John Derbyshire, Heather Mac Donald , and others have started a new blog called Secular Right. I guess they have decided that the oogedy boogedy folks like me (and the company I keep with Newton, Augustine, Luther, Aquinas, and most of the Founders) are what’s wrong with conservatism. Assertive and aggressive atheism is a winning worldview. After all Americans are known for their disbelief correct? Making fun (and let’s face it — it is ultimately a negative project) of Christians and lumping us in with jihadis and other assorted oogedy-boogedies is the right way to go.
And besides all that — atheism is just as religious as any official religious. Here’s a sampling…. notice the reliogosity of the language. “Imagine” or “My Way” would be their hymns (or perhaps Orff’s Carmina Burana their Handel’s Messiah)
Here’s Heather Mac Donald on Thanksgiving:
I am indebted every day to human ingenuity that I could not possibly replicate on my own. I live on the 15th floor of an apartment building—a remarkable situation! Within this marvel of engineering, I have electricity, clean water, protection from the elements, and now, the internet, that miracle of knowledge aggregation that gives individuals more power than anyone has ever before possessed. Humans created all these wonders through tireless, loving, and patient empirical observation and experimentation.
Here’s a guy named Razib Khan writing as David Hume (get it?):
In response to comments, I will state beforehand that I won’t be discussing the existence of God or Creationism much. Evolution is true. I would just as rather discuss the validity of Newtonianism, Astrology, the molecule or phlogistan. In other words, evolution is one of those things where I have a very high degree of certitude as to whether it is true or not, such that I feel ridiculous wasting my finite life discussing its truth or not. As for God, the only times I have “converted” people to my own position, and through no conscious intent I might add, was through my example as a well adjusted person who needed no supernatural grounding for ethical behavior or happiness. I don’t think discussing the merits of presuppositions is generally very fruitful. I don’t believe in an afterlife, so I’m understandably the sort who is very fixated on useful allocation of my discretionary time. If you want arguments about God and Darwin, you won’t get them from me….
That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. Jerry Falwell couldn’t have said it any better. There will be no debate. I AM right. Hey! A secular “I AM” statement! Just like Jesus — the cause of most human suffering and in no way responsible for the greatness of the West.
Here’s a post by guy writing as Nietzsche (get it?) advocating that religion and war shouldn’t go together — chaplains are a waste of time — despite reams of science and anecdotal evidence to the contrary. He quotes this approvingly:
If we accept this new understanding of the church’s vocation—which is not new at all—then we must be courageous enough to accept the theological and practical consequences of it—divorcing Christian faith and military service. Carrying out this divorce will take creativity and energy, so much so that some will claim that the divorce is impossible even if it is right. After a century of horrific violence and bloodshed, and careful consideration of the New Testament texts, we need finally as a church to recognize that those who seek justification in the New Testament for Christian participation in violence of any kind, including military action, will always seek in vain. Why? Because violence is part of the false gospel of the world’s counterfeit lords and empires—Herod, Pilate, Nero, Domitian, and the like. It is not the way of the true Lord, whose gospel and empire give to us—and demand from us—an alternative allegiance and vocation.
Of course he ties all that to Sarah Palin — the Anti-One who is responsible for all this. The view expressed in Christianity Today is hardly mainstream Christian — and raises the New Testament over the Old Testament — which is odd considering Christ quotes the OT often and came to fulfill the Law — not abrogate it. I don’t know if Nietzsche knows all that or not, but his snarky tone towards Sarah Palin and her “Iraq was God’s will” shows he has a childish understanding of “God’s will” and how that concept is viewed by Christians. In other words — enough Bible to be dangerously illiterate in it, not enough to have a “reasoned” debate. You’d think all these “reason and rationality” folks would study the Bible and its claims thoroughly first.
Now I love Heather Mac Donald — she is a strong voice in favor of law enforcement and against PC racial profiling, etc. I thank God for her — whether she likes it or not! 
If these people are going to critique religion — they really need to learn the language. I’ve read Hume, Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Paine, Voltaire, etc. How much Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Piper, C.S. Lewis et al. have they read? They don’t need to read all that you see. (And I don’t mean an excerpt in college — I mean their major books or respected commentaries on their works.) They do “reason” and “science” so they don’t have to open their minds. Isn’t that the very model of a modern fundamentalist?
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
The secular libertarians have wandered off the reservation due to the Democrat-lite Republicanism which has held sway now for near a decade. When the human rights councils, hate speech laws, accelerated government expansion, tax increases and gun grabbing gets going again, they’ll be back.
The libs are a natural complement to the Christian right when both are out of power, right up to and until the Social cons get enough power enough to start banning stuff – something that appears to be a long way off at the moment.
When will these guys just go join the Libertarian party leave us all the hell alone?
What floors me is that these people are surrounded by and have worked for years with fellow conservatives who are Christians and they know full well that those people don’t bear a resemblance to their thin stereotypes in the least. Hell, more than a few of them were groomed by Bill Buckley, who was a devout Catholic. You can tick off a long list of Center-Right religious wonks, scholars, and academics in Conservative journalism and the blogosphere, many of whom these people know personally. I think the lot of them have just lost the plot.
The libs are a natural complement to the Christian right when both are out of power, right up to and until the Social cons get enough power enough to start banning stuff – something that appears to be a long way off at the moment.
Except that most social conservatives don’t want to “ban stuff,” at least at a federal level. Most of the reliable small government conservatives are social conservatives as well. The reason the stereotypes linger is due to the fact that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson held some sway once upon a time. That and the stupid boycotts that got trotted out every five minutes.
Except that most social conservatives don’t want to “ban stuff,”
Of course they do. Abortion for one thing, euthanasia for another. They’d also like a society less obsessed with sex, scientific experimentation that respects the human as something above the animal, centralized (urbanized -left wing) school curriculums.
It’s a long list, much of which I happen agree with – as long as it isn’t implemented at gun point.
Of course they do. Abortion for one thing, euthanasia for another. They’d also like a society less obsessed with sex, scientific experimentation that respects the human as something above the animal, centralized (urbanized -left wing) school curriculums.
I was taking the phrase “banning things” in its pejorative sense, along the lines of banning certain books or censoring movies. The arguments over abortion and euthanasia are made in extension to moral reference points that are more likely to be shared by those on the Left or at least the center, as issues of human life.
Issues of science and bioethics I’ll give you, but the issue of left-wing curriculums is that it is being imposed, often over and against fact, logic, and common sense. But most importantly, it’s overriding parental choice. So, in and of itself, it doesn’t fall under the “banning” header.
My point was that the fear of secular Center-Right people that social conservatives creating a “Theocratic” nanny-state that will have eyes in the bedroom and monitor the bookshelf is absolute pablum. Most areas where social conservatives would invite regulation concern collective matters and the shape of public/civil/social institutions, not private behavior, which is where the distinction has historically been held.
It’s a long list, much of which I happen agree with – as long as it isn’t implemented at gun point.
A position I agree with.
Rand Simberg recently posted on this phenomena:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/11/more_religiopho.html
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/11/republican_reli.html
I think religiophobia is a good name for it.
Euthanasia is legal?
Euthanasia is legal?
Two states–California and Washington have passed laws–legalizing it assisted suicide and there has been a push for years to give doctors a wider latitude in choosing to deny life to. Indeed, recent actions taken by doctors in the US have pressed the line uncomfortably close. In certain European countries, they have already adopted the practice.
Oregon has it — so-called “Death With Dignity”. I don’t think we have it here in CA, but I’ll have to check that out.
[...] Secular. Right? It is not the way of the true Lord, whose gospel and empire give to us—and demand from us—an alternative allegiance and vocation. Of course he ties all that to Sarah Palin — the Anti-One who is responsible for all this. … [...]
Think of the secular conservative site as a great place for you to hone rational argumentation that does not derive from the scriptures of your choice.
I’m one of those secular libertarians, so I am sort of participating from the outside.
Arguments from scripture have a limited ability to persuade anyone who is not already in agreement with you. Secularists will simply ignore them. Religious people from about your own tradition who have come to a different conclusion will quote different scriptures at you. And religious people from a different tradition… well, historically that has not tended to end well.
Euthanasia…
I do not see why conservatives should be of one mind on this. One of the only reasons I bothered voting this year was to vote for Prop 1000 here in WA state.
My mother is 90 years old and has been on constant oxygen for 3 years now. She wants to die. Despite DNR orders, aides have brought her back from cardiac arrest twice — her comment was “I was so relaxed and happy. Why did they do that?”. Modern medical practice has led to a situation where people can exist long after they are having any fun. Pneumonia used to be the old man’s friend, but it is not so any longer.
David…
As far as questioning conservative goals of banning private bedroom behavior, note the conservative support for the Texas anti-sodomy law in Lawrence. One can argue against the Supreme Court decision on 10th Amendment grounds, but many conservatives were quite vocal in their active support for government regulation of adult consensual private bedroom behavior. That was about as clear as it gets.
Oregon has it — so-called “Death With Dignity”. I don’t think we have it here in CA, but I’ll have to check that out.
Oregon…that’s the state. I was thinking Washington, as their neighbors. I know that two states have legalized it and I thought it was CA as well.
Think of the secular conservative site as a great place for you to hone rational argumentation that does not derive from the scriptures of your choice.
The fact that you would make statement shows a great deal of ignorance in assuming that the religious have no rational arguments.
Arguments from scripture have a limited ability to persuade anyone who is not already in agreement with you. Secularists will simply ignore them. Religious people from about your own tradition who have come to a different conclusion will quote different scriptures at you.
Again, your assuming that beliefs or opinions of the religious can’t be rationally defended, or that agreement on issues can only come with in that narrow segment of fellow believers (I’ve met an atheist pro-lifer, for instance). Ignoring the whole history of philosophy and the dialectic of religion in the West, which sort of takes a heaping dump on that assumption, you have to ignore religions conservative intellectuals, a few of whom are notable personalities in the blogosphere, who engage in rational discussion every day with people who don’t share their beliefs.
And religious people from a different tradition…well, historically that has not tended to end well.
And people from ethnic groups and even different tribes of the same people, often sharing the same religion, have bled each other in war and conflict; the Greeks, the Warring States period in Japan, the unification of Egypt, the unification of China, the civil wars of Rome…
Most wars are fought over decidedly non-religious reasons and through ancient history, as many as people of different religions and cultures have peaceably existed as have not. The ancient system of trade, along routes like the Silk Road and sea lanes, had numerous cultures trading amongst one another and peaceably existing.
My mother is 90 years old and has been on constant oxygen for 3 years now. She wants to die. Despite DNR orders, aides have brought her back from cardiac arrest twice — her comment was “I was so relaxed and happy. Why did they do that?”. Modern medical practice has led to a situation where people can exist long after they are having any fun. Pneumonia used to be the old man’s friend, but it is not so any longer.
But there’s a difference between not reviving when the process of death occurs and actively taking a hand in ending someone’s life. And, to point out, there is already a provision for withholding resuscitation, which they forgot to check, obviously. That isn’t an issue of law or politics, that’s an issue of protocol and procedure.
One can argue against the Supreme Court decision on 10th Amendment grounds, but many conservatives were quite vocal in their active support for government regulation of adult consensual private bedroom behavior. That was about as clear as it gets.
Well, I;m not one of them. My own mother, much more the stereotypical conservative Christian, doesn’t. And I’m sure I could line up quite a few others who don’t as well, a few of which frequent this blog. So, I guess that doesn’t make it so clear, does it?
In any case, it wasn’t the social conservatives that lost the 2008 elections. We lost it primarily on fiscal grounds and issues of basic honesty. The whining of Derbyshire, MacDonald, and others is pointless in that regard.
David,
I did not mean to imply that religious conservatives have no rational arguments — William F. Buckley, for example, was about as rational as anyone can be.
But in my experience recent religious conservatives have taken to argumentation from scripture a lot. I do not know what has caused this, but it is quite pervasive.
But in my experience recent religious conservatives have taken to argumentation from scripture a lot. I do not know what has caused this, but it is quite pervasive.
The Bible is still a book that many, even non-Christians, respect. And is a work of philosophy, as much as Aristotle, Descartes, or Kant, and has been called greater than all of them, even by those hostile to religion. Moreover, it’s a work which has profoundly shaped the Western political tradition. Absent of religious reasons, those are defensible grounds to use it.
I did not mean to imply that religious conservatives have no rational arguments — William F. Buckley, for example, was about as rational as anyone can be.
Ok, I get that. Unfortunately, people like Derbyshire, MacDonald, and Parker *do* seem to be intimating that, which gives your segment of the libertarians and conservatives a bad name.
I would go so far as to say that scripture is fundamentally rational. Everyone ultimately argues from an appeal to some authority. Scripture is just as legit as science. I don’t think science is the only source of truth just as you Fritz (I assume based on your posts) don’t hold scripture as truth. I don’t think scripture is the sole source of truth either, but we’re all working on faith. Rationalists have faith that what they see or can ascertain empirically is all there is. I have faith that there is a world beyond this one. I don’t appreciate Mac Donald and Derbyshire (or Dawkins and Hitchens for that matter) arguing that “rationalism” is the end-all be all of Truth.
That being said… St. Paul’s argument with the Stoics on Mars Hill in Athens — recorded in the book of Acts is the quintessential apologetic starting with nature and moving to scripture. Ultimately all Christians will argue from scripture. We believe it is the source of Truth about Jesus Christ and who he is — which is what it’s about. Arguments from nature will only get one so far in defending Christianity.
Michael Totten summed up John Derbyshire best on the comments section of some conservative blog I was passing through. I think it was along the lines of “fucking nuts” but I will have to think harder to recall it fully.
John Derbyshire is on an extended temper tantrum and he doesn’t want it disturbed by the facts. It’s God-given right to shake his fist at his Creator and luckily he doesn’t have to worry about us Christians blowing him up for it.
I don’t know DM there was that one Christian guy once about 50 years ago or so… you know those pesky fundamentalist Christians.
And welcome to Threedonia Fritz! Please come back around and hang out.
Hey, Floyd — I’ve been enjoying this blog for months.
I don’t understand the notion of science as a source of truth. All science really is is a set of methods of exploration. Certainly everything we have observed could be Divinely constructed — but I think that would be most consistent with a trickster God like Raven or Coyote. Which makes sense here in a blog devoted to the Brothers Marx.
Happy Thanksgiving. I frequently give thanks to the meteorite that allowed us to eat turkeys rather than them eating us.
Maybe “rationality” and “reason” would be more accurate than “science”. I like empirical proof as much as the next person.
I think everything is divinely constructed… the kicker for those who think God is warped… it’s “broken”. That’s the very first thing in Genesis. It was created “good” and then was broken.
I’ll have my empirical proof someday — and I’m OK with the wait. I’ve got what I need to be joyful and thankful.
I’m glad you enjoy the blog. Love the moniker. My great granddad was “Fritz” — never met him since he died 30 years BF (Before Floyd — natch), but anyone crazy/brave enough to climb on a boat for Canada from Hamburg at 15 must be OK.
Of course, I happen to like Coyote and Raven, so it’s good.
More the merrier….
I don’t understand the notion of science as a source of truth. All science really is is a set of methods of exploration.
Correct. It is a methodology which relies on prior philosophical presumptions, one of which is that the universe can be rationally deduced and understood, which is rooted, in part, in the work of Christian theologians and philosophers, btw.
But science can only describe, it provide a metaphysical anchor for morality, provide objective meaning, or answer the capital-W “Why?,” only the the “How?” Moreover, a materialist paradigm, asserting only a physical universe, can not explain the reality of thought (the jump of biochemical reaction to the thoughts in our heads), the paradox of consciousness (neuroscience has been pushing the idea that consciousness is an illusion, but how is an illusion aware of itself?), and the unreliability of the mind under a materialist paradigm, both from a physical (a misfiring neuron or a misaligned protein may change a thought that I’m having) and evolutionary (link: “…if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one’s success at ‘feeding, fighting, and reproducing’), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true.”) perspectives.
Certainly everything we have observed could be Divinely constructed — but I think that would be most consistent with a trickster God like Raven or Coyote.
Voltaire, in his Philosophical Dictionary, says of atheism:
We are intelligent beings: intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a crude, blind, insensible being: there is certainly some difference between the ideas of Newton and the dung of a mule. Newton’s intelligence, therefore, came from another intelligence.
Indeed, that is the whole idea behind natural law and natural theology, that what is in the world points to God and men can reason their way there. Tertullian asked, “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” The answer is that Athens first asked the Questions and Jerusalem gave the Answer. Socrates began modern philosophy by acknowledging his own ignorance and then seeking the answers. He believed himself sent by the gods to seek justice and righteousness.
At least, that’s it from a Christian perspective.I’m not trying to debate, mind you, as the debate is profoundly larger and more complex than I’ve made it. I just wanted to give a little of the Christian PoV.
Link to Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary.
[...] certain things. Someone named Floyd quotes my post where I explain why I won’t talk much about Creationism and observes: That sounds [...]