Sunday, September 16, 2007

A pair of views ...

... Rowan the Resonant.

... and The Nonbelievers. (Hat tip, Rus Bowden.)

Of course, the real test is staying power. Religion has definitely demonstrated - and continues to demonstrate - that it has what it takes when it comes to longevity. Of course, atheism has been around a long time, too. ("The fool saith in his heart, 'There is no God.' ") I think it will continue, but as a distinctly minority viewpoint, one of its main problems being a disinclination on the part of its adherents to breed (not very Darwinian of them, I must say).


  1. "Disinclination on their part to breed?" I believe you are pointing to the left-liberal package of atheism, disrespect for the family, support for gay rights and so on. But where does that place people who are on the right when it comes to religion, but left on most other issues -- abortion, gay rights et al? Also, economically speaking, a capitalist may be an atheist, and a socialist a believer. So, the boundaries are not every rigid, are they?

  2. Good points all, Vikram, though in this piece Haidt seems to be focusing on the secular humanist brand - and they certainly do seem disinclined to breed despite their staunch Darwinism. I rather object to equating religion with conservatism. There certainly are political conservatives who are not religious - e.g., John Derbyshire, who in fact seems downright hostile to it at times. And there are plenty of liberals who are quite religious, even in quite a traditional way - the Archbishop of Canterbury and, yes, Tony Blair. I think of myself as neither a liberal nor conservative Catholic, just a traditional one. Of course, I don't happen to believe that evolutionary theory comes anywhere near to explaining religion - or anything else, for that matter, besides the origin of species.