I want to make something clear, again, so that it doesn’t crop up on the comments over & over: the point of this website (for me) is not to argue for the abolition of all religious sentiment. Rather, it is to push back against articles such as Can Atheists Be Good Citizens? by Richard John Neuhaus, a prominent conservative intellectual. This is a nation where an agnostic conservative can write books with titles such as The Pursuit of virtue and other Tory notions. A common sentiment I’ve heard, and seen in these comments even, is that by definition someone who does not believe in God is simply not a conservative. In which case, should Heather Mac Donald go work for Brookings? Should John Derbyshire write for The New Republic? Should AEI offload Charles Murray, who though sympathetic to Christianity, is not (last I checked, Charles evolves) a believer? Should conservative institutions perform the sort of “faith check” (i.e., you sign some document affirming your adherence to particular propositions) before hiring individuals which many Christian colleges do, so as to filter out those deluded non-believers who wish to forward the conservative cause?
Note: I see no logical reason why the reading-out-by-definition should be limited to atheists & agnostics. Many conservatives (myself included) whould agree that this is ultimately at heart an Anglo-Protestant nation. In which case, where does that leave those who are not Anglo-Protestants?*
* As an empirical matter I think many religious traditions which have assimilated, such as Judaism and Catholicism, are cuturally Anglo-Protestantized (an atheist Jewish friend who was raised Orthodox told me he refused to enter Reform Temples, as they were “too Christian”). And Mormonism, though recognized as non-Christian by most Christians, is clearly an organic outgrowth of American New England Protestantism.
Mr. Hume: I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard (actually, much more often, read in an email) a believer say: “I like the idea of libertarianism, but the libertarian blogs are so HOSTILE to faith.”
Libertarianism does indeed attract a lot of militant atheists. (And a lot of other kinds of obsessives, too.) We should strive to do better, and not repel people like those emailers of mine …
… while sadly recognizing that the mere idea of unbelief, however genteely expressed, is unspeakably shocking to a lot of believers. Another large category in my email bag is people telling me that if I don’t believe in God I must be a nihilist with no morals. There are a lot of closed, angry minds on both sides.
Let’s make this clear anyway: With at least two of us (Mr. Hume and Mr. Bradlaugh) keen enthusiasts for the scientific study of human nature, there is no expectation on this blog that belief will disappear from the human race, much less from American conservatism. (Though church-going might. Only two percent of Icelanders attend church services weekly. Yet “four out of five Icelanders say that they pray, and the same proportion believe in life after death,” according to Paul Bloom in the December ’05 Atlantic Monthly.)
Bradlaugh writes: “Another large category in my email bag is people telling me that if I don’t believe in God I must be a nihilist with no morals.”
That’s the standard trope: “If there’s no God then everything’s permitted.” But everything cannot be permitted. Therefore, there must be a God.
This is a huge problem for us because the loss of belief among the intellctuals has not been replaced by anything that is generally regarded as satisfactory or binding. Secular philosophy has largely collpased, along with the rest of the humanities. So you are left with self-help books or religion to tell you how to live the good life. The number of persons who can construct a viable ethics from a close reaidng of classic texts, from Before the Fall, e.g., Hume or Spinoza or Aristotle is regrettably small. Habit does what it can but life is full of hard choices that require recourse to principles.
Thus my friend Sam Harris has long argued that the most important book that could now be written is one which lays to rest the notion that if there is no God, all is permitted. In fact even cursory reading of the Old Testament or the Greek Myths suggests that it is above all religion which permits everything, so long as God commands it — Lot sleeping with his daughters, the genodice of the Amalekites, etc.
I tend to agree with Oriana Fallaci’s statement that “the athesist should behave as if God exists” — or rather that the result of a rational person’s actions should be the upright behavior which is commonly attributed to belief in objective right and wrong. And of course, right and wrong can only be objective if they are natural facts and not decided by anyone’s subjective consciousness, e.g. God’s.
To quote Orwell for the second time today, this really is the modern dilemma and I do not think we have solved it since he expressed in a trenchant analogy, relating “a rather cruel trick I once played on a wasp.
“He was sucking jam on my plate, and I cut him in half. He paid no attention, merely went on with his meal, while a tiny stream orf jam trickled out of his severed asophagus. Only when he tried to fly away did he grasp the dreadful thing that had happened to him. It is the same with modern man. The thing that has ben cut away is his soul, and there was a period – twenty years, perhaps – dyuring which he did not notice it.
It was absolutely necessary that the soul [of modern man] should be cut away. Religious belief, in the form in which we had known it, had to be abandoned. By the nineteenth century, it was already in essence a lie…. Consequently there was a long period during which nearly every thinking man was in some sense a rebel, and usually a quite irresponsible rebel. Literature was largely the literature of revolt or of disintegration. Gibbon, Voltaire, Rousseau, Shelly, Byron, Dickens, Stendhal, Samuel Butler, Ibsen, Zola, Flaubert, Shaw, Joyce – in one way or another they are all of them destroyers, wreckers, saboteurs. For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it wwas a cesspool full of barbed wire.
It is as though in the space of ten years we had slid back into the Stone Age. Human types supposedly extinct for centuries, the dancing dervish, the robber chieftain, the Grand Inquisitor, have suddenly reappeared, not as inmates of lunatic assylums, but as the masters of the world. Mechanizatiion and a collective economy… [l]ead merely to the nightmare we are now enduring: endless war and endless underfeeding for the sake of war, slave populations toling behind barbed wire, women dragged shrieking to the block, cork-lined cellars where the executioner blows your brains out from behind.
So it appears that amputation of the souls isn’t a simple surgical job, like having your appendix out. The wound has a tendency to go septic. …
We are living in a nightmare precisely because we have tried to set up an earthly paradise. We have believed in ‘progress,’ trusted to human leadership, render unto Caesar the things that are God’s – that approximately is the line of thought. …
[I]f one assumes that no sanction can ever be effective except the supernatural one, it is clear what follows.”
(Notes on the Way, 1940)
“A common sentiment I’ve heard, and seen in these comments even, is that by definition someone who does not believe in God is simply not a conservative.”
Well, this is a classic semantic confusion – we have two senses of the word conservative here. In Europe we would call them Big C Conservatism and little c conservativism.
American “Conservativism” is a movement, most of the members of which believe in God, interested in (it’s a cliche but mostly inaccurate) “God, guns and gays”. To insiders this is just Conservativism although to outsiders it’s the Religious Right.
Small-c conservativism is an intellectual and political tradition, dating back to Edmund Burke or arguably further. I’d say that the Religious Right are amongst the least conservative political movements in the modern West. It’s perfectly possible to be a secular conservative; it would be more difficult to be a secular Conservative in the American sense.
“unspeakably shocking to a lot of believers”.
Reminds me of Julia Sweeney’s description of her parent’s reaction to her losing her religion. Something along the lines of, “well, we can understand if you don’t believe in God, but an atheist! An ATHEIST!!”.
You can just feel how distasteful the word is for many traditionalist believers.
BTW: I always found it odd that some religious would prefer that their loved ones adopt some other religion than become atheist (the horror!). It’s like: “As long as you believe SOME sort of unverifiable supernatural claim, regardless of content, we’re happy. It’s the belief without evidence that’s important to us”.
I suppose this is due to the inextricability (in many believers’ minds) of the supernatural with moral grounding.
At the risk of provoking the charge of “ideology”, is there a set of tenets the posters on this site assent to? By this, I mean that you have the following sentence in “What is Secular Right”:
We believe that conservative principles and policies need not be grounded in a specific set of supernatural claims.
What are these conservative principles? Is it Russel Kirk’s list minus the transcendence? Or do you pare it down a bit more?
I think there are strong tendencies towards rationalism, rejection of the idea that it is important to preserve tradition merely because it *is* tradition, and emphasis on the need to question beliefs, among libertarians.
They’re not logical necessities, of course. But given that libertarianism involves the rejection of many quite commonly-accepted premises in our society, there’s clearly a strong selection factor in favor of people who manifest those tendencies in terms of who call themselves libertarians.
Those tendencies are incompatible with religious belief, although of course human beings excel at doublethink. It is therefore not surprising that atheism and outright hostility to religion are more common among libertarian thinkers than elsewhere.
“interested in (it’s a cliche but mostly inaccurate)” – by which I meant mostly accurate. Ahem.
“In which case, where does that leave those who are not Anglo-Protestants?*”
Indeed. In matter of beliefs (I refuse to call it a religion) I guess I could be loosely construed as a Pagan (albeit with strong Crowleyite/LaVeyian tendencies). By all common definitions of the word, I’m a conservative (with heavy Libertarian influences though). Yet I get the feeling that a lot of the commenters you mention would consider me to be the spawn of the devil (literally). But then again, I’m a Brit. Is the tendency you’ve an Americanism?
At the risk of provoking the charge of “ideology”, is there a set of tenets the posters on this site assent to?
We’re not liberal? What is a non-believer? One who does not believe or assent to what others positively assert. In a similar fashion, I am a non-believer in the many positive pretensions of modern liberalism (e.g., “diversity makes us richer”).
We’re not liberal? What is a non-believer? One who does not believe or assent to what others positively assert. In a similar fashion, I am a non-believer in the many positive pretensions of modern liberalism (e.g., “diversity makes us richer”).
Okay, but on what grounds do you criticize liberalism? What alternative do you offer? It’s fine to say you’re not a “liberal”, but you have to eventually cop to some sort of defining principles, which you yourself said you ascribe to in your mission statement.
Again, I ask, what are the “… conservative principles and policies [that] need not be grounded in a specific set of supernatural claims…”?
If you’ve listed these out in another post and I missed them, I do apologize, and I will thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
I ask because I’m an atheist rightie myself, but I really haven’t set out any serious set of principles. I’d be interested in seeing what you may have. I might even be able to conserve some effort in not having to re-invent my own wheel. 🙂
@Polichinello
Well, to be honest, even at the few of us, we’re diverse. Walter Olson is a libertarian. John Derbyshire is John Derbyshire. And Heather Mac Donald is Heather Mac Donald. For me, I share many, but not all, of Heather and John’s leanings, though I *wish* I was as libertarian as Walter 🙂
For me the biggest point as to why I’m not a liberal, conventional or libertarian, is that I’ve come to the conclusion is that human dispositions vary, and my own one is in much of a minority. Most people don’t want to be rootless cosmopolitans, they want to be rooted in a community which shares their values, and to some extent their ethno-cultural frames. Additionally, many of the hallmarks of bourgeois Western life are not distorted impositions by a malevolent patriarchy, but emerge naturally out of human dispositions. e.g., inequality, hierarchy, sex roles, etc. I’m just not on big principles, but I would probably agree with my friend Reihan Salam’s proposition that libertarian when possible, and conservative when necessary. I am not much of a libertarian mostly because I think it’s a lot less possible than I did in the post.
I think that many people profess a belief in God, not because they really have one, but for reasons of group solidarity or even to affirm their own identity, which has been built up in stages from childhood.
Most of us have irrational likes or dislikes (which we may even recognize as being irrational) but which nevertheless form a core of our being. To discard something so fundamental is in a sense to chip away at the foundations of ones own sense of self.
I wrote in an earlier comment about a hypothetical situation where I imagined that someone was able to prove to me (using criteria that were agreed upon before the data was collected) that communism was superior to free-market capitalism. Would I embrace communism? Hell, no. My arguments would change. I have been an anti-communist for my whole life. All the people I like and feel associated with have also been vigorously anti-communist. To change my opinion at this stage would be to nullify my entire life to date. My World would be Unmade, as C.S. Lewis might put it. Not going to happen.
I suspect this explains why religious people are they way they are – even very smart ones like Richard John Neuhaus, whose essay I read following the link in the article. Neuhaus is obviously capable of rational thought. Had he been brought up in a secular household, he would, I imagine, give as little creedence to this essay as I do, but he has been fighting this fight his whole life. Without it, there is no Richard John Neuhaus. Suppose enlightenment were to suddenly strike him, what would he do? Post a big “Oops! My bad!” mea culpa on FirstThings? (I am reasonably sure that enlightenment is never going to strike Richard John Neuhaus.)
Having been a conservative atheist since before* I knew the meaning of the word “atheist”, I don’t have this problem. My “circle” of being happily includes the likes of Buckley, Lewis, Tolkien and the rest of the conservative Faithful because I have never considered their religious faith to be any more than an amusing psychological quirk wedded to a whole set of other beliefs, enthusiasms and opinions of which I am generally in agreement. They were a bit crazy but I wouldn’t have changed them for the world.
*-Interestingly, I was also a solipsist in kindergarten, long before I knew the meaning of that word either. Not sure if there is a connection. I have outgrown solipsism, but I am still an atheist.
New commenter. I may be in over my head here but looks like I can learn and lot and possible contribute occasionally – even if only commic relief.
I only had time for a quick scan tonight but I am a little disappointed. Finally a site under the banner “Secular Right – Reality and Reason” appears like an oasis in the desert. Is it possible there is somewhere to discuss the rational and reasoned development, presentation and history of conservative principals without having to deal with – and either swallow whole or ignore to prevent runaway tangents – arguments based on the authority of somebody’s God?
I dive in to immerse myself in the pure waters of logic and reason and… almost every post and comment is almost but not quite 100% focused on religion. G-D Dammit! /sarc
I know you all are just getting established and this particular topic must be discussed thoroughly and probably often. I look forward to future post and discussions.
@Uncle Wyatt
Point taken. As you noted, the site has been around for only a week or so, and I’ll be honest and admit that its evolution has been ad hoc at best. I do plan in the near future to write why the is-ought problem isn’t a problem, and the naturalistic fallacy isn’t a fallacy…so just keep checking in.
@David Hume
I’m an atheist myself, and highly interested in discussing a rational foundation for morality, etc.
What I’m NOT interested in is simplistic religion-bashing, and I’ve noticed a depressing tendency for this ‘blog to slide in that direction. Too much of that makes me wonder if some of the posters secretly have doubts about their lack of faith.
Well I just read about as much of the Neuhaus article as I could without getting bored by rehashing what philosophers I read as an undergrad said, and the kernal of meaning seems to me to be in this line: “A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part. He is able to justify its defense against its enemies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citizens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the regime to citizens yet unborn. ”
Apparently, for reasons I must have missed, Neuhaus thinks atheists can’t do this. (Well I’m no Atheist; I don’t deny the existance of God or gods or for that matter any statement about them or anything else supernatural at all. Anything anyone says about something supernatural could turn out to be true. Maybe God IS one and Mohammed IS his messenger. I have no evidence either way. Supernatural means you can’t measure it.)
The “regime of which we are part” is the Scientific Community. The Knowledge Community. The International Church of Curiosity and Patience. Instead of Sanctifying our officers we give them Nobel Prizes and name units or effects or compounds after them. Or let them name their own discoveries. Like this:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3792346.html
Hint: acronym.
“Is it possible there is somewhere to discuss the rational and reasoned development, presentation and history of conservative principals without having to deal with – and either swallow whole or ignore to prevent runaway tangents – arguments based on the authority of somebody’s God?”
I would love it to be so, but it appears SecularRight has discovered what the rest of the Internet has to put up with – a certain brand of theists thinking it is their right and duty to butt in at every opportunity and spread their “gospel truths”.
I hope moderation is getting rid of the worst excesses in this regard but compared to say the comments following Jeffrey Hart’s excellent The Christian Party piece (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-16/the-christian-party/2/) SecularRight is, at the moment, getting off pretty lightly.
Until the Creationists get here, that is….
The social conservatives make up maybe 20-30% of the U.S. electorate. In order to win elections, they need all the allies they can get. To “read” all non-religious people out of the conservative movement is to limit themselves to a marginal status in elections. This is just plain stupidity.
Most non-religious conservatives are conservative on economic issues (BTW, this is called “liberalism” in the rest of the world) and generally do not feel strongly on social issues. I think most economic conservatives would be willing to “bury the hatchet” on social issues and work with the social conservatives if the social conservatives were to be as economic conservative as the libertarians. I say this because I am a libertarian and with regards to government regulation, am much more interested in economic issues than social issues. I would be much more supportive of social conservatives if they were to be conservative on economic issues as well.
For some reason, many social conservatives (familiar suspects include Mike Hockabee and Rob Dreher) refuse to endorse economic conservatism. This is just idiocy. The virtues that economic conservatism promote such as self-reliance, accepting accountability for one’s actions, and entrepreneurship are the same virtues that resonate with social conservatism. Thus, there is no reason for any social conservative to not be economically conservative as well, either conceptually or a matter of political pragmatism.
This is just idiocy.
Sir,
You are known to me by reputation. Might I ask that you *chill* with your terms of opprobrium?
Best
DH
Pingback: On Not Accepting What You Are Told, Unless Elevated « Just Above Sunset