Christianity, HBD and Political Correctness

In reference to our post why Christians should reject Intelligent Design, the popular Catholic blogger Mark Shea has launched an attack on Occam’s Razor, calling us “blood and soil pagans” and appearing to wholly misunderstand what human biodiversity even is.   This is odd, since historically, before the rise of propositionalism, nearly all Christians would have been advocates of “blood and soil” and certainly would have believed in some sort human biodiversity (although without the nuances of contemporary genetics and sociobiology). Furthermore, many prominent Christians, like J.R.R. Tolkien, considered themselves pagans of sorts, but the subtlety here is probably beyond Shea’s powers.  As I’ve noted already, while I’m not particularly religious and as far as I know no blogger here is neopagan (although I have nothing against neopaganism), I am not anti-religion.  In fact, while I am a Darwinist, I reject the harsh “New Atheism” of Dawkins et al, as I find it unrealistic.  The idea that one can construct a wholly atheist society seems to me to be a type of utopianism, contrary to human nature, as I suspect that least 90% of the people on the planet are incapable of living without religion.  Furthermore, religion can be adaptive.  As many Darwinists have noted (e.g. E.O. Wilson, Nicholas Wade, etc.) religion can act as a glue to hold society together.  Like Cicero, I believe religion can create a positive order in society.   The biggest problem I have with Christianity today is that it has become maladaptive for Westerners.  While Christianity has become a non-Western religion in the Third world, Western Christianity is besotted with “universalism“. Western Christianity in the last 50 years seems to have absorbed many aspects of Cultural Marxism — Exhibit A:  Shea’s prattling on about “racism” — and it has suicidally internalized pathological altruism (e.g. Western Christianity’s current unhealthy obsession with non-white adoption or support of Third World immigration).  While I don’t want…nor think it even possible…to get rid of religion, I’d like to see a more masculine Christianity that hasn’t become a little chorus looking to condemn the latest politically incorrect impropriety, yelling slogans like “Darwinism is racist.”  In short, Christians have become sissies.  Shea should try to fix this instead of whining about us.

Updates:

Some of the commenters at Shea’s blog seem not to understand the reality of racial differences in IQ.

It’s interesting that while Western leftists and Western Christian Cultural Marxists are waging war on behalf of blank slatist egalitarianism, the Chinese have come to terms with reality.

Anti-evolution neocon David Klinghoffer calls Occam’s Razor “moronic” and then links to some mindless rant about Darwinism being racist, pretty much confirming my assessment of the Trotskyite origins of the Discovery Institute.

About these ads

18 thoughts on “Christianity, HBD and Political Correctness

  1. Several things irk me about this so-called Catholic guy. First he uses a completely fabricated Strawman that claims pagans are materialists. Not so. Just check out my blog and those of my followers. We rail against materialism at the first opportunity. Second, he clearly marginalized those Christians, like Julius Evola and Tolkien that recognized the pagan roots of Christianity. And third, he makes another Strawman that we claim others cannot have their dignity. Amazing. He might as well be a card-carrying Jew.

  2. >Mark Shea has launched an attack on Occam’s Razor, calling us “blood and soil pagans”

    Are you sure that was an attack?

    The last time someone called me a “blood and soil pagan” she was trying to get into my pants.

    Probably it was just an awkward attempt at flattery. Just laugh a big, deep, manly belly-laugh and say, “Thank you!” with a twinkle in your eye.

  3. You don’t seem to have noticed that Mark Shea is a Chestertonian, and Chesterton was very positive about Paganism. You seem to have misunderstood the anglophone Catholic’s relationship with paganism. There’s actually room for a very interesting conversation between both parties here, if y’all can keep it friendly.

  4. There are high IQ Christians who understand HBD but you won’t find them at Mark Shea’s blog, which is the bottom of the barrel in terms of intellect. People there won’t accept HBD because they can’t understand it, are spoon-fed simple politically correct cliches, and are afraid of what they can’t understand. You’re wasting your time, trust me.

  5. Mark Shea has swallowed Cultural Marxism hook, line and sinker. Poor soul thinks that unless you’re anti-white you’re not a real Christian.

  6. If I remember my history correctly, there was another person who wished Christianity was more “masculine” (among other things — one of them being too devoted to universalism and not concerned about “blood and soil” enough)…it didn’t end well…for anyone. That person also did not have many problems with paganism and darwinianism (where they might be a useful means to an end).
    Might be something to ponder.

    • >If I remember my history correctly, there was another person who wished Christianity was more “masculine”

      That was Rudyard Kipling. Great writer, not so hot at judging the human costs of British imperialism.

  7. And whether or not IQ is related to racial/ethnic background (let’s say it is…although from what I know of the human genome, the percentage of difference between races/ethnicities is quite small; we humans have a very shallow gene pool it seems) I would like evidence that this points to true inequality: after all, there are other things to factor into survival advantage than just IQ (and that isn’t even getting into how we measure IQ) — Darwin would likely agree.
    The example of China is a bad one, for many reasons — they are hardly a “super state” (their weaknesses are there, as are their strengths, and many would call the strengths you point to as their weakness).
    I’d also like some citation confirmation that Tolkein had pagan leanings in anything other than his fascination with early, pre-Christian sagas (which could be explained by his love for antiquities and with language formation than any love of paganism), same with Chesterton…and I’d also like to see some direct citation of where Darwin was so adverse to Christian thought (I believe in one of his works, he does make the case that while evolution may be survival of the fittest, it was deeply troubling to him and he was grateful for some sort of ethics/morality that softened that response…I’m not 100% on that, but it’s close).
    And from there we can talk about atheists and the trap of believing in a sort of pagan cult of science (which does not question science any better or more thoroughly than what the religious are mocked for following their religious texts verbatim and without question…or merely cherry picks in order to suit their needs — cherry picked scientific findings really aren’t much better).

    • Thank you for your comments.

      Regarding Tolkien, see this.

      “There are other things to factor into survival advantage than just IQ”

      This is completely true. In fact, high IQ might not have any survival advantage at all.

      Among hunter-gatherers in Africa and Latin America, it has been shown that the lower-impulse-control, aggressive males were likely to sire more children. In this context, a higher IQ is not adaptive.

      It could be adaptive today in the West but the modern welfare state certainly rewards the lower IQ with more offspring, so again…

      And then there’s Third World immigration…

      You should just read this.

  8. But those blood and soil Christians of yore were just so backward, and stuff! Like all our ancestors. We, however, are enlightened. Now we know better, right?

  9. Concerning the main article, I assure you that not all Christians argue that Darwinism is racist (though I’d imagine those subscribing to the literal fundamentalist ethos might have a problem with Darwinism/evolution in general). Personally, I subscribe to a redemptive ethos – that is, using the tenets of Christian faith to be a blessing to people and to uplift ‘em (it’s much deeper than this but for brevity’s – and time’s – sake I’ll keep it simple).

    FTR, I also accept evolution as fact and even blog about HBD from time to time.

    Interestingly, in the New Testament (specifically 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4), the Apostle Paul makes it clear that there are diversities both in spiritual gifts and positions in the Body of Christ (though from the same God). Given this spiritual heterogeneity, it’d be hard IMO to make the leap to biological homogeneity; just because we’re made in the image and likeness of God doesn’t mean that we are “blank slates…”

    On another note, while it seems many HBD’ers are irreligious, I find that knowledge of HBD helped increase my faith in God…

  10. Pingback: Why the religious should reject Intelligent Design | Occam's Razor

  11. Pingback: Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian? | Occam's Razor

  12. I have no issue with Darwin and little interest in Intelligent Design. Genesis is not a scientific treatise and should not be read as such; God is the creator, and the details of how God accomplished this are not my concern.

    I find connections between HBD thinking and Christian convictions quite disturbing. I have no interest in getting into the debated science, because I find the general premise a problem: as a Christian my primary allegiance is to Christ, and my first community is not to country or nation or race, but to the Body of Christ, the church.

    As for a “more masculine” Christianity, I guess we could all go read John Eldredge or Mark Driscoll. Or we could note that God is neither male or female, but embodies qualities that various societies ascribe to both genders.

    As for Christians being “sissies,” this is an old charge going back to at least the fall of Rome: those weak-kneed Christians made the empire fall (Augustine tried to answer this challenge 1600 years ago).

    Then again, maybe we are: Jesus would probably fit most definitions of “pathologically altruistic.”

    • >As for Christians being “sissies,” … maybe we are: Jesus would probably fit most definitions of “pathologically altruistic.”

      Unless you’re an unclean spirit, a barren fig tree, or a money-changer inside a temple. In those cases, Jesus is the incarnation of short-tempered whoopass.

  13. I would not think any version of Christianity would have any reason to like HBD much. I cannot see any way it would benefit any known kind of Christian thinking. For one a good understanding of evolution is at the core of HBD. And many versions of Christianity has a lot of trouble with the science of evolution. I cannot see why it would benefit any version of Christianity to entertain the questioning political correctness HBD calls question to.

    From the high middle ages Christianity has had an obsession with converting the non-white savages all over the world. And relatively speaking savages is accurate when comparing lifestyles.

    The Yanomami are an isolated Amazon group. They break most of the current rules of political correctness yet without outside contact to modernity they would be very stable and unchanging. And a aggressive and violent as they are as a group they are very weak and easily conquered by a group with more modern organization. The third world lifestyles that the majority live in Caracas Venezuela have striking parallels to the Yanomami lifestyle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s