Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human Nature Watch 2: Nature, Nurture, and Gender

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It is a deep-seated and dangerous logical fallacy to argue from the fact that some other species happens to do this or that to the conclusion that human nature has such and such properties. Human nature is what it is, regardless of how it came to be that way, and irrespective of what our cousins do or do not do. And what human nature is like is not some deep mystery—it is directly observable. Dragging in evolutionary biology is just redundant window-dressing.

Or, rather, it is worse than redundant; it is dangerous. Why is it dangerous? Because it encourages materialist and reductionist thinking. It encourages humans to think of themselves as “nothing but” animals, which is the surest means of really divesting them of their humanity. For, if our species has one decisive characteristic, it is that we live up—or down—to the image we have of ourselves.

Ideas matter. And the silly idea that because some other animal does something, we must do likewise, is as pernicious an idea as there is in our culture today.

If you don’t believe me, just listen to “The Bad Touch,” a popular rap song by the Bloodhound Gang.

– James Barham, “Human Nature Watch 2: Nature, Nurture, and Gender,”The Best Schools blog (December 31, 2011) More.

Comments
If believe you are a computer and you are honest about it, you will recognize that you can have no confidence in any conclusion you come to, because the only tool you have with which to validate it is the (possibly flawed) computer that came to the conclusion in the first place.
Have you ever made a mistake, Bruce? Human minds are flawed, and that remains true whether they are composed of "meat" or wispy, immaterial ectoplasm. Materialists and dualists are in exactly the same boat. We all have to do our best to discern the truth, despite knowing that our minds are imperfect and might be misleading us.champignon
January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
It is logically impossible for a computer to ever determine whether or not its own programming is flawed. If believe you are a computer and you are honest about it, you will recognize that you can have no confidence in any conclusion you come to, because the only tool you have with which to validate it is the (possibly flawed) computer that came to the conclusion in the first place. In other words, you may be right or you may be wrong, but you cannot know one way or the other. For a materialist who really believes his own philosophy, the only consistent position on any question is agnosticism.Bruce David
January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
They debate as if their minds were actually capable of determining truth instead of being “computers made out of meat”
Why do you think it's impossible for a "meat computer" to determine the truth?champignon
January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Not to worry. The people who espouse these ideas don't really believe them anyway. You can tell this by the way they act. They debate as if their minds were actually capable of determining truth instead of being "computers made out of meat" and thus incapable of knowing whether their internal logic was sound or not. They also apply praise and blame to others' actions just as if we were all freely acting agents instead of robots constrained to act out our programming. It's all just talk. Of course, most of them can't actually see the incongruence between what they say and how they act. It appears to be some sort of intellectual blindness.Bruce David
January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
We are made in the image of God and think like him. We are not like nature or her creatures. No comparison. We have never been primitive and no evidence of it. Our language ability alone shows our complexity.Robert Byers
January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply