Possible to be an Atheist AND Republican?

[mc6809e]

Okay, so how big is the tent?

I really buy into most of the political philosophy of the Republican Party. I was a huge fan of Reagan. I think conservatives are mostly right in their criticism of popular culture.

I hate the excessive pragmatism of the left. Their economics is bunk. The hold they have on education is tragic.

Most of my family are politically left so when political discussion arises, I'm usually on the side of the right.

Now recently I've seen a couple of articles on Townhall.com that have me seriously thinking I'm making a mistake. Both of them have come out pretty strongly against those skeptical of the existance of a god. I mean they were thoroughly bashing.

So, am I politically homeless now or what? I know the political left has it wrong. I believe in capitalism and freedom and strict interpretation of the constitution, etc, etc.

But not a god.

So, do I stay or go?

[Hephaestus]

kwick20 postulated: "How do you explain the existence of the physical universe? Evolution?"

Not by the magical actions of an imaginary man in the sky. Nor by the rhetoric of those on earth with a vested interest in maintaining their social positions and personal self-respect based upon their metaphysical collective fantasies. I have far more respect - if not exactly blind faith - for the written works of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison and Stephen Hawking than I have for the politically edited written record of first century cultists.

Moreover, "The theory of evolution does not require faith or belief. When there is evidence present, a theory does not require faith. Evolution has evidence to support it therefore it does not require faith. It should also be noted that 87% of the population accepts the theory of evolution. While 87% of the population accepts evolution, only 13% of the population is secular. Therefore, even if the entire population of secular individuals accepted evolution, one would have to wonder where the other 74% came from." http://www.geocities.com/atheist_anon/common.htm

[dsc]

"To which particular God were you denying? Thousands have been proposed throughout human history, so it's hard to tell which is being referenced during any conversation."

Actually, that's a misunderstanding. It is not the case that "thousands have been proposed."

Here's a brief quotation from "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis:

"When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others – not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one.

"You can put this another way by saying that while in other sciences the instruments you use are things external to yourself (things like microscopes and telescopes), the instrument through which you see God is your whole self. And if a man's self is not kept clean and bright, his glimpse of God will be blurred - like the Moon seen through a dirty telescope. That is why horrible nations have horrible religions: they have been looking at God through a dirty lens."

What we have is not a thousand different gods proposed, but a thousand different attempts to discern the nature of the only God that exists.

Some of these were better tries than others, some searchers were deceived by Satan or other malign spirits that wander the world seeking the ruin of men's souls.

But all those tries were attempts to fill that great, gaping God-shaped hole we have in our hearts until we find Him.

These days, of course, people try to fill that hole with sexual adventure or material success, or they just write it off to existential angst and resign themselves to unhappiness.

Doesn't work. Better a good religion than a bad religion, but better a bad religion than no religion at all.

[Dimensio]

Actually, that's a misunderstanding. It is not the case that "thousands have been proposed."

Not true. I can get "thousands" just by talking to the right Hindu. I can get definitions of gods with contradictory properties. You might think of the various proposals as a single God with different attempts to describe its nature, but I can't reconcile the claim that "God loves all humans equally, and is blind to race" with "God loves whites more than blacks, and does not want the races to mix" (note: I'm not suggesting that anyone on FR holds a belief in the latter. Well, there might have been one guy, but just him).

Nice CS Lewis quote, though. He claims that you have to view God through the right mental filter. He does not, however propose (within the context of the quote) a means for discerning when you have found the right perception of God.

Some of these were better tries than others,

And how is someone like me, who lacks belief in all propsed gods, to discern which is a "better try" than another?

some searchers were deceived by Satan or other malign spirits that wander the world seeking the ruin of men's souls.

You've now just proposed two new sets, a "Satan" and "malign spirits". Why should I give this claim any more credibility than I give a "God" claim?

But all those tries were attempts to fill that great, gaping God-shaped hole we have in our hearts until we find Him.

God-shaped hole? What is this? How can it be detected?

These days, of course, people try to fill that hole with sexual adventure or material success, or they just write it off to existential angst and resign themselves to unhappiness.

Interesting. I've never been terribly interested in "sexual adventure" (I've always thought that non-monagamous lifestyles cheapen the experience of sex overall) and while I sometimes experience periods of angst, I suspect that everyone else does as well and the angst hardly defines my life, or even a majority of it.

Doesn't work. Better a good religion than a bad religion, but better a bad religion than no religion at all.

I do hope that you're not trying to imply that it would be better for me to be a militant Fundamentalist Muslim than an atheist.

[dsc]

"You might think of the various proposals as a single God with different attempts to describe its nature, but I can't reconcile the claim that "God loves all humans equally, and is blind to race" with "God loves whites more than blacks, and does not want the races to mix"

Lewis explained quite well how those things can be reconciled. If man's capacity to err is not infinite, it's close enough to make no difference. In addition, Satan is always around, whispering in our ears.

"He does not, however propose (within the context of the quote) a means for discerning when you have found the right perception of God."

Why not read the entire book? It's on line.

http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

He explains, I think in his preference, that he intentionally avoided that.

But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I'd suggest you do two things: use your reason, and stand on the shoulders of Giants. Right reason and your heart will tell you that religions which have as a tenet (not as an abuse or excuse, but as a tenet) such things as forced conversion and the killing of infidels have something wrong with them.

Then, too, as a thinking man, you will see that a religion that is more developed and has a more sophisticated theology is likely to be preferable to a more primitive vision. There are always a lot of flash-in-the-pan religions coming and going, so longevity will be a clue.

Of course, you'll need more information, and that will mean reading things that atheists don't ordinarly read. I always recommend "Orthodoxy" and "Heretics" by G. K. Chesterton, because they are both short and entertaining.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/

Chesterton was a major influence on Lewis, whose "Mere Christianity" must also be on the list.

"And how is someone like me, who lacks belief in all propsed gods, to discern which is a "better try" than another?"

Clearly, you need more information, especially as there is so much bad information floating around. People arguing the atheist perspective often throw out a very simplified version of theology, suitable only for a six year old, and then correctly point out that no thinking man could be expected to accept it. You're going to have to avoid that. The three books I recommend would be a good start.

Then, too, God has endowed all of us with a certain degree of right reason. You're going to have to use that, and to try and see where our modern ethos contradicts it. For instance, the right reason written on our hearts tells us that the wanton killing of innocents is wrong, yet the modern ethos tells us that it is quite permissible to kill the most innocent among us.

"You've now just proposed two new sets, a "Satan" and "malign spirits". Why should I give this claim any more credibility than I give a "God" claim?"

It's actually one group, with Satan merely the strongest. As for credence, well, why should you reject it any more strongly than you reject God? If there is a God, why would it be impossible that there are also malign forces?

It is not logical to argue that some given empirical reality mandates against the existence of God when that empirical reality becomes not only explicable but obvious given the existence of malign forces. That means that the very non-existence of God that you seek to demonstrate depends on the non-existence of the malign forces.

Put another way, if the existence of malign forces explains the phenomenon without requiring God's non-existence, then you must have prior grounds for asserting the non-existence of the malign forces, or that argument fails.

"God-shaped hole? What is this? How can it be detected?"

Oh, you've felt it. Thing is, we generally can't see its shape. It is only when it is filled by the one thing that fits it perfectly that we know what it was we were always lacking.

"Interesting. I've never been terribly interested in "sexual adventure" (I've always thought that non-monagamous lifestyles cheapen the experience of sex overall)"

But why do you feel that? And why does sex have value that can be cheapened? Isn't it just an animal function that gives us pleasure? In a neighborhood where dogs run free, you'll see a female taking on all comers, and the males fighting for their turn. Are those dogs cheapening anything of value? Why is it different for man?

"while I sometimes experience periods of angst, I suspect that everyone else does as well"

Not everyone, no.

"I do hope that you're not trying to imply that it would be better for me to be a militant Fundamentalist Muslim than an atheist."

Before I posted my previous note, I deleted the last line, which dealt with that. I figured that if you answered, you'd bring it up, and I'd deal with it at more length.

It's a good point, but a very complex one. It is true that some religions are just corrupt to the core. The Baal worshipers used to burn their babies alive, and that offended God so much that He sent the Jews to wipe them out. Against all odds, the Jews succeeded. I have no doubt that He also finds terrorism to be offensive in the extreme.

On the other hand, a bad Muslim rejects the passages in the Koran that were dictated by Satan, which call for the indiscriminate killing of infidels. A bad Muslim, say one living in America, does not insist on practicing polygamy. In all, a bad Muslim might be a very decent person, and his conduct pleasing in God's sight. I would say that it is better for such a person to be a bad Muslim than to be an atheist.

Now, as to a terrorist: what would he be like if he were an atheist? Obviously, we can't say with any assurance, but mightn't he be just as bad as he is as a Muslim? The people responsible for the killing of 100 million innocents in the name of Communism in the 20th century were all atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Che Guevara were all atheists.

Better, obviously, not to be under the sway of Satan, but does it really matter if one is working Evil in the name of religion or in the name of anti-religion? Not to the dead, I'd say.

There's another clue available to us. Generally, if the absence of a thing ensures undesirable results, and desirable results are only obtained where it is present, we can say that the thing is necessary to desirable results, though possibly not sufficient.

Here's what Will and Arial Durant have to say on the matter:

"Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."

They said "before our time." What of our time? Religion is in serious decline. What about moral life? Is the West successfully maintaining moral life?

[Texaslibertarian]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. If I'm not mistaken I think Barry Goldwater, a hero to most conservatives was an atheist or at the very least opposed to religion being interjected into public policy. It strikes me as funny when you see some of the religious conservative websites quote him. Robert Ingersoll was a vice presidential candidate for the republican party back in the 19th century and he was a famous agnostic.

As to the person who mentioned humanism and moral relativism, that is not necessarily the beliefs of all or even most atheists or agnostics. I for one am neither a humanist or moral relativist. However, I have little desire to get into a long philosophical debate at this point. Perhaps that is being a little lazy, ok.

I think Pat Robertson(with some help) hijacked the Republican party in the late eighties and early nineties for the christian "conservative" point of view. While I think both atheists and christian conservatives can agree on such as issues as defense, taxes, economic growth, deregulation, law enforcement, welfare reform, and limited government, there will most certainly be disagreements on issues related to religion, its role in government, and some christian positions on morality(though not all).

That brings to mind another point of agreement I think for some of us who are conservative atheists and agnostics with christians who are conservative and that is on issues like the breakdown of the american family and there are even atheist groups opposed to abortion access. I, myself, am opposed to abortion after the first trimester and believe very much that the breakdown of the american family is contributing to a sharp degree towards other social problems in our country. It wouldn't suprise me either if there were atheists who opposed gay marriage though I personally am not. There are some christian conservatives who will never be comfortable though standing side by side with atheists. I can understand this as many who place the Bible as their basis for their beliefs will look to Paul's admonition to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers as he mentions in 2 Corinthians chapter 6. I can respect that. I don't believe in atheists or agnostics attacking christians or the religious for their beliefs or for their pursuit of their ideals or vice versa. However, it should be noted that the Republican party is in and of itself not a christian organization so that if one were to take a pure interpretation of that set of verses, then christians shouldn't be Republicans at all. They should then setup their own party or set themselves apart within society and just "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" as Jesus noted rather than intermixing with Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, pagan, and other types of Republicans or conservatives. That having been said I would not begrudge christians who wish to take a more liberal interpretation of those verses and continue to contribute to the Republican party while advocating their own ideals.

Baptists, for instance, at the founding of this nation for instance were one of the biggest group of advocates for separation of church and state, however, now a days as Baptists(at least in terms of the Southern Baptist Convention) become more influential and more and more intertwined with Caesar in the form of politics, and as they have become essentially the "catholic church of the south", they are moving towards a different set of principles which they, of course, see as necessary to advance their agenda. Who would of thought that religious idealists would end up being political pragmatists. That is not to say that that is a change for the negative, but rather just simply a change. Religion in and of itself can have both positive and negative aspects. I for one respect such ideals while I do not share them.