Colin-g: A Theist can be either "conservative" or "liberal" and an atheist can definitely be "liberal." But can an atheist be a conservative? If not, why? My gut says they can't because of their understanding of their relative position in the universe but I'm honestly looking for insight here. Does it matter if we are talking "social" versus "fiscal" conservative? If so, can an atheist be a social conservative?

Dr. Taffy: It depends upon your definition, of course. There are atheists that are homophobic; there are atheists that are homosexual. There are atheists that are supply-side economists; there are atheists that consider voodoo economics dangerous and foolish. They only thing I can assure you of is this -- there are no atheists that believe in God. So the answer to your question is simple -- if your definition of "conservative" requires belief in a deity, then there are no atheists in that set. Otherwise, there are. I'm not sure what [you] mean by "their understanding of their relative position in the universe", but I suspect that there are some hidden assumptions in there, something like that the lack of a supreme being implies promotion (in a sense) of humanity in some hierarchical system. If so, that's an error -- I've seen lots of atheists who believe man is a cosmologically miniscule part of the universe; I am one of them. I'd also like to point out that the idea that all parts of the universe are subservient to Man is biblically based, so many theists have a universe-view where Man is (by virtue of possession of a soul) the most important thing in the Universe except for the Creator. Anyway, moving on to the main question, "can an atheist be a conservative". Of course he can -- the only thing an atheist can't be is a theist. Unless the definition of "conservative" requires religious belief, an atheist can be one. I'm sure everyone would call a man who is an NRA member, a Republican, a homophobe, a supply-side economist, reactionary, death-penalty-supporting, anti-immigration, etc. etc. a "conservative". Such a man might well be an atheist. There are as many atheists on the political right as on the left, I think -- there are certainly religious people on the right as well as the left.

Why does this assumption that atheism is commensurate with liberalism grate on my nerves? It bothers me because I've seen versions of that prejudice time and time again: the assumption that belief in God is a predicate to good behavior, and that disbelief in God therefore makes it more difficult to behave in a righteous (morally correct) way. That Theism is important to Morality. But the reason this irritates me is because other people have bombarded me my whole life with the above thought: Theism is important to Morality. To which I say, BULLSHIT!

For every right-thinking, morally-behaving person who believes in God, I can point out a sleazy charlatan who believes in God. For every Francis of Assisi, there is at least one Jim Baker or Jim Jones. So belief in God certainly creates no certainty of moral behavior. From my side, I am always encouraged to meet a man who has both strong religious conviction and a good moral sense. Because I find that such people are the exceptions, not the rule. If you look for tax-evaders, you will find more of them believe in God than don't. If you look in prison, there are a higher percentage of people there that believe in God than in the general population. So if I was Diogenese, looking for an honest (i.e., moral) man, I would not start my search with religious men -- from my point of view, atheists are at least as likely to behave righteously towards their fellow man than theists are.

Professor Minivan-Sam: Wow, Dr Taffy is fired up about this one! Anyone would be a fool to question his morality or honor. Indeed, from a religious -- correction, Christian, I won't think of speaking for the rest -- point of view that may be your downfall, since Christianity is predicated on the belief that one is sinful beyond his ability to atone and must depend on the Grace of God and the sacrifice of Christ to make that atonement for him. Hence the bumper-sticker doctrine "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." At any rate, as Dr Taffy points out, morality is not the issue at hand. What is problematic in this discussion is that we're trying to nail down some pretty amorphous labels. (I just got the unintentionally blasphemous image of trying to crucify pseudopods. Sorry.) It's not just that the definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative" are relative, or even that they cover significantly vague areas along a spectrum; these terms are _multi-dimensionally_ vague. To nail them down you'd have to start defining what each means in terms of a large number of issues, identify which issues are definitive and what questions determine a person's position on each issue -- and you'd never reach a consensus. So I guess I'm copping out here. I think "liberal" and "conservative" are simply vague terms we call ourselves and others to separate people on issues which aren't always clearly defined. They can be useful as kind of place names, "He's left of me on taxes," but, sorry, I don't think they're precise enough to be useful in broad sociological discussions. Frankly, I'm not comfortable labeling _myself_ with either term, much less all atheists. Again, sorry for the cop-out.

Colin-g: I believe everyone falls somewhere on a scale between being an extreme Darwinist/Big Bang person to a strict Creationist. My assumption comes in that if you have no belief in, for lack of a better term, any level of "God given rights", then the fallback would seem to be Darwin's "survival of the fittest." My problem is how can one believe in the equality of man and the elevation of all if, intellectually, they see their "vision" of a utopia as being correct when it is based on a strict Darwinian mentality. Do you see the conflict?

Dr. Taffy: I see your problem, you are confusing Darwin's observation about the survival of individuals having a statistical effect upon the evolution of species traits ("survival of the fittest") with a social or moral code (often denoted "Social Darwinism"). That is a common and prevalent error. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Atheism, any more than Jim Jones has to do with Christianity. The majority of educated Christians are not fundamentalists -- they don't believe that everything was created in 4004 BC; they don't believe that fossils are all fake or relics of the Flood; etc -- in other words, most Christians believe that extinction events occurred, that species have evolved, that Dinosaurs existed until 70 million years ago, and so on. In other words, most Christians believe in the Evolution of Species. So why do you separate out Atheists as believers in Social Darwinism? Darwin himself was a Christian. Some of the heinous crimes committed during the holocaust by according to the Nazi version of Social Darwinism were committed by Nazi atheists; others were committed by Nazi Christians. --- so anyway, you have two incorrect assumptions. First, that the idea of personal rights need to be connected to descent from God ("God given rights") and that they can't just come from your parents, your society, or whatever. Frankly, to my view, your "God given rights" DO come from your parents, your society, etc. -- you weren't Moses, after all, and unless you have had personal two-way conversation with the almighty, you got your impression of personal rights the same way I did -- from your parents and your environment. Your second erroneous assumption is that Social Darwinism is the other natural possibility for the origin of a social code -- frankly, Social Darwinism is rather repugnant if you look at it closely. At its simplest, a moral code is no more than a set of rules for behavior, saying no more than "don't be mean." Children in kindergarten can understand the fundamentals of a moral code, and they have no vision of a Utopia, no major concern about the equality or elevation of mankind.

Colin-g: Ah, you are correct that I drew an incorrect assumption that "Social Darwinism" and "Darwinism" are the same thing. They are not. The "survival of the fittest" piece often attributed to Darwin actually came from Herbert Spencer's writings. It would have been more correct to simply ask, "So, atheists only belief in the evolutionary theory, right?" Which, if true, unfortunately doesn't give me the ammunition I'm looking for.

Dr. Taffy: Philosophy is cool. As for "Atheists only believe in the evolutionary theory, right?" I'm unsure what you mean -- I thought we were talking about morality. Evolution is a scientific theory; science is about finding a theory that is verifiable and fits observed data. There is nothing about evolution as a scientific theory that violates religious faith unless you are a scientific creationist that believes that "Fiat Lux" happened in 4004 BC and all theories about dinosaurs, fossils, continental drift, and so on are all wrong.

to be continued...