Dealing with the Nosy II

First, let me apologize for the hiatus.  I doubt anyone was waiting anxiously, or otherwise, for my next post, but I feel guilty for neglecting this blog so much lately.  My real world life has been very demanding, and I haven't had time to work on the numerous draft posts I have that need work before publishing.

That being said, I want to post a quick note concerning how to deal with those situations where a religious person is being nosy about your beliefs (or lack thereof).  As you may have noticed, I have had numerous experiences with bigotry and intolerance and have come to assume that most, if not all, religious people are bigoted and therefore dangerous to me and my family.

The worst of these sorts are those who can't seem to take a hint when you indicate that you do not want to talk about your beliefs.  The reason that they can't take a hint is that their bigotry is so ingrained that it is taken for granted and not seen for what it is.  If a person thinks his bigotry is fact, then he sees no reason for anyone to complain about discrimination.  In such a person's mind, we non-believers can avoid discrimination simply by ceasing to be "bad people" and start believing in god.  They see our refusal to do that as absolute proof of our immoral nature.

When faced with a persistent believer who just can't rest without knowing your religious beliefs, you should first try to change or avoid the subject even if it requires getting up and walking away from the person.  (You should also make a mental note to avoid this person in the future.)

If you simply cannot avoid either the subject or the person, then your best bet is to try to put the spotlight on the person's bigotry.  Make it plain for all to see.  A good way to do this is to respond to inquiries about your beliefs by asking why the person wants to know--specifically ask about his or her bigotry:

"Why?  Do you discriminate against people based on their beliefs?"

Chances are good that he or she does discriminate and asking about it will make it clear who is the bad guy here and what an awful and dangerous spot he or she has put you in by asking.

The religious person will probably respond to this by denying it.  The denial will be a lie, but perhaps not a conscious one.  If the person does deny that he or she discriminates, you can follow up with:

"Well, a lot of people do discriminate and consequently I keep my beliefs to myself."

If this doesn't stop the nosiness, nothing will.  In that case, it is best to get away from this person and stay away.

See, also, my earlier post on this topic:

Dealing with the Nosy 

Religion vs. Science

A pro-science meme has been circulating on the internet regarding the shooting of the 15 year old Pakistani, Malala Yousufzai, girl who spoke out in favor of educating girls.  It goes something like this:

"Hello Religion,

I sent a man to the moon and returned him safely.  You shot a girl in the head because she went to school.

Sincerely,

Science"

I wish I could take credit for this, but it wasn't my idea.  I am happy to pass it on, however.  If you use it with a religious person, expect some blather about how the Taliban don't represent all religious people.  Just stick to your guns and point out that the shooter was undoubtedly motivated by religion, just like the 9/11 hijackers.  You can also point out that this is not an isolated incident.  There have been numerous occasions in which the Taliban have murdered girls for simply going to school.  You can also point out that using force to punish people for disagreeing is one of religion's primary characteristics.

Religion and Artificial Selection

In recent years, there have been several attempts to explain the phenomenon of religion by referring to human nature.  It is claimed that people "need" religion in some fashion, and that this need is some inherent, unchanging part of our makeup.  In fact, one often sees references to attempts to find the "god gene" that makes us "need" religion.  In addition, ordinary believers often refer to the fact that "a lot of people believe" as if this were proof that belief is logical.

As someone who has spent a lot of time studying the phenomenon of religion as well as human history, I think these explanations and research projects into the possible existence of a "god gene" seem terribly misguided.  They are misguided because they fail to take into account the effects of religion and history on the human population.

I think it is fair to say that the human population has been changed by religion.  The average person today is not the same as the average person would have been had religion not dominated human affairs for thousands of years. This is because religion has led to the systematic extermination of skeptics and critical thinkers.

Most, if not all, religions encourage the herd to attack those who don't conform.  Of course, they don't explicitly tell their members to do this.  They achieve the result by teaching their members that those who don't believe are necessarily bad people--immoral, untrustworthy, hostile, full of evil intent, etc.

In effect this means that religion causes societies to weed out those individuals who think for themselves.  Those individuals are necessarily the most intelligent and innovative members of the populace.  The less intelligent and innovative make up the compliant herd of sheep that the clergy use as a power base.  These less intelligent individuals receive the full benefit of membership in the church, which effectively acts like a society wide union protecting the herd members and their interests.  As a consequence, even those skeptics who manage to survive the persecution are less likely to be successful members of society and therefore less likely to have children and pass on their traits.

The result is a process of artificial selection that has been at work in the human population in many societies for millennia.  This artificial selection process culls out the most intelligent (and encourages the less intelligent to breed).

This may explain why some populations tend to do better than others on tests of intelligence.  (I know that such tests are controversial.  I will discuss that at a later point.)  Populations that have less of a tendency to persecute their most intelligent members but instead revere intellectual achievement will eventually see such improved performance when compared to populations that persecute their intelligent members.  Many Asian populations tend to reflect this phenomenon.  A reverence for intellectual achievement eventually leading to higher average scores on intelligence tests.  I think it is no accident that those societies are also less religious in many ways.  Many of them are dominated by religions that don't really have a "god" (such as Buddhism) and by Western standards might even be more properly called philosophies.

The net result for the more religious societies is a population in which the majority is simply not equipped to think for themselves.  Looking solely at that population and neglecting to take into account the effects of millennia of artificial selection can, indeed, result in the facile conclusion that belief in god reflects some natural, inherent need.

A study of those who were not brought up to believe in god or gods, however, shows rather quickly that belief is not automatic or necessarily inherent in human nature.  Studies of such populations show that people who were not taught to believe in gods as children rarely ever feel the need to believe.  Only in cases of severe emotional need do such persons suddenly convert to belief in the supernatural.  (I refer readers once again to a very insightful book called "Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers".)

The religious are quite aware of the role played by extreme emotional need in the conversion process.  They often deliberately try to create such severe emotional need in non-believers in order to convert them--or prey on them when such need arises on its own.  I have touched on this despicable tactic of theirs before and will discuss it at length in a later post.

For now, suffice it to say that humans do have a demonstrable need to belong to a group--we have a herding instinct, which is not surprising given the evolutionary history of life on this planet.  (For example, see this study.)  This desire to belong helps explain why so many otherwise sensible people believe.  The desire to belong combined with religious indoctrination vilifying non-believers explains the prevalence of religious belief in some populations.  This desire to belong, however, is not the same as a need to believe in god.

Evidence for the need to belong is compelling, but the evidence for a need to believe in a god is simply not there.  There are millions of people--entire societies as well--that get along just fine without a god belief.  Only those who have spent their lives in societies dominated by a religion with a god at its center seem to think that there might be a universal need to believe in a god.  This is because such individuals have not studied other societies without such god beliefs and assume his or her experience is universally applicable.

So, the next time someone alleges a universal human need to believe in a god, you can say something like:

"You religious people have spent thousands of years systematically exterminating those who don't believe, so it may well seem that way to you."

Being an Atheist ...

 

 I saw this graphic and couldn't help but notice how well it summed up so much of what I have been trying to say about religion and the world we live in.

Our Moral Obligation to Future Generations

If you are like me, you have probably noticed that the "pro-life" religious people seem to apply their principles in an inconsistent manner.  They claim to care about the "child" so much that they feel they can interfere and override the decisions even of the woman who has to carry it to term in her own body, but the second after the baby is born he or she suddenly becomes no concern of theirs.

In addition, they claim it's god's will whether or not a child is conceived, but nothing else about the life or death of the child is god's will apparently because they have no objections to other forms of medical intervention.

These sorts of inconsistencies (among other things) reveal their actual motivations.  They are actually motivated by their disapproval of notions of pleasure and permissiveness.  They would rather see the entire world suffer and die than appear to give permission for people to experience pleasure.  (This is yet another inconsistency and is the basic inconsistency that underlies the others.  They are not actually pro-life so much as anti-pleasure.  This motivation is also revealed by the alacrity with which they accuse those who disagree with them of being merely licentious libertines.)

Recently it occurred to me to investigate their opinions concerning the spaying and neutering of pets because the situation is analogous to that of humans.  Such procedures constitute artificial birth control (and sometimes abortion, if the female is pregnant at the time of the procedure.)  There is little doubt, however, that such procedures are necessary.  Without some form of birth control, too many domestic animals will be born and a great deal of suffering on their part will result from this overpopulation.

In fact, the Church is quite adamant about the duties of human pet owners in this regard:

"Millions of cats and dogs to which homes are not available must be destroyed each year in the United States. Additional millions roam the country, homeless, uncared for and unwanted by anyone. Spaying of owned female dogs and cats, as a means of preventing the suffering caused by breeding additional unwanted animals, while millions of dogs and cats are without homes or care, is recognized by Catholic humanitarians as not only morally permissible but urgently indicated."  See:  http://doggypedia.info/pet-neuter/neutering-your-dog-its-only-a-matter-of-time-5/

Of course, the religious will excuse this by saying that god gave man dominion over the animals and that animals don't have souls.  It is this second argument that reveals the religious nature of their stance against birth control.  To their minds, a soul is created (or otherwise implanted) in a human fetus at the moment of conception.  Thus, regardless of the age or development of the fetus, it is, according to their religious beliefs, a human being.

They have recognized that this argument carries little weight with those who are not convinced of the existence of souls and thus have tried to focus on the fetus's potential to develop into a human being, but that argument is merely a post hoc rationalization.  It is an argument that was created in an effort to win the public relations battle with the general public, which does not share their religious beliefs.

The "potential human being" argument has been somewhat successful.  Today, one even finds non-believers who have come to oppose abortion because of it. 

But, let's return to the attitude of the religious toward birth control for animals.  The feeling that so many people have for their pets caused many to treat them as quasi-human beings and oppose their sterilization.  The National Catholic Society for Animal Welfare (now the Society for Animal Rights) had to issue a statement concerning the spaying of animals. It says:

"Catholic humanitarians often are asked whether the church approves of spaying animals to prevent their reproduction. Catholic doctrine does not forbid the control or prevention of animal breeding. Animals are not moral persons; they do not have intellect and will. Therefore, there can be no moral imputability in limiting or preventing the breeding of unwanted animals."

One Catholic Priest puts it this way:

"Neutering or sterilizing pets should be seen as part of the respect and care we owe them as stewards of the resources of the universe entrusted us by God. This wealth is given in trust, and 'cannot be separated from respect [for] moral obligations, including those toward generations to come'."

This statement causes me to want to ask why the moral obligation toward generations to come doesn't also require us to control the human population as well as the animal population.  After all, the world's population has already exceeded our ability to feed it using traditional means, and the evidence that the size of the human population presents a grave danger to our ecosystem is overwhelming.  If our ecosystem collapses, billions of people will die.  If resources become too scarce, we could see more world wars but this time with nuclear weapons.  It is even possible that homo sapiens might become extinct.

So, if you are looking for a bon mot to throw into the thought processes a "pro-life" religious person, ask him or her why overpopulation doesn't violate our moral obligation toward generations to come.

You can even  point out that the situation is dire enough that the moral obligation we are violating by overpopulating the planet may be to our own children and not some vague, distant generation to come.

Believe In Nothing

I have written a little on this topic before.  When the religious accuse non-believers of believing in nothing, they are essentially equating atheism with nihilism, which is a mistake.  Pointing that out, however, often will not do the trick because the point is too cerebral.  A reply with punch is needed.  Therefore I suggest the following:

"I believe in reality; you are the one who believes in nothing."

If clarification is needed, one can add:

"Your god is nothing--a mere figment of your imagination."

You can also say, either after the first suggestion above or after the second:

"I believe I know the difference between atheism and nihilism and you don't."

By pointing out the believer's obvious ignorance, this last suggestion has the benefit of adding emotional force to an otherwise entirely intellectual point.  As I have pointed out before, such emotional force is a necessary component when arguing with religious people because, for them, the emotional motivation behind a person's words is much more important than the actual meaning of the words themselves.

Religion Makes People Less Moral, Not More

I have discussed this topic before at some length, but I think it is important to have it summed up in one's mind both for clarity of thought and for potential delivery in an argument.  When the argument is made that religion is needed as the basis of morals, you can reply with:

"Religion makes people less moral, not more."

This statement will, of course, require clarification in such circumstances, and that is the payoff for making the statement.  It gives you a chance to discuss the moral insanity of religion.  You can follow up the statement (either directly or after the religious person responds) with:

"Because it sets the lowest possible standard for morality, the fear of punishment standard, which most people would otherwise naturally grow out of while still young children."