« Dumond Docs | Main | Ignorance is Bliss »

Assimilating to Secularism

05 Dec 2007 01:26 pm

One thing that I guess I could have learned just pondering the world from my chair but that I don't think I really understood until I went to the Netherlands and talked to people involved in politics there is the extent to which the "new atheism" -- which is mostly like the old atheism but involves people acting like jerks -- is specifically bound up with some problematic anti-Muslim sentiments. Previously, things like this Christopher Hitchens column bashing Hanukkah had struck me as merely weird; something along the lines of the contrarian tick that led Will Saletan to proclaim the truth of white supremacy only to be embarrassed when the thesis turned out to be primarily backed by white supremacists, except taking on a much less harmful form.

That's because here in the states, we understand "religion" to mean "Christianity" (and predominantly Protestant Christianity at that) and in public life the "secular" alternative is understoo- as encompassing a vague pluralism that's friendly to minority religious groups, not the strident anti-religious sentiments of a Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins.

In Europe, though, the face of "religion" is increasingly Islam whereas elements of the secular consensus are part of a national identity that elements of the right can embrace. It was explained to me, for example, that one thing Dutch people worry about when they worry about Muslim immigrants is that socially conservative Muslim immigrants might spoil their same-sex partnership law. I joked that conservatives should love immigration, then. But in reality the forces of indigenous religious conservatism are way too weak for anything like that to happen. So instead of a system of cross-currents, where both a cosmopolitan left and a traditionalist right find something to admire about growing diversity, you get a substantial block of people pushing against Muslim immigrants from both a secularist and a nationalist perspective.

From the point of view of an American liberal, it's an awkward situation. One doesn't want to say "you guys should get rid of your progressive views on gender roles because it would make it easier for Muslims to assimilate" but at the end of the day it is much easier for Muslims to go along get along in a country like the US where traditionalist attitudes have more political clout. Of course, if more American conservative Christians decide to go the Pat Robertson route and decide to support Rudy Giuliani on the grounds that fighting Muslims is the ultimate expression of Christian values, then our advantage here will rapidly erode.

Share This

Comments (118)

Shorter Hitchens: Christianity and Islam suck. I blame the Jews.

"From the point of view of an American liberal, it's an awkward situation."

Since you're an American "liberal" arguing against universal healthcare, I'm sure you'll be able to handle the awkwardness, Matthew.

the "new atheism" -- which is mostly like the old atheism but involves people acting like jerks

yeah, non-believers should just sit back and STFU.

"something along the lines of the contrarian tick that led Will Saletan to proclaim the truth of white supremacy"

Where did Saletan proclaim "the truth of white supremacy"? I know you are just trying to score cheap points here, but is it really smart for you to equate a difference in average IQ with an invidious normative distinction between racial groups? What if it turns out that the IQ gap is intractable and largely the result of genetic differences? Wouldn't it be better to make the case for racial equality on premises of moral or spiritual equality, instead of relying on an exact equality in average mental abilities across different races that doesn't exist?

Also, as a (mostly) Ashkenazi Jew, aren't you whistling past the graveyard here? Methinks you are less concerned with people talking about white supremacy as you are about them questioning Jewish supremacy. After all, your little ethnic group has an average IQ gap over whites almost as large as the white gap over blacks.

Yglesias said, "the "new atheism" -- which is mostly like the old atheism but involves people acting like jerks"

Acting like jerks? Why? Because they're trying to stop a massive fraud being perpetrated upon their fellow citizens?

Compared to what? Old religion? I'm afraid you have it backwards, Matthew. Old religion is about as jerky as it gets when it comes to badmouthing atheists. And that's despite the fact that their claims, unlike the atheist's, are baseless.

Hitchens and some others have, ah, issues, to be certain, but I think you're tarring with too broad a brush. You can argue whether PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins is effective, but I haven't seen any evidence that they hold prejudice against anything but the unreasoning propagation of antiscientific unfounded beliefs, regardless whether they derive from a religious tradition (Christian, Islamic, or any other) or from secular absurdities such as homeopathy.

Speaking as a Jewish Atheist who did not greatly enjoy explaining and justifying either difference fro mthe norm to my peers as an adolescent, even growing up middle class in a liberal stronghold, I'm in favor of stripping the presumption of privilege from nonsense and poorly founded community norms, whether they come from religion or from other sources.

...the strident anti-religious sentiments of a Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins.

Please, don't ever mention the two as if they're peas in a pod. Hitchens is an idiotic blowhard. Dawkins is a wonderfully insightful scientist. There's a difference.

From the point of view of an American liberal, it's an awkward situation.

Why is it awkward? It seems that its only awkward if liberals have to be pro immigration or pro diversity. But why should that be?

I think you're making a mistake in treating "religious conservatives" (regardless of the religion!) as essentially fungible. Isn't this entire point belied by the fact that "religious conservative" evangelical Christians don't seem to like "religious conservative" Mormon Romney?

The last two paragraphs were fine, but what a stupid fucking rant on new atheists. If you take our premises - that religion is counterprogressive, false, and harmful for humanity - then something like Hanukkah is absurd. I notice how Matthew doesn't go into the details of Hitchens' column, because well, that's what cowards do.

What an asshole. I can't believe The Atlantic hired this douchebag.

PS. The lefty blogosophere's Yglesias and Atrios' approach to fighting the GOP - taking the fight to them, not conceding anything, challenging irrational views - is what Atheists have adopted, hypocrite.

Or maybe I should say the "new liberals" are the same as the "old liberals" except that they act like jerks.

Is there some kind of way we can get maybe some kind of side-bar for Petey, where he can explain why we should all hate Matt this week in a single, easily accessible place, and he doesn't feel the need to repeat his latest grievance in every thread?

As to the ostensible topic: atheists who feel the need to go on endless tirades about the evils of religion are annoying in exactly the same way that Christians who feel the need to tell you that you're going to hell are. They give non-jerk atheists a bad name in exactly the same way that the hellfire Christians give non-Jerk Christians a bad name. No, nobody cares about your religion or lack thereof. No, we don't care about your carefully marshalled arguments about who's right and who's wrong. It doesn't affect the life of people who are socially ept.

Wow, judging by the comments, that was a more incendiary post than I thought. I think it has some useful observations, and I generally agree. However, I take exception to one part:

it is much easier for Muslims to go along get along in a country like the US where traditionalist attitudes have more political clout

Muslims in the U.S.--especially immigrants--actually have experienced a good deal of trouble since 9/11. There were the roundups in Brooklyn which led to mass deportation based on minor immigration infractions. There was NSEERS, which required male immigrants from certain Muslim countries to register with the government, which led to additional deportations. Then you have Muslim U.S. citizens being harassed at airports and sent into secondary inspection and detained for hours. The reason these practices persist is directly related to the anti-Muslim political climate created and stoked by Christian leaders and conservative politicians.

No, nobody cares about your religion or lack thereof.

Oh, how I wish that were true in the South. Or pretty much anywhere else in America.

"As to the ostensible topic: atheists who feel the need to go on endless tirades about the evils of religion are annoying in exactly the same way that Christians who feel the need to tell you that you're going to hell are."

Ah, here comes moron #1 spewing conventional wisdom.

If you believe that humanity's progress is intertwined, that we are destined for far better things then was written in any book written by desert wanderers, and that in the seeds of can lay the possible destruction of the human race and a retardation of our progress, then you have a secular duty to speak out. Or I guess someone like Marx was also a "annoying" new Atheist.

Some of us would not like to live in a world where millions of children go through extreme psychological abuse with adults telling them that if they don't believe certain things they'll be tortured for all of eternity, thankyouverymuch.

at the end of the day it is much easier for Muslims to go along get along in a country like the US where traditionalist attitudes have more political clout

I understand the theory here, but in reality is it true? I don't know. The idea about "more political clout" means, I think, that people feel that they have a politician who represents their interests. I don't knwo that Muslims have that in Christian conservative politicians here. Or is there some other way you are thinking about it? I.e., that religion in general just gets more respect here? I don't think of that as "political clout".

"What if it turns out that the IQ gap is intractable and largely the result of genetic differences?"

I'm glad you captured the thrust of the scientific racists argument--that is, 'hypothetically, in theory, it may be possible, that we are right, and black people are genetically inferior to (us) whitey.' Can I connect the post and the comment and invoke the flying spaghetti monster?

Actually, Yave Begnet, although it would make sense to give extra scrutiny to young Muslim males at airports, generally, it's everyone else who has been given that extra scrutiny instead: women with underwire bras, grand mothers, an eighty-six year old retired general and Medal of Honor recipient, etc. The genius behind this policy was our Transportation Secretary, Norm Mineta, who is so traumatized by the internment of his Japanese ancestors during WWII by FDR, that he won't countenance any sort of ethnic profiling by his crackerjack TSA employees.

"Is there some kind of way we can get maybe some kind of side-bar for Petey, where he can explain why we should all hate Matt this week in a single, easily accessible place"

You should be angry at Matthew over his opposition to universal healthcare.

Now wasn't that simple?

It's the exact same reason you should've been angry at Matthew last week, and the week before, and the week before that...

Also, geography plays a big role with respect to which Third World people try to immigrate to which technologically advanced countries.

The U.S. has a lot more Latino immigrants than Europe does because we're on the same continent as Central America, and in the same hemisphere as the rest of Latin America. And we don't get that many Muslim immigrants, because most Muslims live in the Middle East and North Africa, which are a long way away.

For Europe, of course, it's reversed: many more Muslims and far fewer Latinos than the U.S., because Europe is close to the Middle East and North Africa, but an ocean removed from Latin America.

Factors like European or white American prejudice towards and discrimination against Muslims and Latinos isn't likely to tip that balance much.

One doesn't want to say "you guys should get rid of your progressive views on gender roles because it would make it easier for Muslims to assimilate"

What about instead saying, as an American liberal, "You guys should try to limit your immigration to countries where fundamentalist Islam is not a major problem, else your progressive, secular society will be put at risk."

Thing is, nothing gets my dander up more than listening to the Lou Dobbs/Tancredo crowd arguing about the Brown Menace. I believe passionately that immigration has been a tremendous force for good in America. I strongly support a rational, progressive immigration policy that, among other things, raises quotas so as to undermine the perverse incentives to immigrate illegally.

Still, even liberals shouldn't be forced to support an immigration policy that is a suicide pact. And I frankly admit to feeling squeamish about immigration from the Islamic world. I don't think this is racist or illogical of me. Islam, after all, is an ideology. And it's an ideology that in some of its manifestations is deeply inimical to a liberal, free society. Why not say to the Islamic world: "We in the West will feel a lot better about letting in immigrants from your countries when mis-naming a teddy bear no longer elicits calls for the death penalty."

In Europe, though, the face of "religion" is increasingly Islam whereas elements of the secular consensus are part of a national identity that elements of the right can embrace.

And in the US that face is Evangelical Christianity. So, you get tired of the irrational morons who hijack ancient religions and abuse their texts to replace their apophatic sensibilities with specious political certainties that serve modern partisan ends that you live with, not the irrational morons who hijack ancient religions and abuse their texts to replace their apophatic sensibilities with specious political certainties that serve modern partisan ends that you might wish to have.

If anyone doubts that religion is a blight on humanity, let them visit "The Holy Land."
.

I don't see why everyone is so quick to harp on Dawkins as being some kind of "jerk." He is pro-rationalism, EOS.

Jasper-
This may be news to you but... Islam is not an 'ideology', its a religion!

Yeah! Why can't atheists like muslims do their gay-hating and women-slaving in peace??!? Man atheists are so mean.

and the public Dawkins is mostly a blowhard atheist, not a scientist (except the "i'm a scientist and scientifically i know that religion is bullshit" kind of scientist)

Rickm,

In another thread you posted a paper by James Flynn. I'm going to assume again that you've read more than the abstract of it. If you accept what Flynn wrote, the average black IQ today is a little under 85. The average white IQ is 100.

I'm going to put a couple words in bold here so you are not confused: I do not think that this means whites are superior to blacks. Got that? Ok. But Yglesias -- by equating higher average IQ with general "superiority" -- apparently does. Do you think this is a good idea? If so, why?

I think the problem Europe is facing stems largely from the wrongheaded tendency of most secularists to focus on "tolerance" rather than on freedom and equality.

Everyone, regardless of their private beliefs, should have equal access to jobs and social welfare, etc. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, equality of opportunity... these are the principles that matter. "Tolerance" implies that we don't like something but we'll put up with it anyway. This is problematic.

If something is a genuinely private lifestyle choice based on individual conscience, then it really shouldn't matter to us what they're doing. It isn't a matter of "tolerating" the gay couple next door or the Laotian immigrant family down the street... it's a matter of respecting people's right to enjoy the same degree of freedom and opportunity that you have regardless of whether they share your cultural preferences.

But if a religious or cultural practice is genuinely detrimental to liberal democracy, or the freedom of others, or equal opportunity (honor killings, forced marriages, genital mutilation, threats of violence against "heretics", etc.) then we really shouldn't be "tolerating" it at all.

If voters believe that immigration is having a genuinely negative effect on the liberal values of their country, then they have every right to oppose immigration. I believe immigration has almost always been a positive part of American life. But Europeans have a different set of cultural norms and a different set of immigrants. I don't think anyone should be expected to consent to a transformation of their country's cultural and legal values merely because they're under some obligation to follow the diktats of the market or tolerate abhorrent beliefs.

Sullivan said, "atheists...are annoying in exactly the same way that Christians who feel the need to tell you that you're going to hell are."

Sullivan is obviously proud of apparently pluralist view on religion. But his argument amounts to an assertion that either both atheist and Christian views are equally well founded or equally un-well-founded, but certainly on symmetrical terms with respect to the facts. In other words, his position is not neutral, so he cannot rest on any pretense of principled intellectual neutrality.

With neutrality out the window, this leaves atheism vs. Christianity on the basis of evidence. In that battle, atheism wins hands down.

Sullivan said, "atheists...are annoying in exactly the same way that Christians who feel the need to tell you that you're going to hell are."

Sullivan is obviously proud of his apparently pluralist view on religion. But his argument amounts to an assertion that either both atheist and Christian views are equally well founded or equally un-well-founded, but certainly on symmetrical terms with respect to the facts. In other words, his position is not neutral, so he cannot rest on any pretense of principled intellectual neutrality.

With neutrality out the window, this leaves atheism vs. Christianity on the basis of evidence. In that battle, atheism wins hands down.

My guess is Sullivan is a Catholic trying to protect his irrational prejudices from intellectual inspection.

Uh, Fred? Greater scrutiny of Muslims in airports doesn't really get us anywhere. It wouldn't take much for them to adapt their tactics (again). For instance, by recruiting people who look, uh, American. Chechens, for instance, and there are a lot of Middle Easterners who just look Mediterranean.

Or they can use actual Americans to help them smuggle weapons or bombs onto a plan. For instance, a Palestinian tried to smuggle a bomb onto a plane in the 80's with his pregnant Irish girlfriend.

Matt was poking fun at Saletan, who did cite James Rushton's work (Rushton is a notorious and vile racist) to support his claim that there is strong "preliminary evidence that part of it [the black-white IQ gap] is genetic."

And yes, if Saletan argues that black people are dumber (from the evidence presented by Rushton) than whites because of their genes, then I would consider him a white supremacist.

That was more words in bold than I intended. My apologies.

JFD: Matt says the new atheists act like jerks and you show up right on queue to prove them right. Nice work.

Grand Moff: What a great comparison, Evangelical Christians versus Muslims. Let's see how much they are alike: Evangelical Christians donate their money and time to help poor blacks in Africa; Muslims rape and kill them. Muslims threaten people with death over teddy bears and cartoons; Evangelical Christians don't. Muslims hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings; Evangelical Christians? Nope.

This may be news to you but... Islam is not an 'ideology', its a religion!

What's the difference? Aren't religions and ideologies both belief systems, or world views? If your "religion" teaches you that women are inferior, or that homosexuals should be murdered by the state, or that non-Muslims should be second class citizens, or that improperly naming a teddy bear warrants capital punishment, is the proper liberal response to take no account and instead hand out a green card?

LaFollette Progressive,

Thank you for spelling it out so clearly.

This is why the basic thrust of Matt's post is nonsensical. The immigration problem in Europe only seems awkward for a liberal if looked at shallowly. If freedom and equality are threatened by certain immigrants (and I'm not saying they are in Europe...I really don't know), then immigration by those people is a problem. Why this is "awkward" is beyond me.

What a great comparison, Evangelical Christians versus Muslims.

I said they were the face of religion over here, Harry, and I made my own comparisons. You can take yours to Michael Savage.
.

Well a world view is not an ideology. But whatever. Islam does not teach those things--some people, who are Muslims, do practice those things. If your epistemology allows you to generalize over 1.2 billion people, then so be it.

is the proper liberal response to take no account and instead hand out a green card?

No. There, that was easy. The proper response is to ignore the ranting and to punish actual crime, the same way we deal with other religious extremists.

Wetting the bed every time you hear the call to prayer is not a useful response.
.

Actually, the place in Europe where religion is most politicized and has the largest oppressive effect is Poland. And it ain't the mad mullah's that are, in effect, rewriting laws. It is the Catholic version of Shari'a - less rights for women, outlawing abortion, the fringe remarks about Jews. Very traditional.
The same Christian revival in Romania is driving the persecution of minorities and reviving a discourse reminiscent of the old fascist days in the 30s.

The problem is that Americans, for whom Catholicism just means the ones with the bigger churches, have no sense of the historical intersection between the Catholic church and fascism. So it is happening under our very nose, so to speak.

Harry: pssst

It is ridiculous to pretend that immigration is an unalloyed boon, or always a force for progressive ideals. I found it ironic that one of the tropes some of my left-wing friends were spouting this Thanksgiving was "the Pilgrims were the original illegal immigrants", as if that snarkily justifies illegal immigration today. But think through what they're really saying, and don't seem to realize - the "illegal" immigration of the Pilgrims was incredibly destructive to the people who already lived in North America. Had the Wampanoags been able to build a wall, they would be far better off today, in the sense that they would possibly still actually exist as a people. Why should European leftists welcome the immigration of very conservative religious people to their country? The net result seems to harm both Europe and the Middle East - it makes Europe less tolerant, and it reduces pressure for social change in the failing kleptocracies of the Middle East. In the same way immigration from Mexico is hardly a progressive trend - it helps preserve the stranglehold of the corrupt Mexican elite, it is accelerating the eradication of indigenous languages and traditions in Mexico and Central America, and it's exacerbating class distinctions in US society. Why would anyone on the left in good conscience support immigration?

Rickm,

"And yes, if Saletan argues that black people are dumber (from the evidence presented by Rushton) than whites because of their genes, then I would consider him a white supremacist."

A few questions for you:

1) If Saletan wrote the same piece without referring to Rushton (whom you slur as a "notorious, vile racist") would you still consider him a "white supremacist"?

2) Since Flynn also says that blacks have lower IQs on average than whites, is he also a "white supremacist"?

3) If Karl Rove's IQ is higher than yours, does that make him "superior" to you?

Harry-

I think you are assuming that success on an IQ test accurately measures someone's innate intellectual capabilities. I think there is evidence that it does not (the fact that it is mutable, for one). So, the fact that blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites does not mean they are innately dumber (as Rushton argues), rather it means that blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites.

I'm not sure if you know this but... there has been a long history of racism from white people against black people, and one of the tools used to justify this racism was the belief that black people were innately, (read: genetically) dumber than whitey. That was called white supremacism then.

If Karl Rove's IQ is higher than yours ...

Did he get a note from his mother excusing him from "the math" portion of the test?
.

"No. There, that was easy. The proper response is to ignore the ranting and to punish actual crime, the same way we deal with other religious extremists."

If religious extremists are more likely to commit certain crimes, why let them in the country in the first place? Since there is no shortage of foreigners who want to immigrate here, why risk it?

If Karl Rove's IQ is higher than yours, does that make him "superior" to you?

On a related note, I recently learned that Karl Rove has the same ancestry as me (Norwegian). For days afterward, I couldn't face myself in the mirror. Then I had an epiphany: I don't need to define myself based on my ancestry. Plus, Rove's such a liar, he was probably lying about this too.

Well a world view is not an ideology. But whatever. Islam does not teach those things--some people, who are Muslims, do practice those things...

Well, I don't have a degree in Islamic theology, and one suspects neither do you. But no matter, the reality is that in a number of Islamic countries, such practices are the law, and are backed by popular opinion. I'm not suggesting treating the Islamic world with broad brush strokes for purposes of immigration. I'd suggest taking things on a case by case basis. Perhaps Europe has nothing to fear from significant immigration from an Islamic country where there is strong support for secularism (say, Turkey) and lots to fear from significant immigration from an Islamic country where Wahabism is a major force (say, Saudi Arabia). I'm just noting, that, say, thirty years ago, Western Europe's liberal, secular, humanist culture wasn't under threat from its own people. Now, in some quarters at least, it is.

It seems to me liberals are so terrified of being perceived as "mean" they're unwilling to stand up even for their own cherished values.

If religious extremists are more likely to commit certain crimes, why let them in the country in the first place?

All of them? All of a certain sect can be said to be more likely to commit certain crimes as a result of their religion?

Wow, I'd really like to see the data on that.
.

I'm just noting, that, say, thirty years ago, Western Europe's liberal, secular, humanist culture wasn't under threat from its own people. Now, in some quarters at least, it is.

Western Europe's liberal, secular, humanist culture was only made possible by the defeat of religious extremists among its own people over two hundred years ago. I think it can deal with these guys. After all, religious extremists ultimately have nothing to offer. Wherever they hold the most power, those nations are the most impoverished jokes. I guess it's a funny side-effect of getting to used to have "God" as a "get out of argument free" card, but theocracy is a tough sell unless, you know, gibbering madness and seething squalor actually appeal to you.

Islam is not the problem. Violent fundamentalism is the problem, whatever ancient religion they've hijacked this week.
.

Of course, the other country in Europe with a severe religion problem is Russia. The orthodox church is rife with the anti-semitism and a monarchical fascism that made it such an easy tool to promote pograms in the earlier decades of the twentieth century. Now, it is trying to creep into the school system. There was a nice article about this in the NYT a while back. Here's a quote:

"Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the return of religion to public life, localities in Russia are increasingly decreeing that to receive a proper public school education, children should be steeped in the ways of the Russian Orthodox Church, including its traditions, liturgy and important people.

The lessons are typically introduced at the urging of church leaders, who say that the enforced atheism of communism left Russians out of touch with a faith that was once at the core of their identity.

...

Opponents assert that the Russian Orthodox leadership is weakening the constitutional separation of church and state by proselytizing in public schools. They say Russia is a multiethnic, pluralistic nation and risks alienating its large Muslim minority if Russian Orthodoxy takes on the trappings of a state religion.

The church calls those accusations unfounded, maintaining that the courses are cultural, not religious.

In Donshina's class at least, the children seem to have their own understanding of a primary theme of the course. ''One has to love God,'' said Kristina Posobilova. ''We should believe in God only.''

The dispute came to a head recently when 10 prominent Russian scientists, including two Nobel laureates, sent a letter to President Vladimir Putin, protesting what they termed the ''growing clericalization'' of Russian society. In addition to criticizing religious teachings in public schools, the scientists attacked church efforts to obtain recognition of degrees in theology, and the presence of Russian Orthodox chaplains in the military.

Local officials carry out education policy under Moscow's oversight, with some latitude. Some regions require these courses in Russian Othodoxy, while others allow parents to remove their children from them, though they rarely, if ever, do. Other areas have not adopted them."

Remember, that the Russian Orthodox leadership is truly disgusting. In the nineties, they actually made Czar Nicholas ii a saint - this is the guy who ruled over the first nationwide Jewish pogram in Europe in the 20th century, which happened in 1905, and his private writings are full of references to Yids and the like.

These trends are far more dangerous to secular Europe than Islamic immigrants. Christianity, if it gains political power, has always brought mass murder with it, and always will.

"yeah, non-believers should just sit back and STFU."


No, believers and non-believers alike should just sit back and STFU. Please.

So, the fact that blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites does not mean they are innately dumber (as Rushton argues) . . .

Saletan argues this as well. Does Harry really not get this? The argument is not over whether blacks in general score lower on IQ tests than whites do. This is simply a statistical fact. The argument is what this means.

Saletan argues that IQ test scores prove that blacks are innately, genetically less intelligent than whites--intellectually inferior, in other words. Harry, if you don't support that position then I have no beef with you--well, on this issue anyway.

It seems to me liberals are so terrified of being perceived as "mean" they're unwilling to stand up even for their own cherished values.

Yep, it takes a real he-man Republican to get tough with a Wahabbist regime.
.

Rickm,

Your new position that IQ isn't a meaningful measure of intellectual ability is belied by your previous references to Flynn, by the bulk of psychometric research, as well as by IQ scores' high correlation with performance in a broad range of endeavors.

"Dumber" is an invidious term of yours, not Rushton's.

That belief in the alleged intellectual inferiority of blacks was used by some whites (just whites?) to justify their racism against blacks in previous centuries is as relevant to current psychometric study as similar beliefs held by white racists about Chinese from the same time period. We don't ignore the data that show that Chinese have higher IQs on average than whites because white racists in the 19th Century thought Chinese were less intelligent; why should we let 21st Century scientific inquiry be held hostage to the prejudices of the past?

similar beliefs held by white racists about Chinese from the same time period. We don't ignore the data that show that Chinese have higher IQs on average than whites because white racists in the 19th Century thought Chinese were less intelligent

They did? The stereotypes with which I am familiar held the Chinese as a bunch of timid followers, but also as extremely clever (and therefore dangerous). Here's Samuel Morton: "In their intellectual character the Mongolians are ingenious, imitative, and highly susceptible of cultivation [i.e. learning]"
.

"The argument is not over whether blacks in general score lower on IQ tests than whites do. This is simply a statistical fact. The argument is what this means."

In your own words, please tell me what you think it means.

"Saletan argues that IQ test scores prove that blacks are innately, genetically less intelligent than whites"

He argues that the IQ test scores per se prove this or that the IQ test score gap has remained so large for so long suggests this?

"--intellectually inferior, in other words."

"Intellectually inferior" is your invidious term, but I'm confused about something: If you and I take an IQ test and I score 15 points lower than you, would you consider me intellectually inferior to you based on that? Or would you only consider me intellectually inferior to you if you determined that the reason for my under-performance (relative to you) on the test was genetic? Why would that distinction matter to you?

Harry-

Don't be presumptuous. I cited Flynn's paper as evidence that IQ test scores between blacks and whites is converging. Citing that does not mean that I think IQ tests measure innate intellectual ability. I have never thought that. How incredibly obtuse of you.

Harry-

If it is the case that the genes of black people, as a group, cause them to score lower on IQ tests (presuming those tests measure innate intellectual ability) than white people, ceteris paribus, then I cannot see any other way of putting it than calling blacks, as a group 'intellectually inferior'. DO I REALLY NEED TO SAY THIS?

In your own words, please tell me what you think it means.

It means that some people are still obsessed with a 95-year-old theory of intelligence.
.

I'm with low tech cyclist in looking at geography as a key factor.

Muslims in America do better economically than the average American while Muslims in Europe often immigrated in as low-skilled laborers and have ended up in an economic underclass. There's a vicious cycle going on with that underclass that's a major contributing factor to violent fundamentalism in Europe. America hasn't really had a large Muslim domestic terrorist problem. The 9/11 hijackers weren't from here and were radicalized before they got here.

The violence factor, which if memory serves in the Netherlands includes harassment of gays and the killing of insulting filmmakers is what really drives fears.

Citing that does not mean that I think IQ tests measure innate intellectual ability. I have never thought that.

I hate to get into this again, but I just don't see how anyone can doubt that IQ is a measure of innate intellectual ability. If a test correlates, however weakly, with an innate property, then it is a measure of that property.

Suppose I pick two people randomly from the world's population. Person A is given an IQ test and scores 130 on it. Person B is not given an IQ test. Don't you think you have a better idea of what person A's innate intellectual ability is than person B's?

Jim W-

Then, in that case, you define measure so broadly that it ceases to have any explanatory power.

I for one, concur with Matt re: "Modern Atheists." And no less than Daniel Davies, who in my estimation is brighter than any of the regular commenters here, agrees with us. "Evangelical Atheists" are annoying. You don't believe in God? Wonderful, neither do I. Shut the fuck up already, you're irritating.

By definition, any measurement that reduces the entropy of the distribution you're interested (i.e., increases your information about the random variable's distribution) has explanatory power.

This is basic information theory. Its the degree of explanatory power that's at issue in this case. Sorry if I'm being pedantic.


I hate to get into this again, but I just don't see how anyone can doubt that IQ is a measure of innate intellectual ability.

Anyone, when? In the early 20th century?

Even the most rigorously empirical psychometry has long since gone beyond the simple IQ test.
.

any measurement that reduces the entropy of the distribution you're interested (i.e., increases your information about the random variable's distribution) has explanatory power

This is why astrology continues to fascinate me, but I don't believe a word of it, since it's based on a geo-centric solar system.

Confusing correlation with causation is silly. Mistaking working fictions for mechanisms is tragic.
.

Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and Amis, while vastly different in their style and outlook on things, are all acting like jerks in this regard. And while a heavy rhetorical hand might occasionally be excusable or justified in the US due to the widespread existence of religious extremism there, it is particularly stupid and counterproductive to lash out like that in Europe, since for the most part nobody gives a shit about religion here. So all these 'new atheists' might achieve here is stirring up an artificial debate about religion in societies were the power of the church is negligible and believers and non-believers are almost indistinguishable in their views. And they will make it harder for the vast majority of moderate Muslims to deal with the extremists among their faith, because telling people that their beliefs are worthless, stupid and ridiculous tends to infuriate most people, and there only need to be a few young impressionable hotheads among them who will plant a bomb out of sheer ressentiment.

"That's because here in the states, we understand "[politics]" to mean "[liberalism]" (and predominantly [process liberalism] at that) and in public life the "[left]" alternative is understoo- as encompassing a vague pluralism that's friendly to minority [identity] groups, not the strident anti-[establishment] sentiments of a [socialist] or a [green]."

Confusing correlation with causation is silly. Mistaking working fictions for mechanisms is tragic.

I didn't say that a person's IQ test scores cause them to be more or less intelligent. To think that I did is silly.

What I said is, if IQ tests do correlate with innate intelligence (and I think they do), then they are a measure of intelligence. That is, you know more about someone's intelligence after knowing their IQ score than you did before knowing it.

"If it is the case that the genes of black people, as a group, cause them to score lower on IQ tests (presuming those tests measure innate intellectual ability) than white people, ceteris paribus, then I cannot see any other way of putting it than calling blacks, as a group 'intellectually inferior'. DO I REALLY NEED TO SAY THIS?"

At least you are now qualifying "inferior" with "intellectually", so that's progress: you are no longer saying that "intellectual inferiority", to use your phrase, implies a general inferiority. So that's progress.

Since you now don't believe that IQ is a meaningful measure of intellectual ability, why do you care whether or not there is a genetic component to the black-white IQ gap? Why have you spent so much energy attempting to demonstrate otherwise, and to demonstrate that the gap is narrowing? In your previous comment you snapped:

"Citing that [Flynn's paper] does not mean that I think IQ tests measure innate intellectual ability. I have never thought that. How incredibly obtuse of you."

Was it really obtuse of me to assume you agreed with a scientist whose paper who happily cited several times in the Metcalf thread? This new "IQ is meaningless" tack of yours comes across like a pathetic fall back position. Will you be sticking with this one, or do you have another one to retreat to after this position gets shot up with holes?

Harry-
I cited that paper as evidence that IQ scores between blacks and whites are converging.

"Was it really obtuse of me to assume you agreed with a scientist whose paper who happily cited several times in the Metcalf thread?"

Yes! I cited it because it demolished your claim. I don't buy the basic premises of many of the scientific racists claims. That doesn't mean I'm going to fight them on my turf, where I question the assumptions. I'm going attack their claims directly.

"Evangelical Atheists" are annoying. You don't believe in God? Wonderful, neither do I. Shut the fuck up already, you're irritating.

when are where are these "evangelical atheists" annoying you ? are they walking up to you at parties and taking over your conversation? are they hijacking the radio waves to broadcast their diatribes ?

personally, i wouldn't know anything about Dawkins et al if i didn't intentionally seek out discussions on religion and atheism; they're trivially easy to avoid.

"So all these 'new atheists' might achieve here is stirring up an artificial debate about religion in societies were the power of the church is negligible and believers and non-believers are almost indistinguishable in their views. And they will make it harder for the vast majority of moderate Muslims to deal with the extremists among their faith, because telling people that their beliefs are worthless, stupid and ridiculous tends to infuriate most people, and there only need to be a few young impressionable hotheads among them who will plant a bomb out of sheer ressentiment."

My guess is that people who make arguments like this have religious parents or religious family members, even if they aren't religious themselves. So, blunt criticism of religion is personally insulting to them because it's obliquely saying their loved ones are stupid.

Never heard the term "new atheists" before, don't really like it.

I don't agree it's making it harder for moderate Muslims. Strong criticism of religion may encourage - that is, give courage to - young people with a Muslim background to break with their religion.

I've always found religion a pain in the ass. They're the jerks. Just this past October:

"SPRINGFIELD—State lawmakers thrust Illinois into the center of the national debate on school prayer today as the House approved legislation to require public schools to provide students with a moment of silence at the start of classes.

Students from kindergarten through high school will be allowed to silently pray in whatever faith they practice or simply sit and reflect quietly. Illinois teachers and students have had the option of doing so since 2002, but it wasn't mandated."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-legis12_weboct12,1,279509.story

The moment of silence is a waste of time and if I'm a jerk for saying so, so be it.

Sorry Texan; I tend to agree with everything you've written till that last statement -- all Harry is talking about is correlation, at least in regards to using IQ as a crude metric of intelligence. One might argue as to how the IQ/intelligence relationship trends as more information is received re: the true intelligence of an individual -- I'm of the mind that 'towards zero' is the correct response to such a query. Regardless, Harry doesn't appear to be claiming an IQ test to be the sole method by which intelligence may be measured, and therefore your retort makes no sense.

I didn't say that a person's IQ test scores cause them to be more or less intelligent. To think that I did is silly.

I was very specific about which part of your post I was addressing. That wasn't it.
.

And if I may add, it was the complacent/go-along-to-get-along attitude of folks like "novakan" and Matt that allowed the moment of silence in Illinois schools to happen.

at least in regards to using IQ as a crude metric of intelligence

That, I think, is where you and I rejoin company, EQ. Beyond that, I'd be more interested in a Myers/Briggs test, so see what they're likely to do with that mental horsepower.

BMI, for instance, will tell me is someone is emaciated or grossly obese, but it doesn't tell me if they're attractive.

As for my retort, it was in response to the naiveté of this:

I hate to get into this again, but I just don't see how anyone can doubt that IQ is a measure of innate intellectual ability.

"Innate"? I'll leave that one alone, since it appears I've been rude enough to Jim.

I would add, however, that once we get north of '100' in your generic IQ test, I'm much more interested in qualitative differences because the "degree of explanatory power" declines rapidly at the thin end of the bell curve.
.

Wait, EQ, were you talking to me or RickM?

Were you talking about exchanges with Jim or Harry?
.

Harry,
In a nutshell, IQ has little to say about genetics across a large population. The average IQ between blacks and whites in this country has decreased over the past several decades, which is a genetic impossibility if genes are the primary determinant of IQ. So saying black are genetically inferior because they have a lower average IQ is racist.

From what I have read, IQ really only correlates well to success in academic endeavors. It shows much less correlation to wealth, which does have largely hereditary component...Ok, it doesn't correlate well to earnings outcomes, meaning you don't have to be smart to get rich.

"My guess is that people who make arguments like this have religious parents or religious family members, even if they aren't religious themselves. "

Actually, one of the most anti-evangelical atheists I know was raised in an atheist house-hold.

It's really the people who were raised in religious households that feel they have to vocalize about the issue.


Religion will probably die off on its own anyway. And be replaced by new and possibly more amazing forms of human stupidity. It doesn't need evangelicals to kill it.

rickm, Grand Moff Texan and their fellow travelers:

Here, in convenient tabular form, is a concise refutation of your endless bullshit arguments.

Matt,

Well said.

Precisely, Eddie.

When anyone's got research that correlates haplogroups with exhaustive intelligence tests, I'll be very interested. In the meantime, all we have are tests of people divided into non-exclusive groups of "black" and "white" according to what they think they are/have been treated as, with no weighting for a given IQ test for the percentage of actual ancestry (actually, no attempt to take actual ancestry into account at all). A 51% European who happens to look black and has been raised black will be coded as black. So, if your populations are being segregated by cultural convention, the IQ tests are measuring differences in cultural groups.

Nice data. Garbage in, garbage out.

Furthermore, since the genetic mechanism of intelligence isn't understood, "genetics" in this context is turning into a mere slogan.

Like I said, when you can map empirical genetic groups against empirical intelligence, I'm all ears. Until then they're just pouring BB's into skulls all over again.
.

Mixner-

Where are the graphs, charts, numbers, statistics, arguments, etc?

Can we get a pie chart showing what percentage of you is retarded?

"And if I may add, it was the complacent/go-along-to-get-along attitude of folks like "novakan" and Matt that allowed the moment of silence in Illinois schools to happen."

OMG! A moment of SILENCE?!?!? Run for the hills! We are all doomed! Doomed I say!!

a concise refutation of your endless bullshit arguments

Nice words. Do you know what they mean? It seems unlikely, because what I've been doing is showing how the racists don't have the data they need to come to the conclusions they'll come to anyway. They can't even define their terms in any useful way.

Like I said: garbage in, garbage out.

This, rather than some liberal academic conspiracy, explains their marginal place.
.

"Yes! I cited it because it demolished your claim."

Which claim did it "demolish", and how did it do so?

"With neutrality out the window, this leaves atheism vs. Christianity on the basis of evidence. In that battle, atheism wins hands down."

I say, not without a fight.

Catholic Church recognized thousands of saints and blessed, and if I recall, you need 3 miracles to be a saint, and 2 to be a blessed. The procedure is no joke, and if I recall, some saints were purged from the ranks (St. Hercules? you see, even 12 Great Works are not enough, if documentation is not up to snuff).

Catholic Church recognized thousands of saints and blessed, and if I recall, you need 3 miracles to be a saint, and 2 to be a blessed. The procedure is no joke ...

The procedure was created at the end of the twelfth century, took about a century to enforce (over local traditions), and has been altered constantly since then.

But yes, it's no joke. In fact, it's pretty freaking expensive.
.

Harry-
Your claim: black white IQ gap is not narrowing significantly
My claim: black white IQ gap is narrowing significantly
Papers claim: ditto

My guess is that people who make arguments like this have religious parents or religious family members, even if they aren't religious themselves.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am an atheist coming from an atheist family and from the top of my head couldn't name anybody that I know personally who is overtly religious - religion just doesn't play a role in my life. That doesn't mean that I have to throw out the baby with the bathwater and call religious people ignorant and stupid or ignore faith as a factor in society. John Updike is a religious person and also one of the best and smartest writers I've read and I find his struggles with faith interesting. Take God as a metaphor and religion as an expression of a universal longing that manifests itself in a myriad of ways and you're on to something. Focusing solely on the question of proof of God's existence or the crimes of the church or extremists like the 'new atheists' do is simply vulgar and parochial. I believe in liberté, egalité, fraternité but haven't seen much proof of its existence either and there have been a ton of crimes committed in the name of the enlightenment.
Yes, religion and religious people can be a pain in the @ss, but so can just about everything and everybody else.

But I suspect it is easier for me to exhibit that kind of tolerance and even interest, since in Europe the battles between the church and state have already been fought for the most part and won by the latter, while in the US you do have a real problem on your hand.

Your claim: black white IQ gap is not narrowing significantly
My claim: black white IQ gap is narrowing significantly

Significantly since when?

Prior to 1983, you couldn't measure how African or European someone was, it was all guess-work.
.

Grand Moff Texan,

So your claim is that certain racists you don't name lack certain data you do not identify needed to support certain conclusions you don't describe. Oh, and also, they can't usefully define certain terms you don't state.

Gee, what a serious, substantive argument you have there. We'll get right on it.

Catholic Church recognized thousands of saints and blessed, and if I recall, you need 3 miracles to be a saint, and 2 to be a blessed. The procedure is no joke

Right. Not a joke at all. I'm sure the church will publish the evidence for these "miracles" in a reputable scientific journal any day now.

So your claim is that certain racists you don't name lack certain data you do not identify needed to support certain conclusions you don't describe. Oh, and also, they can't usefully define certain terms you don't state.

Sorry if you're new to this conversation, Mixner, but your ignorance doesn't constitute an argument.

It's been going on for quite a while, you know. Perhaps you should, you know, read a bit?
.

Grand Moff-

Maybe if you put your arguments in an excel spreadsheet, Mixner will understand it.

At this point in intellectual history its time for the theists to grow up and face reality.

Arguments that the atheists should stifle themselves are insulting and wrong. If you saw a child was going to die unnecessarily because he or she was being treated with tribal voodoo medicine when there was a simple scientific cure available, should you hold your tongue? No.

Its almost always better to tell the truth. And in intellectual discussions, it is simply ALWAYS better to tell the truth.

There is an ethics of belief, and no one has the right to assert beliefs that are completely unsupported by the evidence. Even less so does anyone have a right to expect some kind of intellectual protectionism for their unfounded beliefs.

Maybe if you put your arguments in an excel spreadsheet, Mixner will understand it.

Ever the optimist!

Bye, y'all.
.

One thing Dutch people worry about when they worry about Muslim immigrants is that socially conservative Muslim immigrants might spoil their same-sex partnership law.

I don't think so, and I'm Dutch. In fact I don't see how Muslim immigrants could change the law, considering the restrictive Dutch nationality rules: few immigrants have the right to vote, even fewer of them exercise it. One thing Dutch people do worry about, though, is how to hide their newfound racism under a politically correct veil (no pun on Islam meant). Every time I go back to Holland, every one or two years, I hardly recognize the place. Xenophobic articles that would have been considered unacceptably racist only ten or fifteen years ago are now not only common in the MSM, but even - I would almost say especially - in the progressive press.

There always was a lot of racism in Holland, but it was at least looked down upon and considered improper. Today it is mainstream, almost consensual. I'm glad Matt likes Amsterdam. I don't, not anymore.

When the Dutch defend their racism by saying they're actually just defending homosexuals (or freedom of speech, or women's rights, or whatever), they are not just being dishonest, they are also being cowardly. Because it isn't about those things at all.

Texan,

In all your blathering, I can't recall a single clear empirical proposition from you addressing the question of racial differences in intelligence. Just endless vacuous blather.

What is it supposed to mean empirically, for example, for someone to be "51% European?"

And do let us know when you've figured out who the racists are who lack whatever unidentified data you're referring to for whatever unstated conclusions you have in mind.

It's not just that you don't have a clue about the science, though that is painfully obvious, but that you don't even know what your own statements mean.

I think that report on demise of the West Europe are vastly exagerating. I am visiting Germany now and definitely Muslim immigrants are visible, but is it a menace?

Donner kebab and falafels are probably the most frequently ordered fastfood, but Germans are uncertain what is more barbaric: hamburger from McDonald (with a scant relationship with the proud city on Elbe) or falafel. None of them is a good Teutonic meddwurst or pfannekuchen (sorry for my mangled German). Indeed, a lot of Muslim-looking types around, and women in various Islamic hair covers. Including, ominously, graduate students of engineering.

Once I am returning home late night and I hear loud Arabic pop musis -- you know, with a female singer and a rather haunting melody. Where does it come from? An Irish pub!

Lets have a round of Guiness for the Caliphate!

By the way, Dutch have a larger problem with immigrants than Germans, to a degree. One problems is that more often than not, Germans do not know English (more precisely, most know very litte). To survive, immigrants learn German. In Holland, EVERYBODY knows English. So there is a perception that the immigrants remain separated from the national culture. If you are a very numerous nation, it is easier to be a melting pot.

When the Dutch defend their racism by saying they're actually just defending homosexuals (or freedom of speech, or women's rights, or whatever), they are not just being dishonest, they are also being cowardly. Because it isn't about those things at all.

How do you know. Are you a mind reader? The Netherlands sounds like a very pleasant country. I can imagine some of the Dutch are genuinely afraid of losing a good thing.

a) Isn't it possible their fears may be justified?

b) Holland doesn't deny the right to vote to immigrants indefinitely, does it? Or to their children? Why isn't it possible that, in decades hence, a demographically much different Dutch electorate couldn't vote in laws discriminating against gays, or rolling back women's rights? It's exactly for this reason, for instance, that current Israeli leadership is wisely trying to lock in a two state solution while they still can.

"Harry-
Your claim: black white IQ gap is not narrowing significantly
My claim: black white IQ gap is narrowing significantly
Papers claim: ditto"

Rickm,

This was my claim (really a question):

"If you have a link to data showing that the gap between average black adult IQ has narrowed to less than about one standard deviation from the average adult white IQ, please share. That would be great news. Unfortunately, from the reading I've done on this, it appears that while a few studies have shown black children's IQ going up by a few points relative to whites, the average black IQ reverts to about ~85 at adulthood."

In response you were posted a link to a paper by Flynn which showed that the current black adult IQ average is ~85, i.e. (since the current white IQ average is ~100) that there is still a one standard deviation gap.

Harry-
The paper does not show that the IQ average for black adults is approximately 85. It is more like over 88. If we ignore the AFQT test, the average is over 89.

"The paper does not show that the IQ average for black adults is approximately 85. It is more like over 88. If we ignore the AFQT test, the average is over 89."

Page 9 of the paper shows a mean IQ score of 84.5 for 24 year old blacks. The data are summarized in Figure 3 on p. 30. Put your finger on the vertical axis at "85" and move it slowly across to the right; see where it intersects the diagonal line representing black IQ scores in 2002 (declining by age) and then look down at the horizontal axis which shows age. For those who want to play along at home, here is the PDF of the paper.

Harry-

That's a regression line mmmkay? Its a model used to make a line that best fits the data. I was pointing to the, ya know, actual data? cf Table A1

Rickm,

What part of "adult" do you not understand? The Table A1 doesn't break down the IQ results by age. The text on page 9 (which refers to Figure 3) addresses this:

"Black IQs decline relative to whites with age, indeed, the decline amounts to 11 points between 4 and 24. Despite this, black gains on whites over this 30-year period are close to 5.5 IQ points for all ages below 25. Figure 3 shows that in 2002, the mean IQ of blacks ranged from 95.5 at age 4 to 84.5 at age 24..."

I appreciate religious pluralism. But I also appreciate that the Dutch and Northern Europeans in general fought long and hard to establish the tenets of secular humanism as their basis for a civil society.

I don't think that calling out those who would compromise that vision is bigotry any more than, say, calling out Mormonism on theological grounds. And this is where I have a problem with guilty liberalism: Muslims shouldn't get a free ride just because they're brown people.

If Hannuka is celebrating Jewish tribal backwardness, would Hitch say the same impulse is present in the 4th of July and the ways various Asian, African and Latin American countries celebrate their independence?

I don't think that calling out those who would compromise that vision is bigotry any more than, say, calling out Mormonism on theological grounds. And this is where I have a problem with guilty liberalism: Muslims shouldn't get a free ride just because they're brown people.

Thank you. And residents of the liberal, secular, enlightened West shouldn't apologize for limiting immigration from lands where a dangerous medieval ideology dominates, even though, tragically, such a policy will inevitably prevent blameless people from entering.

The Race/IQ "issue" is nothing more than an excuse to place the blame for black underachievement back on blacks. As has been pointed out many times, it is unfortunate that the Atlantic has become the forum for such silliness. Although Saletan deserves every bit of the derision that is heaped upon him for his original series and half-hearted apology, it is nice to see a writer held even marginally to account for their bigotry unlike McArdle and Sullivan and Douthat.

I heap particular scorn upon Sullivan as he is prone to adopt the posture of prophecy predicting that some person or other will be judged kindly by history, usually for the heroic defense of gay rights. Invoking a similar privelege I predict that Sullivan will be judged very poorly by history for his adherence to racist certitudes. He is only the latest in a long line of crypto-fascist homosexuals who displace their personal conflict into a celebration of hyper-masculinity and tribal triumphalism. It is a sad, sorry thing to witness. Gay conservatives deserve better than to be represented by such a twisted fool.

"The Race/IQ "issue" is nothing more than an excuse to place the blame for black underachievement back on blacks."

That might make sense if you think that the black-white IQ gap is due primarily to environmental causes: you might be inclined to blame blacks for poor work ethic, dysfunctional culture, etc., as some commentators have (e.g., Bill Cosby). But if you believe the estimates of some researchers that the gap is 50%-70% due to genetic differences, you would have less reason to "blame" blacks for under-achievement in academics and other fields that require higher IQs. You might instead think of ways to improve the lot of those with lower IQs, instead of assuming that we live in Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average in intelligence.

I have to take issue with your wording here as well. Anyone who explains why they're an atheist is a "jerk". And yet, every "believer" out there feels the need to ask us to explain why we're atheists. People would rather elect felons to public office than atheists. It is most certainly a (lack of) practice which is heavily discriminated against in most parts of this country. This may not really be a good topic for you, this post is very clumsily argued.

Just to pop in here: somebody said that IQ doesn't correlate with wealth.

Why should it? Wealth correlates with primate hierarchy - which I suspect does not correlate with IQ (assuming the word "IQ" actually means anything, which it probably doesn't.)

The human brain is a very complex organ. That certain tests measure certain of its capabilities does not indicate to me that they clearly measure so vague a concept as "intelligence."

So I ignore IQ tests. What matters to me is rationality - which can be rather more objectively assessed than "intelligence". Your statements either adhere to logic or they don't.

Most human statements don't.

Rationality has to be learned. The question of interest to me is to what degree is the ability to learn to be rational genetically influenced - or more precisely, to what degree is this ability influenced by the neurophysiology of the brain.

Everything - intelligence, "IQ", so-called "EQ", sociability, everything - correlates to the neurophysiology of the brain modified by learning.

Until we have a precise measurement of how this occurs, arguments over whether any particular group is more "intelligent" than another are pointless.

Bottom line: all humans are on a Bell Curve. That means half of them are "dumber" - whatever that word means IN PRACTICE - than the other half. That's what's important - how people behave IN PRACTICE.

But until you know WHY in neurophysiology and education terms that occurs, you can't say anything meaningful about ethnicities.

Even if you COULD prove that blacks are ten percent less "intelligent" than whites, what good does that do anyone? It probably would end up merely meaning that they need ten percent more learning opportunities to narrow the difference. Or it might not mean anything - because other genetic differences between black and white might even out the effect socially.

It's just pointless to discuss the lot in the absence of anything constituting hard science. And IQ tests are definitely not hard science.

Having spent eight years in prison, I had the opportunity of observing lower class blacks, lower class whites from rural areas, lower class whites from urban areas, and lower class Hispanics.

None of them are particularly "intelligent." And i was unable to determine that any of them are "less intelligent" than any of the other groups. The Hispanics SEEMED to be less intelligent at some times probably because they weren't as "assimilated" into the American culture as home-grown blacks and whites were. That was the only difference I could point to and from the point of view of most people would be mostly unnoticeable.

As for the atheism question, I have no idea what Matt is referring to as "new atheist jerks" - other than he might be generalizing from Hitchens (and possibly Dawkins if he finds not only Dawkin's atheism but also his "Selfish Gene" work unsatisfactory for some reason.)

I've been an atheist since the 1970's (before that I was an agnostic). So unless you comparing me to, say, Bakunin, I"m not a "new atheist."

Besides which, if you assume that American Christianity has become more aggressive over the last few decades - which I think could be cogently argued is true - then having more aggressive atheists would not only be a good thing, but inevitable.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a very aggressive atheist who I had the pleasure of listening speak at an anarchist conference in New York back in 1971 or 1972, IIRC. She was probably the quintessential American atheist. I doubt even Hitchens could be more aggressive than she was in promoting atheism.

So I don't know how Matt derived the notion that subsequent generations of atheists are more "jerks" than before.

One doesn't want to say "you guys should get rid of your progressive views on gender roles because it would make it easier for Muslims to assimilate" but at the end of the day it is much easier for Muslims to go along get along in a country like the US where traditionalist attitudes have more political clout

Translation: Middle Eastern Muslims can't completely accept modernity, so the modern world should become more miedeval to accomodate their backwardness.

Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book suggesting this very thing. If liberals decides to make that deal, you can have him. Take Gerson and Huckabee while you're at it.

Such bigotry against brown people in Europe didn't need Islamic radicalism to come into play. Brown non-Muslims in Europe have to deal with a ton of crap. My mom had to live through it and now my cousins are living threw it as well, despite just about all of us being educated. The banlieus in France pre-dated Al-Qaida. Turkish Germans only got the right to become citizens in the past decade. Before that, an ethnic Turk who was born in raised in Germany could never be a citizen. Around 45% of university-educated French Arabs are unemployed. However, with Marxism dead, Islamic radicalism has become the new self-defeating narrative into which a subset of the brown-skinned underclass (and some, a la Baader-Meinhoff being founded after the murder of a Palestinian student by German police, white European converts to Islam) in Europe channel their rage.

I think what MY un-knowingly hinted at here is part of the whole agnostic vs. (hard) atheist dynamic to a certain extent. For instance, I was hanging out with a bunch of friends a few years ago and every single one of us was an agnostic or an atheist, so we pretty much all believed the same things about organized religion. However, the most hard-core atheist among us still wouldn't shut up about how stupid religion is while we were like, "dude, shut up, we're trying to watch Family Guy." Guys like Hitchens make the rest of us look bad.

Read the following and then tell me all about your omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Gawd who loves his children. This woman was killed randomly and had a little son. One thing's for sure: If there is a Gawd, he sure doesnt love his children.

Police Identify Shooter in Geist Area Murder-Suicide


INDIANAPOLIS - Police say 25-year-old Lavon Boyd of Indianapolis shot Holly Corey while she was pumping gas at a BP gas station located at Fox Rd. and Oaklandon Rd.

Police say Boyd then returned to his vehicle, drove to the parking lot of a neighboring bank branch, where he shot himself in the head and crashed into a pole.

A police statement released to 24-Hour News 8, details an eyewitness' account of the events:

"An eyewitness at the murder scene stated he exited the BP gas station and observed Boyd walk up and fire two shots into the back of Mrs. Corey as she was running her credit card through the gas pump. He then looked at the eyewitness, stated, "watch this," and pointed the gun at his own head and pulled the trigger twice without firing. He then pointed the gun at the witness and fired a shot. The witness ran towards the side of the building as Boyd climbed into his vehicle and drove towards the bank lot just west of the gas station. The witness then heard another shot fired, which apparently was the shot Boyd fired, taking his own life."

The police statement also says, "Lavon has had a history of mental illnesses, and at this time it appears he was able to get a gun from his family home and chose his victim, Holly Corey in a random manner."

Corey, 49, of Indianapolis, was taken to Methodist Hospital in critical condition. She later died of her wounds.

...the "new atheism" -- which is mostly like the old atheism but involves people acting like jerks

...the strident anti-religious sentiments of a Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins.

Ok, but let's at least be consistent. How about if we treat religious believers the same way we treat people who believe in astrology, Santa Clause, or in the Earth being flat? If I encounter anyone who believes these things, I'll treat them with respect and won't push my own views on them very strongly. This is the same way I would with any religious beliefs.

But, there's no way I'll admit that religious beliefs (outside of a vague spiritual agnosticism) enjoy any greater intellectual validity than the beliefs mentioned above.

Two points:

1. All comments about comparative IQ's are simply laughable--and irrelevant. As if Bush and his Administration are proof that intelligence and success are related.

2. Doesn't everyone know that the SAT is culturually biased in favor of Vietnamese immigrants? During the last 20 years, I have never heard someone explain how maybe constant READING and higher test scores are totally related. But then again, Vietnamese immigrants don't generally prize pick up games of basketball as much as other youth.

All this talk about relative worth is a sign of fear, loss of confidence, and general mediocrity. You know when a culture is going down the tubes: It focuses on condemning "them," instead of focusing on improving "us."

I stopped reading a little way down, so apologies if this was already answered. But JDF, you inadvertently proved the point that you were trying to refute: if telling people that they'll go to hell for all eternity is bad, how is telling people that they're stupid and holding us all back better?

I think that both religious and non-religious sentiments are great and should be discussed, but calling someone a "moron" right off the bat is counterproductive, and leads to a debate where both sides dig in and stop listening.

Bigotry against brown people in Europe didn't need Islamic radicalism to come into play.

Word. I remember reading sentiments in L'Express decades ago that wouldn't have flown in a US publication, even on September 12, 2001.

Call me naive, but isn't one of the reasons people immigrate is because they don't like where they are. Is viewing the citizens of an Islamic nation as a potentially cancerous growth really the right solution here? Think about how many books/movies/etc. talk about the pervasive influence American culture has on closely-held religious values-- maybe we should think of immigration as a chance to spread progress back to Islamic nations, through people sending money and GameBoys back to their families. It worked for the Irish (not so well with the Germans)...


Comments closed December 19, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.