08.28.09

Liberal atheists?

Posted in atheism at 6:33 pm by nemo

Christianity Versus Atheism: Liberal Democrat Dilemma
by Dr. Spencer Price

I’ve never met a republican atheist. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. There could be lots of them. There might even be a republican atheist organization – I’m just not aware of one.

What? Nietzsche was the super-rightwinger, the founder of idiot atheism of the post-darwin Dawkins type.
I would note that while republican atheists are rare, republican hypocrites are legion, and not a few Nietzschean nihilists and crypto-eugenicist Darwinians produce impeccable credentials as to Sunday church, a complete Machiavellian deception on religion. I could hardly exempt all Democrats from such a judgment.

Liberals certainly have a problem here, and the onset of a mediocre atheism, of the type promoted by Dawkins et al., will prove diastrous in the long run. Is any of it necessary?
The Darwin/Dawkins axis of stupid evolutionists, now determined to posit atheism as a consequence of their scientism, is going to destroy a whole civilization. If you are so stupid to be unable to withstand this gang of adolescents, the situation is hopeless.
The solution, however, is not to twist arms to force people to embrace religion, but to embrace the tradition of robust liberalism in its deeper significance. Bail out into agnosticism, for starters. Those who wish to remain religious are fine the way they are, until someone can say something intelligent that is post-religious. Trying to promote a silly atheism of the Dawkins type is bad metaphysics, doomed to fail, stay away from it.
We need a post-darwinian liberalism, and a new worldview that is not a kind of degenerated scientism.
A robust dialectic is needed that fulfills the real Enlightenment, in which the onset of atheism was a side-show.
It might help to be able to stand up to the stupidity of Nietzsche, who more than anyone else has made atheism the ‘smart man’s trap’.

Another approach is to broaden the study of religion to include the full spectrum of human historical religion. This stands beyond canned beliefs or simplistic faiths as a resource for what it means to be human. The immensity of the Buddhist tradition being an example.

The current debate over ‘god’ is like an insect with pin in it, behind glass: Kant analyzed this metaphysical dispute for all time two centuries ago. The current parties to the ‘god’ debates have no historical memory of the analysis of their position.

But I’ve met several democratic atheists and each time I do, I find myself pondering how that particular ideology will affect the Democratic Party over time. That’s because the growth of atheism among democrats presents the party with a potentially serious dilemma: at least three distinct groups upon which the party depends for much of its voting strength – blacks, Catholics, and senior citizens – are traditionally very religious.

So what is the Democratic Party to do? You got me. At least for now, democratic atheism doesn’t seem to be that much of a problem, and as long as the party continues to market itself as the financial savior of its followers, it may never become one. But what happens if the democratic leadership fails to deliver on its promises? Will members of these groups become disenchanted with the party and its growing atheist ranks? Again, you got me? But it’ll be interesting to watch.

Permalink