Google+
Close
Query: Do Atheists Know Any Human Women, Human Children, or Human Families?
LOSER LETTER VI.


Text  


You Guys know just what I mean here! To take another example, it’s like when people say, “There’s no logic to the efficacy of prayer and divine intervention in linear space and time” — when what they really mean is, “I don’t care if she’s young enough to be my daughter, I’m going to nail her in a heartbeat if I get the chance.” That kind of atheist self-deception thing! Yes, that’s what I learned to do too as soon as I didn’t have a family around to remind me of self-sacrifice and birth and death and other things tied up with religion that make no sense when You live by and for Yourself. That was the beginning of my road to You.

And later in life, ditto that. By the time I met Lobo in rehab and we started living together in New York following his record five days of staying clean (what a dork — I beat him by almost a week!), I had almost stopped thinking about church and the Loser entirely. I admit, thanks to Lobo I was also taking enough drugs after a while to make me forget my own Facebook password. But two, and more important, we were both nowhere near what You could call a family. Unless You count his hepcat divorced Dad who hit on me once, so I don’t. And Loser knows that neither of us had any intention of starting a family of our own, either. That’s what I’m trying to explain here. That’s the kind of situation that’s fertile grounds for atheism.

Advertisement
Now let me be very clear here in the most constructive way possible, like Simon on American Idol when he’s secretly rooting for one contestant but has to be critical-seeming at the same time to get across what the contestant will have to do to please buzzing gnatbrain Paula and talking Sequoia stump Randy to survive into the next round of the show. Just so You know, I, personally, couldn’t care less about the Dulls and their domestic so-called lives — especially their lame monogamous sex lives and their cheesy little kids. I’m so over that, as You’ll soon see.

Similarly, I personally, couldn’t agree with You more that the believers’ idea of what a “family” is — mother, father, and their litter — is fully as retarded as any of the MANY other things the Church has been wrong about, as well as causing more human misery than practically anything else humans have devised before or since. With the possible exception of course of something called Antabuse (little rehab joke!). And since I, personally, am also never going to Reproduce, there is not even a hint of sentimental slop clouding my judgment here. I say all that so You know that I’m as realistic about this business of human children and their crappy place in Nature’s pecking order as any other Bright.

But You see, in failing to deal with the reality that most people are going to have these putrid “families” of theirs, and what having those “families” does to the inner wiring of the average Dull, You Brights all are missing something important about how the religion racket gets transferred in the first place. This problem may account for more of the hemorrhage to Christianity, especially, than You may realize. I’m not saying the Dulls have Reason on their side, of course! Like so much else that motivates them, the elevation of their offspring to some kind of extra-Species status is preposterous. But it’s families that make people religious, not vice versa.

Let’s throw in a little contest here to illustrate my point. Which view of Human children resonates more with the average parent — Our side, or that of the Dulls?

For the Dull side, we’ll pick as a contestant that so-called Cold War intellectual Whittaker Chambers. He’s a total tool I know, as well as a majoroso Traitor to atheism; but he has his uses here. And for representing the atheist Side, we’ll pick the author of Christopher Hitchens is Great or whatever that book of his was called.

Here we go then! As Mr. Hitchens notes in his book, Chambers, a Dull convert, described in his memoir Witness one particular moment that helped turn him to Christianity: namely, studying the ear of his infant daughter. Said Chambers:

My daughter was in her high chair. I was watching her eat. She was the most miraculous thing that had ever happened in my life. I liked to watch her even when she smeared porridge on her face or dropped it meditatively on the floor. My eye came to rest on the delicate convolutions of her ear — those intricate, perfect ears.

The thought passed through my mind: ‘No, those ears were not created by any chance coming together of atoms in nature (the Communist view). They could only have been created by immense design.’

The thought was involuntary and unwanted. I crowded it out of my mind. But I never wholly forgot it or the occasion. I had to crowd it out of my mind. If I had completed it, I should have had to say: Design presupposes God. I did not then know that, at that moment, the finger of God was first laid upon my forehead.

I know, gag me with a spoon too; the passage reeks of mawkish poor reasoning like so much else in Dull literature. And yet I confess: upon reading that passage in Chambers for the first time, way before I ever Ascended to atheism, I too resonated to his point. It seemed just like the sort of thing I’d have said of my own hypothetical daughter if I’d stopped to think about it.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review