By Seth Richardson
Atheists have long been unable to resolve the conundrum of why religion is so ubiquitous and so persistent in human society. They are befuddled by what they see as rank illogic and unreasoning belief in what they call “woo”, which they loosely define as “ludicrous beliefs” or “extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs.”
It’s a pejorative term that atheists use when dismissing the supernatural claims of religion. Atheists are true believers in the sanctity of science, accepting nothing on faith, and demanding critically robust and falsifiable evidence for just about everything, particularly theistic claims. They are rigorously logical thinkers who have great difficulty comprehending how anyone could possibly believe in, much less worship, an invisible “sky fairy” called God. If you doubt the persistence of their befuddlement, just go to this well-known atheist forum and review any of the many threads in which atheists and religionists tear each other’s hair out, with atheists insisting (more or less politely) that religionists are deluded boobs or mentally defective, and religionists insisting that atheists “just don’t get it.”
And just it may be that atheists don’t get it because they are physically incapable of doing so. In fact, it’s beginning to look like it may be the atheists who are defective, not the religionists.
It’s an undisputed fact that some 85 percent of the population of the planet holds some sort of religious belief. Nobody really understands why, but science is beginning to examine why this social behavior exists and persists over millennia. One cannot see such ubiquitous behavior without asking why people continue to believe in God.
In a November, 2001 edition of the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, Dr. Michael Persinger published a study called “The Neuropsychiatry of Paranormal Experiences” in which he revealed that by manipulating magnetic fields around the brain, a “‘sensed presence’ or sentient being” was experienced by many test subjects. “[W]e found that when we applied specific complex magnetic fields over the right hemisphere, most normal people who were not aware of the purpose of the experiment experienced a “sensed presence” or sentient being. Many individuals felt the presence interact with their thinking and “move in space” as they “focused their thoughts” on it.” Persinger writes. Persinger goes on to point out that paranormal experiences have been shown to be correlated to geomagnetic events, and that the magnetic fluxes involved are very subtle.
Some time later, the BBC’s Horizon program arranged for Cambridge professor and arch-atheist Richard Dawkins to meet with Persinger. Dawkins allowed Persinger to perform his magnetic-field test. Dawkins, the BBC reported, found that the magnetic fields affected his breathing and his limbs, but says “he did not find god.” Why Dawkins did not experience the “God moment” is anyone’s guess, but science seems to be converging on a hypothesis.
A recent University of Toronto Department of Psychology study, “Neural Markers of Religious Conviction” by researchers Michael Inzlicht, Ian McGregor, Jacob B. Hirsh and Kyle Nash demonstrated significant differences in how religious believers and non-believers performed during standardized stress tests. The authors wrote, “These results suggest that religious conviction provides a framework for understanding and acting within one’s environment, thereby acting as a buffer against anxiety and minimizing the experience of error.” The researchers suggest that religion provides a method for people to reduce the stress and uncertainty of life and a way to focus on stress-reducing thoughts while suppressing inconsistent thought patterns, which helps to reduce judgmental errors.
These two studies, along with others, add weight to the proposition that there is a biological, and perhaps an evolutionary basis for religious belief. If this proposition is true, it would help answer the atheist’s conundrum. We may be genetically programmed for religious belief because religion offers significant species-wide survival benefits, like reduced stress and reduced decision-making errors, among the many other social and individual benefits religion has offered mankind over the millennia.
If religious belief helps people cope with the stresses of life, which it clearly does, and if the capacity to experience paranormal or “sensed presences” exists to a greater degree in religionists that in atheists, as suggested by the Dawkins experience, perhaps it is not the religionists who suffer from some mental incapacity manifested in their belief in God, perhaps it is atheists who are lacking the “God gene” that allows people to believe in that which they do not see, feel, hear, touch or taste. Whether or not God exists, it’s apparent that belief in God is good for humankind.
Does this mean that atheists are the next wave of evolutionary advancement for humankind, or are they a Darwinian dead-end that will fade away over time? Or, could atheists and religionists evolve into entirely different species deep in the future?
© 2009 Altnews
[...] nfl nike jerseys Related articles: http://vlmujbo.falsoforum.cyberplanet.it/html Ingresar Is atheism a genetic defect? – The Broadside : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO Bicycleroom פורום משפט • [...]
[...] [...]
Warning!…
First page rankings are essential to get valuable visitors! If you don’t know how, we can help. Simply go to http://seovariety.completeseocontrol.com/ and get the best package for you….
I could see how someone could think atheism is a genetic defect since a majority of people are superstitious and religious and only a few of us have given up on the idea.
I certainly think that the ability to “believe” or not “believe” is chemical and the chemical is rooted in the Pineal Gland located in the center of every mammal’s brain. This gland releases small amounts of DMT which is a mild hallucinagen.
The reason there are so many different religions is because everyone has their own hallucination and even atheists hallucinate but the difference is that Atheists know it is a hallucination and religious people think it is real.
DMT causes people to feel powerful and calm and just like any other hallucinagen causes people to see and hear things that aren’t really there. Everyone has mysteriously heard their name being called when no one was there. Everyone has seen a pile of garbage and sworn it was a bear. Everyone has dreams they can fly or breathe underwater.
The problem is if people think these feelings are real, they can kill themselves and religion is killing people in mass.
I want to be the first to say that your hallucinations are not real. It is great to feel powerful and cared for but “God” doesn’t alk just to you and “God” isn’t just on your side and isn’t going to help your football team to win no matter how hard you pray and believe.
You feel it so strong and the dream feel so real but it is a hallucination caused by your own body chemistry.
I think the religious people have defects and that the majority of people are not aware of their own bodies and minds. The majority of people can’t tell reality from fiction or truth from lies. That is a terrible human defect and the most terrible thing about it is that a majority of humans carry this “defective” gene.
If there were a “God”, and a brain defect could keep you from knowing God, that would make him even more of a vindictive God than the God of the Old Testament (Genocide anyone). That would mean that he allowed people to be born who could not accept him. Who in their right mind would want to be part of that type of organization?
Just further proof that its all a sham… Created by men who did not understand the world they lived in, and now that we have a better understanding of the world around us, its becoming more and more apparent that its simply not true.
You assume that a god would have to be omnipotent; capable of creating perfect humans 100% of the time. Only religions based in the Old Testament ever even try to make that claim, and it is not inherent to the evolved human need to recognize, acknowledge, or invent a higher presence.
How do I assume this? As Arthur C. Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Nothing requires that a “god” be omnipotent in order to manipulate human genetic material. Heck, we can do that ourselves.
The genocide in the Old Testament is not meant as a guide for the behavior of modern men.It was intended as a stern moral lesson-that god punishes evil men. He killed evil men in the Great Flood and in Sodom and Gommorrah.
He tells us this in the Commandment:”Thou shalt not murder”. I use the word “murder” because that’s what the original Hebrew said.The OT does not forbid capital punishment, which is what God did when he killed evil people.
All this crap about God being a hypocrite is nonsense.
Greg is very confused about God, who does not control every detail of our lives and does not keep anyone from being born.
God is the master and the judge. He sets up the rules and then judges us on how well we obey them.
He is the Lawgiver and Judge, not the Mother or father or micromanager.
Atheist arguments are Sophist, in that they are intended as ploys and tricks to deceive us.He just wants to win the argument. The atheist has no positive beliefs or values.His only object is to ridicule religion and those who follow it.
Greg makes the claim that religion’s only purpose in ancient times was to explain natural phenomena, which is nonsense.
It’s purpose is moral guidance.
Science was not important or developed in the ancient world, so morality was consequently more important as a reason for doing things.
If anything its a interesting and valid point. I would like to think of it being less of a defect and more of a, dare I say, evolutionary fix. Perhaps the minds own way of saying religion isn’t needed as a scapegoat to reality. Letting go of the crutch that is religion.
As an atheist I can’t rule out the fact of some beginning force or unknown power that could have started off the likes of the big bang. However, to delude myself to believe it cares about me, or watches, or even intervenes in daily life is just absurd to me.
Be happy with what you believe, just keep it to yourself thank you.
Hm. Well, if you want to talk studies and experiments, I’ll dive into the article’s arena.. I will only state: What about the Great Prayer Experiment?..
The one where a study had a group of churches pray for residents that were going through surgery in a hospital, to see if prayer actually worked.
Group 1 = patients who were not prayed for, but did not know it.
Group 2 = patients who were prayed for, but didn’t know it.
Group 3 = patients who were prayed for, and knew it.
The ending results showed that Group 1 and 2 showed little significant difference in health after their operations. Yet, Group 3 had more patients suffer health complications..
Now, I am going to state my claim as an anti-theist, but my beliefs or not, I simply cannot comprehend that if there were a God deity, this could go in “his” favor for me.
And as far a the subject of “stress-free” being a pro for religion… That is a non-conscience awful awful claim that, as an American, or European, or anywhere else that has been hit by the middle-east terrorists, gives these same terrorists an excuse for their destructive actions – You know what gives them “stress-free” thoughts? The thought of (x) number of virgins for the selfless act of death for their deity. Oh but hey, at least their anxiety is at an all time low, right?
C’mon. There is no defect in anyone in the religious/non-religious viewpoint. Just unfortunateness. It’s unfortunate for those that put self strength and self progress in the hands of “someone else”, and it’s unfortunate that those who cannot believe have to actually live in the real world where stress and anxiety of life are common. But goddam, it feels good to be alive.
Jose M is distorting religion.Believers certainly do fend for themselves. Many religious men have been successful in life because of their own exertions.
I have made my own financial security without any help from God.I retired at age 56 and am very comfortable.Nobody ever gave me any of it.
But I do believe in God and Judaism. They are the moral guides to my life. They tell me what is right and wrong. I believe that God is my conscience. When my conscience tells me this or that is wrong, it is the voice of God speaking.
I have seen evidence that atheists have no conscience and they do whatever it takes to get what they want.If they believed in God and his moral laws, they would be more careful.
I am an 18 year old female, and I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. This is not in any way a birth defect: it is just who I am. I have always questioned God’s existence. My father before me is also an atheist, but I only found that out recently. I was raised as an Episcopalian by my mother, and we went to church almost every single Sunday until I was 17. I was baptized, confirmed, and made my communion.
That being said, I was raised right by both of my parents. My father is an atheist and he is the best person I know. He has an excellent moral compass, that I believe has nothing to do with “God.” I take great pride in being a good person, solely because I want to be. I would never intentionally hurt someone, I would never even consider murder or stealing or cheating my way to the top. You cannot assume that atheists don’t have moral compasses. Atheists are not evil. Sure, there might be examples of “evil atheists,” but there are also “evil Christians” and “evil Jews” and evil people in every religion. Atheists just have a different belief system than you do, as do Christians, Jews, etc.
However, if I am wrong and there is a God, then wouldn’t he have made me this way for a reason? It is my belief that a God would not create someone in a certain way, just to have them go to hell by default, no questions asked.
Makarios, care to provide any evidence of atheism workinf against natural selection? Nice sample size you used there. The same sample size used in Seth’s article, a single person. I would also like to see some evidence of atheists killing their offspring by the millions each year.
Of course atheism pre-dates ‘evidence’ – at least evidence in the sense that we use the word now. Did you know that atheism also pre-dates theism?
@”It’s an undisputed fact that some 85 percent of the population of the planet holds some sort of religious belief. ”
Should really read: “some 85 percent of the population hold CONTRADICTORY religious beliefs”.
I can’t believe you’re trying to define atheism as a “defect”, when it is a simple fact that the majority of religious believers must be deluded, and there’s a very high probability that all of them are!
Or that they are all deluded permutations of the same actual truth. What you are claiming implies that because there are multiple conflicting theories on the nature of astrophysics and the best path to a Unified Field Theory, and these theories are incompatible, physics in its entirety is a sham. That of course would be a ridiculous conclusion, because the claim that the existence of disagreements within a field of study invalidates that entire field is for many obvious reasons a non-sequitor.
Nonsense. I’m merely saying that we puny humans actually have a flawed and poor understanding of the nature of the universe(s)
Well, James, that’s the standard atheist party line, that religious people are “deluded”.
You try to impose your own values on us believers and insist that we prove to you that God exists.This demonstrates a lack of understanding and an attempt at tyranny.
We can believe anything we want with or without proof of it and you have no say in the matter.Your namecalling will not matter.
Another name for religion is faith which means believing in something without requiring proof of it.
The atheists are would-be tyrants who want to control us and shame us into abandoning our faith.They are under the impression that calling us “deluded” will shame us into believing what they believe.
It’s just as much a tyranny as the Catholic church tried when they labelled people as “heretics”.
Give it up. It won’t work.
How are our religious beliefs “Contradictory?
Are you saying that all Christians don’t believe the same thing?
I know that all Jews have the same basic beliefs.The only difference between the 3 denominations of Judaism lies in their rituals and customs.
The Orthodox use Judaism as a guide for everything they do, while Conservatives
use Jewish law for many things, but not all.
Reform Jews use Judaism very sparingly.
Certainly, Jews, Christians and Moslems believe different things, but so what?
Atheism being an evolutionary defect is an interesting notion definitely worth discussion and research, but for none of the reasons listed in the article. This article suggests the reason to assume that there is an evolutionary defect shown by the fact that most people believe in God. It is very obvious that people tend to believe in what they were told when they were children (which was passed on from an archaic era in which we knew relatively nothing of this world and it’s origin), but that’s not the point. I think very well atheism could be evolutionary defect in a person born in a theistic household (one born in atheistic household would have believed merely in was he was raised to believe and be essentially no different). Evolutionary theory by natural section dictates that only the fittest survive. A evolutionary fit animal/human would most definitely benefit from learning and adhering to guidance provided by its parents. Some atheists, such as myself, have a difficult reason explaining why we are different from everyone else. A Muslim family will typically raise a Muslim child. Same for Christianity or any other religion. Why was I different? While I certainly believe I have come to my conclusions due to reason and science, it is interesting to acknowledge that I obviously had no issues abandoning the guidance put forth by my parents, which was to believe in Christianity. This may be an evolutionary misfiring, and in wild, a someone like me might have a less chance of survival because of it.
Your explanation fails to acknowledge the widespread prevalence of INTRAgenerational mass conversions throughout history, such as the initial spread of Islam.
How so? The notion that religion is an evolved behavior says absolutely nothing about WHICH religion becomes predominant, merely that the propensity to believe is part of an evolutionary structure. Birds evolve differently from fish, but they all still evolve.
Seth,
Re Dawkins, I left “paranormal” in quote marks for a reason. If you have a distinct & scientifically verifiable cause for the effect, you’re out of the realm of the paranormal. Solar eclipses were paranormal in the Dark Ages, but we know better now. Perception of a “sensed presence” or “sentient being” in Persinger’s magnetic fields doesn’t necessarily mean one was there. We interpret experiences wrong all the time.
BTW, if you have a link for the whole study rather than the abstract, it would be appreciated.
Re inherent evil, the attitude that causes prospective parents to abort potential Down Syndrome babies — the devaluation of “abnormal” lives — is where the evil lives. Gene therapy is a fine option, although parents who themselves live with achondroplasia will kick your shins if you suggest it, because THEY don’t consider THEMSELVES abnormal, nor should they, nor should society. It’s the parents’ decision, but when parents don’t recognize (and aren’t taught) the difference between achondroplasia and, say, anencephalia, you have a pretty good up-to-date example of that line of Hannah Arendt’s about the banality of evil.
And here’s a statement that points towards my claim, though it is not entirely on-point.
“Fertility is also below replacement level in all 45 developed countries or areas, which account for 19 per cent of the world population. In 27 of them, including Japan and most of the
countries located in Southern and Eastern Europe, fertility remains below 1.5 children per woman. Since 1990-1995, fertility decline has been the rule among the vast majority of
developed countries and is leading to rapid population ageing.”
Source: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006.htm
This actually clearly demonstrates the inaccuracy of your point. It shows that education and not evolution reduces birth rates, unless you posit that people who live in exploited countries have become over the past 200 years genetically inferior to those that do not.
Reduced birth rates are not necessarily an evolutionary advantage. Indeed, it can be said that the decrease in birth rates caused by education is highly likely to be responsible for substantial segments of the human species to become extinct because they fail to reproduce.
Here’s an interesting link to some UN information on population and aging. It shows that the number of children in most first-world, developed nations, is on the decline, and oldsters will soon outnumber the young.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006.htm
Guffman:
In reference to your questions about things like Down Syndrome and others, I’m not suggesting that people with these defects be aborted or killed, just that should gene therapy become available that would allow those defects to be suppressed during gestation, this would qualify as “eugenics” but not smack of the extermination of “inferior” human beings. That’s why I say that the concept of eugenics gets a bad rap.
But, aborting defective fetuses is indeed something we currently face. When abortion is an absolute right, and no legal consideration is given to the rights of the fetus, then there is no reason not to abort genetically defective babies. This is a decision our society has made, and we have to live with it. That being the case, if it’s possible to avoid birthing children with genetic abnormalities, why is it inherently evil to do so?
Re: your straw man allegation. I disagree that Dawkins experienced “paranormal” sensations. He evidently stated that he experienced identifiable physical sensations unrelated to the paranormal. It is true that determining exactly what “sensations” were experienced and how they are described is somewhat ambiguous however.
I’ll have to check the study, but I’d like to know if the test pool was randomly selected and if any “pre-biasing” questions about religiosity or the lack thereof might have been asked before the test. It would seem to me that to get a valid result insofar as my claim, one would have to test the subject, record his or her explication of the sensations, and then ask about religious history. It’s also possible that Dawkins’ experience was biased from the get-go because he knew that the purpose of the test was to see if any “paranormal” sensations would be felt. Thus, he could simply be denying his “god moment” for personal or political reasons.
A double-blind study seems to be called for, and that may be what occurred, I’ll have to read through the study again to be sure.
And I agree that science will make the case either way, unless God drops in for a visit while we’re all casting about for answers.
There is a reason not to make decisions on the basis of genetic defects: Genetic diversity universally has increase the survival rates of a species over the long term. What in one circumstance may be a harmful copying error, in another is a mutation which dramatically increases fitness. Also: who is to decide what qualifies as a defect? The fact, for example, that IQ test have been shown to be racially biased means that a larger % of minorities are labeled “mentally deficient” than whites even though that is not the case. A pure Capitalist society might decide that genes which create natural inclinations which would interfere with capitalism-the inclinations to hold certain political opinions- decrease efficiency and should therefore be eugenicized. Likewise, a Communist society might decide to only keep babies who are likely to be the least greedy. Many people would argue that the “godfather gene” which makes a small but significant homosexual minority a genetic advantage for the human species should be destroyed.
For a more concrete example, autism and schizophrenia may both be highly beneficial to our species as a whole when held by a small minority, even in our current social structure.
Oh, I agree, basing political decision on genetic makeup has dire consequences, which is why I argue for allowing evolution to play itself out without conscious interference. Atheists want to interfere with evolution by preventing the “spread” of religion because they think, in their ignorance and arrogance, that they know better than Mother Nature how humans ought to evolve. You point out precisely why such tampering is ill advised.
Seth,
The loaded question was mean. My apologies to Eric. It’s just that his post made me realize suddenly what you had us discussing — breeding to propagate favorable “racial” traits — and it made me jump. Rightly or wrongly.
“I would note however that the issue of eugenics, while a controversial one, has a bad rap…”: To put it mildly… “…because the process of selective breeding in humans has been used in reprehensible and evil ways in the past”: …as it will be again, if it isn’t already.
“However, the concept of eliminating genetic diseases and defects from the human race (species) is not axiomatically evil…”: We’ll have to agree to disagree on that… “it’s just very dangerous”: …as is casual definition of “genetic diseases and defects.” Is Down Syndrome a “defect?” Achondroplasia? Cleft palate? People with these genetic conditions will disagree. Prospective parents choose to abort fetuses with these conditions. It’s evil, and it’s an inevitable byproduct of selective breeding.
“I certainly have no qualms about saying that I believe that American culture is worthy of survival, and that we should be working to ensure its continued survival and prosperity”: Begs the question of what “American culture” means, of course. Walmart culture, petrofuel culture, two-hour-commute culture, the culture of American exceptionalism, are doomed. The tenets of the Declaration & the Constitution are sturdier; they won’t however be propagated by breeding.
To the original piece: You’re riding a straw horse by stating, “…the capacity to experience paranormal or ‘sensed presences’ exists to a greater degree in religionists that in atheists.” Dawkins on BBC EXPERIENCED the “paranormal” sensations of Persinger’s magnetic field, he just didn’t experience them as God. And this I think is key to the question.
Eventually humanity will get a sound understanding of the physics/neurochemistry/whatever of the God Thing. Some grad student in some lab will see some interesting results and put two and two together & find that thing that either IS God or is INTERPRETED as God by believers. Both religionists and scientists will attack the study gleefully, but the results will be replicated over & over, as good scientific results must be, & the God Theory will join other scientific theories that are not quite provable but pretty darn solid.
Science will do this. Religion cannot. Religion has had millennia to make its case; sooner or later science will make religion’s case for it.
Guffman:
I don’t think the use of the word “race” was intended to indicate any component of eugenics. It may have been intended to say “species,” which is true. I hope that Eric will clarify this for us.
I would note however that the issue of eugenics, while a controversial one, has a bad rap because the process of selective breeding in humans has been used in reprehensible and evil ways in the past.
However, the concept of eliminating genetic diseases and defects from the human race (species) is not axiomatically evil, it’s just very dangerous.
We see it happening, however, even today, as “designer baby” services are now entering the marketplace. The ability to manipulate genetic material directly pretty much inevitably leads us down this pathway.
Whether it is used for good or ill is a matter of political and social will.
I also note that the question you ask, “which ‘race’ should be breeding most” is a loaded one, as I’m sure you intended. But the real question is not which race “should” be breeding most, it’s which CULTURES are, or are not breeding successfully.
I see no taint in desiring that one’s culture survive and remain intact. This is something that has been going on for many thousands of years. Cultures compete for land and resources as a natural component of human behavior. I certainly have no qualms about saying that I believe that American culture is worthy of survival, and that we should be working to ensure its continued survival and prosperity.
Seth,
Thanks for the link. Mr. Longman cites no sources, and this is a problem for me, so I’ll try to track down the Foreign Policy piece, just for laughs.
Eric,
“There is a strong correlation between higher intellect, and less kids”: “Strong”? Based on the link you provided? Please enunciate those “strengths” for us, and I will try to deal with them as time allows.
The opposite of “dysgenics” is “eugenics,” and I’m surprised to see support for that concept in the 21st Century…
“…if you don’t breed, you race dies”: …Which “race” should be breeding the most, Eric? What is “race,” anyway? Please be as specific as possible.
Eric:
Thanks for the link, and you’re quite right that it’s a delicate balance. I’d love to debate it. Write me.
I’ll keep this short, based on that its unlikely to be read, but a problem this is getting into/touching on is the dysgenic trend our society has been undergoing.
There is a strong correlation between higher intellect, and less kids.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
Your final statements about “the belief is good for humankind” is based on that goodness equals having more kids. This is a complicated issue that can’t be so quickly summarized. It is true, if you don’t breed, you race dies, but something we hardly ever consider is, if you breed to much, you also die.
That’s a point I will debate with you anytime! See you Seth
-Eric
IQ is not a measure of intelligence
IQ tests are biased in favor of the same groups that have less kids and later sex anyway (whites, wealthy, native)
IQ has never been shown conclusively to have a strong genetic component, although “intelligence” might.
And the study in question was released after a comedy movie called “Idiocracy” had suggested this theory on many of the same less-than-scientific points of “evidence”. My guess is that the author of the study saw this movie.
If it were true it would show that intelligence is an evolutionary defect that decreases fitness, not that intelligence rather than fitness should be the driving force behind our evolution as you seem to believe.
The definition of intelligence changes with the times. If we can get 25% of our calories to be spent on mathematical analysis, we will be more than 25% worse off if our society ever requires a different prime skill (say, within the next few billion years). Given the universal history of evolutionary survival requirements changing dramatically and repeatedly, deliberately overspecializing in the type of intelligence that allows us to operate, innovate, and expand the constructs of our artificial society may indeed be tantamount to dooming the human race to an evolutionary dead end.
Intelligence may well be an evolutionary defect. After all, it is intelligence that has lead us to the brink of nuclear holocaust. My personal theory is that there is a critical period in the evolution of intelligence, below which humans live in relative harmony and balance with the rest of nature as mere animals, and beyond which they do the same, but through intelligent manipulation of the ecosystem. But within the gap, humans are too evolved to avoid damaging the environment, and not evolved enough to avoid doing so. If we manage to survive the gap, things will improve, if we don’t, humans will become extinct.
Guffman:
I’m still trying to source his material, but you might be interested in this essay by Phillip Longman, which is adapted from his Foreign Policy essay, that indicates that the more liberal/progressive one is, the less likely one is to have children.
http://www.smartsextalk.com/PDF/0605_baby_bust.pdf
The studies were tiny — 50 subjects in toto (all right-handed females).
Was the study peer-reviewed and published? (This is one way the scientific method tends to weed out the ultra-crackpot “studies.”) I don’t find it on Dr. Inzlicht’s list of journal articles, which you can find here –
http://inzlicht.socialpsychology.org/
– and which we can assume is a “greatest hits” package, the stuff he’s proudest of.
Too thin a case to bother with….
Makarios, you realize, of course, that atheism, or, if you like, the atheist meme, arose because of a LACK of concrete evidence. The burden of proof is not and never has been on atheism.
Seth, this — “One thing I’ve noted about atheists is that they tend to intellectualize themselves into Darwinian oblivion by being more concerned with altruism towards the planet than with survival of their own genes” — is piffle, unless you can show me ANY kind of stats suggesting atheists aren’t making as many babies as believers.
Makarios:
I have to agree. One thing I’ve noted about atheists is that they tend to intellectualize themselves into Darwinian oblivion by being more concerned with altruism towards the planet than with survival of their own genes.
The only two parts of human society that seem to be genetically driven to perpetuate themselves are Catholicism and Islam, with Hinduism somewhere close behind.
I would suggest that atheism might have arisen because of some mutation in the brain. We all know that atheism did not arise because of any concrete evidence. Atheism or, if you like, the atheist meme pre dates anything that modern atheists call evidence. And, since atheism works against natural selection causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes (out of three marriages Richard Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year, calling the atheists meme and it’s phenotype hosts mutations makes a lot more sense from a scientific point of view.