Ed Feser does a much better job than I can do arguing this position in his essay, The Metaphysics of Conservatism. It is well worth the read. Realist conservatives leave room for faith, the others do not. To quote Mr Feser:
So let me end by citing another, and more practical, reason someone with truly conservative instincts ought to favor the Realist brand of conservatism over its rivals -- namely, that it isn't clear that the other versions are really versions of conservatism at all, any more than nominalism or conceptualism are versions of realism.You see, metaphysics matter. Metaphysics determine both our ontology and epistemology.(Our understanding or reality and the nature of knowledge). The Ancient Greek or Roman may have disagreed with the Catholic or Lutheran about the nature of the the true God/Gods, but he would have agreed that there was some form of higher Deity than himself. More importantly, however imperfectly they did it, men orientated their lives to the imperatives of the Deity. The rules came from God, not from a rational agent's opinion of the facts. The locus of morality was external to man. The great cultural divide between the Modern World and the World that preceded it, lay in this metaphysical shift. In the Modern World, Man was the source of morals.
Can an Atheist therefore be a Conservative, if he does not share their metaphysics? I would argue not, for the same reasons Ed Feser does. Can a man be a conservative and disdain Christianity? Yes, but he cannot be a Western Conservative. He can be a Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian etc, type of conservative or he can be a Liberal.
Denis Mangan did not publish my last reply to his post. I really don't care as it is his blog and he has the right to do on it as he pleases. However the generally accepted form is to publish comments unless they are offensive, which my comments were not. I would invite the reader to to visit the discussion and make his own mind up.
2 comments:
To be fair, you were pretty harsh on Mangan towards the end of your post and I understand his sense of hostility even if it were misplaced. It is difficult to argue on the side of religion for those who have already closed themselves to the possibility of it in the first place. I know because for a great deal of my life I completely dismissed the notion of religion on the notion that it always got it wrong (Sun around the earth, etc). I failed to recognize that the essence of religion is not a meant as a historical chronicle, but rather a description of universal morality which when applied to society bring fruition to civilization and well being to all levels of human relationships.
I believe there is a disconnect on the part of many theists to relate this aspect of religion to the success of western society. One of the reasons for my rejection of religion was "proof" that society can advance prosperously without any necessity for religion in the process. Some examples of non-christian societies that fit this bill are ancient Greece, and the modern secular scientific anglosphere. I believe this was what Mangan was intimating at during some of his final replies. I mulled over this conundrum for some time, but I finally understand the error in this sentiment.
While it is true that many classical societies were able to flourish independent of Christianity, this is not to say that they did not possess the essence of Christianity, specifically moral codes and recognition of universal forms (reality). This is illustrated by the Greek recognition of universal morals through Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and the concept of Platonic ideals. The Greeks, and many other ancient civilizations possessed an understanding that in order for society to function and prosper, universal truths must be recognized and upheld. Further, society must uphold themselves to a standard superseding mere rationality and materialism in order to create a just and loving society. This type of society would be a precondition for fairness and pacifity, which would encourage economic growth and a sense of sacrifice for one's own civilization. While ancient Greece flourished before the spread of Christianity in Europe, Christianity incorporates the essence of the best qualities which allowed Greece to prosper.
As for modern western advancements in secular society, I will cede that many of the advancements that have transformed our society were done without the direct influence of Christianity, though this is a diversion. Christianity set the foundation for the pacification of society and love for one's nation which encouraged economic prosperity and self sacrifice. If these preconditions for society had not been met, it is easy to see that it would be nay impossible for great scientific and economic advancement in an unstable anarchaic environment. From this I believe it can been that religion plays a direct, or at the very least a second-order effect in civilization.
It may also be of interest to note that while there have been great strides in secular society in science and economics, these may not be good indicators of social prosperity. Anyone living in this situation notices that people are increasingly unhappy and the economic future is incredibly bleak. Ever since the rejection of religion in the anglosphere, society appears to have begun collapsing rapidly. Even if modest advancements can be made within a secular period of a civilization, they may be extremely short-lived.
@Robert
Thanks for your considered comments.
I'd forgotten about that little scuffle. Anyway, Mangan didn't refute me, except by stating my comments were "ignorant bilge." There comes a time when there is no more point in arguing. I don't mind an opponent arguing with me honestly, but when you get to the "ignorant bilge" portion of the debate, well then you're not really debating with someone who is prepared to be objective.
I completely dismissed the notion of religion on the notion that it always got it wrong
I really don't have a problem with that, except when the truth is pointed out, it's the duty of an intellectually honest man to change his beliefs according to it. Now, I don't mean a thing is true because I say it is, but when you confer with other sources and are able to cross check the claim, well, if the claim stands then you have to change your mind.
I failed to recognize that the essence of religion is not a meant as a historical chronicle, but rather a description of universal morality
Well, it's more than that. It's meant to be a metaphysical statement on the nature of reality.
"proof" that society can advance prosperously without any necessity for religion in the process
The problem is that they (the Greeks) were religious in a pantheistic way whilst I can think of any other society that arose from atheism and "worked". You've got to understand that modern Western atheism still lives of the "Christian social capital" that had been built up. This is now dwindling and the full nature of an atheist society should slowly be revealed.
Christianity, though this is a diversion. Christianity set the foundation for the pacification of society and love for one's nation which encouraged economic prosperity and self sacrifice
It didn't just do that. It laid the foundation for the primacy of the truth. Galileo's triumph over the pope came from metaphysical underpinning of Christian society. A metaphysical imperative that the truth has supremacy over papal authority.
From this I believe it can been that religion plays a direct, or at the very least a second-order effect in civilization.
The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was commissioned by the Chinese Politburo to determine the source of the West's power. Their answer was Christianity.
Even if modest advancements can be made within a secular period of a civilization, they may be extremely short-lived.
Communism worked for quite a while and it's still working in North Korea. It's a "working society" but its a type of society I imagine both of us wouldn't want to live in. Suboptimal societies can exist for a very, very, long time.
Post a Comment