How to write a faith-dismissing blog post based on “science” for a women’s website

I just saw this. Let’s break it down by assuming that you, dear reader, write for DoubleX and found some juicy little studies that might appeal to your oh-so-educated audience of liberal arts-educated secular women, who are the only readers who might matter, because they (like you!) are smart. Please note that this post could also be acceptable at Jezebel. Here’s how you write it:

• Cherry pick your study. Preferably, it should introduce some difference in the brains of believers and non-believers that is genetic in nature. (Feel sorry for the faithful! Bless their hearts, they were born with broken brains.) Do not worry if this study is limited, poorly-done, or contradicted by other research:

“Even when men and women had the same response in the brain, women were more apt to attribute it to something divine, “out of body.” Other scientists have found these limbic tendencies particularly pronounced in adolescent girls, concurrent with the final stages of brain development. As Barry Kosmin, a coauthor of the new Trinity College study says, “That’s why when anybody sees the Virgin Mary, it’s a couple of young girls on a mountainside in Southern Europe.” (Nota bene: This week, Sam Harris—who gained fame by authoring The End of Faith but is by training a neuroscientist—released his new findings on the neural correlates of belief. He told me in this case he found no difference between the workings of the female and male brain.)”

• Remember that every behavior can be explained by the behaviors of prehistoric humans who haven’t left us a whole lot of pesky evidence that might broaden your thesis and make your job harder. For example: back then, women liked bright and shiny things that looked like berries, which is why we like lipstick now, and made every decision on the basis of reproductive success! Men liked to hit things with sticks, which hasn’t changed much (har har)! Evolutionary psychology, when properly reduced, solves all your toothy little writing snaggles:

“Some researchers hypothesize that women are hardwired to believe because of evolutionary imperatives. Belief in God— or the Mount Olympus ensemble cast, or a phalanx of wood spirits, and so on— has long been connected with tribal ritual, and formed the center of communities. Women relied on these communities for the survival of their children, while men were off spearing buffalo, pillaging neighboring settlements— or whatever the caveman business trip furnished.”

• Insert the patriarchy.  Never mind those matriarchal societies, they are aberrations and not worth considering. They couldn’t possibly be taken seriously as evidence against your thesis that everything is men’s fault, including religion:

“Not a single major faith is led by members of its female flock, and the more deeply adherent a religious group becomes, the less freedom it offers its women, not to mention power. It’s hard not to compare women sticking with faith to wives confined to bad marriages: They’re so committed to the institution that they’ll willingly shrink under mistreatment just to maintain their own status quo.”

• Assume the contention that science and religion must be opposed in all things is already well-proven, and don’t bring it up.

• Don’t take any of this (interesting, possibly illuminating) research seriously. Make dated jokes:

“atheism is from Mars, Wicca is from Venus.”

• Don’t mention or consider the many, many intelligent men and women who have found that belief is not a way to make one’s life easier, but a life-long struggle from which much of our great literature, art, music, philosophy, film and even *gasp* science are derived.

• End by dismissing women who have the audacity to struggle with said belief as victims, since you have made them so, and put them on the proverbial couch for therapy from the woman who endorsed The Secret. Oprah solves everything.