Project on Sociobiology:

As noted, the previous entry on sociobiology was taken from Renewing the Mind. I would like to add something here that I did not include in the book.

For the class that I took, the students had to do a research paper and presentation. We were supposed to address a particular aspect of human behavior using the principles of sociobiology.

So I presented to the class what would be considered a racist thesis (see "comments on racism" below), and supported it with data published by some evolutionary biologists, as well as by applying what I had been taught about sociobiology up to that point. Without denouncing the discipline (although I would have no problem doing it if I had decided on the direct approach), I provided the relevant data, quotes, graphs, and so on, and with a straight face demonstrated the superiority of my own race.

The students were seething with indignation. As I recall, the TA who graded my project did not like what I said, but she gave me an "A-" anyway, probably because I was right — given the data and the theories of sociobiology, my conclusion was logical and legitimate.

It was one of the sweetest ad hominem cases that I have ever constructed.

Comments on Racism:

Merriam-Webster offers two definitions for "racism": (1) "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," and (2) "racial prejudice or discrimination."

My thesis would be racist according to the first definition, but only the second definition indicates an immoral sort of racism. If true, an assertion that is racist in the first sense would be positively moral to affirm, and it would be in fact immoral to deny it, since to deny it would be to deny the truth. Thus a true assertion about the characteristics of a race cannot be automatically racist in the second and immoral sense also.

Many people confuse the two senses, and perhaps influenced by secular thinking, even believers fail to observe such a simple distinction. Of course, there are those who simply reject the distinction because they assume that racism in the first sense could never be true (that one race cannot be inherently superior or inferior to another), so that whoever affirms a racist belief in the first sense must do so only because he is first a racist in the second sense. Others also assume that racism in the first sense could never be true, so that racists in general are just ignorant. However, without reason or proof that racism in the first sense could never be true, the distinction between the first and the second sense must be maintained, and we cannot just assume that racists are ignorant.

Once a non-Christian philosophy student told me that "racism" is irrational, and that "racists" believe as they do because they are ignorant people. I asked him exactly what "racists" are ignorant of, that is, precisely what piece of information they lack so that they would not be racists any longer if they were to learn it. He answered that they are ignorant of the fact that there are no essential differences among people of different races. He was the one who used the word "essential," so he was slightly more careful than some of the others that I have read or talked to on the subject. But when I questioned him on what differences are "essential," what differences are not, and how we can distinguish between the two, he failed to answer me, and could not even suggest a standard by which to find out. Thus his case against racism fails, for ultimately, he has no rational argument against one who would regard any difference among the races (skin color, facial features, etc.) as a basis for discrimination. Of course, the racist could also be irrational in this case, but this non-Christian could oppose him only by an equally irrational argument.

Finally, he said that if everyone would question their assumptions like I was doing with him, then nothing at all could be established. Without agreeing that "nothing at all could established," I pointed out that by this he had admitted that nothing that he believed could be established. But he was the one who said that he was rational, and that the racists were irrational. In other words, his beliefs were perfectly rational as long as no one questioned him about them, and they were true just because he preferred to believe them.

On another occasion, a supporter of homosexual marriage told me that those who oppose homosexuality or homosexual marriage are ignorant people. Again I asked what precisely they are ignorant of. He answered that they fail to understand that homosexuality is natural, that homosexuals are born homosexuals, and that homosexual relationships do not damage society or undermine heterosexual relationships. When I asked him how he knew all of this, and then how all of this justifies homosexuality, he could not answer me. It appeared that these were just random beliefs that he considered both true and relevant, when he could not show that they were true or how they were relevant.

My position is that science can neither prove nor refute racism in either sense. With the first sense, empirical methods and scientific reasonings are never able to arrive at any truth, so it can make no pronouncement regarding whether one race is inherently superior or inferior to another. With the second, empirical methods and scientific reasonings can never validly arrive at any moral judgment. Therefore, science is impotent to address racism from any angle.

Using science to justify racism in the first sense, my class presentation was a case of an ad hominem attack against sociobiology. Since science could never prove anything, the presentation did not rationally justify racism, and still less did it refute racism, but I used a method favored by the audience to support a conclusion that the same audience was reluctant to accept. To prove something right or wrong, one must abandon empirical science and reason from revelation.

Now, the second definition cannot describe what Paul wrote in Titus 1:12, since Paul’s assertion was true. Even the first definition would fail to apply unless Paul is saying that the Cretans were inherently (that is, because they were Cretans) the way they were. But he does not indicate this in the verse, and based on what the rest of Scripture teaches, we can assume that he does not have this meaning in mind.

Therefore, statements about the characteristics exhibited (not necessarily inherited) by a race of people, even denounciations like the one in Titus 1:12, are not racist in either sense. But again, even if these characteristics are inherited and not merely exhibited, then statements about them can at best be "racist" in the first but not the second sense, and they are not immoral. We would have to regard those statements as accurate descriptions, and not racially prejudiced remarks that should be condemned. Those who refuse to acknolwedge these distinctions are irrational fanatics for a cause that they have failed to define or understand. We must not think that they are righteous crusaders for racial justice and equality.

RECOMMENDED:

Apologetics for Christian Students

Protecting Your Faith

A Career in Science

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word

Vincent Cheung, "Professional Morons"

Vincent Cheung, "A Moron by Any Other Name"

Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy

Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things

Gordon Clark, The Lord God of Truth

Gordon Clark, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God

Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education

 

Posted in Philosophy, Apologetics | Permanent Link