Tuesday, May 08, 2018

Thus spoke Vox Popoli

Vox Day, in the context of an interview about sexual promiscuity and the damage it does to children:
Once God is removed from the picture, so are the limits of the moral structure He has imposed on Man. And then, "do what thou wilt" becomes the whole of the law.
The following graph shows the percentages of people who have ever cheated on a spouse while married, by their belief (or lack thereof) in God. Responses are from 2000 onward and are restricted to non-Hispanic whites (N = 6,271):


The next graph shows the percentages who say having sex under the age of seventeen is "always wrong"(N = 6,402):


The last graph shows the percentages who say homosexual acts are "always wrong" (N = 6,128):


Cause, effect, and the potential noisy confounds and confounding noise aside, Vox Day's assertion has a powerful plausibility to it.

Stefan Molyneux, himself an atheist, regularly points out how devastating it has been for the West not to have killed God, but to have failed to replace Him with anything worthy of reverence.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), TEENSEX(1)(2-4), HOMOSEX(1)(2-4), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), YEAR(2000-2016), GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6)

21 comments:

The Z Blog said...

As you would expect, I have a post about this: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12645

Frankly, that's one of my all time best posts.

Kevin J Smith Jr said...

This is completely wrong. "Do what thou wilt" is no part of the law and we are departing further from the possibility of it all the time. People deny themselves things they want and need all the time, and atheists are the worst self-destroyers.

Z-man makes a similar mistake in his post in talking about secular leftism, which is not secular.

Christianity has not been supplanted by no morals but by a worse moral, namely the notion of "Rights." And what we call secular leftism is actually extremely superstitious enlightenment-based conservatism that is full of prophets and ghosts and immortal names (e.g. Marx). Enlightenment philosophy's heyday is elevated to a stage of importance greater than that of Christ's Rome, and leftism's backward-facing spirit-imbued nature is evident to all.

If you look at what law actually consists of you'll find Right Mining, an activity that apparently feels very edifying where people go digging through conflicts to find a "violated" right. Once you discover it you may bring it forth to the public so the violator and his descendants if he cannot be found may be justly punished.

Too long comment, but basically there is no such thing as Rights, and "do what thou wilt" would be a vast improvement over what we do at this stage. So vast I'd call it happiness compared to where we are. And honestly I'm not sure we're biologically capable of atheism, not in large numbers. Even Richard Dawkins, after publicly declaring he had no religion, set about building a shit one for himself and his followers to dwell in.

Jig Bohnson said...

The plural of anecdote(s) is not data but I am suspicious of those self-reported spouse cheating numbers. From televangelists to Bill Clinton to the neighbor next door they all lie until lying is impossible. Maybe atheists are just more honest.

I was once subjected to overhearing an entire cross-country-flight-long pickup by married w/kids guy of the chick in the seat between us. They discussed (bragged, really) how big of born-again Christians they both were, and he mentioned the wife back home and the whole thing, but that didn't stop them from getting hot and bothered and deciding to meet up later at one of their hotels. For a drink, of course.

5318Anon said...

Any benefit for the compromise where dad is inwardly godless but attends church and humors his wife and children until the boys are too old for it? Or is there nothing but for dad to be Cromwell?

Sid said...

I think there are two factors at play:

1. Religious conservatives adhere to a stricter segregation of the sexes. Mike Pence, for example, does not allow himself to be alone with any woman without his wife present.

In contrast, many liberal soyboys castigate themselves for feeling jealous about how their girlfriends and wives have said they will be getting coffee with their ex boyfrien, and tell themselves everything will be OK. If you love her, let her be free! Make an effort to trust her! It's creepy to be jealous anyway.

2. It's not terribly hard to police behavior. You just have to punish and shame people when they get out of line. The primate mind fears social ostracism like injury and death, so God or no, social shunning from your family, friends, and neighbors hurts like hell.

Even mobsters, men whose livelihood is conning, defrauding, and harming civilians, fear the shame and ostracism that comes of being a rat. I've seen interviews with government informants and witnesses who said ratting on their accomplices hurt worse than anything. And these guys are vicious killers!

But Europeans, especially the Teutonic sort, live more by guilt and less by shame. They need a sense of objective morality to truly thrive. A strong belief in God provides that.

Good luck to Northern European atheist philosophers, but I don't think any of them have found anything that satisfies that need as much as faith in God does.

Without this sense of objective morality having a real basis, European peoples tend to fall into ennui and an amoral hedonism.

vok3 said...


Now look into what correlation there is with income and class.

All the information I've seen on this topic in the past has indicated that marriages are stronger the higher up the income and IQ scale you go, with religious background having essentially no visible consequence, and that religious people are (within the statistical margins of error) just as likely to divorce as non-religious. (And, anecdotally, that "good church girls" often are among the worst when it comes to moral transgressions and self-justifications.) If there's evidence disproving that it would be interesting to see.

Also I find Jig Bohnson's skepticism about self-reporting to be well warranted. This is interesting data but demonstrating that it is provably accurate and reliable data would take some further work.

Kevin J Smith Jr said...

To follow up I don't think the data showing that Christians cheat less than atheists is wrong at all, I've never seen any study that shows atheists are more faithful monogamists and I suspect if you compare rich Christians to rich atheists or poor Christians to poor atheists you will generally find that atheists cheat more.

And yes they have less incentive to lie about it but the reason is that they are less likely to care as they don't consider it as grievously wrong. It's incorrect to think atheists cheat less just because they feel disinclined to hide it.

What I believe is wrong in this whole line of reasoning is the belief that post-Christian people become amoral or suffer ennui. I observe the opposite, that at presents atheists who deceive themselves in thinking they've moved past superstition into secularism (they're deluded, they believe in Rights) are more hyper-moral than Christians, and pursue their moral ends with extreme energy and aggression.

If a noisome atheist interferes with your Christian marriage she probably has some moralistic pronouncement to justify her intrusion. And it is likely not hedonistic at all but moralistic, unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating.

And I'm an atheist. I just acknowledge Christians make for generally somewhat better people, and much better women. I also feel very responsible for and attached to my (white) people because, and only because, I love them. I think we're great. Free people don't need additional reasons and have no need for any justifications at all. That is "what I wilt", and the law is certainly no friend to me.

Jim Bowery said...

Molyneux replaced God with faith in the non-aggression axiom as "self-evident natural law". 600 million years of non-collectivist male intrasexual selection leads me to have little faith in Molyneux's faith. The collectivist aggression that Molyneux, and all so-called "libertarians", conflate with individualist aggression in their "self-evident natural law axiom", has occurred in nature several times -- in colonies of eusocial species. In such colonies, the intra-colony "axiom" of "non-aggression" certainly obtains.

"Libertarians" like Molyneux and the Austrian School and the Randroids, are Marxist moles. No, they aren't merely "useful idiots" of Marxists -- they are manifestly not "idiots".

Andrea Ostrov Letania said...

http://dailyandreaostrov.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-hypothetical-should-nick-knife.html

Audacious Epigone said...

Z,

Indeed!

I drafted a post using the HEAVEN and HELL variables in the GSS in response but ended up just using HELL (so far) in relation to the anti-Pope allegedly waving off the concept of an Inferno.

Kevin,

The argument as I understand it is not "do what thou wilt as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of anyone else". It's not a libertarian utopia, not even close.

It's more "do what you have to do to get what you want". Playing the victim game is extremely lucrative, especially for those who have little in the way of prospects otherwise. There are well-heeled Department of Diversity heads in institutions of all kinds now, public and private. The black guys in Philadelphia are now set for life. Even Clock Boy couldn't quite pull that off.

Jig,

Dishonesty in self-reported data is always a potential problem and it is worth keeping in mind, but we work with what we have.

5318,

Hope so. That's this dad's plan.

Sid,

Right. WEIRDOs aren't 'evolved' to put interests ahead of principles. Relative to others, it's hard for us to think only about our Dunbar Number. We have an abstract sense of the universal that we're pulled towards. It is a double-edged sword. At this point in our history, it is probably our single biggest existential vulnerability.

vok3,

Will take a look at class differences and see how things hold up, though I recall from previously looking that higher and lower classes tend to cheat more than those in the middle--the former because they have high SMV and the latter because they have high time preference.

Jim,

How does a principle without an enforcement mechanism stand without being incentivized? Beats me.

Without God, our natural rights are exactly those we have when we stumble onto a bear in the woods. Nothing more, nothing less.

Santoculto said...

Result:

schizotheists are tamed puppies beloved by ''god''.

I suspect that this % of adultery among autheists are not totally honest...

Santoculto said...

and, often, dominated by fake-theist sociopaths, ;)

Remember that BELIEVE in all idiotic mythological ''facts'' is itself a very stupid choice, it's BASICALLY applied schizophrenia.

And expecting for those who, schizotheists, will ''counterargue'' that ''homossexual behavior is also a stupid 'choice'', first of all, it's not [as well be tamed by ''god''], it's natural for us. What is stupid about homossexuality is [also] behave in huge unprotected promiscuous sex life .

jakship said...

I'm rather surprised that the data shown so weakly supports this claim that "Once God is removed from the picture, so are the limits of the moral structure...." I'd have expected the gap (in the numbers on cheating on spouses, between Atheists and Firm Theists) to be larger than 12% (26.1 to 14.2).
I'd have expected a gap of more like triple, say, of 27 to 9. The fact that over 14% of Firm Theists still cheat, despite the expected restraining power of their beliefs, suggests that this power is overrated, esp since Molyneux is probably right that we "have failed to replace Him with ANYTHING worthy of reverence." Or, to be more precise, we've replaced Him with "Tin Gods" (e.g. paranoia vs. "racism") more worthy of contempt, than of anything approaching reverence.
I must wonder how the survey classified Confucians (and others who aren't really Firm Theists, but who still espouse a venerable moral structure). I'll wager that, if we'd replaced the Judeo-Christian god with, say, the Confucian emphasis on day-to-day consideration for Others, we'd now be in far better shape.
What's so repulsive about the Left's stewing about microaggressions is the selectivity of their approach to them. The Left could care less about microaggressions against Whites (and Yellows?).
As Derb would have it, "Ice People, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your DEFENSIVE stance vs. the SJWs!"

jakship said...

To understand how anti-racism has replaced the Judeo-Christian god, see black Columbia U. prof. J. McWhorter's courageous "Uncle Tom" essay, at
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiracism-our-flawed-new-RELIGION .

216 said...

O/t

The generation gap primary challenge reappears.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/jonathan-v-last/george-conway-on-primarying-trump

Most R youth aren't "alt-right", they are gaslit into the multikult. The silent majority is actually the cucked majority.

216 said...

contd

Shapiro is willfully obtuse here.

This line takes the cake: "All of which suggests young conservatives have a shot at winning over their friends and classmates: They’re operating in the same moral universe as many of their peers."

https://www.weeklystandard.com/shapiro-win-back-young-americans

"Race" and "Demographics" never appears, but the fact that R youth are in favor of mass immigration is disgusting.

It also never occurs to uber-privileged Shapiro that the working class has been savaged by globalization, automation and debt. Of course, he can move to Israel.

snorlax said...

I'd echo the point that it's likely atheists are more willing to admit to an affair. I'd add that it's very plausible that cause and effect are reversed here; people who have affairs then self-identify as atheists to resolve their cognitive dissonance.

For the ≥80% of the population that aren't churchgoers and don't adhere to Christian teachings, identifying as "Christian" vs "atheist," "agnostic," "spiritual but not religious" etc in a survey is nothing more than a weak tribal signifier. Even many (most?) churchgoing self-identified evangelicals are Christian in name only (Joel Osteen et al).

snorlax said...

216 -

Someone on Twitter said that "based Gen Z" is the Prester John of today's right. Based on what I've personally seen of Gen Z and the milieu they're being brought up in, I sadly must agree.

It's possible (albeit still unlikely, AFAICT) that there was something of an anti-Obama backlash among white/male high-schoolers circa 2015-6. High school-aged children love rebelling against perceived authority. Emphasis on the "perceived." Now that Trump is POTUS, leftism can again sell itself as anti-authority, so Prester John ain't coming.

216 said...

snorlax,

It would be surprising to see statistical evidence of the Gamergate Anti-SJW backlash, but it was noticeable from '14 to '16. Obama was a lame duck after '14 and his only accomplishment in the second term was the Iran deal. Obama has always had high personal approval ratings, but trudged along in the mid-40s for job approval. Warren would have been a better '16 nominee than Hillary.

The populist right in Europe was benefiting from the silent Anti-American protest vote when Obama was in office. Now that Brexit has occurred and there is a GOP president, the EU is now more popular than ever. European conservatives should seek to work together in Brussels, rather than push for the breakup of the EU. The conservatives are split into four groups in the EU Parliament.

Audacious Epigone said...

jakship,

This is restricted to non-Hispanic whites to avoid issues with racial confounding. The Confucian sample is... nonexistent!

216,

Reuters-Ipsos, which I trust a lot more because I can actually look at the cross tabs, shows young Republicans to be quite obsessed with immigration--definitely more so than boomer cons are.

snorlax,

The evidence is mixed. That's a lot more than can be said about millennials, though. I've been at this for over a decade and millennials were more leftist than Xers and boomers on everything, all the time, from every angle. At least with Zs there is evidence that they are much more based than millennials were at the same age. Time will tell.

Jonathan Centauri said...

These populations aren't separated by race. That explains why they have such small separation between classes I'd expect. Honor and keeping your word is mostly a White thing. Except maybe the Japanese, but they're the exception.
Secularism is just a label. Humanism is a better descriptor. Humanism is a cult disguised as science. The "noble savage" replaces the Garden of Eden story. God is replaced by "Mother Nature", a feminine goddess. The 10 Commandments are replaced by "self actualized goals". An inversion of morality to justify Vice. The Devil is a White Man. Sin is technology and rules. Its the Discordia of The Devil DISGUISED as "rational" or "scientific".