Atheists and Breeders
Behold, it’s August. Well not really, not where I am. I’m kind of lying when I say that. It is August where B&W is (if B&W is where its database is), but it’s not August where I, typing these words onto this little computer screen, am. So if I (as opposed to someone else) say it’s August, I’m telling a falsehood, because where my body is, it’s 4:30-ish in the afternoon on July 31. But I’m also not telling a falsehood, because it is August in other places – but it’s not August for me, the one uttering the sentence. So is it a lie, or not?
Oh stop playing silly buggers. Anyway the point is it’s August or near enough, and that’s only a month to September, and in October the Dictionary is published. So that means it’s soon. Much, much sooner than if it were still July. And speaking of books being published – here’s another, this one not until May 2005. My colleague has been very busy. It’s a terrific book, too.
Now – I did summon you here for a reason. I just wanted to draw your attention to a few remarks about Francis Crick. One from the Telegraph obit:
In 1960 Crick accepted a fellowship at Churchill College, Cambridge, on condition that no chapel was built in the college. When in 1963 a benefactor offered the money for one and the majority of college fellows voted to accept, Crick refused to be fobbed off with the argument that some members of the college would “appreciate” a place of worship; many more might “appreciate” the amenities of a harem, he countered, and offered to contribute financially. The offer was refused and he resigned his fellowship.
And the other from Matt Ridley’s article yesterday.
Throughout his life he was high on the drug called rationality. He could never get over how much could be deduced about the world if you stick to logic and eschew mysticism…He disliked religion even more than philosophy, but he wore his lifelong atheism lightly. His letter to Churchill suggesting that Churchill College build a brothel rather than a chapel (Churchill had written saying “no one will be required to enter it against his will”) was hilarious rather than offensive.
And then a passage from Crick’s own account of the matter:
I have no doubt, as will emerge later, that this loss of faith in Christian religion and my growing attachment to science have played a dominant part in my scientific career not so much on a day-to-day basis but in the choice of what I have considered interesting and important. I realized early on that it is detailed scientific knowledge which makes certain religious beliefs untenable…A belief, at the time it was formulated, may not only have appealed to the imagination but also fit well with all that was than known. It can nevertheless be made to appear ridiculous because of facts uncovered later by science. What could be more foolish than to base one’s entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at that time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important then to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs?
Refreshing, isn’t it, compared to the floods of sugary drivel people pour out on the subject. One gets so very tired of the latter kind of thing, over here in the land of the believers. P Z commented on that at Pharyngula today, in relation to something Kerry said:
And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them.
Huh? Well if it’s not us and them, then why mention only people of faith, and not people of no faith (or as P Z put it, people of reason)? And why mention people of faith in that particular way, as if they were an excluded minority? What, have Democrats been excluding ‘people of faith’ all this time? News to me! Well of course we know why he said that, he said it because of all the drivel there’s been about how he doesn’t say ‘God’ every third word or whatever the hell the complaint is. But it’s irritating all the same.
But not as irritating as this crap:
The Pope will call on leaders of the Roman Catholic church today to attack feminist ideologies which assert that men and women are fundamentally the same. The Vatican is concerned that this belief is eroding what it regards as women’s maternal vocation.
Oh is it. Is it really. Well that’s good to know. Women’s maternal vocation. Just like that. So the idea is that all women without exception are obliged to whelp? Doesn’t matter whether they want to or not, whether they think they’d be any good at it or not, whether they have other plans or not, eh? Just, yo, you’re one of the ones with ovaries, so get to work, hon! Whereas people with dangly bits get to choose whether they whelp or not. At least, J-P seems to have chosen, doesn’t he? Or is it rude to point that out. But no doubt all this sort of thing is over my head.
In a letter to bishops on the participation of men and women in the church and the world, the Pope’s chief theological spokesman, the German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stresses, as the pontiff has done on several occasions, that the book of Genesis is unambiguous on this point.
Ah. Well in that case. If a three thousand-year-old story is unambiguous on what women are supposed to do, then who are we to argue. And it is quite wise
Recent decades have seen a plunge in birth and fertility rates, particularly in the Roman Catholic heartland of southern Europe, as women struggle to combine jobs with their traditional roles as mothers, homemakers and carers. Church representatives have argued that this is symptomatic of a breakdown in values, and particularly a greater selfishness among young couples more interested in consumer goods than creating life.
Oh right. Of course. It is very selfish of people to be more interested in doing what they actually want to do than in ‘creating life’. Any life? Tomatoes? Fruit flies? No, I suppose the dear Church representatives mean human life, of which there is such a terrible shortage on this planet. Actually that line of thought is not exclusive to celibate Catholic priests, I’ve seen it in other places lately too. There’s this peculiar bit of orthodoxy out there (orthodox in the sense that a lot of people seem to think it) that people who don’t have children are ‘free-riding’ on people who do. And what’s even more special is that they like to say so. It won’t be long before all childless atheists will be rounded up and interned, at this rate.
Ophelia, there may not be a ‘terrible shortage’ of human life on the planet. But if your views/values on reproduction of the species are typical of atheists (namely that recreational sex trumps procreational sex), it’s no wonder there’s a ‘terrible shortage’ of ATHEIST human life. After all, if atheists abide by what appears to be your moral code, the only way atheism will see another day is by converting the children of non-atheists, generation after generation — fat hope, if the USA is any guide.
The problem with atheists, and in particular feminist atheists, is that (to plagiarize the final paragraph of Michael Levin’s classic ‘Feminism and Freedom’), their genetic lines are running to extinction.
And if you really want to lose friends and not influence people, it’s to identify women who reproduce the species with bitches who whelp. I know you don’t believe it, not really. But then you should control your bad temper and count ten before you shoot from the hip and proceed to shoot yourself in the foot.
No wonder the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church is flourishing (at least in certain parts of the globe) — the prelates seem to understand Darwinism better than feminists ever have.
Gotcha!
Actually, my favorite bit of the Catholic proclamation was the revelation that our gender is not just biological, but a component of our immortal soul: though we are not sexual beings after death, nonetheless we will be gendered beings in the afterlife. I suppose that has something to do with the ‘only men can be priests’ thing? Some sort of difference in the souls?
“The problem with atheists, and in particular feminist atheists, is that (to plagiarize the final paragraph of Michael Levin’s classic ‘Feminism and Freedom’), their genetic lines are running to extinction.”
Cathal – why do you keep asserting that this stuff has to do with genetics?
There is absolutely on reason to think that atheism is an adaptation. There is also no reason for thinking that theism is an adaptation either (though it is possible that humans might be dispositionally suited to certain kinds of theism).
While we’re all praising Crick, because he is now a corpse, let us not forget that it was Watson, who returned to the laboratory and helped to lay the *empirical* “foundations” of molecular biology, by studying proteins in all the numbing grossness of their nonsequiturs.
Gotcha, Cathal? I don’t know, I don’t feel got, so I don’t think so.
Jerry S certainly has a point about the non-connection between atheism and genetics. Why, I come from a long line of theists myself, as do a lot of atheists.
“And if you really want to lose friends and not influence people, it’s to identify women who reproduce the species with bitches who whelp. I know you don’t believe it, not really.”
And nor did I say it. My point is that that’s what the Vatican is saying – that all women by definition have a ‘maternal vocation’.
“I suppose that has something to do with the ‘only men can be priests’ thing? Some sort of difference in the souls?”
That sounds right. Interesting…people in the 16th century (and before, and for awhile after) used to argue over whether women had souls. (If they don’t, then they have to do the dishes, is no doubt the thinking.)
I’m sure JPII would be very surprised to learn that he is against women taking vows of celibacy.
Last time I checked (admittedly, several years ago) the Catholic Church claimed that children are a gift from their god, and to reject such a gift is to show a lack of respect for human life. Hence, no (unnatural) birth control allowed.
Natural birth control (i.e., trying to game the system by predicting the female fertility cycle) is okay, presumably because god can fiddle with it at will to bypass the intent of the human participants to avoid pregnancy. This same god apparently can’t override the effects of birth control pills.
To my knowledge, the church has never dealt in any meaningful way with the reason that _most_ people try to control the size of their families: so they can provide adequately for the children they do have. That can’t-fix-the-pill deity they’ve got is supposed to provide for all those children, as long as the parents have adequate faith.
I doubt the church even considers people like my husband and me, who’ve decided not to have any children. They’re too busy fussing after the folks who stop at 2 or 3.
(And people wonder why I gave up on Catholicism long before I gave up on theism in general.)
“presumably because god can fiddle with it at will to bypass the intent of the human participants to avoid pregnancy. This same god apparently can’t override the effects of birth control pills.”
That’s funny! Hadn’t thought of it quite that way before. Poor guy – you can just see him struggling. ‘Dammit – I just – can’t – get the hang of – getting past all these – barriers – dammit – ‘ gasp, pant
Anyway, I sure don’t wonder why you gave up on Catholicism first, and I know other people who also wouldn’t wonder.
But if your views/values on reproduction of the species are typical of atheists (namely that recreational sex trumps procreational sex),…
There are no “typical” atheist views. The only thing common between atheists is a disbelief in gods. We have no doctrine, so you will learn nothing about the group: atheists by talking to them, other than they do no beleive in god.
You could also do with brushing up on your genetics. Aquired characteristics (such as a susceptibility to religion) are not inheritable. Atheists do not need to convert children to atheism, that is the default state. Relgious types have to convert their atheist offspring into gullible little beleivers.
If ‘reproducing’ atheists was OB’s goal, then it would be far, far more efficient to use some sort of media (maybe that internet thing might work-maybe publish a book?) to try to influence and convert people than to simply genetically reproduce. There’s no 9 month gestation or 15 year waiting period to next-generation reproduction.
Her children, in this manner, could count in the millions; and some of these, presumably, would have actual children in a responsible way.
Plus, of course, there’s no guarantee that any physical children she might have would become atheists in the long run, anyway…since evolution doesn’t have anything to do with philosophic transfer.
I should add, however, that saying what is and what is not an adaptation (or mutation) is a little sketchy at this juncture (or at least it is in my mind). It is possible that there is an instinctual ‘mental adaptation’ (such as Robert Wright speaks of) that predisposes people to religion that might be inheritable. To me, the proponderance of religion across most historic/primitive tribes is at least partially evidential of such a thing (as opposed to being evidence of a God, natch). I also see strong reasons that such an adaptation would have selection advantages for the genes.
My apologies, OB, for using your supposed gender as a point. My apologies to everyone else for the rampant parantheticals.
No need for apologies, Mark, I used my supposed gender the same way myself, and besides you made good points.
“Atheists do not need to convert children to atheism, that is the default state. Relgious types have to convert their atheist offspring into gullible little beleivers.”
Sadly, the local school seems to have done a good job of converting my children into believers. We had the choice of two schools, one Church of England and the other a “secular” state school. The choice appears to have been meaningless given the nonsense they have been brainwashed with at the supposed “secular” school.
So sadly, we are left with the task of converting our children back into non-believers.
That is sad. Kind of horrifying, really.
“Well, susceptibility to religion (religiosity) is not necessarily an acquired characteristic – there may well be a genetic factor involved. “
I concede that point.
“So what are you going to do to remedy this?”
Nothing, unlike many of a religious pursuasion, I am happy to allow other people to beleive what they like?
“Force children of believers into state orphanages, Soviet-style? Persecute Christians who insist on passing on their values and beliefs to their offspring?”
These supplementary questions are irrelevant given my answer was “No” to the first question.
“Ban denominational schools? “
Ban then from receiving tax payers money that is for sure.
“Crucify all those who refuse to spit on the crucifix? I mean, tell me HOW you envision spreading the gospel of atheism to the non-atheists? “
There is no atheism gospel. Athiesm is the default state for all people. No one is born religious.
“Go from door to door hawking ‘The Humanist Lighthouse”? Use the Supreme Court as a ‘deus’ ex machina? Etc. etc. Ideas welcome.”
No, just stop religious people from doing exactly the sort of thing you mention above.
“So what are you going to do to remedy this?”
In addition to what Chris said – I’m going to do what people do. Talk, write, argue. What I am doing, in fact. What you’re doing, what the person who wrote the book you recommend did.
Scientific knowledge is doing our breeding for us -the more reliable, logical knowledge about the universe, the more atheists. The percentage of atheists has ever risen. Assuming there isn’t another dark age, it should continue to rise. Atheists are not proselytized into existence, they come to their own conclusions based on the knowledge they have acquired. Even if you were to kill every last living one of us and destroy every instance of our work, there would be a new generation, so long as they had exposure to logic and the breadth of scientific knowledge.
Atheistic speakers and writers help, but are by no means necessary.
Any animal can breed…only a Mind can CREATE [make something intelligently]. Heck, only a Mind can think.
Hats off to people who do what only people can do. As for the manufacture of replacement people, I’ve always said, let’s use up the kids we got now before making any new ones…
“Any animal can breed…only a Mind can CREATE [make something intelligently]. Heck, only a Mind can think.
Hats off to people who do what only people can do. “
That is just a bunch of unjustified assertions. How do you know what goes on in the brain of a higher primate, or dolphin or any mammal? You don’t. Animals don’t appear to suffer from religion, which makes them smarter than many people.
Good point, I didn’t define thinking or creating clearly enough, and you don’t see horses betting on people…but my money is still on people. When I hear animals say they are atheists and praise the power of Logic, when cats letter their own protest signs, when dogs invoke doctors and argue precedents to secure my benefits for me, when I hear a shark wonder if the person it just ate was really ready to go and felt nothing, then I’ll start saying animals can think…until, then, pass that hamburger plate over here. Yes I know some of them are clever tool-wise, but still. Twigs are one thing, language and thought another, and how the gap might be filled is a whole ‘nother debate.
What really annoys me is when the religious types–and this includes some of the feminist enemies of the fundies, the goddess crowd–exalt certain body functions so much as to eclipse the importance of the Minds trying to gain control over said functions.
Anyone wants to go into what constitutes thinking, or creating, fine, but it’ll have to wait; I have to go kill something.
“…When I hear animals say they are atheists and praise the power of Logic, when cats letter their own protest signs, when dogs invoke doctors and argue precedents to secure my benefits for me…”
Clearly someone who prefers rhetoric to logic. Fine for politics or court cases, but not really the tool for finding out how the world is. By your rather bizzare defintions of thinking and creating many primative tribes people would be excluded. In any event, you seem to have watered down your original claims such that now you are talking about a question of degree rather than the absolutes from your original post. Language indeed probably is unique to humans. But your claim was not restricted to language. And your post is still un-supported (by you at least) assertion.
“When I hear animals say they are atheists”.
Plenty of people don’t say as much.
“and praise the power of Logic,”
Ditto.
“when cats letter their own protest signs,”
I’ve never penned a protest sign in my life. Unlike protesters, my cat gets its own way all the time, and doesn’t have to pen a sign to do it either.
“when I hear a shark wonder if the person it just ate was really ready to go and felt nothing”
Just like you do when you eat a hamburger, I’m sure!! Is all the above really the definition of intelligence? I think not. They may be acts which require intelligence, but that is not the same as making them the very definition of intelligence, which you seem to want to do.
Point; I am still working on the definition of intelligence–for starters, it seems to have to do with securing one’s success, or getting what one wants/needs, by Logic, in any sort of environment/niche, a form of active adaptability. But I gather there’s a lot of folks still working on that definition. I did not intend for my examples to stand for the entirety.
What I was reacting against were those people who glorify nature and wild-found things over Mind-made ones, and extol primitive tribes who are just as full of taboos and inequities as the “civilized” world. Which kind of branched away from striking at the religious pack you all had in mind, who exalt their god’s work over their own, or at least claim to, and want to let god/nature run riot over the rights of certain people. So they let loose with all this drivel about the “miracle of life” etc. etc. and it helps them take kids born agnostic and make them into little believers and then big breeders. (Plus, it helps religious people justify the sexual urges they can’t keep from having. Somehow it’s okay to get horny if you marry one person and just keep cranking them out.)
Yes, I do wonder whether the meat I eat was killed humanely and lived well before, and try to support farmers who try for that. But I am a little more concerned about people, notably the way they seem intent on breeding themselves out of a place at the table, because of all this mystical crap about how great it is to do what any animal can do.
Not to mention the silliness about ‘creating life’ when that’s not what they mean at all. They don’t get all dewey-eyed and soppy about mould or nettles or viruses or slugs or fleas or mildew or aphids I’ll betcha. They don’t even get all that dewey-eyed about rats or bats or crows or gulls or bears or sharks I’ll betcha. When they say ‘create life’ they mean ‘create human infants’ – so why don’t they say so? Because ‘create life’ sounds more godlike or something, is that it? More thpiritual? Beats me. But it’s some kind of rhetorical dodge, you can be pretty sure of that. Not certain, but pretty sure.
“Point; I am still working on the definition of intelligence–for starters, it seems…”
I agree with just about everything you have to say above. I just didn’t agree that humans are are the only species that have intelligence, or “Any animal can breed…only a Mind can CREATE ” which is what the initial post said.
“Yes, I do wonder whether the meat I eat was killed humanely and lived well before, and try to support farmers who try for that.”
Good for you, and I do mean that. However, many do not, and it can’t really be considered a defining characteristic of intelligence.
“Somehow it’s okay to get horny if you marry one person and just keep cranking them out.”
Apparently, even that is not OK. You are not supposed to enjoy it. All sex is supposed to be about procreation and NOTHING else. Enjoying it as well (even if it is only being done for procreation) is a sin.