There's a fascinating discussion about a controversial evolutionary
psychologist in Slate magazine. A (Jewish) Slate author alleged that Kevin
McDonald's theories about Jewish group-selection was anti-Semitic, and
numerous EPs and other scientists and science writers have entered the fray.
http://slate.msn.com/dialogues/00-02-01/dialogues.asp
One thing that's both fascinating and disappointing, though not esp.
surprising: there is a very clear anti-Christian and especially
anti-religiously-Jewish ideology in nearly all the comments posted. Indeed,
one of the major defenses of some participants is that they aren't being
anti-Semitic ethnically, but simply viciously anti-Semitic religiously (and
anti-religious generally), ala Dawkins. Can't argue with that, huh? :^/
What strike me are two things: the importance of Christians (not to mention
Jews!) -seriously- and -aggressively- engaging these issues (1) in OT
history -- did God command -genocide-, according to the OT (and implicitly,
by endorsing the OT, the NT)? and (2) in moral theory: are these episodes
(genocidal or not) remotely -characteristic- of Christian morality (as
expressed in the NT), or Judeo-Christian, or Jewish moral theory?
I think there are answers here, but so do the frankly anti-Christian and
especially anti-Jewish (in the religious, not ethnic, sense) thought leaders
of the EP community. (Indeed, their religious animus is sometimes, prima
facie anyway, almost comic. [I'm basing my comments just on what I've read
in Slate and http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/toexist/ltn12.html.] But from
their dramatically more academically influential perspective, their thoughts
are neither comical nor ignorant, nor even malicious: just brutally honest
and repressed by frightened science publishers.)
Admittedly reading only a little of this "fray", it reminds me of the stuff
Chris Cogan has written on the Calvin Evolution list server (w/apologies to
those not on that list): very bright and clever, but often with a
passionate ignorance of and animus toward Christianity (Hitler: man of
faith, etc. etc.).
And before we simply dismiss this stuff as ludicrous, remember a couple
things: (1) Evolutionary psychology (as, in principle anyway, entirely
distinct from anti-Christian and anti-Jewish rants) may well have -some-
things going for it (-I- think it does; sometimes even anti-Christian rants
do :^>), even as it sadly lends itself to ideologically driven "just-so
stories" (Hartung, e.g., seems to be a big fan of Noam Chomsky -- great), so
let's be careful about knee-jerking in reaction, and (2) even if this
stuff -is-, wrt religion and theology, at times comically anti-religiously
spun, this is spin being aggressively spread and integrated into theory by
the thought leaders (actually, apparently the -consensus of- the thought
leaders) in the trendiest "new" field in science: evolutionary psychology.
It needs an ongoing, careful, frank, and aggressive response that it won't
get if we simply roll our eyes and ignore these people, as it tempting.
I'd say more, but I'm interested in others' considered thoughts, esp. those
with more theological training in the history of Jewish ethics (which
Hartung tries to savage in particular).
John
Excerpt from http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-culturebox/posts/nz/7423.asp by
John Horgan, formerly of Scientific American:
....
On July 1, 1995, I heard Hartung give a talk, titled
"A Light Unto the Nations: Judeo-Christianity,
Morality & Group Selection," at the annual meeting of
the Human Behavior and Evolution Society in Santa
Barbara. Hartung argued that Judeo-Christianity is "a
scheme to magnify, through group cooperation, the
inherent selfishness and amorality of Jews and
Christians." (The quote is from his abstract.)
He supported his thesis with passages from the Bible, Old
and New Testaments, that have a remarkably Darwinian,
nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw flavor. These passages
encouraged believers to take care of their own and to be
pitiless toward non-believers, who according to Hartung
were viewed as sub-human. Hartung also presented evidence
that the term "neighbor," as used in the Biblical
commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself,"
originally referred not to humanity in general but only
to Mosesâs fellow Jews.
Hartungâs speech was very well-received. Richard Dawkins,
inventor of the selfish-gene concept, told me it was his
favorite talk of the HBES meeting. Dawkins later tried
(in vain) to help Hartung find a publisher for a book on
the topic. (I have a copy of a letter Dawkins wrote to a
publisher associated with Scientific American, where I
worked at the time.)
I found Hartungâs talk compelling too. It didnât strike
me as anti-Semitic or anti-Christian so much as
anti-religious, brilliantly, savagely so. Hartung
considers religion to be a blight on civilization. He
thinks it allows us to maintain a delusional vision of
our essential goodness and thus impedes the development
of a rational, secular morality based on unflinching
self-knowledge.
....
Or here's a friendly note from the defendee of the above note, John Hartung
http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-culturebox/posts/ow/7346.asp:
Subject:
From:
Host:
Date: Schulevitz's Charges of Anti-Semitism
John Hartung
spider-th051.proxy.aol.com
Wed Jan 26 07:26:45
Ms Schulevitzâs ãEvolutionary Psychologyâs Anti-Semiteä
is a knee-jerk caricature of Professor MacDonaldâs work,
my review of one of his books, and even David Irvingâs
libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt. Her day-later
defense, ãOn Fighting Bad Ideas,ä ends by suggesting that
the entire controversy has become too tedious to follow:
ãNote for all of you who have stuck with this endless New
York Review of Books-style refutation and have yet to
flee screaming: Culturebox will be responding to
MacDonald's post in the Fray--in the Fray. She hereby
promises to keep Culturebox itself MacDonald-free--at
least for the time beingä -- a common ruse. Common in
both senses of the word.
Irvingâs case against Lipstadt is over her charge that
he is not an historian. That is, she claimed that Irving
does not utilize the methods of historians at a
professional level -- i.e., primarily, does not base his
accounts on competent examination of original documents.
It is true that Irving does not have a Ph.D. in history.
In consequence, however, as far as I can see, he has
overcompensated by going further in his training than
most historians would be willing to go, and by being
compulsive about documenting sources -- a degree of
compulsion that would be admired by most historians who
have abundant formal training. For example, Irving (a
Brit) learned German by getting a job in a German factory
for several years. That he speaks and reads German at an
expert level will be undeniable in court. His copious
documentation and German-to-English translation of
hundreds of original documents for his recent book,
ãGoebbels,ä will also be a powerful defense in court.
Schulevitzâs chatter aside, Irvingâs ãGoebbelsä is a
profound condemnation of both Joseph Goebbels and his
effect on history.
My view of genocide, including the Holocaust and
contrary to Schulevitz characterization, is that it is
always an unjustified evil. Whether genocide occurs as a
spontaneous reaction of an oppressed majority against an
oppressive minority, as recently occurred in Rwanda, or
an act conceptualized as an order from God, as in . . . .
In the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God
gives you for an inheritance you shall save alive nothing
that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the
Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the
Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord
your God has commanded (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).
They should be utterly destroyed and should receive no
mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses .
. . Utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare
them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling
(Joshua 11:20 . . . First Samuel 15:3).
You will make them as a blazing oven when you appear.
The Lord will swallow them up in his wrath; and fire will
consume them. You will destroy their offspring from the
earth, and their children from among the sons of men
(Psalms 21:9-10; for additional examples of the
commandment to kill non-co-religionists and boasts of
having done so, see: Numbers 21:2-3; 21:34-35; 24:8;
24:19-20; Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:2-6; 3:21; 7:1-2; 7:16;
7:23-24; 9:3; 11:24-25; 31:3-5; 33:27; Joshua 2:10; 6:21;
8:2; 8:24-26; 10:1; 10:28; 10:35;10:37; 10:39-40;
11:11-14; 11:21; Judges 1:17; 3:29; First Samuel 15:8;
15:15; 15:18; 15:20; First Chronicles 4:41)
. . . or something in between, genocide is always
wrong-put-forth-as-right by the people who commit it --
and so it is always evil.
It is important to examine original documents before
forming an opinion about an opinion -- especially when
the opinion in question calls individuals anti-Semites or
racists. Readers who are willing to consider my work
relevant to issues raised by Schulevitz are welcome to
visit my site at: http://members.aol.com/toexist. A
reprint of my review of MacDonaldâs ãA People That Shall
Dwell Alone . . .,ä is available on request -- please
send your snail-mail address to hartung@post.harvard.edu,
or mail an address label to Dr. Hartung, Anesthesiology-
box 6, SUNY - Brooklyn, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
11203.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 02 2000 - 10:20:12 EST