Hi, I’m an atheist myself and have read about Darwinism quite a bit. There is however something that confuses me. It isn’t that simple so I’ll try explaining it (sorry for the long text):
We are told that love exists between a woman and a man so they can procreate. This is the final goal.
The first step in this is smell. Scientists discovered that you can find a compatible person through smell via the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC). The MHC of the other person should be different from yours in order to deliver a healthy baby. Being compatible nature-wise mostly guarantees a strong chemical bond. You see the other person as perfect, love unconditionally and so on.
However this is only one side of the story. This feeling normally lasts only long enough to raise a child.
But mostly people want to stay together longer (there are various reasons for that). To able to do this it is very important that you match on a rational level. Having the same goals in life, compatible characters etc.
And that you can accept the others flaws which you are unable the see in the first love period, when chemicals blur your mind.
In my “atheist mind” I see real love as a medal with two sides, the natural side and the rational side. If you only have the natural side, I would describe it as lust (which can be as powerful though).
Now the question:
Suppose a couple has a very strong chemical bond and also match on rational level. After like 10 years they are trying to have a baby but they don’t succeed. Note that I am not talking about reproductive organs that don’t work. I am talking about those couples who can’t conceive even though nothing is wrong with them. Today I read an article stating that women are picky when it comes to sperm. Some sperm will never be allowed to impregnate them (don’t ask me how it works).
How can you cope with this as an atheist? I am not in that current situation, but I’ve been together with my boyfriend for a long time and we have a very good relationship (which started of purely on attraction). If for some reason having a baby wouldn’t work, It would feel like nature telling us we weren’t meant to be together (from a Darwinian point of view). I don’t know how I could give something like that a place. Nature has always attracted us together like a magnet, if you can’t conceive as stated above, does it mean the first love you felt was false?
Than a minor second question that is related:
Women who were on the pill also made the wrong choice in the experiment with MHC. The pill suppresses this basic instinct. Does this mean that a lot of women in our generation will choose a wrong partner?
I for one met my boyfriend before I was on the pill. But all these girls are getting on the pill younger and younger. The experiment also stated that once these girls get of the pill to try for baby, a lot of them lose interest in their spouse and in having a baby. (MHC surfacing again).
Posted: June 28th 2010
Eric_PK
First off, I think you are putting too much behind the MHC. Sure, there are chemical attractants but human attraction is a lot more complex than that. From an evolutionary perspective, whether two people can produce a strong offspring genetically is only one factor in selection, and at least in the animal world there is a whole lot of selection based on display of strength-based attributes.And I think you’re unjustified in saying that chemical attraction lasts long enough to raise a child. Lots of people who were clearly quite infatuated with each other end up divorced within just a few years, and even with those that don’t, I can tell you that that sort of infatuation doesn’t last in the long term.
If you like your boyfriend and have a good relationship with him, you may be able to stick together in the long run, but kids are a big challenge to any relationship. I think it’s weird to consider whether you can have a child successfully as a factor of any import in the relationship, which is far more about how you deal with each other rationally. Not to mention the fact that infertility is most often related to specific issues that one partner has (low sperm count, fallopian scarring, etc.) rather than being about both of them. The success of IVF is a pretty big indicator of that.
Posted: July 8th 2010
bitbutter www
If for some reason having a baby wouldn’t work, It would feel like nature telling us we weren’t meant to be together (from a Darwinian point of view).
From a point of view that takes the duplication of your respective genes as the ultimate goal, the two of you would be a bad match.
But the fact that our bodies are largely the way they are because of evolution that has favoured successful gene duplication in the past doesn’t mean that we ought to be slaves to this end too. To believe otherwise is to fall for the naturalistic fallacy. Our values needn’t coincide with what might be most beneficial for the continued survival of the human race.
Love is an attitude towards another person. It exists independently of whether or not the people sharing it ever have biological children together.
Posted: July 6th 2010
SmartLX www
You’re more certain about the importance of MHC to human relationships than is justified by current research. Its relevance has been no more than a suggestion or research proposition so far, and some of the work already done has produced contradictory results.
Anyway, you’ve made the incorrect fundamental assumption that “Darwinism” is seen by atheists as a guide to life, and their sole source of purpose. It’s neither; it’s just an explanation of why we and other living things are the way we are. We can choose our own purpose.
Regardless of what love is based on, if a couple in love want but are unable to have biological children together there are many other ways to go: sperm or egg donors, or of course adoption. These methods don’t fulfill the basic Darwinian requirement that the children be descended from the couple, and this may be disappointing for the parents, but it does allow them to obey their natural urges to some extent and raise a family. As Logicel says, there are many for whom those urges aren’t very strong anyway.
Seriously, we’re not as beholden to our evolutionary heritage as you think. Every time someone uses a contraceptive, they’re going against the instinct to procreate. We’re psychologically able to do this because there are plenty of good reasons not to conceive a child on a given day, even with one’s life partner.
More generally, a huge amount of human behaviour is anti-Darwinian, equally among those who accept evolution, reject it and have never heard of it. That’s because Darwin never intended to tell us how to live, merely why we’re here.
Posted: July 6th 2010
logicel
I am a bit flabbergasted here. There are a good number of women who have no desire for children and who live happily with one man for decades. I am one. And if my love is an illusion, I could not give a fig.
Posted: July 5th 2010