SEPT 26 — Malaysia might not be truly Asia, but we are truly a blessed country. We have an abundance of natural resources, beautiful rainforests, good food and people. Unfortunately, judging from the deformities in the national discourses these days; we also have an abundance of bigots, with religious zealotry being one of the most worrying ones.
With the opening up of public spheres for discussion (in special thanks to the Internet), exchanges between such elements of zealotry and the liberals are expected to be rife and intense, and they are, more so than ever when religious and moral self-righteousness appears to be the guiding stone of policy making these days. Those who view civil liberties as a pivotal element of democracy would definitely retaliate at such perceived encroachments of human and constitutional rights.
However, all of these exchanges are observed to have come to an impasse; believed by most due to an irreconcilable divergence of opinion on the Higher Entity. In other words, the faithful versus the faithless (both subjected to interpretation of the other side), with one side accuses the other side of being insolent because of their faith, while the other counter-argues that the other is being so for their lack of it.
I would however, in an attempt to harbour such demarcation of moral understanding on a more earthly plane, argued that it is due to a difference in the understanding of Intelligence (which both side seems to clamour for the authority of). The more ardent believers, or the defenders of Faith as they would like to call themselves, see intelligence as a gift.
This is because humanity is interpreted as a Divine design, or more correctly, the superiorly designed among all beings, intelligence shall come as a by-product of humanity, rather than as the essence of humanity. In the understanding of these people, be it consciously or not, being biologically human means being smart. Intelligence is inherent, a gift, and thus unchallengeable or undeniable.
And what makes them think they are the smarter Men among men? Their cognisance of intelligence being an innate property from the Higher-ups. I know better because I knew better. That is where the self-righteousness seeps in and shapes their understanding of the world.
I supposed that is why such “religionistas”, or those professed to be, does not show much compassion to nature and wildlife as do the conservationalists, whom are mostly viewed as liberals. The contempt comes from a “hollier than thou” complex, to which a person with a presumption of intelligence would have easily fallen victim to. It also signifies a fundamental acceptance of inequality, or contextualised equality, because the acknowledgement of inborn superiority would have empowered that. This is why civil liberties that promotes freedom and equality is so hard to swallow for the ultra-conservatives, because they do not believe in equality to begin with.
The alternative understanding of Intelligence is that it is acquired. Simply say, we are not born or predestined to be the superior being among all other organisms. We are smarter than other animals or plants as of the present day because we made a conscious effort to be so and hence we ran faster, metaphorically, on the race for intelligence (by we, I mean us and our ancestors). The believers of such an understanding of intelligence thinks that we now appeared to be leaps and bounds ahead of the other organisms not because of our superior design but because after generations of trials and errors, we now have our starting point fairly ahead, not to mention our possession of insurmountable resources; resources as in both physical and intellectual properties.
This explanation of how we are so much smarter than all the other living beings is analogous to how a rich kid could generally outsmart, outperform, outmanoeuvre the kids of lower socio-economic origins. This inequality is obviously not due to congenial factors! As inequality, as we understand from social studies is self-perpetuating, by leading the other organisms, we get better and better at leading them. Gaps get bigger not because one is born superior. Superiority comes with the accumulation of wisdom and resources; and only a grander scale in the comparison between species, such accumulation happens through thousands of years. But nevertheless, intelligence is acquired, by one and also in virtue of his/her predecessors.
That is why it is much more difficult for the “pro-acquisition” believers to take intelligence for granted. They see it as coming from old-fashioned hard work. You are smart only if you tried to be. Hence, any products of intelligence, both physical and theoretical, could be challenged and abides by the stringencies of a verification process. The mores strongly one takes intelligence as a hard earned fruit, the more humble, enthusiastic and open-minded one would prone to be (although, ego is admittedly, still a rather typical by-spawn of intelligence).
Interpreting intelligence as being a possession, one that is fought for and conquered enables one to take a more puritanical stand on equality, because to them, all men are in fact born equal, unless in some cases, biological deviations dictated otherwise. They are more receptive to a universal and metaphysical concept of equality, because they believed everyone has the same starting point. How one grows up to be is as a result of circumstances, a concoction of determinants like education, nutrient and environment, or in other words, acquirements along the path of growth. If one wants to be smart, he has to work for it, as do how humanity’s work towards our eventual success over the other species on the planet.
Before someone take this as a “creation versus evolution” debate, please be assured that this article has no intention to go into such an area of intense contestations. It merely seeks to understand the differences between fellow human beings by exploring our concepts on the origin of intelligence. Proposing that intelligence is an acquired element by humanity does not in anyway, denies the existence of the Divine, because Intelligence by itself, could be very much a design of the Divine. I failed to see how arguing that intelligence is not a gift is exclusive to those without a firm subscription to religion. In fact, a lot of religious people had and is still working very hard to gain wisdom and knowledge. The biggest troublemakers are conveniently always those, who stopped working.
So are we smart because of Creation or are we smart because of Acquisition? I believed both faiths could co-exist. It's only those who think they are smarter than others (and in most cases, failed to prove they are) that makes such co-existence ever more miserable.
* Nicholas Chan is a socio-political research analyst at Penang Institute.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.
