The institution of marriage in the US is in sharp decline, according to a UVa sociology professor:
For the first time in memory, unmarried Americans will soon outnumber those who are married, according to the latest research. So is this a watershed moment?
At first glance it would appear that, in common with many Western countries, marriage is in terminal decline in the United States.
In 1960, 72% of all American adults were married; in 2010 just 51% were, according to the Pew Centre. The number dropped sharply by 5% in the most recent year, 2009-10.
“I think we are on the cusp of seeing marriage becoming less central to our life course and in framing the lives of our nation’s children. So I think it is a major moment in that regard,” says Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project and a sociology professor at the University of Virginia.
I can’t for the life of me imagine why.
Somehow I doubt the numbers attempt to take into account how much later people are marrying and what % of the population is under that age. Still could show a large shift but more interested in how many eventually marry.
You also have to take into consideration the fact that the population is older now and older people (i.e. 60+) are less likely to get married.
I would be interested in seeing some age-corrected data.
Excellent point, JG. There is somewhat more to the sad marriage statistic. Though not exhaustive, here are some key points:
(1) “No-fault” divorce originated (U.S.) January 1, 1970. The divorce rate began increasing until 1978 when it leveled around 20%, about double the historic rate.
(2) Between 1976 and 1998 the number of married, childless women between the ages of 40 and 44 almost doubled.
(3) More than six-in-ten (62%) survey respondents endorse the modern marriage in which the husband and wife both work and both take care of the household and children; this is up from 48% in 1977. Even so, the public hasn’t entirely discarded the traditional male breadwinner template for marriage. Some 67% of survey respondents say that in order to be ready for marriage, it’s very important for a man to be able to support his family financially; just 33% say the same about a woman. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/
(4) How influential is the advise on marriage of sacred texts (e.g. Bible) and clergy? In 1957, 14 percent of the Americans polled said religion was in decline in the United States. In 1970 that figure had increased to 75 percent. http://www.enotes.com/1960-religion-american-decades
#4 is the problem that predominates. You can see the problem in Sweden, for example. We are also seeing a larger proportion of white kids being born out of wedlock as well. The lack of parents committed to each other also brings in other social pathologies that we see at work among Blacks in the US. The black illigitimacy rate was about 22% when a certain Dem Senator Moynahan wrote warning of the consequences and was crucified for it. It was racist, you see, to point out such things. Blacks, after all, just couldn’t help themselves. So I’m guessing whites can’t either as they have gone over that same number. Rotsa ruck in avoiding the same consequences.
Destroying the Black family is exactly what the Demoncrats want. Destroy them, make the survivors dependant on the largess of the Demoncrats, and they will be yours forever. The racism of the Democratic Party is so overt, and thier need to keep the Blacks on the Plantation so blatant, that I cannot fathom how people can delude themselves otherwise.
The real shame is the gullibility of the blacks themselves. Are they so stupid as to not see what is being done to them? They were, on average, far better off on the literal plantation than they are now. At least most owners tried to keep families together.
Lyndon Johnson reputedly triumphantly said, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “Now the N*%##ers will vote Democrat for the next hundred years!”
Liars. Damn Liars. Statisticians.
New! This fall, on Fox:
The REAL Married Folk of the Middle Class
Fewer marriages, later marriages, fewer kids per marriage, all driven by the same dynamic:
50% of marriages end in divorce. Most young adults today are either children of divorce or have friends who are children of divorce. Therefore, marriage (and having kids) is seen to be very risky.
Not to mention that it’s very one sided in who gets the kids and who ends up paying. Combine onerous divorce laws (from a male POV) and no shortage of women who will give it up w/out marriage, and there’s no incentive for a man to get married.
Bingo. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Especially if down the road, the cow may cost even more?
Me, I’ve been married to my best friend for 38 years. Happy as can be too.
Me too Bob; nearly 29 years now.
I think part of this is related to how easy it is to just – end a marriage. Daughter of friends decided she was bored being married and poof – 6 months later she was divorced. And she is now in no hurry to get married.
How sweet was her payout? Alimony, child support, house?
with reality TV dosing us with “Wife Swap” and the tabloids screaming Kardashian married/no – now divorced after 72 days, who can blame them.
Give married couples a REAL tax break and you’d turn the numbers around.
I think it’s a function of no-fault divorce & feminism. It doesn’t bode well for our civilization.
I would agree that there is something to feminism in America being a large part of problems between men and women here. 20-year first marriage to an American woman ended in divorce; now on 3rd year of marriage with a Mexican national. Major difference for the better. That does NOT mean that she is a doormat, either…she can go zero-to-pissed-off in a blink if it’s deserved. But she makes me “want to be a better man” (hat tip to “As Good As It Gets”) than that just by being herself. It’s a lucky man I am.
I found out last month that the football coach at my kids’ Catholic HS is not married to the mother of his new baby. One of the teachers, upon hearing of the birth of his son, said, “Hunh. Did I miss something? Did I not get invited to the wedding?” which was marked by a long silence until someone pulled him aside and said, ‘Ummm… yeah, there wasn’t a wedding…” The coach is divorced, living with his gf of I don’t know how many years, former NFL football player, has two kids from a previous marriage, takes a job at a Catholic HS, is supposed to be the role model for teenage boys… and he doesn’t marry the chick that he impregnated. Love that. I hear the administration is just happy they chose life. Nice, that that’s where we are now in our society in the Catholic Church to boot? I’m waiting for the right opportunity for my to drop my opinion on the powers that be… trust me, it shall be a fine moment.
I wonder on your comment.
#1 You’re not his employer so what business of yours is it whether he’s married or not?
#2 Coach as a “role model”? Perhaps I missed it but none of my coaches were ever role models… they were task masters. They turned us into men by challenging us, not by abstaining from drink, sex, or profanity. In fact some of the best of them were as profane, hard drinking, and womanizing as they come.
I’m sort of shocked at the busy-bodyness of your comment. You’re lucky I’m not one of the “powers that be” at that school because if you came to me with your issues, it would be indeed be a fine moment.
But not in the way you intend, I think. If you’re not happy about it, vote with your feet. But I think that when push comes to shove… you won’t pull your kid from that school because you know in your heart that it’s none of your damn business.
Cro, perhaps if you had HAD a role model, you’d not be so shocked that many people still expect those whose job is to help shape young people exhibit some kind of moral standard.
But then, you’d probably show less overt disrespect when addressing a lady you’re not acquainted with, too.
Oh, and PS; if Bou’s paying to have her kid(s) attend that (Catholic, and therefore private) school, she most sure as hell is that coach’s employer.
Sarge,
A “moral” standard? Oh, you mean YOUR moral standard. See that’s the thing about morals… they vary from place to place and person to person. Your average Moslem that kills his daughter for dating outside the religion thinks he’s being moral.. at least by his standards.
I think we have societal morals… but one of those morals is mind your own business. If he’s not causing harm to anyone, then it’s not really yours, mine, or anyone else’s business. If you want to sit at home and enjoy adult beverages every night, that’s your business. It only becomes mine when it starts to affect your work, or when you get behind the wheel of a car etc.
I’m not being disrespectful by asking a question directly or by stating what I see as her busy-bodiness. I was not rude nor threatening, so I’m not sure why you feel it requires you to come to her defense. I’m quite sure that she can defend her ideas (I may not be registered here, but I’ve been around for a long time so I’m aware of who she is)
And lastly, No, she is NOT the employer of the coach. The school is. Her name is not on his paycheck. She’s no more his employer than the cashier at Walmart is yours because you shop there. She is a customer of the school, he is a representative of the school and she can shop around as it were if she is unhappy with the policies of the school.
“respectfully” submitted.
“She’s no more his employer than the cashier at Walmart is yours because you shop there.”
You might want to rethink that argument, sir… The cashier at Walmart is not my ‘employer’ because he does not pay me. Quite the reverse.
“Oh, you mean YOUR moral standard.”
Strawman argument; I said nothing about WHICH moral standards were involved, only that people tend to expect one on the part of the people they pay (and, therefore, employ) to help lead their children.
I’m fairly certain that Bou, from her comments, would have expected something more in line with CATHOLIC morality being demonstrated by those employed at a CATHOLIC school… but that’s just me, observing the obvious.
And no, I’m not Catholic myself, so I’m fairly certain that Bou’s detailed expectations of morality will diverge sommat from mine. But I don’t expect her to abandon hers in favor of mine, as you seem to. Especially with regard to how her children get raised.
“Your average Moslem that kills his daughter for dating outside the religion thinks he’s being moral.. at least by his standards.”
Another strawman argument, having nothing to do with the situation at hand. Had Bou enrolled her child in a Madrassa run by radical Muslims, then she would rationally expect that morality consistent with radical Islam would on display by the staff. Why you consider that to be a reasonable expectation, but Bou’s expecting those teaching at a Catholic school to demonstrate Catholic values in their personal lives as somehow unreasonable, I find inexplicable.
“I think we have societal morals… but one of those morals is mind your own business.”
Here, you have just vitiated your own argument… by promoting what you consider to be accepted & acceptable morality and claiming it is somehow superior and to be preferred over that which Bou clearly expected out of that coach.
I’m not sure which is more ironic; your trying to denounce Bou’s expectations of elevated moral behavior in a teacher/coach at a religious school by insisting that she instead adopt your own (lower) expectation of moral behavior… or your assertion that “mind your own business!” is a superior moral imperative while at the same time commenting negatively on someone else’s beliefs.
As to why I felt your comments compelled me “…to come to her defense…” rather than leaving her to defend her ideas on her own… Well, let’s just say that my personal sense of moral behavior compels me to point out erratic reasoning when I see it, and I was taught from childhood that a gentleman does not allow a lady he respects to be left to her own defense when she’s in the right.
That, and it still being a somewhat free country just now, I am just as entitled to comment on what I perceive to be your error in judgement, as you felt to comment upon hers.
BZ! Sarge. My kinda man. Bou is a lady, and we treat such as Ladies around these parts.
Heh. You put the word “respectfully” in quotes, like you didn’t mean it. I put it in quotes because I am quoting you.
Hi Cro,
But see, according to many here, morals are not supposed to vary from some mythical, outdated 50′s era govno. You know, that lovely time in America where it was a paradise, as women kept their mouths shut, were not equal partners, the white man ran everything, and uppity minorities and gays were relegated to second class status. I see quite a bit of that here, and much teeth knashing about how much better the country was when that govno was in force.
You have it 100% correct on morals. I have mine, you have yours, Sarge has his, etc, and this goram country would be a far better place if people kept their noses out of other peoples’ business.
As I like to say – what goes on between consenting adults is NOT anyone else’s business. The end.
And Phalanx pinches off yet another hot steaming hypocritical strawman into the growing pile here… presuming that anyone who finds having children outside marriage morally objectionable must also naturally and necessarily be a misogynist, racist, and homophobe… While at the same time loudly asserting that it is wrong to judge others’ “private” behaviors.
“How dare you judge me based on my behavior, you hateful ugly racist freedom-hater you!!1!”
It is to laugh.
Cro, I don’t find drinking, sex or profanity a problem in a role model for young men as long as they all occur when they should and not when they shouldn’t. If the coach drinks at home or at a bar (but doesn’t drive home drunk) but shows up sober in public otherwise, confines sex to the marital bed and only curses occasionally and not, say, in church or the classroom (as opposed to the football field), I don’t see how that is a problem.
Well that’s the issue…he’s not married. So he’s not confining sex to the marital bed. But he’s not exactly having it in public either. But more to the point;
exactly how much discussion do you think the coach’s sex life generates amongst his players?!
I’m pretty sure it’s not a lot… or least it wouldn’t be after the team ended up doing 20 minutes of suicide sprints for too much jaw jacking and not enough focus on practice.
You mean, like at Penn State?
Cro’s moral standards are the very type of thing that has brought the US to the sad state it is in. Frankly, I find it shocking that a Catholic HS would employ a man living with a women not his wife. The RCC has sunk far in the last 40 years.
They would well within their rights to dismiss him from their employ, and according to Church teaching are actually obligated to do so.
Sarge, you beat me to the question.
Cro, Let’s look at this from a “product quality” issue. Would you continue to buy a product that doesn’t meet your standards? I wouldn’t.
The term Catholic School implies a certain type of “product”: Education with a certain moral outlook on life and behavior. Sleeping with folks outside of wedlock is generally not in the moral code that one would expect from a Catholic School.
Bou, Don’t wait for an opportune moment if it’s specifically to hurt the coach. (I couldn’t tell if that was in your intent or not
) Relationships can get complicated enough. Did the lass turn down his proposal or did he not even try? I would have pointed at Common Law Marriage, but FL doesn’t appear to have that one. What’s he doing about the situation?
I would suggest expressing your opinion, get all the facts and the reasoning why they are keeping him. Then decide whether to stay or go.
Don’t keep paying for a faulty product.
Disclaimer: I not be be considered a “good” Catholic. Make what you will of it, and never take me too seriously.
Bah, Disclaimer should read:
I would not be considered a “good” Catholic. Make what you will of it, and never take me too seriously.
Well, first, let me say, I am paying a big chunk of MY income to send them there so YES, he is MY employee, as well as the rest of the staff.
Second, I personally have no issue with what someone does on their own time, but I find it extraordinarily hypocritical that they carry on about abstinence in school, bringing in special speakers, pushing our kids for a ‘wait until marriage’ contract, while their head football coach lives with his gf, she gets pregnant, and they don’t marry.
What are the rules here? Don’t tell my kids they need to abstain for marriage, PREACH it in their CLASSES, make them attend seminars, and then… have people on staff that aren’t abiding by your ‘moral code’.
And here is another for you, the staff KNOWS good and well, if one of the single female teachers walked in pregnant, she’d be OUT the door. No question. “It looks bad”. Oh I’m sorry. We women can’t hide our indiscretions like you men can, when they result in an unborn. But it’s OK for him, but made clear it is NOT for the women.
My morals? Not so much. Because in reality? I’m not preaching abstinence to my children, and I’m not pushing them to marry anyone they sleep with… and although I would hope they’d marry if they decide to have children, in the end, it’s not my life, it’s their choices, and I’ll love the whole lot of them exactly the same.
Clear enough for you?
And btw, the coach’s sex life and how much discussion it generates amongst the boys? More than it should.
No, he’s not your employee regardless of the amount of money you pay the school. You don’t sign his checks, you don’t provide any admin, you don’t do his performance review, if you left the school, his employment would be unaffected. You have no contract between you. None. Zip, nada.
We americans tend to think this a great deal especially towards public employees… But this is a private employer… But you thinking you have some right to being his boss because you pay his actual employer does go a way towards explaining your issues with his private life.
But your issue isn’t really with his personal life, it’s with the hypocrisy of the administration… But you yourself write in another post that they’re there to avoid gangs in the public schools.
Well, if hypocrisy is the sin that requires your input on someone’s private life, perhaps you should save your money and send them to public school… A little danger is less important than hypocrisy, no? Seems a wee bit hypocritical…
Anyway, despite some of the poor fellows here that seem to think you need defending, my inital comments were in no way intended to be disrespectful. You didn’t indicate if you felt that way, but if you did feel offended, my sincere apologies for that. The written word, especiallythat dashed off in 30 seconds, is less than perfect at conveying emotianal content.
And in turn, mine was a 30 second post dashed off.
In all honesty? I truly do not care what he does in his personal life. I do wish I’d quit getting the constant flood of email from him asking for more money to support the school. The administration, on the one hand sits there and pushes our kids to live by this ‘Moral Code’, but push out to the front and center a man who doesn’t live by it himself… nor even pretends to.
As for your feeling I am a hypocrite because I won’t save a little money and send my kid to the public school that was written up last year in our local newspaper as having 27 fights in one week, having to borrow deans and school police from other schools, my kids’ friends talking about the knife fights in the hallways… do you have kids? A little danger… that’s what you call that?
Yeah your original comment came across as abrasive and nasty. But ultimately, I’m very secure with who *I* am and what I’m trying to do for MY children and really don’t give a crap what some guy I’ll never meet thinks he knows of me, let alone thinks he knows of my character based on a 30 second dashed off comment.
Holy crap. And I hit reply upon reading Cro’s and without reading the rest of the comments. I regret that…
Thank you, gentlemen. It is most greatly appreciated… and won’t be forgotten.
BadLucas- I won’t do anything to publicly humiliate anyone, in particular the coach. That’s tacky and… well… karmic retribution sucks and that would deserve it. However, your points as to why not to, are even more valid.
I’m having problems with the administration right now. I think they’re making some very poor choices, keeping bad teachers that need to be fired, and not offering things like… dual enrollment, to kids who really are ready for college. They’ve done some things that offend me and I keep my mouth shut. Eventually, it’s all going to bubble to the surface and it will be said, behind closed doors, without the coach around, as it’s added to the list of things I take issue with. I am actually looking to pull my second son out. The hypocrisy is more than I can stomach as of late.
I’m not Catholic, I’m Episcopalian, but my husband is and he is pretty devout. We have educated our kids in the Catholic school system because although the public schools offer much, the gangs and fights in our schools are a real problem and I just couldn’t send them off to some place where they should be protected… but are not. The plight of our school systems makes me weep.
“50% of marriages end in divorce…” There’s another statistic that’s interesting to fisk. Lies, damn lies, statistics.
You might discover it’s loser to 30% for first marriages.
Happily married 20 years. Not bad: 20 out of 28.
Well, he is a professor at UVa, so he’s probably not used to having women talk to him anyhow…
Ha! I live twenty miles from (C)Harlottesville and spend many of my working hours there. The yooneeversity and unfortunately the town are all over this kind of stuff. Pertaining to Jefferson’s personal crowning achievement:
“In the land of the brave,
Jefferson’s turning over in his grave…”
–Bob Dylan, Slow Train Coming
Well let’s see what might be involved:
1. “Why buy a cow when the milk is free?” The advent of the Pill has reduced the fear of pregnancy, together with relatively easier abortion–so let’s Pary Hearty!
2. As part of #1 above, young men take longer to grow up. And when you don’t grow up, you don’t commit.
3. Two earner families mean women need time to get their careers going. Marriage gets delayed.
4. Biological clocks sometimes run past their “sell by” date. One good reason to get married is to start a family–and if you think you might not be biologically able to have a family, why get married.
5. The strained economy–marriage is a luxury good for people in poor economic circumstances. I think that when you sort for income levels, you’ll find college educated couples with a bit of economic success tend to get married and to stay married. People in lower socieconomic brackets get married (or stay married) much less often.
6. Easier no fault divorce, and lessened social stigma from divorce. People repeat the canard (which I doubt is true) that half of all marriages end in divorce.
7. Increased secularism. I’m not a particularly observant Methodist–but I got married in a church some 46 plus years ago–and when I make a promise in front of God and my community of friends and family, it’s not lightly broken. Those who believe in nothing much don’t have that goad.
Divorce rates are lower if you include marriages among older people. But I think the population most relevant is the child-rearing age, and here the figures are telling:
“As of 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced.”
SHort answer- part of the overall moral decline of American culture. Less acceptance ofthe positive influences of religion and fmaily, and too much “greedy me, myself and I” as well as the loosened sexual attitudes.
Sadly, I don’t think this can be reversed.
American’s best days are behind us and we will probably sink to a France-like irrlevance and socialist mediocrity within 20 years.
Happy now, liberals?
Coming up on 32 years since I set the hook on the babe. God, I would be a mess without her.
Nah. You only think you set the hook. You chased her ’til she caught you, buddy.
An insightful (and provocative) blog centered around the belief (backed up by copious examples and data) that today’s professional women who have achieved economic independence eschew “beta male” “cubicle dwellers” who in previous times would be seen as good (safe but “unexciting”) providers in favor of flings (but not marriage) with “bad boy” Alpha Males is to be found at “Whiskey’s Place” @ http://www.whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2012/01/modern-view-of-marriage.html
The post linked is but the latest in a series on this theme. Take some time and scroll back over previous posts on this general topic–a useful “thought provoking” (to use a tried but true cliche)alternative/out-of-the-mainstream viewpoint.
PS: The final comment on the linked post says: “Sharia will solve all this. And it’s coming.” LOL
The only real problem I have with his posts on the subject is that thugs are not “alpha males.” Women have always tended towards “bad boys.” Historically, however, they exercised judgment and the bad boys weren’t rewarded with sex for their badness. Feminism has changed that, telling our young women that they are empowered to live sexually like a slag. It’s a lie that leads to the life of the never married Cougar.
The most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen is a the picture of 65 year old woman, never married, scantily dressed like an 18yo going out to chase pants.
Look up “Roe Effect” and see exactly who is not breeding themselves out of existence. in a few years, this may turn
around completely..
The Democrats in Oregon have openly worried about this..
When I bring up pro family or pro life topics at work on break, am told that I am “anti-science”. This may be the new mantra regarding marriage in the future.
Anti-science is but one of many bits of tired trope the secularists and liberals will tar you with in order to argue that you are wrong. It’s a strawman argument — they tell you what you think, then tell you why it’s wrong. That you may not think that is of no concern to them.
I generally counter this sort of logic with pointing out the facts:
The first is to point out the basic physics of the universe, how tenuous our very chances were to exist at all let alone have a perfectly habitable mudball next to a perfectly stable star in a very stable solar system and ask, in all innocence, did you think this solar system, such basic fundamental truths as the gravitational relationship and Plank’s Constant and even the relationship between mass and light boiling down to three simple variables in a binomial equation was designed by some government agency or completely random chance? (insert light chuckle and slow shaking of head). You’re the one who’s crazy. Or ignorant. Your choice I suppose. The more you peel the onion that is this universe back the less you can explain. If you want to impress me, go home tonight and in your kitchen create a new life form.
The second I reserve for the ones who intend to hound me, as if their atheism were a badge of honor and those who do not believe are to be hunted and harried at every interval. This also applies to what I suppose we’ll call radical evangelicals, those who think their particular faith is the One and Only and hence everybody else need be berated into accepting Their True Version. Think of people who knock on your door too early on a Saturday morning and the very next Saturday return again in spite of your protestations. Or the guy who quit drinking and now equates your having a beer after bowling to that weekend he had in Vegas where he woke up nekked in the bathtub with no memory, two brassieres, three pair of underwear and an artificial limb.
The second is to mention that because of my religious upbringing I was taught that, when insulted, to turn the other cheek by none other than the example of Jesus Christ. Jesus never mentioned how the breaking of knees or fingers fit into his ministry. Unless you’d like to explore this new horizon in theology with me, leave me be.
Oddly enough, it’s the militant atheists, who do not believe in salvation and hence don’t care a whit about my immortal soul, who are the most likely to ignore such warning and try to convert me.
Go figure. Not believing in God or my soul is a religion worthy of self-sacrifice. And at that point I again shake my head, chuckle, and inform them that they’re the ones who are crazy.
Works every time.
– Max
First off, the earth is not perfectly habitable (ever been to the Middle East?), nor is the sun perfectly stable (Sol is a weakly variable G2 star). The crux of your argument can be answered by the weak anthropoid principle: if the laws of the universe were not conducive to life as we know it there wouldn’t be life as we know it to marvel at the universe. There’d either be some other kind of life wondering why the universe was tuned for them or there would be a vast universe void of life.
Secondly, you fundamentally misunderstand probability. Head to the mall this weekend and write down all the liscense plate numbers in the parking lot. Now calculate the proability of those numbers appearing in that order. Is that evidence of a higher power running a supernatural valet? That you find abiogenesis inconcievable speaks more to your limitations than the universe’s.
I do agree with you about the evangelicals of all faiths. My atheism is as much an irrational religious belief as your Christianity. Far too many so-called rational atheists are actually irrational anti-Christians.
Jeff: Drop a five hundred pound bomb on a warehouse containing paper, bauxite, lemons, sugar, flour, cornstarch, baking powder, vegetable shortening, crude oil, iron ore, chromium, coal, copper, sand and 24 dozen eggs
When the smoke clears there is a pretty new Peterbilt idling, with a refer trailer cooled down to 34 degrees F., packed with a load of Mrs. Fields lemon meringue pies. Parking brake on. God or random chance?
Oh, statistics.
Explains everything.
Maybe it was Mrs. F. Never underestimate the power of a woman.
GPW/
The example/analogy I always use is that of a tornado hitting an auto junkyard and when everything comes back down to earth out of the constituent parts there sits a brand new Maserati, complete with tuned engine, new tires, new leather int, full gas tank and a shiny new red paint-job…
Jeff, Max didn’t say the earth is perfectly habitable. The parameters of Physics and the location of the planet, however, place the argument in a very different light than Credentialed Morons like Krauss and Dawkins presuppose.
There is a ton of evidence that the planet was a much different place in times past.
I certainly agree with on the irrationality of the antiChristians. Most of them, frankly, are morons, and I’m being charitable. I can respect a man that actually admits that Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, however. A man like Hitchens, Krauss or Dawkins I hold in contempt.
Jeff, I didn’t write my thoughts well and for that I apologize. For one, I used the word perfectly when in fact things on this planet aren’t perfect for us. For one thing, 2/3rds of it happens to be water and we don’t do well living there. The sun isn’t perfect either, varying about 1% across all wavelengths.
Having been in both tropical deserts and north of the arctic circle I think both climates offer better chance of habitation for humans than deep water, if only for the air that’s available, but they certainly aren’t comfortable for us. For a host of other life forms they’re quite survivable. Likewise, old Sol isn’t exactly ideal for us but with such low variability it’s a heckuva lot better than most others in the universe. Sure, it will eventually go all Red Dwarf on us but it’s not like it has a periodic Erase Life on Earth Cycle we only come to understand right before the big reset button is tripped. This is also why I dismiss the WAP argument as so much philosophical navel-gazing, akin to the age-old question of if a tree falls and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? I could care less if it makes a sound, I’m more about do I use the Husqvarna or the Stihl to turn it into firewood.
The point I was trying to make is that the order in this universe is too neat, too tidy, too elegant, for me to believe it is all made up of mere random chance. Ever notice how few irrational numbers there actually are in the universe, whereas we come up with a fair number of them in our mathematical meanderings? Look at the order of the solar system, with Neptune orbiting in 165 years and yet between planetary migration and the other vagaries of comets and asteroids we’ve managed to scratch and claw our way into multicellular animal life forms without colliding with something. As others more educated than I have noted, the probability of such is astronomical.
Here’s the kicker. I’ve not yet, to the best of my knowledge, stated my religion. You were the one who made the assumption that I was a Christian. Lots of people make that assumption for some reason, yet in conversation with honchos of various organized groups I’ve been told I am nothing of the sort. Go figure.
The Founders made reference to nature and Nature’s God. Many were Quakers, others were deists, and of course many were members of more organized religions. In spite of such obvious differences in worldview they all had the idea that Men Are Endowed with Certain Unalienable Rights by Their Creator and signed on to that.
Is it not such a stretch to consider that, perhaps, if there be a Creator or a God each may find Him in his own way and, beyond that, agree that we are all simply speculating?
– Max
Freeman Dyson and Neal Stephenson, to name two, seem to be of the same opinion as you. Had the fundamental physical constants been other than what they are, there would be no way the Universe as it is could exist, let alone we being alive.
This is why, no matter how faithless I get on a bad day, I never default further back than Deist. Obviously, _Somebody_ started this thing in which we live.
Yeah, I know, Anthropic Principle and all that; I am comfortable with my visualisation of the Cosmic All, as Mentor of Arisia used to say. Dang, I do so want to get me a suit of gray leathers like Kim Kinnison wears, next time I have a motorcycle!
Jeff, I hate to be such a pedantic Aspy (No, I lied. I love it!) but that is the “anthropic” principle.
JTG, good to see someone else who still knows of “Doc” Smith’s work!
Max: As a Shepherd once remarked, the good book says “Thou shalt not kill”. It’s a little more unclear on kneecaps”.
Correction (I looked it up):
“Zoë: Preacher, don’t the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killin’?
Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.”
There’s an easy way to refute that type of argument. Here’s the scenario… Nasa has just reported that a rover has detected signs of a single cell bacteria exiting in the permafrost on Mars. What do you think the headlines in the NY times will be the next day?
That’s right. Life found on Mars.
A single cell is a life. Period. There’s no scientific debate necessary to decide at what point a human life begins. It begins when a cell is fertilized and begins to replicate.
The question is really at what point do we people in general start feeling guilty over ending that life. The courts currently say we start feeling guilty at the 90 day mark. I can tell you from my experience, the guilt begins mush earlier.
Cro, it’s a little more difficult than all life needs to be protected. Not greatly so, of course, but a little.
That bacterium in your gut helps you digest food. If it causes an ulcer, and you kill it to protect your life, what are the ethical ramifications? A cancer cell is life, after all. It’s life gone all ninja on the replication side, and hostile to the rest of the cells around it, but it’s still a live cell. Do you kill it?
Animal husbandry folks have a similar quandary, if you allow one organism to grow too large which is the moral choice, to shoot them or let them starve?
These and other questions are answered with a moral and societal framework.
We just happen to be very good at screwing up the moral and societal framework with laws.
- Max
Huge part of the problem is the almost universal acceptance of shacking up. A generation ago it was something that people whispered about behind your back. Now it is viewed (at least by women) as the first step toward marriage. Of course, divorce rates are far higher among couples who lived together before marriage than among those who did not. My wife and I are in a rather small category of our own. We got married 26 years ago, and started living together 24 years ago. Maybe everyone should do it in that order!
It tells me that a lot of young men are thinking with their big head instead of their little head.
I see it as a positive sign for their future.
Well, it’s a chicken and egg thing. Given the high incidence of divorce, many young couples look at “shacking up” as a rational trial run.
The problem is that we can see that it’s actually corrosive. It usually decreases the chances of successful commitment.
I have no (personal) dog in this fight, being into my seventh decade on the planet, and having missed my chance to catch a good woman when we were both young and fertile, but I really would rather live in a society like the one in which I lived when I was a kid, in which marriage was treated as Serious Business, not to be done lightly without consultation and serious consideration, and divorce was only allowed on grounds more important than some gal’s whim.
I mean, my Mom dated fighter pilots when she was young, but was still a virgin when she married my Dad, the furniture store manager. She was a sensible woman, and still married to my Dad when she died, after fifty-some years.
P.s.
A song my Mom taught me:
Behind, the door, her father kept a shotgun.
He kept it in the springtime, and in the month of May (hey hey).
And if, you asked, him why the heck he kept it,
Why, he kept it for her fighter pilot far, far away.
P.p.s. My Mom specialized in fighter pilots of the Dutch East Indies Air Force, of whom there were plenty in her part of Mississippi at that time. Yes, my Dad was indeed a bit square-headed, if I may speak of female preferences and cephalic indices.
The reason the universe allows semi intelligent life like us is the Architect and Master Builder spec’ed it and us that way. Why?
Dunno. The purposes of the Almighty are unknowable to those like us. The purpose of us, or more properly one’s understanding of that, depends on the religion. But I digress.
Just sayin’ anything else is illogical, which is no stretch for an atheist.