Disappointed in the lot of you

For shame! I have to say that TNT does have a point of genuine grievance, in that his initial question was wholly legitimate, and while it was laced with some of the usual assault verbiage, it nevertheless demanded a fair response. And while it’s true that he did not provide the definition of genius that was required in order to reasonably respond to his question, in my opinion the only correct response was: “how do you define genius?”

You can do better than that, people. Have I taught you nothing? As I’ve repeatedly written, emotional and evasive responses that fail to address the relevant issue are inherently defensive and indicative of a low level of confidence in one’s position. FIRST answer the question, THEN mercilessly mock the questioner, his physical shortcomings, preferences in sports teams and sexual inadequacies!

However, I’m also disappointed in TNT’s subsequent responses. Why bother to ask the question if you’re determined not to accept any answers? The question, properly framed, was very simple: name a Christian whose IQ is over 160. I named two, men with whom I am personally acquainted and about whom I know the relevant detail.

The correct response is, okay, thank you, apparently my hypothesis is incorrect and needs to be refined. To sail off into existential questions of “what defines a true Christian” and “how can I be sure that what you believe to be true actually is true” is as silly and indicative of an absence of confidence as the previous example. It’s remniscent of trying to talk to a college freshman after his first Philosophy 101 class. “But how do I know you really exist… wait, how do I know I even exist!” (The answer, of course, is to punch him in the face. If the incipient philosopher is female, removing her bra is recommended instead.)

Now, keep in mind that at no time did I indicate that I accept TNT’s definition of genius. I don’t, and I was simply playing his game by his rules. To me, genius is determined post-facto by the originality and difficulty factor of the intellectual achievement by the individual, while a high IQ, however glorious, represents nothing but potential. I suspect that one reason there are fewer Christians among the openly high-IQ set is that the current system of academia encourages the our finest young minds to spent an inordinate amount of time in an environment that is awash with hostility to Christianity.

However, the fact that this very same group has a powerful tendency to subscribe to obvious economic and political idiocies means that I consider their general disdain for Christianity to be a substantial sign that the intellectual foundation for my faith is strong.

I would even go so far to argue that despite their lack of impressive educational degrees, the average Christian is more literate and historically educated than the average masters degree holder. I know several Ivy Leaguers whose collective libraries wouldn’t add up to more than 50 books. Even your stereotypical Bible thumper has at least read the Bible.