A skeptic gene?

[coberst]

I have been noting that any attempt to bring fellow secular humanists together is akin to herding cats. Why is this so?

Is it a gene we posses at birth and as a result we not only reject religion but also reject any form of organizing influence?

Perhaps we are not religious because of this gene and we rationalize this reality to be the result of our brilliant mind. Most people seem to have an inherent propensity for religion. Skeptics do not, I guess. Perhaps I have stumbled upon the skeptic gene.

This attitude of skepticism toward organization--a necessary condition for political power--explains the domination of the political agenda in the United States by religious zealots.

I assume such is the case in other countries.

[abe smith]

It "does" appear to me also that so-called "skeptics/atheists" tend to be non-affiliators. ("Herding cats")

If you were able to establish ( what would "establish" MEAN, in that context?) that there "is" a skepticism gene, what difference would your knowing-that make? (This qy is similar to, a sub-group with "Is "homosexuality" genetic?")

I'd hazard the standard answer, that the bahaviour(s) we observe and label "skepticism" are perhaps produced by a combination of innate (genetic) and experiential (nurtured) factors, along with a bunch of othern we wot not of yet.. Unless you have Plans... why does it matter?

[Howard]

I have been noting that any attempt to bring fellow secular humanists together is akin to herding cats. Why is this so?

Is it a gene we posses at birth and as a result we not only reject religion but also reject any form of organizing influence?

I think there’s a definite connection there. My take is that skeptics tend to be highly individualistic and self-reliant so we tend to avoid situations that even hint of a herd mentality… plus, the secular humanist meetings I’ve been to had really crappy refreshments.

[Z500]

Considering my entire family on both sides several generations back is Christian, unlikely

[MagicBrowser]

Gah, bad refreshments would really turn me off. I'm a creature of thirst :D

[skepticalbip]

It is probibly because people who think for themselves reject religion and any other form of authoritian control. Why would they want to join an orginazation where they are required to think like the group? Orginazations only stay together if the members accept a common belief.

[WNCAtheists]

For what purpose, and by what methods do you seek to organize non-believers?

If we are ever to be a force in the world we must organize. Perhaps in the process of organizing we might begin to develop a more cohesive ideology. I do not expect that secular humanists will ever acquire a base of power through wealth.

Where in your equation are thie individual human beings?

Those who equate gathering the non-believers together with "herding cats"
tend to focus on an 'agenda' and not the people.

"Herding cats" is a difficult task, because the cats tend to want to do things other than what YOU are wanting them to do. But, if you look for those things that cats are likely to want to do, then getting them together becomes easier.

Try putting out a big dish of tuna in an area where there are cats, and they'll come to you, and cooperate with one another so long as the feast is available to them all.

Though some of us use terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "Humanist", or "freethinker", every one of us is a HUMAN BEING. Human beings have needs, wants and desires.

Some of those needs, wants and desires are the same as our theist cousins. Some of our needs are different, and in some instances more intense than the equivalent needs of theists because of the society in which we live.

Though the desire for positive political action is strong in some of us, that desire is not present in the vast majority of non-believers.

There are quite a few organizations out there for the non-believers. Most of those organizations are local level organizations wherein the members have greater opportunity to interact socially. In "The Survey of Organizations of Non-belief" (http://www.wncatheists.com/NBSurvey2003.htm), from the @ 23% of local level organizations that responded, there were over 6,000 individuals in those groups. Compare that to American Atheists, which has had about the same level of membership for the past six years (2,200).

In the groups that responded to the survey, though most stated some emphasis on "Activism", "Social" activities ranked higher on average for types of group activities, AND those groups that ranked "Social",and "Educational" activities higher tended to have more active members.

Non-believers often perceive themselves as being 'marginalized' by society. Fighting politically gives no guarantees of changing that social situation.

Focusing on developing an 'ideology', smacks of forming a 'religion'.

How about focusing on a sense of community?
Stop focusing on agendas, and focus instead on the people. In the long run that is the most positive action that we can take.

Darrell

[SEM]

Yeah, I'm definitely one of those non-herdable cats. I have a strong aversion to joining groups, even completely innocuous ones.

I agree with Darrell that:

Focusing on developing an 'ideology', smacks of forming a 'religion'
It would be interesting if a skeptic gene was ever found, but I'm...well...skeptical about it. If you mean that a tendency to be generally individualistic might be genetic, I guess that's possible. My mom is a pretty open-minded person and critical thinker, but my dad is your stereotypical warmongering Republican who considers questioning the government un-American (unless of course a Democrat is in office). I wonder which trait is dominant? Considering the pervasiveness of religion, I guess we'd have to say skepticism is recessive. ;)

It's funny, I've just been reading an essay by Carl Van Doren that goes like this:

There have always been men and women without the gift of faith. They lack it, do not desire it, and would not know what to do with it if they had it....As they have no organization and no creed, they can of course have no official spokesman....Doubtless I was born to it, but I have tested it with reading and speculation, and I hold it firmly. What I have referred to as the gift of faith I do not, to be exact, regard as a gift. I regard it, rather, as a survival from an earlier stage of thinking and feeling: in short, as a form of superstition.
Make of that what you will.

[Secular Elation]

Let me also admit that I have an innate resistance to herd-mentality activites and organizations, of most any kind. <shrugs>

[sullster]

I don't know about a skeptic gene but on the issue of organisation of skeptics I will say this: If the theocratics ever started to round us up for the camps, I think we would find ourselves very organised then, if a bit too late.

[coberst]

I might mention that the Evangelicals had similar views regarding the development of an organized community for advancing their worldview. Forty years ago efforts began toward changing that attitude. Today an Evangelical is President of the United States. Today an Evangelical is the most powerful man in the world. We have seen in history that when such power becomes concentrated in the hands of zealots the world is in danger.

When a nation has only one religion that nation becomes a theocracy. With two religions that nation is in danger of war. When a nation has three or more religions all is well.

If there is not a suitable counterpoint to any political force the possibility of disaster is enhanced. I can appreciate the comfort of isolationism but I also recognize that it can become a dangerous quality in a liberal democracy.

Perhaps we should begin to consider duty before comfort. The reason we are blessed with a nation that is a liberal democracy is because generations in the past took actions that made it possible. To those generations now dead we owe a debt. Someone wrote words similar to these: we pay our debts to the living that are owed to the dead.

[liquid]

I'm not sure that stating skeptics are anti-authority has any more value than stating academia is full of left wingers. Whilst there is a general trend, it's not by any means a defining characteristic.

For instance, whilst I am no robot, I'm perfectly happy operating in a well-defined hierarchy and taking orders; I was even fairly serious about joining the military at one time to the point of taking and passing officer selection. It cuts both ways; whilst I am very comfortable working for other people, I am also very comfortable leading others.

I believe skepticism is centred around critical thinking, of which valuing authority is only a tiny part. What skeptics will do is evaluate authority, rather than rebels who will not value it, or sheep who value it unconditionally.

[msboyd]

I can give you a completely anecdotal example, although it by no means is really useful evidence.

I'm adopted, my parents are very, very hard-core Catholics (i.e. to the point where my mother doesn't believe in evolution, even though that's technically 'OK' these days by the Pope et al.), and I've never believed in any of it.

Fast forward about 20 years...I finally meet my birthmother, and she's a non-believer as well, as are most of her family members (the ones who do have some sort of supernatural belief tend to go in more for new age-y types of things anyway, very vague indeed). So you could suggest that I have some sort of inherited tendancy toward skepticism, but I doubt you'd be able to find enough people out there to do any sort of really definitive study.

[Eudaimonist]

Herdable cat here!

Okay, not really. I joined the Fellowship of Reason specifically because it promotes a worldview very similar to my own, and it accepts membership in a tolerant "big tent", rather than an intolerant "small tent", way. I don't feel like I'm intellectually stifled in there, so it is a comfortable home for this cat. :cool:

But it is the positive sense of fellowship and community that I find most appealing, when it comes right down to it. The philosophical agreement is merely what make it seem "acceptable" to me.

"Herding cats" is a difficult task, because the cats tend to want to do things other than what YOU are wanting them to do. But, if you look for those things that cats are likely to want to do, then getting them together becomes easier.

Good point. And don't worry if you don't appeal to everyone. :)

In the groups that responded to the survey, though most stated some emphasis on "Activism", "Social" activities ranked higher on average for types of group activities, AND those groups that ranked "Social",and "Educational" activities higher tended to have more active members.

Very interesting!

How about focusing on a sense of community?
Stop focusing on agendas, and focus instead on the people. In the long run that is the most positive action that we can take.

Well put! I totally agree with this. :)

[Samuel Waite]

I doubt it. Many skeptics sadly just tend to harbor elitist attitudes.

[Howard]

I doubt it. Many skeptics sadly just tend to harbor elitist attitudes.As do many non-skeptics.

[Demosthenes]

It's difficult to "herd" freethinker people or atheists because contrary to what people may say, atheism is not a philosophy nor even a religion. It's just a premise that says "God/gods don't exist". Take it as an axiom and various different philosophies and ideas can follow from that axiom. People are driven by many different motivations. When motivations aren't shackled by dogmas, they can take a person far and wide. Agendas are intimately bounded up with people so it's nearly impossible to separate the two. The best we can hope is to create a community that attract a small fraction of the total freethinker population. In cases of political voting power it would be nice to be able to form a large bloc. Unfortunately we haven't found a way to do that though given how this country seems to be headed towards fundamentalism, a miracle may be forthcoming in the future.

[villainess]

I myself tend to dislike dealing with the mechanisms that are required for interpersonal interaction - I can deal with one other person, and can just about handle two or three other people if I know all of them really well and only get together with them once a week or so, but whenever I've tried to be involved in any sort of larger organization, 'scene', community, or group, I observe the same dynamics, it makes me batshit and cranky, and I retreat to find isolation. I dislike getting too enthused about people or causes, and find that I have reflex responses to prevent this. Being involved with online groups helps, since choosing to take a breather from the group is as easy as turning off the computer and because I don't have to cope with eye contact, immediacy, and proximity.

I may be diagnosable or I may have gone too quickly from high school to the goth scene.

[DougP]

I think if there was a gene for it it would run in families, which is certainly doesnt. My mother and father are atheists, however they were born to catholics. They were catholics growing up. Their atheism is an aquired trait, which cant be passed on to young. Therefore, I think it is more a question of your experiences and reason that leads people to be atheists.

On the "herding cats" note: I think that this is definately true, but as I believe at least one other person said, I think this is because we realize that we cant rely on some magical power to do things for us and we need to act, which leads to more individualistic people because they are not constantly leaning on others for support.

my 2 cents...

[southernhybrid]

I'm a natural born skeptic who loves hanging out with the other individualistic cats. I'm a member of two atheist groups. Being a part of those groups has not made me any less the highly individualistic, offbeat person that I've always been. It's given me the opportunity to meet other interesting and unusual people that I would have never had the opportunity to meet irl. The fact that these cats are all atheists is an added benefit.

We only meet once a month so it's not exactly all that difficult to retreat from the group. I have a much harder time avoiding this place then I do my real life groups. This place has a tendency to be addictive, yet it lacks the interaction that real life associations bring.

II may not be real life but it has many aspects of any other group or community. It might amaze you how enjoyable joining a local atheist group can be. You will feel much less isolated as an atheist in a theist country, make some new friends, learn something new, and maybe even get involved in some local activism if that interests you. I've never felt any pressure to do anything in my groups although I have been motivated to do things outside of my usual comfort zone. That's a positive to me.