Arguments presented here are -- er... shall we say -- disarmingly naive. Their caliber reminds one of the statistic that the higher the IQ the lower the chance of being religious. Thus, for instance, neither lady appears to understand the debate regarding the concept of the "selfish gene".
Ladies: the gene is "selfish" not because it makes us selfish but because it is only interested in propagating itself (it is itself "selfish", but as it is an unthinking thing, that's only a metaphor, ok?). Now, in order to propagate itself, the gene may need us, its unwitting carriers, to behave altruistically from time to time; which, please, believe me, all of us do, the religious and the irreligious alike, although, I suppose, if one wanted to be mean about it, one could argue perhaps that religiously motivated altruism isn't really altruistic, but a self-interested pursuit of salvation? This would mean that only we atheists can be truly altruistic?
(By the way, it seems to me that the whole brouhaha regarding the altruism puzzle exaggerates greatly the frequency of the phenomenon: cases of altruism are highly notable precisely because they are so... rare. Sorry).
The final notion of the review that atheists lack spiritual life -- "long, long conversations with oneself" -- is untrue, untutored and -- intentionally offensive. It is calculated to put atheists on defense ("prove to me you have an internal life!"). And it is silly. What is spiritual about "and He shall smite them with a rod of iron"?
Jul 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)