KRISTOR WRITES:

Alan Roebuck’s recent essay on conservative apologetics reminded me of what James H. wrote in this entry:

Years ago, while speaking to a left coast female physician at a conference, I went into my spiel about how important it is for a woman to spread her wings, have a career, fulfill her destiny and realize her full potential. Of course she nodded dutifully in agreement, an expression of bovine resignation written on her face. After just a few seconds I added, “and if a total stranger has to raise your children, well then so be it! After all, you can easily find a minimum wage employee to love your child just as much as you do.”

Slowly my point penetrated and, as recognition dawned on her face, she fought back tears. “You’re the first person I’ve ever met who thinks it’s OK to stay at home with the kids. You have no idea how subversive what you’ve just said would be in California. I would love to be at home with my kids, but I would be regarded as some sort of nut were I to do so.”

It’s like a rhetorical judo throw. Use the momentum of liberalism’s own logic to push the doctrine all the way out to its absurd end. Heighten the contradictions. Then watch it topple. Best such move I ever heard of was executed by my youngest son. He was talking with some high school acquaintances, and one of them said, with a world-weary, oh-so-sophisticated sigh, “There are no absolute truths.” My son’s instant response: “Is that absolutely true?”

These moves work because people’s bodies and natures are conservative and traditional. We are chthonically and essentially wired to seek and love the Good – this is why we can apprehend contradictions, and find them bothersome – and no one is wholly fooled by arguments that good is bad, right is wrong, and so forth. People want to be good, and they want to live in a good society, that loves and seeks the Good. Indeed, liberalism derives its moral energy from this desire, and is based upon a perversion of our native practical wisdom by wrong reason.

But no one can live forever under false principles. Underneath their brave new world show, people are desperate. Society has come unmoored, disaster looms, and people can feel it in their guts. Lives are not working. I have to think that almost everyone is suffering just like James H.’s interlocutor, about something or other. People are ready to flip. It’s an Emperor’s New Clothes moment. Cultural metanoia may be happening right now, the camel’s back breaking under the final straw, with the scope and grope regime at the airports. People are seeing that non-discrimination at the airport has the absurd result that everyone must submit to one of two liberal shibboleths: irradiation that liberals would not want their vegetables to suffer, or sexual assault on children, nuns, feminists, etc. And the Muslims are insisting that their religion prevents them from such submissions, so that by the logic of liberal toleration and respect for the Other, we will have to excuse Muslims from the screening that we inflict upon ancient nuns and toddlers and Swedes and Lutherans, and that is designed to prevent terrorism inflicted upon us only by Muslims! And, finally, the new security measures are bootless, anyway, because everyone knows that the Muslims have already started putting the explosives into their (ahem) digestive tracts.

But this is all good. Let’s use it.

One other comment on Mr. Roebuck’s essay. He says that an atheist may be a conservative, provided he respects Christianity and views his atheism as a private conviction. But I think more is required than that, if only a little. If a man believes atheism is simply true, he won’t be able to find an honest way to advocate Christian morality or cultural mores, no matter how admirable he may find them. His advocacy will be hollow, perfunctory, or equivocal. He will admire Christian society the way that we admire Homeric society; as a beautiful thing, skewed by fundamental misapprehensions about reality, and finally therefore, sadly, basically wrong, inadequate to things as they are, however great its internal coherence. He will no more be able to commit himself emotionally and viscerally to Christian culture, than to Homeric culture. And so he won’t. Instead, he will find a way to rationalize his own recusal from participation in that society. He will end by subtly undermining it, through unprincipled exceptions to its requirements upon his own behavior. He will shirk his duty. And this cannot end but by making him angry at Christianity.

What is the extra that is required of an atheist, if he is to be a conservative? He must be dissatisfied with his atheism; must say to himself, inwardly, something like, “I can’t see how theism or Christianity are true, but this must be due to a defect in my own reasoning: nothing that is that good and beautiful could be just false; so I shall have to learn where I have misunderstood things.” I.e., the atheist conservative must acknowledge that his heart and his bowels cry out for the living God (this being the basis for his attraction to a culture founded upon the love and service of that God), and that nothing else will satisfy them; so that he must understand himself as en route to a better, more complete understanding. I.e., he must be an incipient theist, a person who wants to believe in God but is not yet sure quite how to do it, or what belief in God means, or what is meant by “God.” A man who loves order, form, goodness, propriety, morality, the sublime, the fitness of things – a conservative – and who is also an atheist, is a man at war with himself, in a state of profound cognitive dissonance not unlike that of James H.’s interlocutor. For atheism is nihilism, and nihilism contradicts order per se; so that it contradicts all tradition. An atheist conservative is rather like an unapologetically gay conservative. In just the same way that advocacy of homosexuality is in fundamental contradiction with conservatism, atheism and conservatism cannot be reconciled. They cannot comfortably cohabit the same body. A homosexual conservative, or an atheist conservative, must sooner or later choose between his two warring beliefs, or else go mad.

                                                                    — Comments —

Jesse Powell writes:

I want to address the claim that “atheism and conservatism cannot be reconciled” and that “atheism is nihilism, and nihilism contradicts order per se; so that it contradicts all tradition”. A conservative being defined as “A man who loves order, form, goodness, propriety, morality, the sublime, the fitness of things.” 

What does it mean to be an atheist? I would define atheism as the belief that the Universe and life were created through a natural or scientific process, not by a human like all knowing all powerful “God”. An atheist can certainly believe in “good” and “evil” and can even develop a concept of “God” and “The Devil” with God being defined as that which is good and The Devil being defined as that which is evil. 

Nothing in atheism requires a nihilistic view of life or a rejection of moral absolutes. It is perfectly possible for an atheist to support culturally conservative moral values or patriarchy and an atheist can support in a political sense the goals and objectives of conservative Christians. 

It is true, an atheist will not support Christian morality because “the Bible says so” but he may well support the moral values that Christians uphold because he believes these moral values are good in their own right, on their own merits. 

There is no conflict between being an atheist and supporting conservatism in the way conservatism has been defined here. If the goal is to resurrect culturally conservative moral values or patriarchy I see no reason to shun atheists who are inclined to support your positions and goals. 

It is asserted “If a man believes atheism is simply true, he won’t be able to find an honest way to advocate Christian morality or cultural mores, no matter how admirable he may find them.” If an atheist admires Christian morality and cultural mores then of course he can advocate for the morality and cultural mores, which happen to be supported by Christians, which he also supports. The atheist cannot honestly support Christian morality by quoting verses from the Bible but he can honestly support moral values that he believes in for his own reasons that Christians also believe in. 

I guess the question is, do Christian conservatives only want to be supported by people who use the Bible as the basis for their conservative beliefs or do Christian conservatives want support from everyone who supports their goals and agenda? 

To me, it makes no sense to shun atheists who feel they can support the goals that Christian conservatives want to achieve just because the source of what the atheist believes in doesn’t come from the Bible.

 Laura writes:

I recommend that Jesse go back and read Mr. Roebuck’s essay again and also Kristor’s remarks. Neither make the case that atheists should be shunned. In fact, Mr. Roebuck takes pains to say atheists represent a legitimate constituency in a movement of social conservatism.

Mr. Roebuck writes:

Is it necessary to believe in the God of the Bible in order to be a conservative?… 

…the religious requirements to be a fully conservative American are only an admiration for Christianity, a general belief in a God who creates and presides over the world, and a general assent to God’s rules of morality and the proper ordering of the family and society. Even an atheist can be an American conservative if he regards his atheism as a private conviction and if he publicly admires Christianity and supports America’s Christian-based order. [emphasis mine]

Again, Kristor did not say that atheists should be ostracized either. His claim was that atheists live with an uncomfortable tension between their belief in moral absolutes and their naturalistic philosophy. These are ultimately irreconcilable. Moral absolutes cannot be created by inanimate nature. Thus the atheist conservative is an “incipient theist,” unconsciously affirming God’s existence in social matters while explicitly denying it in theory. You may disagree with his conclusion, but there is no need to agree with him. You can work with theists for the resititution of social order. Kristor says that this inner tension will ultimately show itself in some form of subversion of moral absolutes. But I think some people can live with that tension for a very long time. Nevertheless, that is a private matter. The point is not to exclude those who support cultural conservatism.  

Ilion writes:

Jesse Powell writes to dispute what Kristor had written. There are so many things wrong in his response, I suspect I shall not identify them all, but here goes. 

He writes, “What does it mean to be an atheist? I would define atheism as the belief that the Universe and life were created through a natural or scientific process, not by a human like all knowing all powerful “God”.”

First off, an intellectually consistent atheist cannot even use the word “create” to denote the origins of the Cosmos (and of humanity); he must use the word “arise,” or a synonym to it. “Create” denotes intentionality — and intentionality in the origin and history of the Cosmos is the very thing atheism necessarily (and definitionally) denies; for, if one acknowledges that the Cosmos is a “creation,” that it is the result of an intention, then one simply is not an atheist. 

There are two — and only two — logically possible causal explanations, in the broad sense of ‘explanation,” for the Cosmos:

1) it is a “creation:” it is the result of an intention of intentions — that is, that there is a God and he created the world;

2) it “arose:” it “just happened,” wholly unintentionally — that is, there is no God, or even if there is a being that can rationally be called ‘God,’ he did not create the world.

 For those who are interested, I explore this matter further in a post on my blog here.

 Secondly, even correcting Mr Powell’s misuse of the word “create,” his statement to “define atheism as the belief that the Universe and life [arose] through a natural … process” is incoherent as stated. “Before” (I use the word in its sense of logical priority) there was the Cosmos, there was no “nature,” and thus no “natural processes,” from which the Cosmos could “arise.” So, the logically consistent atheist must affirm that the Cosmos itself has no cause: basically, that it just popped into being, causeless, from nothing at all.

 Thirdly, Mr Powell is improperly conflating “science” with “naturalism” — which is to say, with atheism — as witness: “I would define atheism as the belief that the Universe and life [arose] through a natural or scientific process, not by a human like all knowing all powerful “God”.”

 Also, Mr Powell seems not to understand the concept “God;” it appears that he imagines that the word refers to Zeus or Odin or someone like that. But, this is a different issue, and is not the focus of this note to you.

He writes: “An atheist can certainly believe in “good” and “evil” and can even develop a concept of “God” and “The Devil” with God being defined as that which is good and The Devil being defined as that which is evil.”

 No so-called atheist who believes in good and evil can objectively ground such belief; his ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are hanging from skyhook which is floating in the aether. His “belief” is no more than the assertion of his individual will. And, such a concept of “God” is utterly meaningless — for, if God is not personal, then God is not.

“Nothing in atheism requires a nihilistic view of life or a rejection of moral absolutes.”

But, of course, it does; that is, if one’s profession of atheism is to be logically consistent. Nihilism is a logically inescapable implication of the assertion that there is no God.

At the same time, the term “moral absolute” can be misleading (mostly because most people have no idea what they’re talking about when they use it). Mr Powell’s statement ought to be rephrased as something like this: “Nothing in atheism requires a nihilistic view of life or a rejection of [the claim that there are objectively existing and universally binding] moral [obligations and expectations].” It’s still false, of course, but it’s a more precise statement of his assertion.

The only “morality” a logically consistent atheist can claim exists is simply the arbitrary assertions of one or more human persons. Such assertions *are not* equal to objectively real and universally binding moral obligations and expectations. For those who are interested, I explore this matter further in a post on my blog.

He writes, “It is perfectly possible for an atheist to support culturally conservative moral values or patriarchy and an atheist can support in a political sense the goals and objectives of conservative Christians.”

 As Kristor has already pointed out and explained, such a person will be at war with himself until he shucks one or the other, as witness John Derbyshire.

 He writes, “If an atheist admires Christian morality and cultural mores then of course he can advocate for the morality and cultural mores, which happen to be supported by Christians, which he also supports. The atheist cannot honestly support Christian morality by quoting verses from the Bible but he can honestly support moral values that he believes in for his own reasons that Christians also believe in.”

 A logically consistent atheist has no rational basis on which to support or advocate for Christian morality — or any other, for that matter. Christians don’t “happen” to support the morality we assert, we support it and assert it because we believe it to be the truth about reality, and we believe it to be truth because we ground it in God, who is “the ground of all being.”

Jesse Powell writes:

It does seem to me that Kristor’s statements are meant to ostracize atheists. His claim is that an atheist cannot be a conservative unless the atheist is seeking to learn how to reject his atheism, that being conservative and being an atheist are somehow intrinsically incompatible. I don’t see how there is any contradiction between belief in moral absolutes and belief that life is the result of natural scientifically based processes. Some things are good and some things are bad because of the intrinsic nature of what the thing is. 

The sky is blue. I can look up at the sky and see that the sky is blue. A Christian can look up at the sky and say, “See, I know the sky is blue because it says in this verse in the Bible that the color of the sky is blue. God made the sky blue because blue is a good color for the sky to be.” An atheist can look up at the sky and say, “See, I know the sky is blue because that is what my eyes show to me. The reason why the sky is blue is because the gas molecules in the air absorb the shorter, bluer wavelengths of light and then emit this blue light which you then see when looking up at the sky.” 

Both the atheist and the Christian believe that the sky is blue, both the atheist and the Christian may agree that the blue sky is pretty and that it is good that the sky is blue. The Christian believes that the sky is blue because the Bible tells him so and that the reason why the sky is blue is because God made it that way. The atheist believes the sky is blue because of what he sees with his eyes and that the reason why the sky is blue is because of the scientific explanation that is offered. 

The atheist and the Christian can both believe in the same thing, but for different reasons. The atheist suffers no cognitive dissonance or inner tension because his beliefs are based on science or what seems logically consistent and supportable to him. Again, there is no contradiction between atheism and a belief in moral absolutes. An atheist can believe in a moral absolute just as easily as an atheist can believe that the sky is blue. Both are simply beliefs based on perceptions, based on what one sees.

Laura writes:

As to your first point, Kristor’s argument was that the atheist who supports conservatism cannot remain intellectually consistent. He was addressing the inner state of the atheist and did not take any position on the believer’s stance toward the atheist. As you probably know, Christians rarely ostracize atheists simply on the basis of their atheism. In fact, you would be warmly embraced as a human being by most congregations in America. Christians tend to ostracize atheists when atheists are hostile to them.

Your analogy of the blue sky shows that you do not meet Alan Roebuck’s first condition for an atheist conservative: an admiration for Christianity. The idea that Christian derive all their ideas about the physical world from the Bible and use it as a grade school science textbook is silly and insulting. How do you reconcile scientific history with this view? The most accomplished scientists of the West, men such as Galileo and Isaac Newtown, were Christians. Christians do not deny natural laws or base them on the Bible, but found them in an order created by a rational being. This rational order is logically impossible if the universe is self-created.

You can say all you wish that there is no contradiction between moral absolutes and atheism, but saying it doesn’t make it true. If all moral absolutes are the product of natural processes than the idea of truth is nonsensical. There is no truth and one can only believe that something is, not whether it is good or not. There is no ought in a mindless universe. Now you can act as if there is an ought but to do so is to ignore some very fundamental contradictions in your views. For the purposes of any social movement (if there is such a thing), I feel no need to reconcile these contradictions, except perhaps as a friend. That is your private matter as long as you do not openly seek to undermine the main basis of conservatism, which is the belief in an infinite and personal God.

I haven’t gotten to the deep scientific contradictions in what you say. You seem to suggest that you are more clear-thinking because of your belief in science. How can you scientifically explain the emergence of life from non-life? How can you explain how consciousness emerged from matter? The truth is, you cannot fully explain these things without relying on some basic metaphysical assumptions that are not scientific at all. To use science to support philosophy is an abuse of science, and a denial of it.

Josh F. writes:

The problem with Jesse Powell’s definition for atheist is that there  is no “concept of God” WITHOUT empirical evidence for God in this “scientifically-proven material world.”  The atheist is self-refuting.  He  “conceives” God (no known mechanism for this conception) without empirical evidence and then rejects God as though HIS were a false conception. He then cites his lack of empirical evidence for God as  his justification for rejecting God even though he never needed empirical evidence to conceive of God in the first place.

I think many atheist “conservatives” are loathe to embrace God because they are loathe to be seen as Supremacists. And at the same time — not consciously taking this anti-Supremacy to its logical extreme —  they have a tangible feeling for the destructiveness of our doctrine of liberal “equality,” i.e., radical liberal anti-Supremacy.

Jesse Powell writes:

In regards to Laura’s comment, “The idea that Christians derive all their ideas about the physical world from the Bible and use it as a grade school science textbook is silly and insulting.”

I did not mean my analogy about how the Christian and the atheist interpret the blue sky to be taken literally. I meant it as an analogy. I am not saying that this is literally how the Christian and the atheist view the blue sky, I was using it as an example to illustrate the overall point that the Christian and the atheist can view the same thing in the same way but for different reasons. Furthermore, the analogy was meant to show that an atheist can believe in absolute truth based on observation and reasoning, that moral questions can be perceived as being true or false, can be seen as being objectively true or false, in the same way that what the color of the sky is can be seen as being objectively blue and not some other color. 

In regards to what is silly and insulting, to claim that “For atheism is nihilism, and nihilism contradicts order per se; so that it contradicts all tradition. An atheist conservative is rather like an unapologetically gay conservative,” as Kristor said is silly and insulting to atheists. Now maybe what Kristor said seems perfectly reasonable to most readers here, but imagine if an atheist said something similar about what Christianity is all about. What if an atheist proclaimed that Christianity is all about nihilism and that no Christian could truly be a conservative unless deep in their heart they knew that Christianity was bunk? [Laura writes: But an atheist would have no grounds for making such a claim, while a Christian does have grounds for claiming the atheist cannot affirm transcendent values. It’s important to note that Kristor is pointing to intellectual error and not saying that the atheist is necessarily stupid or inhuman.] 

The main thrust of the arguments in this thread seems to be based on the idea that an atheist cannot claim to believe in absolute truth because the atheist merely has his own opinions to go by, nothing more. Since to the atheist everything is about his own perceptions and his own point of view that means no objective truth anchors the atheist’s point of view to reality and therefore the atheist is unmoored with no foundation to his beliefs. Paradoxically, when Christians make this argument it is the Christian that is asserting that no objective moral truths exist because if the Christian acknowledges that objective moral truths exist then the Christian has to admit that the atheist will be able to perceive the objective moral truths that surround him. [Laura writes: The Christian asserts that there are no moral truths that can be fully explained without reference to God. Now, the atheist can indeed perceive these truths, but he cannot fully explain them without reference to God. If he is going to battle on behalf of these truths, at some point the atheist is going to confront the limitations of his views.]

 Now of course there is the problem that atheists disagree on moral questions. My claim is that there is such a thing as objective reality in regards to what is right and what is wrong but we as human beings are incapable of knowing this objective truth in regards to morality precisely. Objective reality in regards to moral questions can be known with a high level of certainty approximately but it cannot be known with absolute certainty precisely. [Laura writes: I think you fit into the category of what Kristor would call an “incipient theist” and that if you follow the logic of your assertion that there are objective moral truths you will end up in the inevitable position of theism. Then you must decide what the character of God is and whether revelation makes sense.] 

The fact that atheists disagree with each other does not mean there is no such thing as objective reality, it means that what objective reality is is not precisely known and is under dispute. However, Christians cannot escape the necessity of using imperfect human reason any more than atheists can. [Laura writes: No, the atheist faces a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the use of reason. If human beings are the product of a purposeless and random process, there is no human reason. Every thought is simply a physical process and reason does not exist. Of course, an atheist can live in a state of inner contradiction and say that reason exists but ultimately he cannot explain it and it is only through the use of inconsistent or contradictory phrases that he continues to justify his belief in reason.The Christian has much more confidence in his reasoning faculties because all of creation is rational and at the same time he is able to accept the limits to human reason.] As illustrated in the recent debate about the moral wisdom of giving to beggars, Christians using the Bible as their source of moral authority still can disagree with each other in regards to what the correct interpretation of specific Bible passages is and there is also the problem that some Bible passages contradict other Bible passages. [Laura writes: Disagreements about the meaning of scriptures are not analagous to the rationalizing of atheists, who reject that there is any revealed wisdom at all, This is not to say that atheists are incapable of reasoning. Of course, they too have functioning minds. The problem is they cannot explain the existence of their own mental processes. Christians can. We may dispute on particulars but we all agree that there is meaning behind our disagreements. The atheists cannot convincingly convince others to pursue moral absolutes when they conflict with personal self-interest.] To claim that objective reality is founded on the word of God as revealed through the Bible is just as problematic as the atheist making a claim about what objective reality is based on whatever rational arguments he can come up with; in both cases human reason and human interpretation is needed to assess the validity of the claim being made, whether the claim is made by a Christian citing the Bible or the claim is made by an atheist citing an argument he constructed. [Laura writes: You have to bear in mind that Christians don’t simply say that morality is based on the word of God. It is based on the existence of God. That is the first premise: that a supreme and knowable God exists and he is real. What God actually says to us is secondary to the sheer fact of his existence. You keep referring again and again to the Bible, as if Christians believe in the Bible more than in God. The Bible would not exist if human beings did not first apply reason to the reality of God’s existence because they could not have made any sense of God’s wisdom and revelations.] 

Now I am fully aware that the argument between Christianity and atheism is not going to be resolved in this thread but I think some basic respect for the atheist world view should be shown. It is fine with me if Christians believe that Christianity is right and atheism is wrong, I would expect any self-respecting Christian to hold that view. However, to gratuitously proclaim that all atheists are nihilists and incapable of adhering to a set of moral values they feel bound to live by is indeed insulting to atheists, is objectively untrue, and is not helpful if one wishes to benefit from the political support that atheists will give to socially conservative Christians if they are allowed to do so. [Laura writes: I think you are taking the word ‘nihilist’ as meaning an anti-social person. That is not necessarily true.]

Kristor writes:

Jesse, I didn’t excommunicate you from the ranks of conservatives on account of your atheism. Nor did I say that atheists are nihilists. I said that atheism is nihilism. What I mean by that is that atheism amounts to nihilism: if one doesn’t believe in God, then one doesn’t believe there is any ultimate rationality or order or value to things; for these are two ways of saying the same thing. And if one doesn’t believe in any ultimate order or rationality or value, one can’t consistently believe in any less-than-ultimate order or rationality or value, either (whether or not one yet realizes that this is a consequence of atheism).  One can’t believe in rationality or order or value, period full stop; on the contrary, one must believe that life is to the last jot and tittle utterly devoid of order, rationality and value. 

Now, in practice most atheists actually do believe in rationality, order and value. One must, in order to live. So, most atheists are not nihilists. Indeed, some are conservative, and have a strong sense that order, rationality and value are objective features of reality. It’s just that they haven’t yet realized that their atheism directly contradicts their daily experience. Not many atheists do! 

It is certainly possible to be an atheist and at the same time a moral realist. It is possible to err in one’s reasoning, in all good faith, and in almost any department of life. We all do it, all the time. This does not change the fact that the atheism and moral realism contradict each other. If you keep thinking about these two aspects of your beliefs, you will sooner or later come face to face with that contradiction, and find that you are forced to choose – or else suffer a kind of insanity, a debilitating struggle to quash the deep conflict between your two beliefs. 

The geniality and open-heartedness evident in your many valuable comments at The Thinking Housewife leads me to hope, and expect, that when that moment of decision arrives for you, you will choose God. That would make me happy, because it would mean that the rest of your life would be happier than if you chose otherwise, all other things being held equal. I would be honored to help you, as you approach your moment of decision, in any way that I can. In the meantime, I am honored to count you among my conservative allies.

Josh F. writes:

Atheist “conservatives” are radical autonomists. They seek to exist in  a radically autonomous state by virtue of “existing” as two or more  mutually exclusive entities. In real terms, this means attempting to  exist outside the created order without consequence. This is the nature of the radical liberationist. All “TRUE” atheists are, by definition, radical autonomists, radical liberationists, self- annihilators. Quite ironically, from the principled conservative’s  point of view, Jesse Powell’s “conservativism” serves as a protective shield for his atheism. And it is his atheism that is informative. Jesse Powell is not unlike our president who is also a radical  autonomist. Obama, attempting to exist as two mutually exclusive entities, believes that one can advocate for the mother’s “fundamental right” to kill her child in utero AND be a professed  Chrisitian. The reality is that Obama’s “Chrisitianity” serves as a deceptive label meant to protect AND INJECT his real true beliefs INTO  Christianity much the same way that Jesse Powell’s “conservatism”  serves to obscure his anti-Supremacy, i.e., his belief in “equality, and inject his atheism into conservatism. In both instances, it appears that the radical autonomist is attempting to persuade Christianity and conservatism to assimilate abortion and atheism into their dogma, respectively. Whether Jesse Powell is consciously promoting this project is unknown at this point, but the liberationist  project nonetheless procedes and many an atheist “conservative” and “Christian” abortion advocate know exactly what they’re doing.

Laura writes:

I don’t think this conversation shows any risk of assimilating atheism. As Alan Roebuck stated at the onset, only an atheist who possesses  admiration for Christianity could be any kind of  ally in a conservative social movement. Kristor argued that an atheist with an admiration for Christianity lives in a state of intellectual tension that will drive him to either undermine conservatism or become a believer. In any event, let’s be realistic. We are talking about a very small number of people. There just aren’t many atheist conservatives to begin with. However, Mr. Roebuck was talking about a cultural movement that occurs outside the Church. I agree with him that people with undefined beliefs should be welcome in such a movement as long as they do not show disrespect for Christianity. The same is true of Jews and Hindus in the West. They can be conservative if they do not disrespect Christianity.

You have no reason, absolutely none, to claim Jesse Powell is some kind of impostor attempting to do harm.

Please follow and like us: