and the reality of human (and every other species') precious uniqueness. You may have heard of my faith. It is called Christianity and its fundamentals are found in a sacred text we call the Bible.

quote:

It is often the case, when a course of action is perceived as cruel, that promoters appeal to reason to show that it is harsh but necessary and so we must not allow "sentiment" to overrule "reason". Consider the justifications for maintaining a nuclear arsenal for example.

quote:

And, btw, if human life is no different from that of any other organism, that would be as much justification for treating all other organisms with the care that we extend to humans as vice versa. Science does not tell us which ethic to choose. It does not command cruelty or countermand kindness.

quote:

The only ground for considering people as equals is a moral consideration that transcends any scientific finding; science needs to stop pretending to tell us what it means to be human all together, it fails miserably in this regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, considering those conditions have primarily diminished in the Christian West, and very little in the rest of the world, I would say that Christians have much to be encouraged about in this regard.

quote:

But they are obviously not all equal in this regard.

quote:

Well, not actually. They were often the result of local events and superstitions.

quote:

A few thousand up to 9 million? That kind of wide discrepancy tells us about all we need to know about the vague nature of such claims.

quote:

The only ground for considering people as equals is a moral consideration that transcends any scientific finding;

quote:

science needs to stop pretending to tell us what it means to be human all together, it fails miserably in this regard.

quote:

I always welcome arguments for the increased humility of scientists, and the understanding of the limits of the power of science to define reality.

quote:

I don’t question your faith in Christ; I do however dispute the notion of, and assert the danger of considering evolutionary theory to be the primary explanation for what living organisms, including humans, are and how they came to be.

quote:

I am not sure what a nuclear arsenal has to do with the subject as maintaining one is neither harsh nor cruel.

quote:

You are assuming that we are at all justified outside of transcendent moral considerations in extending care to humans; were aren’t of course, so treating other organisms that way does not follow.

quote:

For scientists (including evolutionists) who are Christians, this shouldn’t be a problem, since a moral consideration that transcends any scientific finding is exactly what they have. And as for someone like me, who doesn’t believe that God has any inherent morality, my fundamental set of values that make me want to do what’s best for humanity is not something that I doubt any scientific finding could change. Science can tell me what is or isn’t true, but it can’t chance what things are important to me.

With this in mind, the only scientific finding that could justify mistreating a certain group of people based on any genetic difference would be if there were some way to prove that it would have an overall benefit to humanity as a whole. Considering that my definition of humanity includes all of the ethnic groups within Homo sapiens, the idea of there being an overall benefit to mistreating certain groups of them is just as unlikely as it sounds.

quote:

And they have diminished in the "Christian" West largely subsequent to the ascendancy of science. I am not sure that should be encouraging to Christians.

quote:

That would be pretty hard to quantify. We can contrast extremes like the Burmese SLORC and the Swedish social welfare state, but it doesn't really tell us much about the relative impact of Christianity, Buddhism, capitalism, fascism, socialism, atheism, etc.

quote:

Particular episodes may have been characterized by local conditions, but that doesn't mean those in other localities did not agree with the overall consensus. You do have the papal bull of Innocent III proclaimed throughout Europe. You have statutory legislation in every European country on the prosecution of witches. Just because village A found a witch to burn and village B did not, doesn't mean village B held different beliefs on the subject.

quote:

True, but it doesn't take away the documentary evidence that supported witch-hunts, even if the extent of the practice is obscure.

quote:

Science can only tell us what it means to be human within the framework of science; obviously that does not encompass the whole picture.

quote:

Considering that it rests on the basis that it is permissible to destroy the planet rather than compromise so-called "national interests" it strikes me as harsh, irrational and definitely inhumane.

quote:

I am not assuming one way or the other. Just pointing out that science does not point exclusively in one ethical direction. You cannot conclude from any similarity of humans with other organisms that we should or should not change our ethics in regard to them.

quote:

That’s a great personal view (though I am not sure how God couldn’t have any ‘inherent morality’) but I think that our morality certainly can turn on what we think humans are. For example, most would allow the utilization of animal products, or at least not forbid it, because most think animals don’t inherently have rights that would protect them from such things. We keep animals for pets and livestock, when we would never do so with a humans, because we see humans as deserving of certain liberties. Animals aren’t given trials, or presented with moral choices, because we don’t consider them to have the wherewithal to consider their actions.


Why we treat humans differently in this regard has very much to do with what we consider them to be; obviously, at different times in the past, humans have treated other humans in much the way we treat animals, because of beliefs about what humans are, or at least, certain groups of humans.

This continues to this day, and part of the reason it continues to this day has to do with our trust in science to inform us – in fact, in many debates about what we can and can’t do to other humans, any overtly moral considerations are often discounted, denounced as ‘religious’ considerations, not fit for public discourse.

So what remains?

Frequently the only justification which is allowed is ‘science’, and science often turns out to be whatever a ‘consensus’ certain scientists have arrived at. So whether we are talking stem cell research, or euthanasia, or eugenics type genetic counseling, we tend to consider issues through a very narrow lens dictated by a very small minority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think you continue to miss the point; by your measure, if he did enjoy, “the support of the theory of evolution or genetics research” he would be justified in his racism;

quote:

that is why science should be never be used as the primary basis for social, civil, or political understanding.

quote:

Your point has no teeth, Jhud. Your "ifs" are not real. He does not enjoy the support of any empirical evidence; in fact, empirical evidence works against him. His conclusions are based on many faulty assumptions about test scores, intelligence, and the differentiation between people groups. His grand prediction about finding the lack of an intelligence gene in darker people is ludicrous. Anyone with a truly scientific mind can see right through his obvious old-school elitist mindset.

quote:

Never? Now you are opening the door to justifying racism. If we disregard what the science of genetics tells us, then "race" can come right back into the big picture as a grand, grossly indulged delusion. If we do not allow scientific knowledge into the arena of social, civil, and political understanding, we shall ever languish in a dark ages of our own making, wherein the earth may again flatten with the sun revolving around it, and religious dogma dictating our social, civil, and political understanding.

What do you suppose the Enlightenment was all about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

quote:

Your point has no teeth, Jhud. Your "ifs" are not real. He does not enjoy the support of any empirical evidence; in fact, empirical evidence works against him. His conclusions are based on many faulty assumptions about test scores, intelligence, and the differentiation between people groups. His grand prediction about finding the lack of an intelligence gene in darker people is ludicrous. Anyone with a truly scientific mind can see right through his obvious old-school elitist mindset.

I wish you wouldn’t claim this. If you’re going to argue against the idea of science supporting racism using this kind of faulty premise, it’s just going to make it look like the people who claim what Jhud does about this are right.

Please read what I said in post #65, and preferably also the two articles linked to here. These are the two points that need to be considered: that none of this data has anything to do with evolution, and that nobody—Watson included—is claiming that this data means any one group of people is actually “inferior” to another, or that this justifies mistreating them.