There is a tendency for atheists (capital "a"?) to swing more to the left than other folks. But does atheism lead to liberalism? I know that certain people like Ayn Rand who are both atheist and capitalistic. Does ones faith (or lack thereof) contribute to one's political views?
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Atheism=Liberalism?
- Thread starter usaf2222
- Start date
RichardMNixon
New Member
For starters, I'm no authority on the subject but I don't see liberalism and capitalism as being antagonistic. As for conservatives though...
At least in America I'd imagine most atheists align themselves with the "liberal" party largely because the conservative party is in bed with religious fundamentalists. I forget if it was Alabama or Mississippi, but the primary race for Republican Senator featured attack ads accusing the other candidate of not being a creationist.
At the core liberals want change and conservatives don't. Atheism is itself a change from the status quo.
At least in America I'd imagine most atheists align themselves with the "liberal" party largely because the conservative party is in bed with religious fundamentalists. I forget if it was Alabama or Mississippi, but the primary race for Republican Senator featured attack ads accusing the other candidate of not being a creationist.
At the core liberals want change and conservatives don't. Atheism is itself a change from the status quo.
I honestly don't know. I imagine it varies for individuals. Personally I'm inclined to thing that my own left-leaning ideals are due more to other factors than my being atheist.
Perhaps it's a case of correlation but not cause? Younger people tend to be more idealistic and more left wing than older people. There is also a higher percentage atheism amongst younger people than older ones, at least in the UK.
Perhaps it's a case of correlation but not cause? Younger people tend to be more idealistic and more left wing than older people. There is also a higher percentage atheism amongst younger people than older ones, at least in the UK.
justsomefnguy
New Member
I'd think you'd have to start by deciding what 'atheism' and 'liberalism' are going to mean in this case.
Atheism is fairly simple to define, however that doesn't keep lots of people from doing it wrong, adding to it or supplying their own implications.
Liberalism is such a confused mess that I wouldn't even attempt to speculate on what it means in any given context. Except when limbaugh, beck or his ilk use it. In those cases it just seems to mean 'a bad person that doesn't agree with us'
and even there I'm sure I've missed something
Atheism is fairly simple to define, however that doesn't keep lots of people from doing it wrong, adding to it or supplying their own implications.
Liberalism is such a confused mess that I wouldn't even attempt to speculate on what it means in any given context. Except when limbaugh, beck or his ilk use it. In those cases it just seems to mean 'a bad person that doesn't agree with us'
and even there I'm sure I've missed something
No it's not necessary. I wonder if this is more a US trend, in the US the right is in bed with religious and corporate interests which attack science. Atheists (with the capital a) tend to be sceptical and science-friendly and thus would react against these right-wing interests. Not sure by it would be interesting to see stats from other countries.
There's another possibility. Atheists (especially online) tend to be fairly young and there's a saying that goes something like "when you're young and have a heart you'll be a liberal, when you're old and have a brain you'll be a conservative." Possibly not completely fair, but it does make the point that youth is often more attracted to liberal politics.
There's another possibility. Atheists (especially online) tend to be fairly young and there's a saying that goes something like "when you're young and have a heart you'll be a liberal, when you're old and have a brain you'll be a conservative." Possibly not completely fair, but it does make the point that youth is often more attracted to liberal politics.
Anachronous Rex
New Member
I actually find it encouraging that Harris and Hitchens both sometimes find themselves on the political left, and sometimes on the right.
Atheists, as a rule, should not be an easily defined bunch.
Atheists, as a rule, should not be an easily defined bunch.
theyounghistorian77
New Member
I've said this elsewhere, but i'll bring it in here.
The place that one takes on the political spectrum is in most political compasses determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.
There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. (Conservativism is in more general terms, a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society.) Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or even the fascist parties.
The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.
When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.
"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1
The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.
Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.
It is not decided by a some 'checklist' of organizations and ideas supported by that person. The person's position on the political compass may be blurred by their stances on things like personal freedom, social policy, et cetera and the connections between them. That's where the complexities lie. Even then, it is a poor way to attempt to understand one's full political ideology, as even people on the same side of the Left/right scale can hold ideologies that are almost completely incompatible with each other. Consider two left-wing ideologies, say, communism and social democracy, for example: Communism as envisaged by Marx and Engels is completely anti-capitalist and calls for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system and the means of production to be placed in the hands of the wokers, thus making it far left. social democracy on the other hand calls for the capitalist system to be reformed via a mixed economy and progressive policies. Their political economy is geared towards the lower classes but not nearly as much as Marx, thus making it more centre left. Communist economic policies are incompatible with social democracy, as communists want to change the entire system and not just make it more tolerable or equal within the confines of the current system.
if the economy is mixed with a heavier emphasis towards the private sector, than it is centre right, The more privitizations, the more right wing it would seem in todays society. But that's not the only way to look at it. The emphasis in a right wing economy is towards [often established] elites. This is the best way i have at looking at politics. Older models, ie the "1789 model" as i call it, i find are flawed. This describes the flaws best.
"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook" - Political compass.org
Which is again why i use economics (ie where you stand on who owns the means of production) as the best determiner for left and right. as explained earlier. Capitalism on one side, socialist economics on the other. So how do i solve the problem of Stalin vs Ghandi? Through another axis, the Libertarian/authoritarian scale. Under the likes of Glenn Becks idea of politics, There seems to be no difference in the left wing ideologies, forgetting that goct size is not the determiner as i have stated. Anarchists are far-left extreme libertarian and a Soviet "Socialist" is a far-left extreme authoritarian. Social Democrats can be either authoritarian or libertarian. The notion that the labour Party and the Green Party here (centre left) will lead to Big Government, Genocide and soviet style atheist one party state dictatorship is absurd. (Oh and there is Religious Socialism too)
The definition of conservative given earlier does not necessarily say that one has to be libertarian, Sylvio Berlusconi is an authoritarian conservative, as is Putin and as are the islamic conservatives in the middle east. so any assertion that conservativism is automaticly about liberty, can be rubbished. It depends on what you are conserving to begin with, in reality.
Atheism is not a determiner for Politics, And atheism does not lead anywhere. It may be noted that alot of Atheists today tend to have Liberal leanings for reasons pointed above not by me and elsewhere. (Despite what you may hear in cartain Right wing outlets. Liberalism Does Not necessarily equal Socialism or even Leftism.) politicaly speaking. There is a diference between political ideologies such as communism along with it's opposite philosophy, Objectivism. (Both started by atheists and both philosophies were intended to be millitantly atheistic.) and Just being an atheist does not tell me where one stands on the left/right or indeed authoritarian/libertarian scale.
Correct.
In truth, Atheists tend to be much more politicaly diverse than alot of people. I can also examples to demonstrate this of S.E Cupp (yes, she is an atheist, arbeit a very pro-religious atheist) And Geert Wilders (often and perhaps wrongly called Far Right by the press) Both Right Wing and atheist, as well as Ayn Rand.
If Atheism generaly leads to communism, should it not be the case that Communism is On the rise today as fast as atheism is on the rise today? And should it not be further the case, that those two trends are linked to the extent that most modern atheists today in the west are communist?
all these questions have to be answered yes in order for me to take the Atheism = communism points with more interest. But even then, assuming the answers are yes. one wouldn't be able to make a final linkage between Communism by definition and atheism by definition. because atheism by definition does not say anything about the politics of atheism. So that argument cannot be proved anyways.
The place that one takes on the political spectrum is in most political compasses determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.
There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. (Conservativism is in more general terms, a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society.) Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or even the fascist parties.
The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.
When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.
"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1
The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.
Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.
It is not decided by a some 'checklist' of organizations and ideas supported by that person. The person's position on the political compass may be blurred by their stances on things like personal freedom, social policy, et cetera and the connections between them. That's where the complexities lie. Even then, it is a poor way to attempt to understand one's full political ideology, as even people on the same side of the Left/right scale can hold ideologies that are almost completely incompatible with each other. Consider two left-wing ideologies, say, communism and social democracy, for example: Communism as envisaged by Marx and Engels is completely anti-capitalist and calls for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system and the means of production to be placed in the hands of the wokers, thus making it far left. social democracy on the other hand calls for the capitalist system to be reformed via a mixed economy and progressive policies. Their political economy is geared towards the lower classes but not nearly as much as Marx, thus making it more centre left. Communist economic policies are incompatible with social democracy, as communists want to change the entire system and not just make it more tolerable or equal within the confines of the current system.
if the economy is mixed with a heavier emphasis towards the private sector, than it is centre right, The more privitizations, the more right wing it would seem in todays society. But that's not the only way to look at it. The emphasis in a right wing economy is towards [often established] elites. This is the best way i have at looking at politics. Older models, ie the "1789 model" as i call it, i find are flawed. This describes the flaws best.
"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook" - Political compass.org
Which is again why i use economics (ie where you stand on who owns the means of production) as the best determiner for left and right. as explained earlier. Capitalism on one side, socialist economics on the other. So how do i solve the problem of Stalin vs Ghandi? Through another axis, the Libertarian/authoritarian scale. Under the likes of Glenn Becks idea of politics, There seems to be no difference in the left wing ideologies, forgetting that goct size is not the determiner as i have stated. Anarchists are far-left extreme libertarian and a Soviet "Socialist" is a far-left extreme authoritarian. Social Democrats can be either authoritarian or libertarian. The notion that the labour Party and the Green Party here (centre left) will lead to Big Government, Genocide and soviet style atheist one party state dictatorship is absurd. (Oh and there is Religious Socialism too)
The definition of conservative given earlier does not necessarily say that one has to be libertarian, Sylvio Berlusconi is an authoritarian conservative, as is Putin and as are the islamic conservatives in the middle east. so any assertion that conservativism is automaticly about liberty, can be rubbished. It depends on what you are conserving to begin with, in reality.
Atheism is not a determiner for Politics, And atheism does not lead anywhere. It may be noted that alot of Atheists today tend to have Liberal leanings for reasons pointed above not by me and elsewhere. (Despite what you may hear in cartain Right wing outlets. Liberalism Does Not necessarily equal Socialism or even Leftism.) politicaly speaking. There is a diference between political ideologies such as communism along with it's opposite philosophy, Objectivism. (Both started by atheists and both philosophies were intended to be millitantly atheistic.) and Just being an atheist does not tell me where one stands on the left/right or indeed authoritarian/libertarian scale.
Anachronous Rex said:
Correct.
In truth, Atheists tend to be much more politicaly diverse than alot of people. I can also examples to demonstrate this of S.E Cupp (yes, she is an atheist, arbeit a very pro-religious atheist) And Geert Wilders (often and perhaps wrongly called Far Right by the press) Both Right Wing and atheist, as well as Ayn Rand.
If Atheism generaly leads to communism, should it not be the case that Communism is On the rise today as fast as atheism is on the rise today? And should it not be further the case, that those two trends are linked to the extent that most modern atheists today in the west are communist?
all these questions have to be answered yes in order for me to take the Atheism = communism points with more interest. But even then, assuming the answers are yes. one wouldn't be able to make a final linkage between Communism by definition and atheism by definition. because atheism by definition does not say anything about the politics of atheism. So that argument cannot be proved anyways.
The Left and Right politics can also be separated by their approach on where the problems lie in a society. The Left tends to see problems in every part of its own society and tries to fix things there. The Right does seee problems outside their society in other societies and minorities. So the Left is more prone to question authority as the Right, because it sees flaws in every aspect of human endeavor. This concept is more tilted to challenge the ultimate authority, god. This is not only true for the U.S. In germany you only get rigorous critic of religion from left leaning parties. It doesn't help that from the main two big parties in germany, the party from the Right has "christian" in its title.
borrofburi
New Member
This question of left v right reminds me of this:
Divergedwoods
New Member
I have not seen any sort of correlation between the two ideas, politically speaking both right and left wings have strong religious leanings (the left tends to claim "God-given rights" as needing to be preserved), so I don't see a direct path from atheism to liberalism
However they do have a ideological communality in the sense that in the same way that atheism liberates human free will from the constraints that being subdued to a higher power implies, economical liberalism releases commercial and productive activities from excessive imposition and regulation
However they do have a ideological communality in the sense that in the same way that atheism liberates human free will from the constraints that being subdued to a higher power implies, economical liberalism releases commercial and productive activities from excessive imposition and regulation
usaf2222 said:
The issue as I read your thread is: Does being an atheist lead to liberalism?
I'll start by defining the terms in their commonly accepted understanding.
Pronunciation: \ˈÄÂ-thÄ“-ËŒi-zÉ™m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class) d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : preservative
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism
-oOo-
Comment
Now that we know the definition, it can be inferred from the above that an atheist will reasonably choose liberalism, because it is to his or her favor.
The key concepts of liberalism is freedom of choice. The contrary view would be the concept of tradition, which is not in favor of the atheist, because being godless is against tradition, customs, etc.
In other words, adhering to tradition will render the atheist to be in hiding or act only in secrecy as he or she exercises atheism.
Reference:
1. atheism. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
2. liberalism. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
3. conservative. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative
Lallapalalable
New Member
Not neccasarily. Im conservative on a lot of issues, and liberal on only a few. For instance, I hold conservative economic, political and legal views, but when it comes to the sciences Im liberal as hell.
I think on certain issues an atheist would almost certainly be liberal.
I think on certain issues an atheist would almost certainly be liberal.
Andiferous
New Member
I think it would be wrong to draw concusions with this, because I don't like the idea of categorising atheists in general.
Athough, religion throughout history has been a support structure for politics. In many cases religion helped define and justify the "natural" order of things and people, and this is something that liberals often strongly rally against.
Athough, religion throughout history has been a support structure for politics. In many cases religion helped define and justify the "natural" order of things and people, and this is something that liberals often strongly rally against.
I really enjoyed that read, theyounghistorian77. I usually leave threads that contain a post with this amount of text, but I decided to read yours anyway and I don't regret it: I think that with some modifications you could hand this in as a paper to a university. Especially liked your distinction between authoritarian and libertarian, which does seem a lot more suitable than progressive and conservative to describe political ideologies.
I'm dutch myself and I saw you mentioned Geert Wilders (who will most likely be in parliament) and wanted to add that, in order to become more electable, he actually chose to abandon most of his extremely right-wing views and is now quite social towards the (frightened) lower class citizen's (his target audience, of course), and his ideology is here considered to be a center right extreme conservatism. You might call him an anti-Islamic teddy bear.
I'm not going to touch your post, partially because I'd have to read it some more before I could really give an intelligent response, partially due to it's many references, which my reply would never maintain and primarily because it makes it's own point, which I think I agree upon.
I would like to respond do the idea of the poster though, that atheists are often liberal, or whether or not there is a connection between the two. See, the liberal idea of ascribing rights goes something like this:
1. Lift any individual from society;
2. Ascribe to him certain rights;
3. Put individual back in society;
4. Repeat for every individual in the society.
And the same might go for institutions, who of course have certain rights and limits.
This process to us seems so notorious. We may doubt what kind of rights these are, whether or not they conflict with another individual's rights, but we have no point in arguing this process: it is the way a society should ascribe rights to individuals. But in reality, it presumes to qualities that we value highly, namely freedom and equality. We want our politics, our constitution, to promote these two qualities.
This observance has many implications, leading to the political view of commensalism, which in turn greatly influenced liberal thinkers such as John Rawls and Jà¼rgen Habermas and had a huge impact on the line of thought in dealing with multicultural societies and foreign affairs. I will elaborate a small portion of commensalism.
You see, holding these values dear and wanting our constitution to promote these values means, that every right is in fact no more than an effect on the cause that is this value. Every right we ascribe, we ascribe because we want an individual in our society to be able to utilize this value. For example, we want every citizen to pay equal taxes, because we want him to utilize his equality. We (in Holland, at least) don't want our police to be able to randomly pick individuals off the street, because we want the individual to be able to utilize his freedom.
This observance implies, that the rights we wish to ascribe to individuals are in fact the result of values we hold dear. Perhaps the implication on international thinking is obvious already, but now let's have a look at what they mean for the US.
Jonathan Haidt is a philosopher who has done many studies towards the roots of ethics and political thinking. He is primarily famous for his studies regarding the importance of rationality in ethical thinking, in which he has shown that our responses to ethical problems are primarily intuitive, and that only the highly intellectual have room for rational thought. These intuitions consist, again, of certain values we hold dear. In this particular video, he applies his findings on conservatives and liberals in US society.
What we find, is that the values held dear by liberals are, if I may be so bold to translate them a little, freedom and equality, whereas conservatists hold values suh as loyality, purity and authority equally high. It seems these last three values are rooted in Christian thinking, much more than freedom and equality are. You might say that liberals and conservatists simply have different mindsets, which translates to the values they hold dear in ethics, politics, or even in life.
Now if we reflect on the ascribing of laws from commensalism as I elaborated earlier, we can see that a Christian would ascribe different rights and would even imply a different constitution (one encompassing the values "authority" and "loyalty") than a liberal would. This is the result of them simply having a different mindset.
The point is, that the mindset of the liberal thinker is one that does not necessarily uphold values such as loyalty and authority, deeply rooted in the Christian tradition. It seems that anyone who would uphold the five values of conservatism is likely to be a Christian, whereas someone who holds only the values of freedom and equality as dear in political and ethical thought is likely to be an atheist. Why? Because he does not uphold values as authority (to God) and loyalty (to the community), meaning instead he upholds autonomy and individuality. We all heard the atheist argument, that God is no more than an abstract alpha figure for the betas of a society.
This is the connection I would observe between liberalism and atheism, which I definitely think is present.
I'm dutch myself and I saw you mentioned Geert Wilders (who will most likely be in parliament) and wanted to add that, in order to become more electable, he actually chose to abandon most of his extremely right-wing views and is now quite social towards the (frightened) lower class citizen's (his target audience, of course), and his ideology is here considered to be a center right extreme conservatism. You might call him an anti-Islamic teddy bear.
I'm not going to touch your post, partially because I'd have to read it some more before I could really give an intelligent response, partially due to it's many references, which my reply would never maintain and primarily because it makes it's own point, which I think I agree upon.
I would like to respond do the idea of the poster though, that atheists are often liberal, or whether or not there is a connection between the two. See, the liberal idea of ascribing rights goes something like this:
1. Lift any individual from society;
2. Ascribe to him certain rights;
3. Put individual back in society;
4. Repeat for every individual in the society.
And the same might go for institutions, who of course have certain rights and limits.
This process to us seems so notorious. We may doubt what kind of rights these are, whether or not they conflict with another individual's rights, but we have no point in arguing this process: it is the way a society should ascribe rights to individuals. But in reality, it presumes to qualities that we value highly, namely freedom and equality. We want our politics, our constitution, to promote these two qualities.
This observance has many implications, leading to the political view of commensalism, which in turn greatly influenced liberal thinkers such as John Rawls and Jà¼rgen Habermas and had a huge impact on the line of thought in dealing with multicultural societies and foreign affairs. I will elaborate a small portion of commensalism.
You see, holding these values dear and wanting our constitution to promote these values means, that every right is in fact no more than an effect on the cause that is this value. Every right we ascribe, we ascribe because we want an individual in our society to be able to utilize this value. For example, we want every citizen to pay equal taxes, because we want him to utilize his equality. We (in Holland, at least) don't want our police to be able to randomly pick individuals off the street, because we want the individual to be able to utilize his freedom.
This observance implies, that the rights we wish to ascribe to individuals are in fact the result of values we hold dear. Perhaps the implication on international thinking is obvious already, but now let's have a look at what they mean for the US.
Jonathan Haidt is a philosopher who has done many studies towards the roots of ethics and political thinking. He is primarily famous for his studies regarding the importance of rationality in ethical thinking, in which he has shown that our responses to ethical problems are primarily intuitive, and that only the highly intellectual have room for rational thought. These intuitions consist, again, of certain values we hold dear. In this particular video, he applies his findings on conservatives and liberals in US society.
What we find, is that the values held dear by liberals are, if I may be so bold to translate them a little, freedom and equality, whereas conservatists hold values suh as loyality, purity and authority equally high. It seems these last three values are rooted in Christian thinking, much more than freedom and equality are. You might say that liberals and conservatists simply have different mindsets, which translates to the values they hold dear in ethics, politics, or even in life.
Now if we reflect on the ascribing of laws from commensalism as I elaborated earlier, we can see that a Christian would ascribe different rights and would even imply a different constitution (one encompassing the values "authority" and "loyalty") than a liberal would. This is the result of them simply having a different mindset.
The point is, that the mindset of the liberal thinker is one that does not necessarily uphold values such as loyalty and authority, deeply rooted in the Christian tradition. It seems that anyone who would uphold the five values of conservatism is likely to be a Christian, whereas someone who holds only the values of freedom and equality as dear in political and ethical thought is likely to be an atheist. Why? Because he does not uphold values as authority (to God) and loyalty (to the community), meaning instead he upholds autonomy and individuality. We all heard the atheist argument, that God is no more than an abstract alpha figure for the betas of a society.
This is the connection I would observe between liberalism and atheism, which I definitely think is present.
I would have to say that people who are very liberal to tend to be atheist, agnostic or weakly theist since strong religious views often do not cohere with being liberal, however people who lack religious beliefs may be conservative for other reasons so I would only expect to see a relatively weak correlation.
usaf2222 said:
It is hard to get more right wing than Objectivism which is a fascistic authoritarian cult. Ayn Rand did not have anything resembling a philosophy unless you count Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a philosophy.
As for the original topic
LIBERAL. 1. a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way. 2. BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.
Some are arguing that because atheists go against traditional religious views they are naturally liberal. But one can be just as dogmatic and hide bound in one's atheism just as easily as in religion. The urge to believe that you posses the Truth and that you are being attacked from outside enemies and that therefore you need to circle the wagons... that urge is a human urge and not limited to believers.
It's probably more due to religion being intertwined into "conservative values" than atheism leading to liberalism.
North American right-wing thought is all over the map anyway, it's very inconsistent. They embrace the Libertarians but are anti-gay...? They tell the government to stay out of their lives, yet support the prohibition of drugs...? They talk about the government being fiscally responsible and then blow surpluses on giving tax cuts to the rich...?
They're talking out of both sides of their mouth, much like clergy, so it's only natural for an atheist to be turned away from such a political belief structure.
North American right-wing thought is all over the map anyway, it's very inconsistent. They embrace the Libertarians but are anti-gay...? They tell the government to stay out of their lives, yet support the prohibition of drugs...? They talk about the government being fiscally responsible and then blow surpluses on giving tax cuts to the rich...?
They're talking out of both sides of their mouth, much like clergy, so it's only natural for an atheist to be turned away from such a political belief structure.
Jengopockets
New Member
I believe that atheists will usually lean more to the left for the simple fact that left wing is known not to push a religious agenda unlike the right who, in this day and age, make religion almost a priority. So most Atheist feel they don't belong on the right. However many Atheists I know still hold conservative values, and most of these are not held by the left wing. So when it comes down to it, most atheists would rather not be described as Liberal or Conservative.