Wednesday, December 19, 2012

If Atheism Were True Sex Would Be Uncomplicated

I find sex to be the most amazing thing. There is just so much there. There is great pleasure possible for sure. There is also a lot of pain that is possible with rape and degrading sex.

There is a lot of humour about sex. Many of the jokes are not even really funny. They just contain a sexual reference and people laugh.

Our sexuality embarrasses us. We have a strange relationship with our own nakedness.

There is sexual morality. We have a sense that there is a right and wrong around sex. We might not know exactly what the rules are but we are sure there is something there.

We have love songs and love poetry. They say there is more bad poetry written about romantic love than any other topic.

We have more euphemisms for talking about sex than anything else. When a word is used in a sexual way that group of people seem to remember that connotation for a long time. It is like it bonds the group to have its own sex talk.

Science has its own language for talking about sex. It is cold and references purely biological functions.

Jenifer Fulwiler talks about how the first thing she could not explain through materialist atheism was her love for her husband and then later her love for her child. That is a bit of what I think too. That is if atheism were true then there would be a lot less to sex and reproduction. We would be much more efficient. It would not be so wonderful and so horrible and so messy and so confusing and so interesting to talk about.

In modern times we are seeing it more. We expect huge promiscuity. We encourage it as a society. We mock people who talk about morality. We use the mass media to push sexual immorality all day every day. Our schools make clear to kids that we expect zero self control from them. Parents are actively discouraged from imposing any sexual moral standard on their kids. We could not do more as a society to destroy every ounce of sexual morality in our children.

So what is the result? One study say 28% of teens have sex by time they are 17. That means 72% do not. I am always amazed at these studies. The assumption is that everyone is doing it. I sometimes fall into that kind of thinking to. But every time I look at the numbers I am amazed at how many resist the culture. Why do they do that?

If atheism was true that would not happen. If sex is just natures way to get us to reproduce and we can manipulate our bodies to render ourselves infertile and have have fun with our sexual faculty without any deep consequences. If all that is true then we would not be seeing so many young people wait so long.

I don't want to harp on one stat because the truth is you see it all over. Promiscuity is not the utopia it should be if atheism was true. Some people go there for a while but they move on. I know atheists don't deny them the right to do that. It is just that if the biological picture of sex was the whole picture of sex you would not expect this. But that is precisely what scientific materialism says.

When the sexual revolution hit we blamed Christianity for our inability to enjoy sex freely. It made us feel guilty. But in the last 50 years we have see a huge decline the ability of Christianity to make anyone feel guilty. Birth control and abortion solve the procreation issue. Yet somehow casual sex has not worked for most people. It was supposed to be like cars and telephones. Just something everyone would embrace and never want to go back. Young people especially should be going there without a second thought.

It seems that analysis has missed something. It is harder to argue that what it has missed is precisely what Catholicism says they have missed. Still the idea that there is something sacred about sex is hard to avoid. Certainly sexual morality is one area where our society has not questioned atheism at all. We have swallowed their ideas whole. We have asked few questions. We have sacrificed our marriages. We have sacrificed our children. All because we might get some sexual pleasure. That is what smart people do, isn't it?

You would expect, if it was true, that after this much time it would start making sense. Those alleged hang-ups that don't have anything real behind them would disappear. Nobody would care who was sleeping with whom any more than they care what people are having for dinner. People would no longer look for something more. It would be sad because I think the more is literally heavenly. It would be sad but it might be true. The reality is that people are still very much sensing the more even when they try and get themselves to believe it isn't there.

6 comments:

  1. I'm not sure I completely follow what you are trying to say here. You seem to be saying that if there was no God we wouldn't have so many hang-ups about sex? Furthermore, if there was no God there wouldn't be so many kids waiting before they have sex? Is that the gist of it?

    I would argue that these things certainly can be explained from an evolutionary perspective, with or without God in the picture. Sex has consequences, very big consequences. It makes sense that we would evolve in such a way that we take it seriously inherently. This isn't just about humans, look at birds for example, or any other species that has sexual selection. They are programmed to pairbond and go through rituals to find a good mate before having sex with them, why can't we also have ingrained things like this?

    I would also take issue with your idea that we encourage promiscuity and mock morality. There are some people who say that, but also there are plenty of messages that morality is good, or at least that was how I felt as a teenager.

    You also seem to be arguing that since we have birth control now we should not have any problem with casual sex. Birth control is too new for evolution to have adapted to it at all, so our instincts can't really take this into account. If there is an evolutionary advantage to our partner not sleeping around, we could develop instincts to want that to not happen. Those instincts would still be in us today. (Not sure I explain my thinking well here, but hopefully you can follow what I'm going for)

    At any rate, I don't see why a lack of God would lead to any of your conclusions here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure I completely follow what you are trying to say here. You seem to be saying that if there was no God we wouldn't have so many hang-ups about sex? Furthermore, if there was no God there wouldn't be so many kids waiting before they have sex? Is that the gist of it?

    You keep changing the phrasing. I would say if there was nothing more than evolution and reproduction rather than if there was no God. I am trying to state why atheist materialism does not ring true to me at all. I admit it is more something informing my intuitions that an airtight logical argument. I struggle to describe the nature if sex so I am never going to make precise arguments from it.

    I would argue that these things certainly can be explained from an evolutionary perspective, with or without God in the picture. Sex has consequences, very big consequences. It makes sense that we would evolve in such a way that we take it seriously inherently. This isn't just about humans, look at birds for example, or any other species that has sexual selection. They are programmed to pairbond and go through rituals to find a good mate before having sex with them, why can't we also have ingrained things like this?

    Is that what you tell the woman you date? That you are evolutionarily programmed to go through these rituals before you mate? Maybe Hallmark could make a card for like that.

    Seriously, some of this does make sense from that perspective. I should have included a paragraph on that. Animals always follow their instinct. If a species mates for life they mate for life. They don't have endless anxiety about should I marry this person. They don't become mentally maladjusted for years when they get rejected.

    I would also take issue with your idea that we encourage promiscuity and mock morality. There are some people who say that, but also there are plenty of messages that morality is good, or at least that was how I felt as a teenager.

    I am a parent of teens. I teach them morality. I see very little input they get from society that reinforces that. Quite the opposite. Even when I look for music and movies and TV that have that message I can't find it. Sure , evangelicals try and manufacture such things but it is often a cheap imitation that has been injected with an "in your face" evangelicalism.

    So I would be interested to know where you thought you got positive messages as a teenager. I'll send my kids there.

    You also seem to be arguing that since we have birth control now we should not have any problem with casual sex. Birth control is too new for evolution to have adapted to it at all, so our instincts can't really take this into account. If there is an evolutionary advantage to our partner not sleeping around, we could develop instincts to want that to not happen. Those instincts would still be in us today. (Not sure I explain my thinking well here, but hopefully you can follow what I'm going for)

    So you are saying the sexual revolution was a mistake? That we should have waited a few million years for evolution to adjust to the reality of birth control? I do think that makes sense from an atheist perspective. That sexual morality should remain in place because we need to raise our children well and destroying the evolutionary structures for doing that is not wise. Most atheists don't go there.

    The reality is that the physical and hormonal aspects of this do wear off. You don't bond as much through sex after you have been promiscuous for a while. The oxytocin hormone has less effect. The physical act of hugging and kissing seems less intimate. As animals we can do it. It just seems inhuman.

    From an evolutionary perspective it does not seem like an irrational falling in love would have many advantages. I can see why competing for mates would give you genetically strong offspring. The strongest males could force many of the best women to have many children with them. That makes sense. I would not expect Romeo and Juliet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You keep changing the phrasing. I would say if there was nothing more than evolution and reproduction rather than if there was no God. I am trying to state why atheist materialism does not ring true to me at all.

    I see, so my phrasing really seemed to focus on the god of the bible, but you really meant to be criticizing a purely materialistic view of the world. In that case, do you think it would be accurate to replace God in my statement with "supernatural entities". In that case I would have said "You seem to be saying that if there were no supernatural entities we wouldn't have so many hang-ups about sex?" Does that sound more accurate?

    Is that what you tell the woman you date? That you are evolutionarily programmed to go through these rituals before you mate? Maybe Hallmark could make a card for like that.

    hehe :) Obviously not, how I feel about my wife is independent of how my brain was put together, whether god implanted those ideas into my brain, or if my instincts evolved. I do think it is interesting to think about how my feelings could have come from the process of evolution, but having that information wouldn't change anything about those feelings.

    [animals] don't become mentally maladjusted for years when they get rejected.

    You may be right on that, but I would argue that we don't really know if this is true. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if animals are hurt emotionally when this type of thing happens, especially in higher primates. I'm not sure how to test this though, perhaps people who do work with those animals have some data, but I would be weary of their interpretation. I could imagine a lot of bias in ascribing our emotions on to animals. Still, it seems like a definite possibility to me.

    So I would be interested to know where you thought you got positive messages as a teenager. I'll send my kids there.

    Hmm...I don't really know. It's been quite a few years so the memories are pretty faded, but I definitely remember feeling that I was constantly being bombarded with the idea that everyone has sex and it's no big deal, and also constantly being bombarded with the idea that it is a huge deal and the vast majority of kids my age don't, in reality, have sex. Any examples I can come up with would be dated anyway, but I imagine your kids also get plenty of messages on both sides of the fence.

    So you are saying the sexual revolution was a mistake? That we should have waited a few million years for evolution to adjust to the reality of birth control?

    That's not really what I was trying to say, more that our brains have evolved without the sexual revolution in mind. So any logic about how our instincts work which rely on the sexual revolution don't really make sense in an evolutionary framework. For example, if we can effectively turn off our reproductive system and protect ourselves from STD's, we basically destroy the negative side of sex, so it seemed that you were trying to argue that we should be okay with casual sex from the evolutionary perspective. I was basically trying to say that our instincts haven't had a chance to adapt to the current situation, so the logic breaks. (hope that made sense)

    As to the more direct question as to whether the sexual revolution was a mistake, I would generally think that no, it was not. However, there are certainly downsides to it, as you have argued for very well. I would think it is more good than harm, but to argue that it is all good with no downside (which I'm sure some people would try to argue) seems silly to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see, so my phrasing really seemed to focus on the god of the bible, but you really meant to be criticizing a purely materialistic view of the world. In that case, do you think it would be accurate to replace God in my statement with "supernatural entities". In that case I would have said "You seem to be saying that if there were no supernatural entities we wouldn't have so many hang-ups about sex?" Does that sound more accurate?

    That is getting closer. Many people would associate a supernatural entity called "love" with sex. I am not sure that would come quickly to mind when they hear "supernatural entity" but I would call it that. It is non-material so it is beyond the natural sciences.

    You may be right on that, but I would argue that we don't really know if this is true. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if animals are hurt emotionally when this type of thing happens, especially in higher primates. I'm not sure how to test this though, perhaps people who do work with those animals have some data, but I would be weary of their interpretation. I could imagine a lot of bias in ascribing our emotions on to animals. Still, it seems like a definite possibility to me.

    I would agree about the bias. Animal emotions seem like 90% human imagination to me.

    For example, if we can effectively turn off our reproductive system and protect ourselves from STD's, we basically destroy the negative side of sex, so it seemed that you were trying to argue that we should be okay with casual sex from the evolutionary perspective. I was basically trying to say that our instincts haven't had a chance to adapt to the current situation, so the logic breaks. (hope that made sense)

    So it seems like you are saying human brains will point towards a deeper reality that might be called love but human brains are out of date. They will get over this delusion when evolution can catch up. That takes a long time.

    One problem is that once you declare the human brain to be untrustworthy then isn't any further reasoning pointless? Alvin Plantinga goes there. He says if materialism is true then we have no reason to expect our minds to be ordered towards truth. That is not one of my reasons for rejecting materialism but he thinks it is a show stopper.

    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/an_evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism.pdf

    BTW, Calvin College is my Alma Mater

    ReplyDelete
  5. Many people would associate a supernatural entity called "love" with sex.

    I definitely wouldn't call love supernatural, and I don't see any reason to think of it as an entity. Love is an emotion, and emotions are the result of chemical processes in our brains. To say love is beyond science seems very silly to me.

    I'm sure you would disagree with that, you probably see love as a property of our soul (maybe). But even then, it seems strange to me to consider love itself an entity. Perhaps I'm not understanding you.

    So it seems like you are saying human brains will point towards a deeper reality that might be called love but human brains are out of date. They will get over this delusion when evolution can catch up.

    That's not what I meant to say, more that the human brain evolved for one environment, and with our introduction of birth control the environment has changed. It's possible that this change would provide some kind of selection pressure that should eventually change our brains over time to be more adapted for the new environment, but since the change just happened there would be no change in our instinctual behavior yet.

    I certainly didn't mean to imply that there is a deeper reality that we are working our way toward. It's just that the environment has changed and any argument that seems to be arguing that we aren't ideal for the situation and therefore evolution doesn't work is faulty.

    All that being said, I'm not an expert in evolutionary psychology, and my understanding is it is pretty difficult to prove stuff in that field. I mostly just wanted to point out that there are possible answers to these things that don't involve any supernatural stuff at all. Your claim seemed to be that pure naturalism has no explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I definitely wouldn't call love supernatural, and I don't see any reason to think of it as an entity. Love is an emotion, and emotions are the result of chemical processes in our brains. To say love is beyond science seems very silly to me.

    I'm sure you would disagree with that, you probably see love as a property of our soul (maybe). But even then, it seems strange to me to consider love itself an entity. Perhaps I'm not understanding you.


    That is a bit of the confusion here. Love has an emotional aspect. It has a cognitive aspect as well. But is it strictly material? That is can the essence of love be captured by studying brain chemistry?

    You could say love is an immaterial entity or you could say love is a property of another immaterial entity like your soul or God. In any case you have left materialism behind.

    All that being said, I'm not an expert in evolutionary psychology, and my understanding is it is pretty difficult to prove stuff in that field. I mostly just wanted to point out that there are possible answers to these things that don't involve any supernatural stuff at all. Your claim seemed to be that pure naturalism has no explanations.

    It has no explanations. That much is clear. To say it has no possible explanations even ones so complex that they will never be found. That is harder. I think it is the case because the nature of sex and love. I think that what the poets and love songs talk about is an amazing reality. It is not just an artifact of evolutionary psychology.

    The point of the post is that everything about sex points to something more that just a reproductive function. Is it impossible to deny. No. It is just impossible for me to deny.

    ReplyDelete