[Paleopsych] Atheism and children by Natalie Angier
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Tue Feb 8 21:29:32 UTC 2005
Atheism and children by Natalie Angier
Center for Inquiry Metro New York - Natalie Angier lecture
http://www.cfimetrony.org/natalie.html
[I'm taking my annual Lenten break from forwarding articles again this
year. It's a vice to spend so much time doing this. So I'll be off the air
for forty days and forty nights from Ash Wednesday until Easter.]
Thank you, and it's an honor to be speaking here at the Ethical
Culture Society, in what I understand to be the Ceremonial Hall.
According to my beloved American Heritage Dictionary, ceremonial means
"formal or ritual," and though I don't go in for terribly many
rituals, I did start the holiday season with the ritual viewing of the
atheist's favorite Christmas movie, "Coincidence on 34th Street."
This is also the time of year, of course, when Jesus invariably screws
up and commits some sort of felony. How else to explain why so many
people seem to find him in jail?
You see? This is what happens when they flush people like me out of
our foxholes. And because I'm here to talk about raising healthy, 100
percent guaranteed god free children, I will happily give full credit
for the aforementioned remarks, and all that is to follow, to my
eight-year-old daughter, Katherine. Yes, this is an atheist's idea of
responsible parenting. Can you see the horns growing out of the top of
my head? Actually, last night I was reading in the New England Journal
of Medicine about a condition in which people grow these horn-like
projections from the top of their head, benign tumors called
cylindromas. And just to show you how ecumenical the condition can be,
in some cases, the doctors wrote, the cylindromas may "coalesce to
form a hat-like growth, giving rise to the term `turban tumor.'"
But seriously. I'm here to talk about why my husband and I are raising
our daughter as an atheist. The short, snappy answer is, We don't
believe in god. The longer, self-exculpating answer that is the theme
du noir is, We believe it is the right thing to do. First, let me talk
a little bit about why I use the term atheist rather than a more
pastel-inflected phrase like agnostic or secular humanist, or the
latest offering, Bright. Now when it comes to any of the mainstream
deities proposed to date, I am absolutely atheistic. I can understand
the literary and metaphoric value of any number of characters from
mythology and religion. During this last election, we all felt like
Sisyphus, we pushed that boulder and pushed and pushed, and we were
just about at the top of the mountain, well, you know the rest. Or
maybe we were Prometheus, with the vulture forever pecking away at our
liver, or Job, or the dry run for the Lazarus bit. Yet however
legitimate it may be to view any of our religious books as we would
the works of Shakespeare or Henry James , I don't take them seriously
as descriptions of how the universe came to be or how any of us will
re-be in some posthumous setting, or what god is or wants or whines
about. So I am an unalloyed atheist by the standards of the mainstream
sects.
Nevertheless, what of the hugeness of the universe, and of the
possibility that there are other universes beyond this one, or even
that the universe in some sense desires to know itself, and that we
are the I and the eyes of the universe? This idea has philosophical
appeal, and it certainly offers me some inspiration, a belief that we
have a moral imperative, if you will, to understand the universe to
the furthest extent our brains can manage. I was moved recently by a
letter I read in "Freethought Today," published by the Freedom from
Religion Foundation. It was a response to some questions by a Navy
ensign, from none other than Albert Einstein. "I have repeatedly said
that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one,"
Einstein wrote. But rather than be billed as a "professional atheist,"
Einstein added, "I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the
weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own
being."
So, yes, of course, humility in the face of cosmic grandeur is always
warranted; but let us not forget that Einstein sought to the very end
of his long life to honor that grandeur by seeking to understand it,
bit by bit, with his weak little intellect. How much better, in my
view, is that approach, of humility crossed with an unslakable
curiosity to delve the majesties of nature; over the sort of hooey
humility that we benighted and defeated "liberals" are supposed to be
mastering, that preached by the evangelical superstar John Stott, who,
according to David Brooks, does not believe that "truth is something
humans are working toward. Instead, Truth has been revealed." As Stott
writes:
"It is because we love Jesus Christ [that] we are determined...to bear
witness to his unique glory and absolute sufficiency. In Christ and in
the biblical witness to Christ God's revelation is complete; to add
any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ.''
Just as Lewis Black said on "The Daily Show" about the proposal that
gays should be barred from teaching, "Well, there goes the school
play!" so with Stott we can bid the NSF, the NIH, MIT goodbye. Who
needs Heisenberg's uncertainty or Einstein's relativity when we've got
two ox, two mules and the nativity?
Oy vey, these are values? These and a subway token won't get you on
the subway.
And so, to me, atheism means what it says - without god or gods,
living your life without recourse to a large chiaroscuro of a supreme
being to credit or to explain or to excuse. Now I'll be the proud
mother and say that my daughter understands this. A couple of days
ago, in preparation for this talk, I was interviewing her, asking her
a few questions about how she viewed her heathen heritage. First I
asked her if she believed in god. She crinkled up her nose at me like
I had mentioned something distasteful, like spinach and liver, or
kissing a boy, and said, No! I asked her if she was sorry she'd been
raised as an atheist, and she said no, she liked it. I asked why.
First, she said, you don't have to waste Sundays going to pray. Also
I'd rather do things myself than have somebody else do them for me. If
somebody gets sick, I wouldn't just pray to god he or she gets better,
I would try to buy some medicine for them, to help them get better.
Oh, I liked that answer. I couldn't help it. This sounded to me like,
what do you call it, a value system. She also said that she likes to
see things for herself before believing in them. If a friend told me,
guess what, I've got a flying dog, I'd say, can I see it. Katherine
said she has friends who claim they've seen god. One of her close
friends told her she's seen bright lights in the middle of the night
that she knows were signs from Jesus. So Katherine asked her if she
could do a sleepover, to check out the light for herself. Oh, you'd
never see it, her friend replied. Only people who believe in god can
see it.
As Richard Dawkins has said, "With religion, there's always an escape
clause."
Admittedly, Katherine is lucky. She lives in a very liberal community,
Takoma Park, Maryland, which went 91.8% for Kerry; and a lot of other
kids, she told me, share her views about god. A couple of times she's
been told she's going to go to hell - or, as she phrased it, the
opposite of heaven; she's remarkably curse-averse - but she says she
doesn't care because she doesn't believe in either destination anyway.
But in some places in the United States, it's extremely tough to be an
atheist, even fatal. Last October, in Taylor, Michigan, a former Eagle
Scout shot another man to death because, he said, the man was "evil;
he was not a believer." We all know the sort of tolerance they teach
in the Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts of America, of course. No gays
allowed - guess you don't expect them to be very good at pitching
tents and tying knots, right? - and no atheists. They kicked out
Darrell Lambert, a model scout if there ever was one, because he
refused to say he believed in God, remember? At which point, I'm proud
to say, my husband, who was a boy scout and an eagle scout and learned
many skills as a scout and had earned many patches and badges, decided
to send back his eagle scout medal to the Boy Scouts of America; and
he wrote a beautiful essay about his decision for the Washington Post.
The director of public affairs at the organization sent him an answer,
saying, We accept your decision, but we hope that someday, you will
come to be more open-minded in your views.
So, what advice do I have for nonbelievers trying to raise their
children in a rigidly religious, small town environment? Move.
I kid you not. I went to high school in a small Michigan town, very
religious, lots of baptists, also lots of drunk drivers, and believe
me, they were the worst four years of my life. Move to a big city in
just about any state, or move to a medium-sized city in a blue state,
move to Takoma Park, or move to Canada if you can stay awake. Move to
a university town. Because there are plenty of secularists out there,
oh yes. Sure, we've been told repeatedly, we've been beaten
practically comatose, with the notion that we live in an extremely
religious country.
We've all read the statistics on how people would elect as president a
member of any other oppressed group - a woman, a Jew, a Muslim, even
that very same gay person they'd rather not see in their schools and
certainly not at the wedding altar - before they'd vote for an
atheist. Anywhere from 90 to 95 percent of Americans say they believe
in god. But how meaningful are these statistics? Are they any more
reliable than the poll result I saw recently, apocryphal I hope, which
showed that 55% of American Christians believed Noah to be a relative
of Joan of Arc? As John Horgan pointed out in Sunday's New York Times,
a Harvard University study has found that the number of Americans with
no religious affiliation has grown sharply over the past 10 years, to
as many as 39 million, twice the number of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,
Hindus and Episcopalians combined. Yes, the secularists are out there,
but they tend to prefer large cities and other places with an active
cultural and intellectual life. Which brings me to why I think raising
a child as an atheist, or a committed secularist, is the right thing
to do, and should be done without apology, indeed with pride.
I'm a science writer. I'm fond of evidence, and I'm a serious devotee
of the scientific method, and the entire scientific enterprise. Let me
tell you, scientists as individuals can be as petty, insecure, vain,
arrogant and opinionated as the rest of us. The myth of the noble,
self-sacrificing scientist should never have been allowed to grow
beyond the embryonic stem cell stage, and most scientists will tell
you as much. But science as a discipline weeds out most of the bluster
and blarmy, because it asks for proof. "One of the first things you
learn in science," one Caltech biologist told me, "is that how you
want it to be doesn't make any difference." This is a powerful
principle, and a very good thing, even a beautiful thing. This is
something we should embrace as the best part of ourselves, our
willingness to see the world as it is, not as we're told it is, nor as
our confectionary fantasies might wish it to be. Science is also
extraordinarily unifying. You go to a great lab or to a scientific
meeting, and you will see scientists from around the world, talking to
each other and forming international collaborations. This is something
we should be proud of, even if we ourselves are not scientists - that
our species, our collective minds, our heads knocked together, are
capable of making sense of the universe. So to me, this, more than
anything, is what being an atheist means, an ongoing devotion to
exploration, a giving of pride of place to evidence. And much to my
dismay, religion often is at odds with the evidence-based portrait of
reality that science has begun, yes, only just begun, fleshing out.
The biggest example of this is in the ongoing debate over evolution.
This is like Rasputin, or the character from the horror movie
Halloween - it refuses to die. The statistics are appalling. This
year, according to the Washington Post, some 40 states are dealing
with new or ongoing challenges to the teaching of evolution in the
schools. Four-fifths of our states. According to a recent CBS poll, 55
percent of Americans believe that god created humans in their present
form - and that includes, I'm sorry to say, 47 percent of Kerry
voters. Only 13 percent of Americans say that humans evolved from
ancestral species, no god involved. Only 13 percent. The evidence that
humans evolved from prehominid primates, and they from earlier
mammals, and so on back to the first cell on earth some 3.8 billion
years ago is incontrovertible, is based on a Himalayan chain's worth
of data. The evidence for divine intervention is, to date,
non-existent. Yet here we have people talking about it as though they
were discussing whether they prefer chocolate praline ice cream or
rocky road, as though it were a matter of taste.
To me, this borders on being, well, unethical. And to me, instilling
in my daughter an appreciation for the difference between evidence and
opinion is a critical part of childrearing. So when I tell my daughter
why I'm an atheist, I explain it is because I see no evidence for a
god, a divinity, a big bearded mega-king in the sky. And you know
something - she gets that. She got it way back when, and I think once
you get it, it's pretty hard to lose it. People sometimes say to me,
jokingly or otherwise, just you wait. She's going to grow up and join
a cult, be a moonie or a jew for jesus. But in fact the data argue
against it. The overwhelming majority of people who join cults, more
than three-quarters, were raised as one or another type of Christian,
including Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, the works; and no
greater percentage of atheists than in the general population. I'm
sure Katherine will figure out a way to drive me nuts some day, but I
don't think the Rahjneeshi route is it.
Ah, but what of values, of learning the difference between right and
wrong, good and bad? What about tradition, what about ritual, what
about the holidays that children love so much? How will a child learn
to be good without religious training? Well, damn. Do you really need
formal religion to teach a child to be good, to be honest, to try not
to hurt other people's feelings, to care about something other than
yourself? These are all variants on the golden rule, and there is
nothing more powerful, in my experience, than sitting down with your
kid and saying, how would you feel if somebody did that to you? There
is a growing body of scientific research that demonstrates we are by
nature inclined to cooperate, to trust others, even strangers, to an
extraordinary degree. Even strangers we can't see, over the internet,
and even strangers that we'll never meet again. None of this owes
anything to the ten commandments. Which of those commandments tell you
to help a stranger who looks lost, or jump into a river to help saving
a drowning kid, or donate blood, maybe even a kidney or a slice of
liver? Sure, people also do terrible things, scam you, betray you,
steal from you, on and on. But sheesh, Rush Limbaugh was and for all I
know still is a junkie, and priests abuse choir boys, and on and on.
I've talked to Katherine about the struggles we all go through, a
desire to hurt others, to get revenge. She wrote a book report
recently in which she talked about wanting to get revenge on people
who do bad things to her, but that, alas, it's not always easy. And
when I saw that, whoa, we had a mother of a conversation. About how
the two most powerful human impulses are love and revenge, and how one
is a great strength that we should nurture, and the other one is a
natural feeling, and we all have it, but we must fight against it with
everything we can muster. Because when we don't, we get wars, wars
that can go on for years, for centuries, and we reviewed the story of
Romeo and Juliet, which she loves, and that got to her, I think, that
made it come alive.
And as one who believes strongly in peace, I've taken her on march
after march, before the Iraq war, during the republican convention. I
had her miss her first day of third grade this year, so she could
participate in a ceremony downtown, the reading of the names of people
who have died in the Iraq war. She read the names of the children. I
know I'm sounding pious here, and I'm sorry about that, but these are
just some of the examples of things I've tried to do to make her a
good person, to give her a sense of meaning larger than herself. And
yes, we celebrate the holidays. We buy and decorate a Christmas tree,
light the menorah, our house is encrusted with lights, including a big
peace sign. I've told Katherine about how Christmas predates jesus,
and how people have long felt the need, in the darkest, coldest time
of the year, to battle the blackness with lights, music, family, the
evergreen tree to symbolize life, and, oh, yes, presents. None of this
seems like hypocrisy to me. It's common sense. It is magic, it is
ours, and godness has nothing to do with it.
I'd like to make one final point, an admission of the biggest
challenge we faced when we decided to go the godfree route: what to
talk about when you talk about death. For a while, Katherine was
terrified about death. We'd be driving along in the car, and all of a
sudden she'd start screaming in the back seat. What's wrong, what's
wrong? We'd ask, thinking we had to pull over for a medical emergency.
I've just been thinking about death! She'd cry. I don't want to just
disappear! To die forever and that's all, that's the end. This
happened a few times, each time, out of nowhere, she'd start to wail.
We'd tell her whatever we could to comfort her, that she will live a
long, long time, and that they're inventing new drugs that will, by
the time she grows up, help her live even longer, a couple of hundred
years, who knows; she'd live until she was pig-sick of it. And we'd
tell her that nothing really disappears, it just changes form, and
that she could become part of a dolphin, or an eagle, or a cheetah, a
praying mantis. She'd have none of it. She knew she wouldn't be aware
of her new incarnation. She knew she probably wouldn't remember her
life as Katherine, and that loss of self she found impossibly sad. As
do I, the loss of her, the loss of myself. As do all of us. Learning
how to die is one of the greatest tasks of life, and it's one that
most us never quite get the hang of, until we realize, whoops, not
much of a trick here, is there. Not much of a choice, either.
Still, I didn't go with the stories, of the angels, of the harps, the
eternal reciting of that old Monty Python routine, o lord you are so
big, so absolutely huge. We're all really impressed her, Lord, I can
tell you that." And lately Katherine seems to have gotten past those
terror jags. She hasn't had an outburst for the past year or two.
I don't know the answer to fear of death, surprise surprise. But I
find it interesting that religious people, who talk ceaselessly of
finding in their religion a larger sense of purpose, a meaning greater
than themselves, at the same time are the ones who insist their
personal, copyrighted souls, presumably with their 70-odd years of
memory intact, will survive in perpetuity. Maybe that's the real ethic
of atheism. By confronting the inevitability of your personal
expiration date, you know there is a meaning much grander than
yourself. The river of life will go on, as it has for nearly 4 billion
years on our planet, and who knows for how long and how abundantly on
others. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, and we, as matter,
will always matter, and the universe will forever be our home.
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list