The youth of the 3 Abrahamic faiths were not especially conservative as I remember--more like associated with social upheaval. — Bitter Crank

You *may* (but I would dispute even this) be correct about Christianity, but Judaism and Islam were conservative from the very beginning. Although both passed through times when the conservatism advocated by the religion was actually neglected. Baghdad during the Golden Age of Islam was similar to New York today :P

It isn't very common that that people do this--launch "revolutions" within the church, yet preserve their conservative faith. — Bitter Crank

What do you think of Reinhold Niebuhr?

Conservatism refers to particular views, but it also refers to a general tendency to avoid change and to prefer traditionalism for its own sake. (Hence why I pointed out earlier that the behavioral decrees of religious texts do not change--that's one sense in which they're conservative; but the content tends to be conservative in the other sense, too)

Well, I am one of the few, but I have got to say that I have become more sympathetic towards religion (especially Christianity). — Emptyheady

How did you arrive at your social conservatism?

Christopher Hitchens is the only commie I respect. — Emptyheady

But CH wasn't a social conservative for sure :P

Conservatism refers to particular views, but it also refers to a general tendency to avoid change and to prefer traditionalism for its own sake. — Terrapin Station

The only way to keep a white post white is to, every now and then, repaint it white no? If you avoid change, you're not conservative at all, ultimately.

You're not ignoring the word "tendency" and reading it as an "absolute" instead, are you?

You're not ignoring the word "tendency" and reading it as an "absolute" instead, are you? — Terrapin Station

Well I did take tendency in an absolute sense, but apart from that I guess I would question that conservatism (or at least my conservatism) prefers traditionalism for its own sake. I see good reasons to preserve it.

(In fact, I am quite against the type of conservative who thinks we should do something that way, because it's always been done that way. I hate that actually - in my country for example, there's a lot of that type of conservatism - for example you have men who think women should never hold a job, etc. but that seems stupid to me - there's no reason to believe or hold to that - it's irrational )

Judaism and Islam were conservative from the very beginning — Agustino

Wait a minute, how can you call a religion conservative from the beginning that spread as fast as Islam did, disrupting one society after another? Are you classifying Islam conservative (at its birth) because religion was allied with conquest and control of territory and people? Or are you saying that Islam became fixed and rigid very early?

Judaism probably began as one of several religions in the inland territory at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and from that perspective might have hatched out as conservative from the get go. Is that why you classify Judaism as conservative from the beginning? I would think Egyptian religion would be a better candidate for "conservative at its birth". What about Greek and Roman religion?

I'm going to be polemical here and say the people who are socially conservative and "religious" are not typically seen as the sharpest tool in the shed.

I won't deny that you can be very intelligent and be religious and socially conservative. But I will affirm that, at least in my experience, encounters with people of this dual nature tends to leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Both positions may be reasonable but from my own experiences the vast majority of participants are not.

In fact, now that I think about it, the same applies to the opposite spectrum. There are some really stupid liberal atheists.

Are you classifying Islam conservative (at its birth) because religion was allied with conquest and control of territory and people? — Bitter Crank

Conservative in the sense that it was spreading itself and keeping with the spirit of other religions of the time, looking to gain adherents and have them share their beliefs.

How did you arrive at your social conservatism? — Agustino

This is a good question. I am not sure how I exactly ended up here. I think the same way I became an atheist (from Christian theism); a Christian convinced me of atheism and a commie (Hitchens) convinced me of social conservatism. They got the ball rolling and got me here.

The Christian told me not the take my beliefs for granted and actually critically think about them -- the road to atheism started at that point. Hitchens provided some strong insights on the issue of abortion and why he considers himself pro-life, I started to think about it and quickly realised how disgustingly vulgar and poor the leftist/progressive arguments are.

My life has been quite ironic so far. I wouldn't be surprised if one day a redneck convinces me abstract art deserves appreciation.

I almost went to art school. I ended up choosing Engineering and Business school. Better career pro$pect$ anyway. :-$

Social conservatives generally believe in authority as being necessary for creating social cohesion. God is associated with the idea of genuine authority. Only the author has genuine authority, and God is usually understood to be the author of the world. Absent God authority is a merely contingent matter, upheld by worldly power. Absent God the desirable socially harmonizing force of authority is left with no solid, non-arbitrary foundation.

Well to be honest - I very rarely, if ever come across social conservatives. Most folks are either:

1. Progressive liberals
or
2. Reactionaries

What I mean by progressive liberals is clear, but what I mean by reactionary is different. Alt Right, Men's Rights, etc. such groups I qualify as reactionary. They are reactionary because they revolve around primitive notions of - for example - gender relations. For example, they think women should be servile towards men, they think the most powerful man should have the most choice of women, they use double standards - promiscuity for men, chastity for women - and so forth. To me, they are almost just as bad as progressive liberals, but they are easier to deal with than progressive liberals are, because they never claim to have the moral high ground. Such reactionaries often speak in the language of alpha males - a language that I find demeaning to women (the idea that a woman would choose a man because he is the most powerful is demeaning). But I never worry too much about them. It's only a matter of time before they will be defeated. I only worry that if they are defeated the progressive liberals will take over. So I would rather ally with them, than with progressive liberals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So if I am to speak of social conservatism - let's take one view - that abortion should be limited to specific cases such as rape, incest, or when the woman's health is in danger - then I get one of two reactions - (1) women should be allowed no abortions or (2) ewww that's disgusting, women should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies (and I hate the second reply).
Or take sex outside of committed relationships. I get two responses - (1) what, are you stupid? Don't you want to fuck women without having to worry about them ever again? Do you want to be a woman's slave? or (2) When and how two consenting adults have sex is their business. Women should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want, and however they want. I find both responses much more unintelligent, uninformative and immoral than my own social conservatism. So there's few which treat sex with the same dignity and respect that I treat it with.

Social conservatives believe in authority. God is associated with the idea of genuine authority. Only the author has genuine authority, and God is usually understood to be the author of the world. Absent God authority is a merely contingent matter, upheld by worldly power. — John

Not necessarily - they don't believe in authority for authority's sake.

I didn't say they did.

I didn't say they did. — John

Sure but then it means that - granting atheism - God becomes merely a tool of enforcing morality - a morality which has an entirely different foundation than God.

and a commie (Hitchens) convinced me of social conservatism — Emptyheady

But how is Hitchens socially conservative? I mean his position regarding gay marriage, sex outside of marriage, value of family etc. are completely the opposite of what a social conservative would hold. Abortion is possibly the only commonality.

Sure, atheists could use the belief in God to create the illusion of absolute authority.

Yes, and that goes a long way towards achieving the separation between religion and social conservatism. I think the two should be separated while at the moment all too often they are not.

Yeah, but like I said, he started the ball rolling for me.

Okay, yes I see!

Should you not for example have written "recommending" rather than "achieving"? Because otherwise I am having difficulty parsing your statement.

Should you not for example have written "recommending" rather than "achieving"? Because otherwise I am having difficulty parsing you statement. — John

Maybe - I meant that achieving it in thought, obviously not practically achieving it.

Alright I can make sense of that. :)

Why is there an association of religion and social conservatism? — Agustino

Because conservatism by its very nature wishes to conserve tradition - that which has been found to be true and good, that which is handed down by the prior generations. Conservatism is suspicious of innovation. (Although oddly, Jesus Christ was not conservative in the least - he was a revolutionary in many ways.)

But in today's world, which is characterised by an ever-increasing rate of change, conservatism wishes to maintain the golden thread which leads back to the original revelation and connection to the true good.

That quote from Aquinas is illuminating, thank you.

Okay I agree, but again, why would an atheist be less likely than a theist to see the value of religion/tradition for society at large?

I think it's an historical question - in the context of modern Western culture, belief in God is the tradition, atheism is the challenger. Who are the major figures associated with atheist ideas in Western culture? Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Nietszche would be among them. All of them are associated with challenging or dissolving traditional beliefs. Freud's essays on religion, Marx's 'opiate of the masses', Nietszche's 'the death of God'. (Poor Charles would probably want no truck with them but he's been dragged into it, witness Marx and Engel's gleeful reception of Origin.)

But then, their essence is certainly being anti-traditionalists rather than merely atheists. For they don't have a beef with God, but rather with the whole of tradition. They only have a beef with God, in other words, because they want to get rid of tradition, and God happens to be part of tradition.

I don't think they are-- "tradition" more or less means "values and behaviour" that ought to be handed down through generations. Atheists and/or "non-traditionalists" have these too, contrary to what someone analysis of morality (Haidt comes to mind), but they just advocate different values and behaviours. It's just the "non-traditionalists (i.e. not religious)" values and behaviour are new, so people don't think of them as traditions.

I think there is a bit of a metaphysical difference. The traditions of the past focus on a particular underlying foundation (God, Nation, etc., etc.) where is the behaviour and values of the modern "non-traditionalists" focus on the world itself (at least with respect to post-modern Western liberalism). Their traditions (freedom, equality, etc.,etc.) are understood to serve the present world and it people, rather than a foundation. In a way, we might say to values the world (that which exists at some point in time), rather than an idea (a particular notion of a foundation). I think this is a bit of a significant change. The "non-traditionalists" don't understand behaviour and values, their traditions, like the traditionalists do.

Fine. But you don't address the point of the thread. Why is social conservatism associated with religion mostly, and not with atheism? Why are those values, in other words, associated with religion, and not (also) with atheism?

Have you read Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men? I don't see you as a fiction reader, but I'd be interested to know what you think of the book's themes.