Is racism scientific?

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Is racism scientific?

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Is racism scientific?

Answer seems yes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... -says/amp/

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Post #121

Post by Tcg »

Wootah wrote:
Here is Mr Dawkins just a day or two ago on eugenics.


Yes, and his attitude towards it is clear:
  • For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #122

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 119 by Tcg]

We practise eugenics everyday when we send our kids to a specific school or live in specific suburbs and eugenics is, as Richard said, practised in industry. It's only the taboo nature of it that prevents the discussion (re: IQ).

It's just a funny thing to see eugenics mentioned by a prominent atheist at the same time as accusing creationists of it. You can see that right?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #123

Post by otseng »

pleinmont wrote: your attitude is very unpleasant indeed. :shock:
Moderator Comment

Please note on this forum we enforce respect of other posters. It is against the rules to make any negative comments about another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #124

Post by Purple Knight »

Wootah wrote:It's just a funny thing to see eugenics mentioned by a prominent atheist at the same time as accusing creationists of it. You can see that right?
Everyone is going to accuse the other of it because it is simultaneously necessary and morally disgusting, providing moral people the perfect opportunity to shame others with something it's easy to find targets with, since you can't possibly shoot and miss.

You are guilty of eugenics if you choose to mate with a beautiful woman over an ugly one.

You are guilty of eugenics if you choose to mate with someone able-bodied instead of someone with a crippling heritable disability.

You are guilty of eugenics if you choose to mate with a smart or successful man over a jobless idiot.
otseng wrote:
pleinmont wrote: your attitude is very unpleasant indeed. :shock:
Moderator Comment

Please note on this forum we enforce respect of other posters. It is against the rules to make any negative comments about another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
I already apologized for this. Not sure why you quoted his post as I was the one who expressed a bad attitude. He was simply correcting me.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #125

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 122 by Purple Knight]

All correct re: eugenics

Fyi - Please don't comment on moderator posts. It can often get another comment or warning if done repeatedly. And that comment from Otseng was not directed at you.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #126

Post by Danmark »

Wootah wrote:
Donray wrote: Not a SIN. First off their re only man made moral values. So, being racist depends on the morals of the local community. Another point is that what are the races? According to many biologists there is only one race.

I have heard that if one is anti Muslim you are a racist yet what race are ALL Muslims?

So, like everything it is subjective. The slave owners said the bible approved of salve ownership.
How can it be subjective if babies are racist?
Babies are not racist. The New York Post is neither a scientific nor a medical journal. Naturally babies may indeed show preference to environments and people they are used to. This is true with adults and children as well.

What HAS been shown is that there is a positive correlation between racism and SOME kinds of religious thinking. Orthodox fundamentalists show a higher degree of racism than non religious people in general and also tend to be more racist than religious people who are less literal and see religion more in terms of its symbolism.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ba ... eliefs.pdf

The study cited, needs to be read carefully and fully and even then there are nuances that may be difficult to appreciate. But one thing is clear, there is an enormous contrast between the pop-phony-tabloid amateur reporting of the Post, compared to the DURIEZ & HUTSEBAUT journal article.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #127

Post by Danmark »

Bust Nak wrote:
Daedalus X wrote: Try reading it again. Darwin is not saying the differences are unimportant, he is saying that there are many similarities that are unimportant.
That's pretty much how I read it too. The point was the difference between the races are in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body. What are these differences, if not skin deep?
And even these supposed differences do not exist in a way that can be scientifically determined to extend to general categories of humans popularly termed 'race.' What Darwin said is that the differences are superficial.
But more than that, we now know it is overstatement to claim even those unimportant differences are significant. There simply is no such thing as 'race,' except as a SOCIAL construct.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... sts-argue/

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 071098.php

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Post #128

Post by Tcg »

Wootah wrote:
It's just a funny thing to see eugenics mentioned by a prominent atheist at the same time as accusing creationists of it. You can see that right?
Who are you referring to with this, "at the same time as accusing creationists of it?" As far as I can see, you are the first person on this thread to bring up eugenics.

As Dawkins himself explained, he was simply stating that eugenics was possible. He clearly was not endorsing it. Quite the opposite actually:
  • For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.

    <bolding mine>
There's nothing unclear in that statement.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #129

Post by Danmark »

Tcg wrote:
Wootah wrote:
It's just a funny thing to see eugenics mentioned by a prominent atheist at the same time as accusing creationists of it. You can see that right?
Who are you referring to with this, "at the same time as accusing creationists of it?" As far as I can see, you are the first person on this thread to bring up eugenics.

As Dawkins himself explained, he was simply stating that eugenics was possible. He clearly was not endorsing it. . . .
Thanks. It should be clear that eugenics and racism are entirely different subjects. One can advocate a eugenics policy without being the least bit 'racist.' Eugenics is simply "the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."
'Unified Medical Language System (Psychological Index Terms). Bethesda, Maryland: National Library of Medicine. 2009.'

The idea of distinct human 'races' has been discredited by scientists. Eugenics does not necessarily include a racist paradigm. Tho' I am unaware of any current national eugenics policy in the U.S., eugenics is, in effect, practiced when parents decide to abort after a prenatal test reveals genetic defects in a fetus. The policy of genetics can be debated on several grounds. Racism cannot.

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Racism

Post #130

Post by PinSeeker »

Danmark wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:41 pm The answer is 'no.'
Actually, the answer is yes, but the point should be clarified. We are born sinners -- a product of the Fall, through which we have all inherited Adam's sinful nature. And one of the ways that sin may (or may not) outwardly manifest itself -- at any point in time regardless of age -- is in bigotry.

On one hand, our sinful natures are exactly the same: we all have it. :)

But on the other hand, our sinful natures are like fingerprints: it manifests itself in each of us in different ways.

So, is there a common, scientifically traceable "racism gene"...? Well I would say no, that bigotry is some part of the sinful nature in all of us, even though we may never be aware of it and/or it may never outwardly manifest itself in some of us. It's really a product or a form of pride, which is the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden... he thought he knew better than God what was good for him. And since Eve is the mother of all the living, we are all naturally possessing that same sinful nature. So regarding all sin -- including racism, to some degree, however small -- we are all guilty... we are all, albeit in different ways... prideful. And deserving of condemnation, actually. But thanks be to God, redemption is possible -- by repenting of our sin and believing in Christ Jesus.

Grace and peace to all.

Post Reply