THe Secular Right

Real Clear Politics ^ | Aug. 29, 2006 | Robert Trascinski

[headsonpikes]

We all know the basic alternatives that form the familiar "spectrum" of American politics and culture.

If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told--by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told--again, by both sides--that his natural home is with the religious right.

But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right--but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God? ....

[tortoise]

"The Republicans have to be punished for destroying conservatism."

Pithy.

[js1138]

God, I told you that. The holy spirit to be more precise.

What if two people disagree on what the holy spirit tells them? This seems rather common in questions regarding the treatment of animals. It also seems rather common in questions regarding the justice of war, charging interest, donating blood, eating pork, and many more.

What if an atheist thinks it is wrong to torture animals? Or own slaves?

[Durus]

There is never an absence of right and wrong, only a absence knowing one from the other and even that isn't typical.

To answer my own question of you, it is not in your rational self interest to become a thief and a murderer as there are likely negative consequences to those actions. In fact the consequences so far outweigh the gains of said actions that it is not even close to being in your rational self interest. If you were to avoid the most obvious consequences your actions still would have added to a atmosphere of general lawlessness making you more likely to be the victim of the same crime.

[steve-b]

Pascal's Wager Payoff Matrix
.	Believer	Infidel
Mohammad Is Allah's Prophet	+infinity	-infinity
Mohammad Is Just Some Camel Jockey	-1	+1
Total:	infinity-1 = Infinite Gain	1-infinity = Infinite Loss

By your own reasoning, you need to run, not walk, to the nearest mosque and get yourself saved.

[ChessExpert]

I have long recommended a two, rather than one dimensional view, so this article interests me. Instead of simply right or left, consider: religious right, atheist right, religious left, atheist left. These are continuums and have a place for agnosticism as well as varying degrees of Government involvement in the economy. I often use Ayn Rand as an example of the atheist right. I also reject the curve that puts National Socialists (Nazis) on the opposite side, but near to, International Socialists (Commies). Socialists are on the left.

Naturally, I was interested in this article. I didn't think it was exactly neutral. When I read the author admired Ayn Rand, my surmise was confirmed. So, it was kind of Randian sales pitch. That's alright. Still, I sensed he was looking down his long nose at religious people.

He comes across as thinking that the religious do not value rational thought or science. The atheist left has taught this for years and I'm sure the belief is ingrained in many. It's not true of all. Off the top of my head, Copernicus and Newton were just two famous scientists who were religious. Long lists of famous religious scientists have probably been compiled and posted on the Internet. If you want to read a really bright guy, try "Intelligent Design - the Bridge between Science & Theology" by William A. Dembski.

It is true that some religious people are not intellectuals. They have family, work, church, and are happy and productive. The economist Joseph Schumpeter defined intellectuals are people who are interested in matters for which they have no responsibility. He cautioned that, lacking regular involvement in topics of interest, they fail to realize when their policy prescriptions go awry. There is nothing absolutely wrong or right in intellectualism. I think I'm an intellectual, by Schumpeter's definition. But I think it marvelous that so many can do so much for themselves, their families, community, and society at large, without spending (wasting?) their time pondering the great issues.

[x]

That question has been raised, most recently, in a courageous article by Heather Mac Donald. In a symposium on the nature of the right, she argued on behalf of "skeptical conservatives" who "ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument."

Some would argue that religion is rational. I don't know which side is right, but Heather MacDonald certainly could have phrased her argument differently. That may be the problem: not so much that she's wrong as that her language turns people off, either through clumsiness or because she wants to be provocative.

One of the great myths spread by religious conservatives is the idea that the political left is founded on an overweening confidence in the power of reason. But any notions about a hyper-rational left can be refuted by ten minutes' conversation with an actual leftist. It can also be refuted by an examination of the ideas of the left.

What he attributes to "religious conservatives" was a common belief in the 1940s and 1950s. Now that communism and other secular messianic ideologies have failed we can see that they were "irrational." In the thick of political argument in the Thirties and Forties it was much harder to come to that conclusion.

It was precisely the idea of the dignity of the human person founded in religion that moved many to resist totalitarian ideologies which at the time looked to be extremely rational. The idea of original sin and awareness that even the most apparently "rational" of systems can be flawed and corrupt did a lot to convince people not to surrender to such ideologies.

The lessons of history reveal the basic requirements set by man's nature for his survival, success, and happiness here on earth. That is the secular foundation for morality.

But the ideologies that promised to bring a heaven on earth earlier in the century turned out to be delusionary and dangerous. The next scientistic ideology that comes along will likewise find plenty of adherents among secular "rationalists" and opponents in the religious camp.

I'm probably more secular than religious, but the partisans of secularism in this debate don't seem to be making the best case. They sound shallow and arrogant and don't seem to have been affected by the catastrophes of the last century.

[spatso]

The comment made me angry when I first read it. It bothered me because it implied Republicans had lost sight of their own roots. How did conservatism become so preoccupied with religious righteousness?

[js1138]

"The Republicans have to be punished for destroying conservatism."

I avoid such sentiments by having low expectations of politics. I am pleased by occasional lapses of cupidity and resigned to the norm.

My solace is that politics, like poison and pollution, is tolerable when diluted.

[js1138]

The Romans took no chances.

[steve-b]

And we're the only real energy the GOP has.

Oh, puh-leeze. There are those who do the work, and those who talk about doing the work. The two sets rarely intersect.

[headsonpikes]

"LOL" indeed!

[Protagoras]

What if two people disagree on what the holy spirit tells them?

It happens all the time. But most of the people who would torture a pet just for fun, don't believe in the holy spirit.

This seems rather common in questions regarding the treatment of animals.

Only if you change the word to "treatment" from torture.

It also seems rather common in questions regarding the justice of war, charging interest, donating blood, eating pork, and many more.

Only the first one is a matter that concerns others. What someone (other than you and the party you are borrowing money from) thinks is irrelevant to your transaction since they are not affected. Same as blood, pork and others.

What if an atheist thinks it is wrong to torture animals? Or own slaves?

I addressed that in my very first post. Many atheists are moral despite not believing. I have never claimed one needed to be a believer to be moral.

[steve-b]

The notion of "secular morality" is a contradiction in terms.... In the final analysis, all of the laws and morality of our civilization are ultimately founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Nonsense. If that were true, it would be impossible for anyone to find the following account to be morally objectionable in any way:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

This cannot be objected to on the ground of Judeo-Christian beliefs -- it's right there as a commandment of God in the sacred scriptures common to both faiths.

Nor, if you are correct, can it be objected to on other grounds, since you deny that any such grounds can exist.

And yet the objection persists. Ergo, your analysis is erroneous.

[js1138]

I addressed that in my very first post. Many atheists are moral despite not believing. I have never claimed one needed to be a believer to be moral.

But that is precisely the question I am addressing. If you think of a matrix consisting of believers and non-believers, people who behave well and people who don't, you will find people occuping all squares. The same will apply regardless of the specific item of "morality" being considered.

[Junior]

Many are trying to figure out how to do whatever they want to other people.

Not many societies accept such individuals, do they? Nope. Societies attempt to remove, one way or another, those incapable of living peacefully with their neighbors. It's all part of rational self-interest.

[spatso]

"My solace is that politics, like poison and pollution, is tolerable when diluted."

If we don't have expectations of politics and politicians what will we get in return? If Sullivan's comments regarding the need to publish Republicans for their sins against conservatism are valid, where do conservatives fit?

[Protagoras]

To answer my own question of you, it is not in your rational self interest to become a thief and a murderer as there are likely negative consequences to those actions.

What you think is in a persons rational self interest is not the same as what he thinks.

Not to mention, "likely" consequences aren't so likely in many cases. And it plays right into what I said in an earlier post, if there is no morality, there are only actions and consequences. It sounds like you agree with that, but perhaps not. And the question remains, is an irrational person capable of doing right or wrong.

What about a quite rational Muslim extremist? What about a NAZI? What about a Bushido Japanese? All quite rational. And all quite evil.

[steve-b]

Dumb_Ox is still freeloading off the accumulated spiritual and moral capital left by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Protagoras]

people who behave well and people who don't, you will find people occuping all squares.

Many people do wrong while believing it is neutral. That is the difference.

Bill Clinton didn't think it was wrong to do the things he did. He is quite convinced that his actions were right, only the consequences were unacceptable.

[steve-b]

That doesn't make any sense unless you're interested in winning elections and promulgating conservative principles and programs.

The GOP has shown a recent knack for winning elections.

Promulgating conservative principles and programs... not so much.