Atheists are more likely to be left handed, study finds
Interesting theory. Anyone have any thoughts, feelings, or ideas on this.....
We are clearly the product of our upbringing (either intentional or uncontrolled environmental factors) and our genetics. This understanding is, I think, pretty uncontroversial. A lizard isn't religious, and a child of Muslim parents isn't likely to adopt the Jewish faith. One can infer from each of these extremes the importance of both genetics and environment on one's religious proclivities. The study isn't particularly potent in shifting that general perspective.
I think the study and any subsequent discussion on the matter
feels important, though, given the growing onslaught of anti-religious sentiment. After all, atheists will cite
studies that show an inverse correlation between religious affinity and education. From this, they'll infer that religion is a tool of the ignorant. By citing and pushing evidence that atheism is a genetic trait, one softens the blow of that argument. And, in the context of its association with left-handedness and autism, casts atheism as somewhat of a genetic anomaly (atheists aren't a better educated class--they're filthy mutants). That, I think is ultimately what is to be gained from any such discussion, rightly or wrongly. Not particularly helpful behavior from either side.
I think Noam Chomsky put it best, though:
I haven’t been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush’s current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)? If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time. Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time. Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs. Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don’t have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not. The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds. Who, in fact, is the audience?
Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the “new atheism†should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim — arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the “new atheism†should begin by looking in the mirror.
Without going on, I haven’t found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.
In other words, who cares? Let's call out bigotry and bad behavior (or sin) where we see it, and promote peace and equality to the extent we can. Whether someone believes in God or doesn't makes little difference to me as long as their behavior isn't to the determent of society.
