Dr. Craig: I mentioned that despite thousands of hours by these primatologists to teach chimps language of some sort, they can’t learn it. And yet you can take the most uncivilized aboriginal, put him in a cultured situation and, as you said, he’ll learn the language.
This part is weird to me. Why we would have any expectation of similarity between chimps and “the most uncivilized aboriginal” that would necessitate this statement?
Of course he’s Stone Age. His culture didn’t use metal. Neolithic, by definition. Are you interpreting “Stone Age” as referring to stoop-shouldered, shambling apemen? And really, Squanto’s ability to be a servant in England is held up as a sign of his equality and humanity? I guess he was a credit to his race. There’s so much wrong with that paragraph that you can’t fix it by talking about “context”.
In all fairness to WLC, I’m not even sure what words he could have chosen in their place that would not have carried the potential for the same negative connotations. If someone is bent on finding a way to be offended, they will find it.
I suppose all one can do in the situation is to clarify upfront that the purpose of making the comparative description isn’t to make value-judgements, but to merely and only to clarify some philosophical concept or point.
I’m actually offended by that. You don’t have to be predisposed to find offense in order to find Craig’s words offensive. I think they’re clearly so to anyone who’s paying attention. And yes, there were ways to make his point without indulging in ethnic and cultural insults. What audience is he even trying to reach?
Okay educate me. When precisely was the Stone Age? As I understand, it was before agriculture.
I think it was unintentional. It is hard to talk about race and most people don’t have much experience with it. I agree that’s not the right way to make this point.
No, it was before bronze. The Neolithic is the term for the post-agriculture Stone Age.
Well of course it was. Unthinking would be an even better word.
When tools and weapons were made of stone? That includes the whole period where our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers, up to and including the period where agriculture was developed. It stopped being the stone age when stone tools were replaced with metals.
I think Neolithic would be a better term. Technically is it part of the Stone Age or after?
If WLC wants to make a point about the human capacity for language, it is absurd to use examples that, in effect, discount native tongues as absent, or primitive, or otherwise less than European languages. The point may be better made by pointing out the capacity for newborn humans to learn language(s). This is a better example, and does not require one to make value judgements about native languages (and cultures) extant and extinct.
Maybe it’s that the alphabet is more different than for other Latin or Germanic languages.
I see what you mean. Re-reading his statement I somehow missed he’s using the word “uncivilized”(as if aboriginal civilization is or was not that) about aboriginal people, and suggests putting him in a “cultured situation”, again insinuating they also don’t and did not have any culture.
I stand corrected. I was less concerned with the word primitive and stone-age in describing stone-age technology. But you’re right, there are much better way he could have made his presumed point.
Technically, I don’t think “Stone Age” is a term in current use. But when there was a Stone Age, it was separated into Old Stone Age and New Stone Age, with Neolithic being a more sciency-sounding version of the latter term.
It’s not different at all. Some of the spelling is odd for English speakers. Why “drz” when we would have “g” or “j”? Still, not much of a hurdle. You just have to know that “potrzebie” should be pronounced “po-cheb-yeh”. No big deal. And if it were, why not mention Russian? Further, weren’t we talking about language rather than writing system?
It’s the only deal I could think of. Perhaps it’s a big deal to WLC.
Yes, but maybe he was conflating the two.
And yet you can take the most uncivilized aboriginal . . . — William Lane Craig
Yes. I definitely winced on that one.
I couldn’t help but think of the reactions of various native American people groups when they first observed “primitive” Europeans! For example, in arctic regions the aboriginal peoples were shocked that the European visitors foolishly (1) cooked their meat rather than eating it raw, thereby suffering and dying from scurvy, and (2) the Europeans stayed clustered in groups far too large to live successfully off the land. The native peoples understood that their local biosphere produced too few calories and nutrients per unit of land, so they spent most of their time scattered far and wide in small roving family bands [OK, not like The Cowsills. You know what I mean.] which could harvest enough fish and wildlife to survive.
Clearly, “primitive” is a descriptor with lots of pitfalls—and prone to being both inaccurate and incendiary.
I mentioned that despite thousands of hours by these primatologists to teach chimps language of some sort, they can’t learn it. — WLC
Even though Craig is correct that plenty of primatologists and linguists claim that chimps can’t learn languages, I believe the debate continues and that the evidence is still building. For example, chimp sign language even in the wild follows rules that are considered similar to those of human communication:
When I hear about situations such as a chimp inventing a new multi-word term, “sweet”+“water”, for watermelon, that seems like language to me. (Yes, some would say that it is simply basic labeling. Yet, it is also an implied complete sentence: “This food I’m eating is juicy and sweet.”)
I’ve seen the word just abused in so much Young Earth Creationist literature and bad apologetics to where I often have a visceral reaction. “You’re saying that humans are just animals!” Obviously we are animals and animals are pretty amazing. So why treat it like an insult—even though nobody is claiming that humans don’t do a lot of amazing things of our own? “That’s just microevolution. Nothing is fundamentally changed.” Based on what we observe “microevolution” doing everywhere we look in the biosphere, the word just makes it sound like it is trivial and unimportant. It isn’t. Indeed, the word just probably gets used just(!) as recklessly as merely, as in “That’s not evolution. That’s merely a species adapting to its environment.”
I’m curious how he happened to choose Polish, although I guess there’s no reason why he shouldn’t. I might have used aGciriku or Yei, Bantu languages which use the Khoisan “four-click system”. Those phonemes and languages can be quite tricky for anyone not raised as a native speaker. Of course, the tonal subtleties of Mandarin Chinese also give most of us fits when we try to distinguish some of the sounds, let alone learn to understand them in context!
WLC commenting on zoology reminds me of his lecture where he speaks of animals not experiencing “pain like humans experience pain.” He sure seemed to say that they are adapted to ignoring pain and sort of shrugging it off, because it is necessary for their survival. I initially felt sure that I was misunderstanding him but I tried to read further. He seemed to be unaware that a wounded animal often experiences the same kinds of stress reactions (e.g., high blood-pressure, damaging elevated hormones for extended periods, and what could reasonably be compared to Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome in humans) we observe in humans. Now that was a long time ago when I heard him say that, so perhaps he has changed his position since then. In any case, we have probably all made similar casual blunders when we have ventured outside of our fields of expertise. Even so, I bring this subject here because I confess that past experience with Craig’s lectures and writings made me a little more skeptical (than I probably should be) when he references what primatologists have to say about chimpanzees and language.
Yes, because his very example was inherently racist. It’s not always possible to spin the wording of a claim to hide its underlying assumptions.
All he had to say was “Humans can learn language, no other animal can.” The story about Squanto adds nothing to the argument.
No I’m pretty sure it’s in how he described and presented it. He could for example just have given as an example of someone leaning a new language, a native american or aboriginal learning english, without couching it in any of his hair-brained adjectives or making any references to the supposed “primitive” levels of technology, culture, or civilization.
Craig’s Squanto illustration brings to mind the firestorm in the press when Joe Biden said long ago that Barack Obama was “articulate and bright and clean.” Biden defended it as a compliment but not everybody else saw it that way. Was he being racist? Opinions differ, but it sure didn’t sound all that great.
Biden should be studied by paleontologists.
Or perhaps gerontologists.
My apologies. Couldn’t resist. Besides, that comment could apply to a LOT of America’s political leaders in this era of our history, not just Biden. In most other professions people are heading into retirement when they hit their 70’s. In our country they run for President.
The much younger Squanto could have run for President at a time when few American citizens met the native-born requirement. (Of course, the fact that the United States of America did not yet exist was a significant impediment to his candidacy, nomination, and election. He would have definitely been a long shot. But unlike Elizabeth Warren, Squanto would have had a much stronger claim to Native American heritage. Squanto sure could have used the advantages of a well-implemented affirmative action program.)
And while we are critiquing chimpanzees for their ability or inability to learn language, let’s be fair and admit that a lot of politicians nowadays struggle in their own native language. Human exceptionalism? I’m not so sure.