Conservatism and Atheism - Second in a Series

~by Jillian Becker

I am a convinced law-and-order conservative, an eagerly practicing capitalist, an ideological libertarian. I accept enthusiastically the whole package of US Republican Party policy and sentiment - pro-America, pro-victory in Iraq, pro-gun, anti-abortion (with sensible reservations), pro-death penalty, pro-tax cuts, pro-smaller government, pro-spreading democracy and freedom throughout the world, pro-Israel, anti-welfare - all except one of its usual ingredients: belief in God. I do not accept God.

Quite simply, I cannot believe in God. I am old, past my three score years and ten, and decade upon decade I have read and listened, and there cannot be much that is old or new, famous, terse, verbose, smart, innocent, insidious, widely published or commonly uttered, learnedly debated or popularly discussed on the subject of God that I have not read or heard. Because religious beliefs have been a hugely important factor in our history and the shaping of our world and time, I have long been deeply interested in how and why religions begin and develop. I have pondered well the better pro-God arguments but have found none that will do. Not one. The very lack of proof of God’s existence is a fair argument for his non-existence if one needs to produce such a thing.

I know I am not alone in my atheist conservatism. Just how many conservative, or ‘right-wing’, atheists there are may not be assessable even in ballpark figures. But I assume that most educated people in technologically advanced societies accept the theory of evolution; that evolutionists are quite likely to be atheists; and that this very large class of educated atheists must include conservatives. So I reason that the number of my like-thinkers cannot be small.

I know that there are scientists who believe in God, but the ones I know personally tell me they do not, so none has been able to explain to me how religion can be squared with science. I have read and listened to arguments for Intelligent Design - God in euphemism - without finding them persuasive.

Speaking then not just for myself but probably for a multitude of others, I declare that, tolerant though we are, we are irritated, even exasperated, when religion is so often thrust under our noses by intellectuals of our own political persuasion. Friends, we think you are irrational, but will not try to convince you that we are right. In return we ask that you do not thrust your God into all our common affairs. He is not helpful to us. What we need is clear moral thinking - and we dispute any assertion that morality exists only because it is God-revealed. While we approve, by and large, what is commonly called the Jewish-Christian moral law, we take it as entirely man-made and similar in vital ways to certain other ancient moral codes and to moral laws that thinking people might list at any time in history. This moral law is law taught by mortal men as mortal men conceived it. It is a most necessary part of our cultural tradition, life preserving and life enhancing. But neither God (as the Torah says) nor angels (as the New Testament says) dictated it to Moses. And to say (with Tolstoy) that our moral sense must be inspired by God because only if it is inspired by God could we have it, is a circular argument.

For myself I would venture further. Still keeping myself free of the desire to proselytize, and merely to state a position, I say that God is not a fruitful idea. It does not provide answers. It does not even answer the question why; and does not attempt to answer the question how. Science sets itself that task, and often finds satisfactory answers, and - we suppose - will find more. It will never find all; but to be ever better informed though never wholly informed is surely a good state for us to be in - a state of highly stimulating ignosticism, to coin a word.

If we had not inherited the idea of God, would we arrive at it now, in our age of science? Is he a good idea? Does he explain what we need explanation for? Can our minds be satisfied with him as an hypothesis? Just to start with, is the idea of him internally consistent? Let’s consider. He is held to be good and omnipotent. He is the Lord of All Created Things. He is the God, then, who created - along with human beings whom, the believers say, he loves - the virus and the tumor, ordained the earthquake and the volcanic eruption, and much else that brings suffering on mankind. His design of living things is such that they must, in order to stay alive, regularly devour other living things. So conceived, he is not an aid but an obstacle to thought. Stationing him at starts and termini of our theories of universal history sets up a barrier to conjecture and discovery. Posited as a continuous active moral presence through all the ages of mankind’s existence, and in consideration of the multitude of evils that befall mankind, he confronts us with a riddle: if he is omnipotent how can he be called good: if he is good why do his powers not save his beloved creatures from torment?

I am not speaking of the torment man inflicts on man – that is explained away by Judaism and Christianity as a result of God granting humankind free will. I am speaking of - Oh let’s say ebola, leprosy, the tsunami. In the light of this, it seems to me that it would be more in keeping with experience for those who believe in a divine creator and ruler to perceive him as an evil god. An evil god governing the lives of men would fit better with what happens in our world. An evil god could refrain from exercising his will to do evil sometimes or often, so that human suffering is not continuous, and human beings can find comforts and enjoyments where he chooses not to hurt us. But while it is fun to toy with the idea of such a divinity, there are better explanations for our joys and sufferings: explanations found in nature, not in the supernatural.

By Jillian Becker

Technorati Tags: america, atheism, atheist, conservative, conservative blogs, conservative news, conservative politics, God, Israel, neo-conservative, neoconservative blog, neoconservative politics, neoconstant, politics, Religion, uk

Bookmark It

Hide Sites