Walenty Lisek writes:

I’ve been reading your thread “More on Conservative Apologetics” and was struck by the caricature of atheism which was presented. Being both right-wing and being an atheist isn’t a popular combination. To many it may seem unnatural or contradictory for someone to embrace both positions. But this is because of the prejudices of our age and not due to any inherent conflicts.

The word “atheism” literally means what it says “a” – without, and “theism” – god; “without god” is a pretty good definition. A more grammar friendly wording would be “without belief in god” or another formulation “believing god does not exist.”

Those more philosophically minded will note that by definition atheism does not mean a disbelief in everything supernatural. In practice this means an atheist could conceivably believe that souls, life after death, karma, reincarnation, and many other “supernatural” things exist. There have been arguments that Buddhism is actually an atheist-religion. But most modern atheists are also materialists, perhaps most famously Richard Dawkins. Materialist-atheists reject not just the existence of god, but also the existence of the supernatural.

The idea that atheists “are radical liberals in disguise, with the cover of science, pushing a racialist/eugenics-type agenda that is highly welcoming to atheists and homosexuals” is simply nonsense.

Atheism, by itself, does not necessarily lead to any particular political conclusions; this should be obvious to everyone who is intellectually honest.

Laura writes:

No one in the previous thread said that all atheists are “radical liberals in disguise, with the cover of science, pushing a racialist/eugenics-type agenda.” Josh F. stated that the atheist right includes these elements and he is correct. And it is by no means an accident that most conservatives are theists.

One can think of Buddhists and other pantheists as atheistic if one views atheism as the denial of divine personality.  To be a-theistic is, in this sense, to be without the belief in divine personality. All atheists acknowledge, if only indirectly, the existence of the supernatural. The philosophical materialist claims to believe nature is all there is, but actually recognizes human reason and moral judgment, neither of which can logically be natural. The philosphical materialist lives as if the supernatural existed while at the same time theoretically asserting pure naturalism.

If one thinks of theism as the belief in divine personality, in a Creator who is not an impersonal force, then both Buddhism and liberal Christianity are atheistic. The liberal Christian is similar to the pagan in his belief in limitless human potential. He denies the transcendence and otherness of God. In that sense, he is atheistic.

Your claim that atheism does not influence political conclusions is absurd. The atheist cannot defend moral absolutes. The individual atheist can adopt whatever political conclusions he prefers and justify his views on nothing more than personal preference or the idea that what he believes in “works.” But he cannot explain why his political beliefs “work.” They make sense in his mind because they conform to nature, but many aberrations from his beliefs conform to nature too. The atheist can say, “Society should adopt these ideals because they are in accord with nature.” But, everything is in accord with nature. Everything that exists is natural.

And while it is possible for the individual atheist to live a conventionally decent life, it is not possible for a decent society to be founded upon modern atheism. The individual can accomodate to a certain degree the contradictions of atheism, but society at large cannot. Ancient atheism, or paganism, was pre-Christian, infused with the metaphysical dream of the gods and, to some degree, the Platonist’s belief in absolutes. Modern atheism contains none of these ameliorating forces.

Given that atheism is only theoretically possible and not practically possible, “atheists” come in many different forms. The atheist can choose among political beliefs in a way the true Christian cannot.  Just because someone claims, by the way, to be an atheist does not mean he cannot perceive truth and beauty and the absolute. These exist, so he can perceive them and act as if they are real. Theodore Dalrymple is supposedly an atheist and yet he has written movingly about modern decay and soullessness. He can perceive the absurdity and despair of relativism. But he cannot remedy it because he is a pessimist at heart and because society is not comprised of noble and Stoical pagans like him. No society can be reformed simply on the perception of decay.

The Christian atheist denies or blurs  the personal attributes of God and rejects any notion of hierarchy. He cannot justify an unchangeable body of law because he cannot logically believe in moral absolutes. It is no accident that our laws have been radically redefined as modern atheism has replaced Christianity. Atheism of the liberal Christian variety has eroded the foundations of modern democracy. Under modern liberalism, law exists to create universal brotherhood and the most happiness for the most people. The monarchies of Christian Europe could not have been sustained by modern atheism, with its belief in absolute equality. Under Communism, law was whatever the most powerful faction said it was. All political beliefs are influenced by metaphysical assumptions and by man’s understanding of his place in creation.

 

                                                        — Comments —

Josh F. writes:

Within this new “right” is a collection of radical liberals (atheists,  homosexuals, libertarians, anarchists) all connected by one important factor. They are almost all Western white males and they are keenly  aware of radical liberalism’s growing oppression of racial and religiously-conscious whites (white “Supremacists”). They are feeling a spill-over effect that cares nothing for their fundamental 
liberalism and cares only for their white maleness. Almost to a tee,  this collection of fundamentally radical liberals deny that their radical liberalism has any real meaning. This allows them to mingle  amongst conservatives AS atheists and then claim a “conservative”  worldview simultaneously. So the atheist “conservative” defines his atheism not in a manner that says, “I walk this walk because there is  no God,” but in a manner that really tells us nothing. Jesse Powell said an atheist is one who thinks the universe arose by naturalistic forces and Lisek just pulled his atheism out of the dictionary. What’s  a conservative to quarrel with? But a conscious atheist EXISTS as  though there is no God and when he acts it looks like someone who does not believe God exists (the atheist, the homosexual, the anarchist,  the nihilist). And so when the atheist “conservative” ACTS conservative (giving recognition to a higher way of living), he is not being a real atheist. And so one cannot be an atheist “conservative.”  White atheists are SEEKING AND FINDING REFUGE amongst white “Supremacists” (the racial and religious right). And while some wield solid anti-liberal HBD science, they are still, fundamentally, anti-Supremacy. They acknowledge the deadly foe, but flatly refuse to be superior to it. That’s why they can be dangerous. We don’t know where they stand. And with any reckless use of racial/ethnic HBD science, we  could all be tarred with eugenics-like ambitions.

Jesse Powell writes:

Many atheists themselves claim that conservatism, especially social conservatism, does not fit with atheism. Those atheists who claim this say so on the basis that anyone who is a conservative is “irrational” and that conservatism cannot be defended or supported using logical fact-based arguments. [Laura writes: That is true. Conservatism cannot be adequately defended on “fact-based arguments” alone if fact-based arguments deal only with material reality. ] I find it quite interesting that both liberal atheists and Christian social conservatives support the idea that atheism and social conservatism do not go together, that they are naturally and even by definition in conflict with each other. [Laura writes: Could it be everyone agrees because it it’s true?] 

I found an interesting thread that is titled “Must Atheists Also Be Liberals?”. It is a lengthy debate on an atheist website; it is safe to assume all comments in the debate are written by atheists. In the debate a commenter named RG21 basically takes on all comers. He is the lone atheist “old fashioned social conservative” debating many atheist liberals. He is clearly answering “No!” to the question being posed. Many of his liberal atheist antagonists throw the accusations at him that he is “closed minded”, “not very rational”, and much like a religious fundamentalist. Robert Price and Chris Mooney – Must Atheists Also Be Liberals?

RG21 starts off the debate saying (below “skepticism” means “atheism”):

“I’m an atheist and a conservative, not a half or ¾ conservative like Mr. Price, a real old fashioned social conservative. I’m surprised and appalled at the link between skepticism and political liberalism because liberalism is so conspicuously irrational, illogical, dishonest, authoritarian, and exploitative. Liberalism has hijacked the skeptical movement and is prostituting it – same thing it does to everything it touches.”

“I’m a reluctant atheist who recognizes the immense benefit Christianity has been to mankind. I practice religious tolerance. But I have done public debates against Creationists and maintain a standing offer against all comers. And I wouldn’t be afraid to debate liberals, but they are too powerful and have nothing to gain by even recognizing any questioning of their dogmas.”

Oddly echoing what many Christian conservatives on this website have said, referring to RG21, Kevin states “His approach is indeed that of a fundamentalist (I think he’s probably a crypto-fundamentalist). . . .” and Logan states “I stand for the vast majority of atheists when I say that it is more paradoxical to be a socially conservative atheist than to be an atheist who believes in ghosts.” [Laura writes: I do not see how that echoes comments made here about atheists other than possibly the two comments made by Josh F.]

 So, both liberal atheists and conservative Christians feel threatened by the presence of conservative atheists. [Laura writes: Conservative Christians constantly reach out to atheists to reason with them. Any atheist who is respectful of Christianity is virtually assaulted with kindness, so happy are Christians for sanity in an insane world, and you say conservatives “feel threatened by atheists.” Perhaps you can give me some examples to support this. Saying atheism is at odds with conservatism is not the same as feeling “threatened” by atheists. In this discussion, only Josh F. raised the possibility that some atheists have ulterior motives.]  I will admit that in the current political climate being an atheist is associated with being a liberal, but that does not mean that atheism causes liberalism. [Laura writes: Atheism has no basis for defending morality. Liberalism embraces relativism and so it is a natural home for the atheist. Liberalism is an atheistic variant of Christianity.] The liberal atheist thinks that social conservatives are not “rational,” that they are wedded to religiously based superstitions that come from the past and are no longer relevant in the modern world. The conservative Christian thinks that liberal feminists are lost souls wallowing in degeneracy and self-destructive behavior because they do not know or accept the truth of God and therefore live without the moral foundation that only faith in God can offer. [Laura writes: The conservative Christian also sees the psychological and social dimensions of existence. He can apprehend the concept of a social disease and can see that feminism is bad not just because it violates God’s law but because it is not in accord with nature.]

Anyway, if most here think I am an “incipient theist” then so be it. [Laura writes: There are worse things to be called than an “incipient theist.” : – ) Then again, perhaps Kristor has invented a new term of insult. You, you … incipient theist!]I am an atheist and I do believe that patriarchy is the only solution to America’s many and ever worsening social problems. Since the superiority of patriarchy over feminism is an objective reality over time this truth will become more and more visible to both atheists and Christians and both atheists and Christians will come to support patriarchy in ever growing numbers since both Christians and atheists are capable of seeing objective truths.

Laura writes:

One doesn’t have to believe in God to reason.

I have a hard time simply promoting the idea of patriarchy in and of itself without qualifying and defining it in light of who man is.  

Laura adds:

By the way, I don’t like to interpolate my comments into a reader’s remarks as I do above in Jesse’s comments but when someone makes many different points it takes too much time to restate them and then respond.

Josh F. writes:

Jesse Powell says, “I’m an atheist…”

No Jesse Powell, you are an atheist “conservative,” remember? But what does that actually mean? What does it mean to be an atheist  SKEPTICAL of radical liberalism. What does it means for an anti-Supremacist to be skeptical of anti-Supremacy? What does it mean for the rational, skeptical scientist to take his lack of empirical evidence for God’s existence and then turn around and make the boldest  of radical liberal assertions; that God does not exist?

Again, we have not received a good explanation of what an atheist “conservative” actually is? I say that the reason for this is that the atheist “conservative” doesn’t actually exist. It’s a self-refutation. 
These white male atheist “conservatives” are radical autonomists  seeking to maximize their autonomy (or minimize their oppression) first as atheists and now as “conservatives” in the face of radical  liberalism’s anti-white “supremacy.” We can’t overlook the whiteness  of the new atheist right and how their whiteness is the driving  mechanism. Some white atheists are seeking refuge amongst “white  supremacy” while others are seeking to destroy the last vestiges of  “white” Supremacy from within. We just don’t know who is who. That’s the nature of radical autonomy. White atheist “conservatives”   need to be drawn out and asked a simple question. Is it your greatest fear to be thought of as a racist (white Supremacist)? Answer yes and we have a deleterious force. Answer no and we have the “incipient theist.”

John P. writes:

I have to say Josh F. is veering toward the irritating and insulting. To say “I say that the reason for this is that the atheist “conservative” doesn’t actually exist. It’s a self-refutation,” is about the same as saying liberal theists don’t exist, it’s a self refutation. It’s a version of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Conservatism was never a systematic, logically coherent system – that’s for Marxists. It’s a cast of mind, an instinct and given the number of Christian liberals, I’m pretty sure it’s independent of whatever God or gods one accepts.

I’m a bit busy right now but I’m going to try to put together a thought piece on my take on this debate. And I swear to God (pun intended) it’s the last time I’m taking on this debate as I find it not very relevant to my situation.

Laura writes:

I’m sorry to be annoying, but there are no Christian liberals. Outwardly espousing Christianity does not make one Christian. Theologians battled for many hundreds of years to define what Christianity is, but from the moment of Christ’s resurrection it was all there. It was nothing like modern liberalism.

Liberalism is incompatible with Christianity. I realize that liberalism so often uses Christian terminology.

Jesse Powell writes:

 Josh F., if you want to know about my opinions on race, go to this entry at this website. 

What you read in that thread and in the below quote, where I am quoting from myself, should tell you what you desire to know: 

“I’ve read up a bit on CWNY, to see more what he is like outside of the above essay, and he seems to be very obsessed with race, very obsessed with how great the white race is and how bad and inferior all the other races are. My orientation is not towards race, it is towards the well-being of the family and the great harms feminism does to the culture. I think the obsession about race, particularly the idea that the white race is better than all the others, is a harmful diversion, adding something negative to a cause; the cause of patriarchy; that should not be associated with the self-indulgent and arrogant sin of racism.”

Laura writes:

When an atheist accuses a Christian of sinning, the conversation has reached such a level of absurdity that it is no longer worth pursuing.

John P. writes:

Aww, Laura. I’m sorry but you’re wrong. This is “No True Scotsman” again. This leads us into the intractably deep problem of who is a “real” Christian. That was the origin of the Thirty Years War. Christianity is an incoherent term so let’s speak of Roman Catholicism. To say there are no Liberal Catholics is to say that many members of their own clergy are not Catholics. Maybe, but that’s upping the ante on the debate considerably. You go to mass, you accept the Eucharist, go to confession, donate to the Church but because you are a liberal you’re not Catholic?

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck – it’s a duck. Please explain to me your reasoning.

And, yeah, racism is not a sin and atheists should stay away from that kind of language.

Laura writes:

I don’t see the problem as so intractably deep as you do. You say, “You go to mass, you accept the Eucharist, go to confession, donate to the Church but because you are a liberal you’re not a Catholic.” There’s no such thing as a liberal who “accepts the Eucharist. ” There is such a thing as liberal who eats the Eucharist and there is such a thing as a liberal who obtains the grace of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the body of Christ. The liberal does not accept his divinity. Instead he reveres humanity and believes Christ was a very good man or a personal therapist.

If Catholicism consists in going  through the motions then obviously it doesn’t mean anything. It is a belief system, doctrinal at its core, and cannot change with the whims of the believer. Satan, by the way, does not trouble himself too much with the activities of atheists (no offense intended.) He has his hands full with Christians. That’s where he understandably concentrates his efforts.

As far as whether racism is a sin, indiscriminate hatred is always sinful. That means it is sinful to hate whites too. But it is not possible for an atheist to define anything as “sinful.”

John P. writes:

I believe you are presuming to judge the conscience of other Christians, which is a very slippery slope. The problem of who is a Christian is deep. I can’t remember but I believe you are not Catholic. All non-Catholics are in error according to the One True Church. Do you believe you are in error?

Second, no offense taken. We, of course, don’t believe in Satan although some of us do believe in perennial evil. Even Original Sin has a modified place in the thinking of some of us (see my thought piece).

Third, it depends on what you mean by “racism”. Indiscriminate hatred is a mistake and a weakness but recognition that there are races and that race makes a difference is not, to my mind, sinful or evil.

Laura writes:

Yes, the problem is deep, but not “intractably deep.” : – ) I cannot know whether someone rejects the creed out of sincere intellectual error or not. I cannot judge anyone’s ultimate destiny. But I can say that reasoned assent to the creed is necessary to be Christian. You suggest the Church denies reason and to be a Catholic is to embrace a form of nominalism.

I am Catholic. Catholics and Protestants can join together to fight the corrosive force of moral relativism, which threatens all denominations from within and the civilization which is home to Christianity.

Recognition of racial differences cannot be sinful. 

Mr. Lisek writes:

Laura said: “Your claim that atheism does not influence political conclusions is absurd.”

Well in a broad sense, I suppose any belief may influence political conclusions. In the modern West the idea an atheist can be right-wing may seem like a strange claim to make, and for it to make sense we must understand what the actual origins of political belief are. In this regard I must defer to the wisdom of Thomas Sowell, who has so elegantly argued that the origin of left and right comes from the way the two groups see the world. It is these underlying beliefs about how the world works that has created a conflict of visions:

The Utopian Vision

The Utopian Vision of the world is the underlying world-view of the political left. In this vision human nature is optimistically changeable through reason. Our limitations are the product of our social environment, so tradition has no inherent value. There is a natural distrust of decentralized processes and a favor for planning. This view also holds that mankind can be, and should be, perfected and that government is the instrument of that perfection. Typically this vision also sees a small, elite, group of people as being those who have been given the ‘vision of the anointed’ to lead humanity to the better future. If only the right people can be in power then a better word can be created. This elite can take many forms, such as an intellectual or racial elite or philosopher kings.

The Tragic Vision

The Tragic Vision is the underlying world-view of the political right. This vision sees mankind as having a human nature that is both unchanging and flawed. The religious sometimes express this as “man’s fallen nature”. In this vision humans are basically self-interested if not outright selfish. Human reason is valuable but limited, which makes central planning naturally repugnant. Limitations of human reason are why time-tested structures and processes are valued. These time-tested structures are the product accumulated evolved wisdom (tradition), and changing these structures is dangerous because of the limitations of human reason. The decentralized processes of accumulated-wisdom (tradition) and the free-market are trusted because of the limitations of human reason. Social decisions typically do not lead to solutions but rather to trade offs.

These two visions are not hard categories and any particular person can hold elements of each

The Atheist

As you should have figured out by now, neither of these visions requires a belief in a god or the supernatural. An atheist could easily believe in either of these visions of the world. Because it is these visions, not the belief in the supernatural, the give rise to the political Left and Right, then it should come as no surprise an atheist can be on the Right.

Laura said: “The atheist cannot defend moral absolutes.”

People only assume this because because of a misunderstanding of epistemology. In this world, the material world that is, there can be no absolute knowledge of anything. Our senses can be too easily deceived, and how many time in the history of ideas and science has the human race not gotten things wrong? For that matter Descartes’ demon could really be tricking us, we could be brains-in-a-vat. But this doesn’t mean that we must be knowledge-nihilists. I don’t believe in the existence of anything because I can prove it in some absolute sense, but rather because of the weight of the evidence. I can’t even absolutely prove that gravity exists – no one has seen a graviton for that matter – but the weight of the everyday evidence tells me that gravity does exist. If you should meet anyone who seriously doubts gravity, you would rightly question that man’s sanity.

So why hold morals to a higher standard of evidence? Why demand moral-absolutes when we cannot have fact-absolutes? I cannot prove to you any absolute standard of human physical health and yet everyone accepts its existence. Anyone who says something like “who is to say if cancer is good or bad for me? maybe it’s not right for you but maybe it’s right for someone else” such a man would rightly be considered either mad or a liar. Morals are no different in this regard – they exist as objectively as human physical health does.

Laura said: “Given that atheism is only theoretically possible and not practically possible”

I’m not sure what you mean by “not practically possible.”

Laura said: “Theodore Dalrymple is supposedly an atheist and yet he has written movingly about modern decay and soullessness.”

I came to enjoy his works because of your website – thanks.

Oh and could someone explain what all this talk of “Supremacy” is?

Laura writes:

By “not practically possible,” I meant it is not practically possible to live as if there is no such thing as reason or moral judgements. By the mere use of these faculties, the atheist affirms them. Reason and morality could not arise spontaneously from matter. So while one can explicitly deny they have any ulimate, supernatural cause one cannot live as if they did not.

When Josh speaks of anti-Supremacy, he means the denial of God and all hierarchy. The belief in radical equality is anti-Supremacy. At least, that’s what I think he means.

Josh F. writes:

To John P., I would say that the “no true Scotsman fallacy” is  irrelevant. Where as we know the Scotsman, we know not the atheist “conservative.” Again, what does this contradiction in terms look like? What  defines it? No one said that individual autonomists can’t or couldn’t don the atheist and conservative labels and thereby have others perceive that they were atheist “conservatives.” All that was said is  that an atheist disposition and a conservative disposition cannot exist within one individual simultaneously. It’s like Starbucks serving up a hot/cold cup of coffee. Yeah, they CAN SAY it’s a hot/ cold cup of coffee. But such a radical liberal concoction can’t  actually exist. At best, they can serve up a warm cup of coffee. So what does an atheist “conservative” taste like, again?

And to Jesse Powell, I say you’ve made my point. White atheists are  seeking refuge amongst “white supremacist” and bringing their anti-racism with them. This is dangerous. But this is also foreseeable as atheists are anti-Supremacy. Jesse Powell wants to stay as far away from “racism” (white “supremacy”) as he can without acknowledging that he is running into the hands of these “white supremacists” because of the radical liberal others’ anti-white racism.

Josh F. writes:

I would reiterate that no one has defined for us what the atheist  “conservative” actually is. In fact, the “no Scotsman fallacy,” an invention of the noted atheist Anthony Flew, is really just another 
way of saying that all things sin, even true Scotsman. And so we see  the “consistent” atheist contradicting himself. He acknowledges God’s order (Scotsman sins too) AND denies His existence (I’m an atheist). But he  can not do this simultaneously. He can only do “this” (exist in mutually exclusive states) as a radical autonomist. It is the nature of the conscious autonomist to be undefineable so as maximize  autonomy.

Again, can or will the atheist “conservative” define himself? The radical autonomist seeks to be ambiguous, unknowable, FREE, he should be known as such and his questionable 
loyalty to the protection of Western man’s God-ordained free will  heavily scrutinized.