tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2920752332992232532..comments2024-03-28T14:16:42.371+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: IQ research, the sexual revolution and traditionalist Christians - another litmus testBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-5246855677190499562013-08-30T01:22:36.598+01:002013-08-30T01:22:36.598+01:00Interesting. My impression is that opposition to t...Interesting. My impression is that opposition to the sexual revolution is more important for traditional Christians than egalitarianism. Or rather, certain kinds of egalitarianism which impinge on the sexual revolution, like sexual equality, are indeed at odds with traditional Christianity, but other kinds of egalitarianism, like racial equality, have at best marginal significance in traditional Christian thought.<br /><br />Within the traditional Church hierarchy, for example, there is a notion of inherently different roles for men and women. Only men may join holy orders, and in patristic writing about marriage it is clear that husbands are called to lead their wives, who in turn are called to obey. But I can't find anything similar regarding racial differences; men and women of any race can achieve any rank in the Church appropriate to their sex.<br /><br />What are your thoughts?jgresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287009809340785879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-61686386352028043392013-08-18T17:36:44.908+01:002013-08-18T17:36:44.908+01:00@Karl - I do not regard equality as a genuine desi...@Karl - I do not regard equality as a genuine desire - it is merely an excuse for something else.<br /><br />Even in real equal societies - such as hunter gatherers - it is actually the outcome of each individual asserting that 'nobody else should have more than me' - rather than a genuine wish for equality. <br /><br />See the postscript to:<br /><br />http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/evolpsych.html<br /><br />I speak as someone who was briefly that ludicrous thing, a genuine egalitarian - but I was immensely annoyed and dismayed to find that nobody else on the Left actually agreed with this, especially not the Leftist governments, Trades Unions, feminists and so on Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-7989799330210016782013-08-18T16:58:32.881+01:002013-08-18T16:58:32.881+01:00If the two changes you point to have a catchword i...If the two changes you point to have a catchword in common, the word is equality. You have said a lot of good things about the incoherence of mere equality as an ideal, but now when you juxtapose the sexual revolution with mandatory squeamishness about noticing differences in capability, I find myself wondering how soon any egalitarians will notice how unequal the consequences of sexual liberation actually are. Men differ greatly in their attractiveness to women. Monogamy once maximized the median male's chance of getting at least one woman. Now the number of men who are shut out of the sexual marketplace seems to be growing.<br /><br />Rather than look for data in support of this hunch, let me commend to you a little-known work of Aristophanes, the Ecclesiazusae. The women seize political power, enact socialism, and follow through by enacting that all shall have equal rights to desirable sexual partners. Such a right is a glaring omission in every contemporary egalitarian program of which I am aware.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030980000235824571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-88708163870023126952013-08-18T11:05:55.315+01:002013-08-18T11:05:55.315+01:00The connection you're drawing here is really n...The connection you're drawing here is really non-obvious (at least to me), but pretty convincing now that I've thought about it. I wonder how you ever made the connection. At any rate, it goes to show that your writings on creativity are partly based on first-hand experience.Jonathan Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-39115276502187338922013-08-18T06:13:49.114+01:002013-08-18T06:13:49.114+01:00@SC - A theme of mine in recent years has been how...@SC - A theme of mine in recent years has been how rare are the necessary conditions for science, and how actual science is done by small numbers of people - I mean each active science being done by few enough people to fit in a room. <br /><br />That means that most, almost all, science is taken on trust - so the critical factor is 'who to trust?' (who is both sufficiently competent and also honestly motivated)- sometimes more people are trustworthy, sometimes fewer.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-38317871747229251232013-08-17T22:22:56.311+01:002013-08-17T22:22:56.311+01:00Good post! The question that comes to mind for me ...Good post! The question that comes to mind for me is how to differentiate between science that should be considered by religion (Galileo, for example) with the valid issues you bring up in the post. It is easy to say that it is obvious which are valid and which are not and in the examples cited I agree. But, there are other more subtle issues that are going to come down to a difference of opinion. Sojka's Callhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18194255866195398776noreply@blogger.com