Atheist conservatives and the West: the bottom line

Below is an edited version of a comment I posted yesterday at Mangan’s:

I see how defenders of Christianity in this thread are getting into more particular arguments about religion, for example, that it is needed as the source of morality. That is a true and important statement. But such a particular assertion about religion is inevitably going to arouse the opposite assertion, and then there’s an endless philosophical debate about that.

As far as this present discussion is concerned, I’m not interested in any of that. I want to avoid all that. I simply want the atheists and non-Christians to accept the idea that Christianity is central to our civilization and that to attack the truth of Christianity is to attack the identity and legitimacy of our civilization and to undermine our ability to defend it, and therefore anyone who considers himself a conservative should stop doing that.

In the same way, anyone who reflexively sides with America’s liberal critics, anyone who attacks the legitimacy of America or who says that America is a fundamentally guilty country, is undermining our ability to defend our civilization; and anyone who considers himself a conservative should stop doing that.

In the same way, anyone who says that whites are a force of evil in the world is undermining our ability to defend our civilization, and no true conservative would join or countenance such an attack.

Now, Mr. Mangan and others presumably understand that attacking the legitimacy of America or attacking the white race is incompatible with the preservation of the West. But they refuse to understand that attacking Christianity is incompatible with the preservation of the West.

I am not seeking to convert atheists to Christianity. I simply want them to stop attacking belief in God and the Christian religion. I am seeking the minimal amount of agreement that is needed among conservatives if we are to stand together in defense of the West.

Also, I am not saying that people should not be allowed to criticize various manifestations of the Christian religion. I am saying that if people want to be seen as pro-Western conservatives, they should respect the Christian religion as the religion of our civilization, and therefore should refrain from making arguments denying its truth. There are more than enough West-hating, white-hating, America-hating liberals doing that. We don’t need self-described conservatives doing that as well.

- end of initial entry -

Philip M. writes from England:

“I am not seeking to convert atheists to Christianity. I simply want them to stop attacking belief in God and the Christian religion. I am seeking the minimal amount of agreement that is needed among conservatives if we are to stand together in defense of the West. “

An agnostic amen to that. (I hate being thought of as an atheist. It is the silliest of all belief systems … apart from Scientology)

Ilion Troas writes:

Philip M. wrote: “An agnostic amen to that. (I hate being thought of as an atheist. It is the silliest of all belief systems … apart from Scientology)”

Well-meaning though he may be, Phillip M is wrong. The silliest of all belief-systems is not atheism, but rather agnosticism (which I presume is what he holds to).

Agnosticism is nothing more and nothing less than the refusal to learn anything at all about God, starting with the fact that he exists. The so-called agnostic begins and ends with the assertion that it is utterly impossible to know anything at all about God. But he never tests the assertion.

And really, in the end, when these things are properly understood, what the “agnostic” is asserting is that it is utterly impossible to know anything at all about anything at all. Not that the “agnostic” actually ever conducts his life as though that were the truth about the nature of reality.

Julien B. writes:

A comment on the thread about atheistic conservatism. Ilion Troas writes:

“Agnosticism is nothing more and nothing less than the refusal to learn anything at all about God, starting with the fact that he exists. The so-called agnostic begins and ends with the assertion that it is utterly impossible to know anything at all about God. But he never tests the assertion.”

This is an absurdly unfair description of agnosticism. Agnostics don’t have to claim that it is impossible to know anything at all about God. Many of them would simply say that they don’t have any such knowledge: they see no reason to believe and no reason not to believe. That isn’t the same as saying that it’s impossible for anyone, under any circumstances, to know that God exists (or doesn’t). I’m agnostic about life on other planets. I can see that there are some reasons to think that there is such a thing, but I don’t know of any reason or piece of evidence compelling enough to make me believe in it. I’m not saying it’s impossible for such evidence to turn up, and I’m not even saying that there might not be other people right now who have such evidence; but I don’t, and so I’m not willing to assert or deny that there’s life on other planets.

Where does Ilion get this strange idea that agnosticism is some irrational, dogmatic position that “begins and ends” with the unargued assertion that we can’t know anything about God? There are plenty of people who have given some thought to the question of whether God exists but are unable to come to a firm conclusion. They think—after having tried to “test the assertion” that God exists, or that we can know about God—that the evidence in its favor is inconclusive. Such people are normally called “agnostics.”

LA replies:

Yes, now that I think about it, I’ve never heard of a self-described agnostic position that makes the assertion that God (or any subject) cannot be known. So I think Ilion’s definition is incorrect.

Terry Morris writes:

“The so-called agnostic begins and ends with the assertion that it is utterly impossible to know anything at all about God. But he never tests the assertion.”

Is it agnosticism that claims that all “God-talk” is utter nonsense? I forget.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 30, 2008 11:51 AM | Send