Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like the test was trying to demonstrate that a strong sense of value can override practical application, thereby inhibiting survival.

I mean, if you have nothing else, then a flag would be a good strainer - any kind of sewn fabric like that is porous, thus allowing liquid to pass through while larger particles will sit on top. I doubt they told the participants they could choose any object whatsoever, because then everyone would have simply chosen a strainer....

I definitely see that perspective and that premise has a possibility, but there were other objects. I remember a cloth with a rubberband was used first (video had like 3 examples?) and it didn't hold up. I would agree with the study if people used the flag of say, Iraq, but they wouldn't use the American flag. The table had several things on it, I wish I could remember more, but it wasn't like just a flag and people were confused on how to do it.

 

[Dak]

I've recently been exploring the idea of the necessity of religion in terms of an anthropocentric(at least) or possibly more a more specific culturalcentric value system. Reading Schopenhauer's "Religion: A Dialogue" and it seems to capture the basis for much of the affirmative sentiment to such an idea.

There are much better writers than Land in the greater NRx sphere, and this seems to be a theme running through a lot of writing, at least indirectly as it relates to the promotion of demographic hegemon. Religion = procreation, while philosophy or nothing at all is sterile in the most fleshly sense of the word.

 

[Einherjar86]

necessity

Care to elaborate?

 

[Dak]

Care to elaborate?

That post included the elaboration. Not sure really what I can say otherwise that wouldn't be mostly redundant.

 

[Einherjar86]

That post included the elaboration. Not sure really what I can say otherwise that wouldn't be mostly redundant.

So if you were asked to turn in a paper on the "necessity of religion" from an anthropocentric or "cultural-centric" perspective, that's all you would say? Okay then.

Good call. @Ein: Episode 9 (BCS) around 60% through verifies Mike as a model.

I watched it. A model of what, exactly?

 

[Dak]

So if you were asked to turn in a paper on the "necessity of religion" from an anthropocentric or "cultural-centric" perspective, that's all you would say? Okay then.

Well I could write a lot, but it wouldn't exactly be "new material", and including stats and research in philosophy papers is always walking a tightrope, but stuff like this supports the view:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Land's headlines or one-liners are usually better than his tangent laden writings, and "Demography is Destiny" pretty much captures the whole thing. The litmus test is really whether the first 5 minutes of Idiocracy is offensive or alarming, specifically if you could substitute any subgroup of any sort for the educated/rednecks and get the same response.

I watched it. A model of what, exactly?

I'd have to watch it again now to remember exactly what I was referring to. Probably something to do with the talk with the pill seller.

 

[Einherjar86]

I see that religious belief seems to be growing (according to this study, at least; I've seen others that say the opposite); but I'm curious about your comment regarding the "necessity of religion." That's what I wanted you to explain. Nothing in that graph, or that article, tells me why religion is necessary for human existence, nor why "religion = procreation" and irreligious tendencies or atheism does not.

You have graphs. You don't have an argument.

 

[Dak]

I see that religious belief seems to be growing (according to this study, at least; I've seen others that say the opposite); but I'm curious about your comment regarding the "necessity of religion." That's what I wanted you to explain. Nothing in that graph, or that article, tells me why religion is necessary for human existence, nor why "religion = procreation" and irreligious tendencies or atheism does not.

You have graphs. You don't have an argument.

It isn't that religious belief is growing necessarily, in the sense of conversions (evangelicalism is a generally Christian idea anyway). These projections can be derived from fertility rates. Fertility rates are low and dropping across the globe (a quick google will confirm this). However, exceptions remain in two places, in general: Extremely poor places and amongst religious groups which prioritize reproduction.

On the other hand, where data is available, atheism is removing itself fairly quickly from the gene pool in comparison. Increasing living standards also generally correlates with reduction of fertility rates to replacement or subreplacement levels, but not necessarily, as strong religious subcultures have shown (Muslim, Amish, Orthodox Jews, etc.) The fertility rates in the US isn't dire quite yet, but it seems this is due to Muslims and mestizos - much more religious subgroups, than the WASP/C majority, soon to be minority.

Unless the goal is the death of genes and of ideas, it appears that enlightened atheistic western liberalism is quite the ultimate failure. Of course, it isn't a clear tenet of liberalism or atheism to not procreate, but if these are the comparative effects, it cannot be ignored.

 

[Einherjar86]

Actually, atheism has increased over the past several centuries, although this has been primarily isolated to specific regions.

Atheism isn't removing itself from the gene pool because atheism isn't a genetic predisposition. Atheists might be removing themselves, but atheism will stick around as long as certain environmental/cultural conditions foster it. It might be decreasing currently, and it might swell in coming decades. Atheistic liberalism is neither a success nor a failure - it's merely an effect of social conditions.

 

[Dak]

Atheism might be reactive, I am not so sure about liberalism. Of course, something has to increase to a point to be spoken of in terms of decline. But if we look at the atheistic or liberal "memes" as it were, especially in terms of a virus, they are killing the host and if projections are correct, reducing the number of prospective hosts. In other words, these aren't symbiotic relationships.

A good liberal/atheist would most likely deny/ignore this. A bad one would be scared. I don't have either of these reactions.

 

[Einherjar86]

The virus metaphor works just as easily for religious belief/fanaticism.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by denying/ignoring, or feeling anxiety. I consider myself neither an atheist nor a theist, and I don't think I'm ignoring you, but I don't think I feel anxiety either... overall, I guess I'm just confused about what the polemic against atheism is.

What "host" are atheists killing, exactly...?

 

[Dak]

The virus metaphor works just as easily for religious belief/fanaticism.

Of course it does. It even seems more prima facie applicable. Only when atheism is accurately understood as a different sort of religion does it come more clearly into focus.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by denying/ignoring, or feeling anxiety. I consider myself neither an atheist nor a theist, and I don't think I'm ignoring you, but I don't think I feel anxiety either... overall, I guess I'm just confused about what the polemic against atheism is.

What "host" are atheists killing, exactly...?

It isn't just atheism, some religions have a similar problem (progressive strains of Christianity for example). A culture, philosophy, or orthodoxy which encourages either directly or indirectly the cessation of propagation is self-defeating. Unless defeat of the self is the ultimate goal, which makes it sound more like a tool for something else than an end in itself.

I'm an agnostic sympathetic to the possibility of ah, to use Berkleyian terms, a "super mind", but the concern here complete ignores whether or not such a super mind exists. Whether there is a god or not does not have any bearing on whether or not gods (of course not just any god) are necessary for continued propagation.

 

[Einherjar86]

A culture, philosophy, or orthodoxy which encourages either directly or indirectly the cessation of propagation is self-defeating.

This is where I'm not making the connection. How does atheism discourage reproduction?

 

[Dak]

This is where I'm not making the connection. How does atheism discourage reproduction?

Well we could speculate as to why for days, but the limited data available shows that declines correlated with atheistic belief outpaces general declines within the otherwise same culture. We have to acknowledge it is the case before asking how, and it seems you might be putting the proverbial cart first.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/09/why-do-atheists-have-fewer-kids.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/06/will-religious-inherit-earth.html

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I'm not sure I acknowledge it is the case. I'm not sure I acknowledge that atheism discourages reproduction; that is, I'm not sure that it is atheism that discourages reproduction. I seem to recall something like 95% of Catholics practice birth control, so it certainly isn't limited to atheists.

My skepticism isn't putting the cart first so much as it's asking what exactly is pulling the cart. Why are those performing the tests aligning the statistical analysis with atheism per se? The first article you linked tells us very little, if not nothing, and is entirely condescending to atheists. Why can't atheists be committed individuals? Why does one need religion in order to evince honesty or integrity? The idea that religion is the only source of honest behavior is a load of bullshit.

 

[Dak]

Well, I'm not sure I acknowledge it is the case. I'm not sure I acknowledge that atheism discourages reproduction; that is, I'm not sure that it is atheism that discourages reproduction. I seem to recall something like 95% of Catholics practice birth control, so it certainly isn't limited to atheists.

My skepticism isn't putting the cart first so much as it's asking what exactly is pulling the cart. Why are those performing the tests aligning the statistical analysis with atheism per se? The first article you linked tells us very little, if not nothing, and is entirely condescending to atheists. Why can't atheists be committed individuals? Why does one need religion in order to evince honesty or integrity? The idea that religion is the only source of honest behavior is a load of bullshit.

Well there's that writer's speculation as to why, and one can come up with all sorts of reasons, which may represent various levels of bullshit. But one usually has to look outside for critique, and my experience is that atheists seem more likely to keep spewing the ignorant shtick about needing to combat nonexistent "exploding overpopulation" than to critically look at differences in community beliefs and fertility rates. Can't look at differences in fertility rates if you aren't looking at the rates at all. Maybe that in itself is the problem. Progressively inclined religious groups seem to be a little concerned with demographics, but so far have tried to focus on greater evangelism and further watering down of orthodoxy, which is only going to exacerbate the problem. Conversely, various highly orthodox sects on a global perspective are gaining, whether we are referring to Muslims, Jews, or the more "sclerotic" strains of Christianity.

 

[Einherjar86]

But one usually has to look outside for critique, and my experience is that atheists seem more likely to keep spewing the ignorant shtick about needing to combat nonexistent "exploding overpopulation" than to critically look at differences in community beliefs and fertility rates.

This is confusing to me, because you're the one who complains that people keep having children who shouldn't be having children.

There's nothing specific to atheism that discourages its affiliates (or whatever) from having children. If atheists seem to reproduce less than, say, poor families or fanatical religious communities, I would correlate it more to levels of education than anything else. I know educated religious people who abstain from having children because they don't feel financially prepared to do so. So in short, I don't think this means that atheists are opposed to procreation; I just think it means that they're more conscious of when it is appropriate to have children. Which I would think you would approve of.

So ultimately, I'm just confused as to what exactly you're saying.

 

[Dak]

This is confusing to me, because you're the one who complains that people keep having children who shouldn't be having children.

There's nothing specific to atheism that discourages its affiliates (or whatever) from having children. If atheists seem to reproduce less than, say, poor families or fanatical religious communities, I would correlate it more to levels of education than anything else. I know educated religious people who abstain from having children because they don't feel financially prepared to do so. So in short, I don't think this means that atheists are opposed to procreation; I just think it means that they're more conscious of when it is appropriate to have children. Which I would think you would approve of.

So ultimately, I'm just confused as to what exactly you're saying.

This would possibly make sense if wealth didn't generally correlate to education levels. Yet available stats indicate that wealthier families of orthodox sects have more children than their poorer orthodox peers.

One is never really financially/mentally/etc prepared for children, because it will always cause an adjustment in lifestyle even beyond what is anticipated. Those who are truly not "prepared" are too ignorant to think about it. That strata you speak of generally just doesn't want to sacrifice one iota for the burden of children and/or believes a child needs all that bullshit that they are told they need (own room, all the toys, infinite afterschool options, early school, latest brand clothes, etc). Which is part of the problem in need of critique, not the explanation for the problem.

Edit:

D&G, Nietzsche, and the New Right.

http://www.4pt.su/en/content/deleuze-guattari-new-right

 

[rms]

Yet available stats indicate that wealthier families of orthodox sects have more children than their poorer orthodox peers.

I thought the evidence proved the exact opposite of this?

 

[Einherjar86]

I thought the evidence proved the exact opposite of this?

Agreed; and furthermore, I would also venture that statistics in poorer neighborhoods/communities are low anyway since in many cases individuals do not know how many children they've had (this is mostly the case for men, but it can also be the case for women). Parentage often goes undocumented in poorer communities, whereas wealthy families keep track of their ilk.