Over the years of my evolution towards conservatism, I have found many instances of a kind of conservative bigotry that has been somewhat frustrating.
I consider myself to be a rather strict conservative. My values in most instances, tend to be fairly traditional and I am often quite unwavering on my principles (which is often frustrating for my family). Yet despite all this, I often will read comments from fellow conservatives, regarding the lack of moral guidance attributed to secularism.
You see, I am an atheist and when they talk about godlessness, as if it were an insult to societal mores, they are talking about me and many others like me. They are also talking about those who have a rabid contempt for all religion and a fiercely unreasonable hatred for traditional values, but this is not an ignorance born of secularism. It is not God that these people hate. Their baseness is from something much uglier than a hatred of God. It is from a violent contempt for life itself and the embodiment of life, in man. A denial of God does not lead to this. It is only the excuse they give themselves, to deny the true nature of their hostility.
The problem lies in the interpretation of where an individual's morality springs from. Most conservatives refuse to believe that it's possible to develop a strong set of moral principles, without the guidance provided in God's word. Granted, most of society's laws and social traditions were developed from an understanding of, and deference to religious dictates but I believe these rules are more fundamentally basic than that. As in physics and mathematics (both considered to be universal understandings), there are rules that are static and unchangeable, that all things are subject to. Life has rules and to realize the full potential of life and self, we must each follow these rules or suffer the consequences of our contradictions.
Ayn Rand, a woman I consider to be an intellectual without parellel, best articulated the concept of these static rules with her philosophy of Objectivism. In The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary she explains
"There is no way to reason from nature to its negation, or from facts to their subversion, or from any premise to the obliteration of argument as such, i.e., of its foundation: the axioms of existence and identity."
Meaning true=true, and the result of this equation can never be changed by the will of an omnipotent being or the subjective reasoning, of a societal trend.
To give examples: The taking of a life, for the purpose of taking life, is wrong. It is wrong because I have to deny my own reason (in that all life is valuable, as it enriches my own life) in order to take it. Killing in a situation of defence of life is right because it is for the purpose of preventing the taking of a life, by force. The Ten Commandments are a valuable guide of right and wrong but only because they follow the rules of reason. Reason is an end in itself. An absolute. Murder is wrong; Lying is wrong; Stealing is wrong; but I do not need to read the Bible to know this. In all instances, I need only heed my own reason, to understand the difference between right and wrong. I ask myself if my actions will enrich my life, or diminish my own sense of self. This rule has not failed me, yet.
This is not to say I do not make mistakes. I make plenty. The difference lies in the absence of malice. Without malice, my mistakes tend to be small and easily rectified. This also serves to make it easier to admit when I am mistaken. I can do so in good faith, because of the certainty that my intentions are always based on fundamental moral principles, and these principles stem from a foundation of reason. The kind that's black and white, with no room for subjectiveness. Right and wrong, with no in-between or sometimes.
Morality is not exclusive to faith. It exists, absent of religion. It is only the form of adherance that differs.
I respect those who choose religion, as I would respect anyone with a solid moral foundation. Some find solace in the idea that they are under the protective gaze of an almighty righteousness. For me, this feels like an evasion. I prefer the knowledge that I am solely responsible for the life I make, unbeholden to anyone and independant of a supreme whim. This denies me the option of a scapegoat and thus forces me to weigh my choices very carefully.
The problem with religious conservatives claiming an exclusive right to morality, is that they risk alienating would-be allies in the war against the ammoral secularists. The ones who's values are elastic, so as to contort to fit around and veil any abhorative behavior and excuse it with meaningless distortions such as diversity and tolerance. These people do not believe in God, as they also do not believe in anything concrete; only the evasive fog of maleable convictions to an ever-changing standard of depravity. Their contempt for religion is not a result of their godlessness, their godlessness is a result of their more basic contempt for life.
My godlessness does not come from this. I love life and anything that serves to enrich life. For me, it is in man's nature to be a hero. Each person has the responsibility to live with a moral purpose. That moral purpose is defined by a person's ability to reason, and any deviation from reason is a fierce betrayal of life's purpose. Any such betrayals should be subjected to full moral judgement and confronted. No placating and no capitulating. This is my religion.
For those conservatives who would disagree with me, I challenge you to find a moral purpose more righteous than this. For those who do not believe in morality without God - Reconsider. There are other godless conservatives out there and with the rise of ammoral secularism, you may need some of us to help even out the fight.
This is really the great way you discuss this kind of topic. Good job.
Posted by: clonidine online | January 07, 2012 at 08:04 AM