I think that's many atheists reason for rejecting God, but then I think that make sense.

I mean what is God without the "traditionalist" elements? If God is not a moral arbiter or enforcer of the world, God becomes sort of irrelevant. What does it matter if there is some being if it has no impact on the world? The question of believing in God becomes equivalent to whether one thinks there is some astroid in some galaxy we haven't observed. God without the "traditionalist" stuff is so benign that no-one has a beef with them-- well, apart from the traditionalist theists, who cannot stand the notion because it would mean the absence of their moral arbiter and enforcer.

I'd say everyone has a beef with God because that God is inseparable from the tradition they are opposed to. Even the "descriptive" atheist (i.e. the worried about the presence or logical coherence of God) reacts because belief would mean partaking in a tradition they found abhorrent (e.g. believing in falsified states and/or incoherent concepts).

So think you are right about people having a beef with God becasue of tradition, but what exactly is God without tradition? I think you are ignoring it's the tradition that makes God God.

I think this is a historical reason for the lack of intersection between atheism and social conservatism. Social conservatism has ties to traditions inseparable from God. Within the political environment, both the traditional theists and their opponents promote the opposite. Since the social conservative tradition so many people are worried about is tied to God, belief in God becomes the battleground. To be a social conservative atheist, one is effectively building an identity without precedent. No one thinks of a social conservative tradition being necessary tied to an atheist identity.

The social conservative atheist is caught in the middle. To the traditional theist, they are a threat because they agree with the non-traditionalist that God is irrelevant to the definition of tradition. Although they are both social conservative, the atheist denies the foundation of the theist's belief. God is no longer necessary and rejected. That's a big hurdle to ask many theists to jump. In the current political environment, the socially conservative atheist doesn't have many pre-existing traditions to coalesce a movement around. Without the reactionary defence religious tradition or alt-right identity, it's difficult for the social conservative atheist to generate political appeal. I think, perhaps, they are in the most difficult position in the West at the moment. The embedded liberalism within Western culture makes it difficult for them to develop a movement on their own terms.

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. — Agustino

God doesn't 'happen to a part of it', but is the foundation of it. So if you want to get rid of the tradition, then start with the foundation. Replace it with something today's man in the street respects, like science. The rest is detail.

Have you read Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men? — Heister Eggcart

Unfortunately no.

I don't see you as a fiction reader — Heister Eggcart

I do read fiction, but I don't really like present-day fiction, I have an aversion to it. It's too progressive for my liking. I like reading the likes of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Garcia Marquez, Jane Austen, etc.

but I'd be interested to know what you think of the book's themes. — Heister Eggcart

Well I don't know the book, but if you state the themes I could respond that way I guess.

God doesn't 'happen to a part of it' — Wayfarer

If atheism is true, then God happens to be part of it, and not the foundation.

I mean what is God without the "traditionalist" elements? If God is not a moral arbiter or enforcer of the world, God becomes sort of irrelevant. What does it matter if there is some being if it has no impact on the world? The question of believing in God becomes equivalent to whether one thinks there is some astroid in some galaxy we haven't observed. God without the "traditionalist" stuff is so benign that no-one has a beef with them-- well, apart from the traditionalist theists, who cannot stand the notion because it would mean the absence of their moral arbiter and enforcer.

I'd say everyone has a beef with God because that God is inseparable from the tradition they are opposed to. Even the "descriptive" atheist (i.e. the worried about the presence or logical coherence of God) reacts because belief would mean partaking in a tradition they found abhorrent (e.g. believing in falsified states and/or incoherent concepts). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay but if this is so, then the case against God is political rather than intellectual, and it's good for both participants to realise it is so. Then it merely becomes a matter of pushing tradition, rather than God for the theist. The atheist will then have a hard time defending and claiming moral superiority once God ceases to be a central focus of the debate. Once the theist stops claiming that social conservatism depends on belief in God, it will be very difficult for the atheist to oppose. So long as the theist can't be cornered, and the atheist can no longer claim that the theist believes X because of his belief in God, then it will be very difficult for those opposing tradition.

Without the reactionary defence religious tradition or alt-right identity, it's difficult for the social conservative atheist to generate political appeal — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, but the social conservative atheist, while not believing in God himself, could find belief in God useful for policing society, and so could at any time ally with the theist. Their mutual commitment to tradition is stronger than their commitment to God. Even more, since the atheist is a social conservative, he could find the preservation of religion useful for the set of morals it teaches, and not for its facticity. Then God becomes mere rhetorical device to help the propagation of a system of morality which ultimately doesn't rest on God - but on reason.

I remember becoming a social conservative first, and a theist second, and yet most folks claim to go the other way around. Why is there an association of religion and social conservatism? To me it would make sense to be the other way - if someone can first accept social conservatism - ie natural morality - they can accept religion much more easily... So what do you think? Is there a link between social conservatism and religion, and if so, why? — Agustino

Interesting, I see genuine religion as being largely (if not wholly) at odds with nature. Especially 'nature' as conceived of, and glorified by, someone like Nietzsche; in other words in a non-Romantic way. I'm referring, for example, to the emphasis on overcoming egotism (which seems 'natural') for the sake of a much broader conception of the self-- or maybe even deconstructing the illusions that the self is prone to identify with--as found in the lives of figures such as Socrates, Jesus and Buddha. To acknowledge your ignorance, to love your enemy, to sympathize with rather than condemn, etc. do not at all seem to be natural human sentiments. I do however think these views are 'conservative' in one very important sense: they reject materialistic conceptions of life which eschew any and every 'spiritual' principle. And by doing this, they at least tacitly acknowledge something 'higher' than the satisfaction of those bodily and quite natural desires for food, sex, power, etc.

Now of course religions are diverse, with some probably being more aligned with natural impulses than others. And there have been clear appropriations of these exemplary spiritual figures which have dragged down the sublime and elevated aspects of their teachings to the level of practical (and cynical) social and political utility. But that distinction having been made, I do see authentic religiosity as being more in step with radical modes of thinking and acting that reject the status quo. Does that mean they're 'progressive'? No--at least not if that term is understood and associated with the guiding assumptions of modern liberal progressives. Relative to these things, religion in the qualified sense does appear to be socially conservative for the reason mentioned above.

It would also (hypothetically) respect the dignity of the individual while simultaneously acknowledging the intimate interconnection we as individuals have with others in our community. We're more than a mere aggregate of autonomous egos, although this does not necessarily preclude notions of selfhood and individual freedom. Resolving this libertarian/communitarian tension in my own thinking is something I'd like to explore in more depth. Seems like Aristotle had some interesting things to say in his Ethics and Politics, as did Hegel in various places from what I've read thus far. I even like JS Mill's musings on the topic in On Liberty, despite the fact that I don't agree with many of his other social or political positions.

I have ambiguous views regarding religion and social conservatism. I'm not a theist or conservative in any traditional sense, but I do reject the reductive tendencies of materialism that most progressives seem committed to. This has relevance for my tentative and developing views on a broad range of issues that make me sympathetic to certain tenets of social conservatism as typically understood, and supplemented by my more idiosyncratic way of conceiving it: I am pro-marriage (absolute commitment which could involve two men, two women, or the traditional man and woman), anti-abortion (with exceptions), anti-consumerist, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, etc. Basically, I cannot align myself with any movement, political party or 'ism' of any sort which I feel fails to acknowledge the at least latent profundity of human existence--or existence (being) more generally--and reduces all things, human and non-human alike, to the one-dimensional level of exploitable resource. That's the nightmarish world in which 'we live and move and have our being' at present, and one which I feel should be overcome.

I would also add that this sort of conservatism does not necessarily look back nostalgically for examples of order and social stability to imitate, but rather looks ahead to a new era of human existence; one that may have been glimpsed by previous thinkers (and is thus indebted to the past in this sense), but has yet to be implemented within the culture at large. So in a way radical revolutionary and social conservative may converge, with the caveat that this alliance entails a new understanding of these terms that's freed them from their current associations. So in a paradoxical way, conservatism can even be utopian (again in a qualified sense). Or maybe it's best to leave behind terms such as 'conservative,' 'progressive,' 'religious' and the like altogether, since the associations they conjure up seem much too strong to allow for their re-appropriation.

But yeah, I obviously have a bunch of muddled intuitions on this very interesting topic that aren't fully formulated as of yet. I do think one could be both an atheist and a social conservative in a pragmatic way that seeks the usefulness of human virtue for the maintenance of collective cohesion and stability. The ground seems a bit flimsy though without some 'higher' conception of reality which includes, but is not exhausted by, its material component. Man does not live by bread alone.

It's always intellectual though, for ethics is the reason that matters. For the theist, the God without the political is not God. If God is merely rhetorical, it is not The Truth. There is no cosmic creator , judge, enforcer and giver of eternal life in such a circumstance. For the theist, God is always intellectual, a necessary truth of reason always bound to the ethics/politics of a just society. To recognise that a God debate is really about hierarchy of cultural practice and values, as opposed to the presence of a being that necessitates justice, is to destroy the very premise of the theist belief.

In understanding it, one destroys God-- ethics and power become their own category, without a foundation that necessitates them. Ethics become necessary in-themselves and, in terms of practice, a contingent state of the world (i.e. Nietzsche--"God is Dead").

So there is no doubt the socially conservative atheist may find God a useful concept for policing society and grounding their values, but it comes at the cost of honesty. God only works as a foundation when it is believed. Only if people think God is intellectual, is inseparable of the intellectual and political ethics of a just world, can it help reinforce socially conservative practice. Their mutual commitment to socially conservative tradition is not stronger than the theist's commitment to God. If the conversation turns to metaphysics of ethics, the theist must disagree or else lose their belief in God.

The social conservative atheist's argument might rest on reason (or specifically an intellectual and binding ethical/political position), but they can't publicly state that and make rhetorical use of God. To keep the theists on side, the public face must claim God is true and equate social conservative values with religious belief.

Conservatists want to make people stupid. Religions tend to make people stupid. This is why conservatists use religions.

So there is no doubt the socially conservative atheist may find God a useful concept for policing society and grounding their values, but it comes at the cost of honesty. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How? The conservative atheist has his own independent reasons for adhering to tradition - reasons which are independent from God. His "belief" in God is not dishonest - it's merely a mask he uses to communicate with others in a language they can understand.

God only works as a foundation when it is believed — TheWillowOfDarkness

But - what if believing in God is equivalent with adhering to tradition? What if believing in God is simply doing the Will of the Father? What if faith is simply upholding the virtues? What if this is simply all we mean when we say someone believes in God?

Only if people think God is intellectual, is inseparable of the intellectual and political ethics of a just world, can it help reinforce socially conservative practice. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, but that's other people from the conservative atheist's position.

The social conservative atheist's argument might rest on reason (or specifically an intellectual and binding ethical/political position), but they can't publicly state that and make rhetorical use of God. — TheWillowOfDarkness

They could, as I have outlined above.

To keep the theists on side, the public face must claim God is true and equate social conservative values with religious belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sure, but this is different from having social conservative values being the outgrowth (or consequence) of belief in God. Rather, in this case, social conservatism is simply equated with belief in God, in such a way that anyone who is a social conservative is an (anonymous) Christian, for example.

This seems a little one-sided. It may indeed be an accurate depiction of the general trend among members of the US Republican Party leadership, with their sham religiosity, their hypocritical patriotism (while gladly outsourcing American jobs for the sake of their true God and only loyalty--money) and other such things.

But dumbing the masses down in order to manipulate them is also a tactic increasingly being used by liberals these days. I spoke with a young employee of mine yesterday about racism, and she said she has an unqualified dislike of white people because 'they've done a lot of bad things'. We have, of course, but when pressed to provide concrete examples she had nothing, not even the obvious cases of slavery, genocide, etc. She was uncritically parroting what she'd been taught in her 'progressive' public high school. So even the Left tries to inculcate a certain set of simplified and dogmatic assumptions about the world that are to go unchallenged. Anyone who does try to inject some balance, context and/or nuance is accused of racism, sexism, and other such things.

So I see both sides as gladly subordinating truth to their agenda, of demonizing those who disagree with their Manichean worldview, and off attempting to stifle contrary opinions (as being anti-American in the case of conservatives and the aforementioned racist, sexist, fascist in the case of progressives). This being the case, I have fled from my previous attachment with the Left and now have a much more independent outlook on things that contains elements of progressivism and conservatism. In other words I've distanced myself from party loyalty and rigid ideology. I humbly suggest that others do the same.

The ground seems a bit flimsy though without some 'higher' conception of reality which includes, but is not exhausted by, its material component. Man does not live by bread alone. — Erik

I don't think this follows at all. What about someone like Epicurus - you really can't get more atheistic and materialistic than that. And yet, Epicurus was very pious, and probably quite close to social conservative values. It's not materialism that is the problem. Politics comes before materialism - and materialism is merely the post-fact rationalisation for a certain kind of politics. There is no necessary, or even likely link, between materialism and liberal progressivism.

You may very well be correct, but in what sense does the notion of piety have any legitimate meaning in a materialistic universe devoid of intrinsic purpose or value? Seems an extremely odd and illogical combination to me. Even the Stoics had a sense of some divine principle governing the cosmos, even if not a personal God in the Judeo-Christian sense. But please enlighten me and I will gladly stand corrected.

You may very well be correct, but in what sense does the notion of piety have any legitimate meaning in a materialistic universe devoid of intrinsic purpose or value? — Erik

Because that's what leads to well-being and happiness for yourself and others? If you read Epicurean works - take De Rerum Natura by Lucretius - you'll see that one, for example, should be free from lust because being a slave to lust makes one suffer - it diminishes their strength. One should be bonded in friendship with others because friendship makes everyone stronger, and none weaker. Giving in to your greed or lust isn't, paradoxically a way to satisfy the grandest ambitions of the ego - but a way to destroy them - it's the ego self-destructing because of lack of restraint.

What leads to happiness and well-being? A life of moderation and the implementation of other virtues? To my naive view, it seems like the satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible would make most people very happy. Physically at least. Now my counter-point would be to smuggle in a resulting spiritual unhappiness from such behavior. I feel guilty for cheating on my wife, for instance, despite the physical pleasure that doing so gave me at the moment.

But this of course involves a non-material principle: I betrayed the trust and loyalty that my wife placed in me and which should have prevented me from succumbing to the temptation of physical pleasure. Furthermore, I should have done so for the sake of (at the very least) a mental contentment that comes from knowing that I can constrain my desires and natural impulses, and this affirms my belief that I'm more than a mere beast out to to satisfy its natural desires. I see no reason why a hedonism, albeit of a sort mitigated by 'reason' and good sense, should necessarily lead to a life of virtue. A genuinely virtuous life, like that embodied by Socrates (and contrasted with the appearance of virtue of the sophists), would appear to be quite painful in fact relative to the other less principled and more practical human beings.

Same thing with friendship. Without a belief in anything more valuable than my own happiness and well-being, why not just use other human beings in a utilitarian way to the extent that they can assist my attempt to achieve things like bodily health, longevity, etc. I see no grounds here to do unnatural things like lay down my life, or sacrifice my own well-being, for the sake of another person, and I would not expect them to do so for me if they were guided by similar considerations. And friendship does not make everyone stronger. It depends upon the type of friends one hangs around, and the values they adhere to.

But again, I've probably built up a straw man due to my ignorance of the Epicureans. I'll look deeper into it. It just seems in principle to result in the type of atheistic pragmatism that I already mentioned could reasonably align itself with social conservatism. No disrespect intended for the likes of Epicurus. I'm making certain assumptions based upon my limited knowledge of his work. I just cannot fathom how materialism could lead to virtue in anything more than a practical way. And things founded on practicality can shift depending upon the given context. Spiritual values seem much less prone to the sort of instability which I take to be characteristic of the a life guided by considerations of my own physical well-being.

The material universe which expresses meaning and value. A reality in which God is not a foundation of the world or meaning, but rather an expression of existing states. God defined by non-existence: a series of necessary truths which can defy existence(e.g. the ethical truth that remains despite everyone acting otherwise) precisely because they aren't "in" the world.

A piety that matters because it is what the world expresses: the importance of family, a community where people are honest and can trust each other, the needles suffering which ought be avoided, a sacrifice of life so someone else can live, etc., etc.

In all cases, states of the material world which have significance, which demand action. No one needs to go hand-wringing over how to make the lives of loved ones matter or what makes feeding the starving child important. This states of the world express significance all on their own. The world is replete with meaning. Its expression is a necessary truth.

What leads to happiness and well-being? A life of moderation and the implementation of other virtues? — Erik

Yes.

To my naive view, it seems like the satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible would make most people very happy. — Erik

If that were so, then you should go ahead and join them. Then there would be no way for social conservatism to win - it would be impossible. If satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible really would make most happy, then that is the end. No amount of spiritual pleading could ever convince them otherwise, if they rationally perceived it to be so. The only alternative would be deception and force, but even they would probably fail in the long-run.

Physically at least. Now my counter-point would be to smuggle in a resulting spiritual unhappiness from such behavior. — Erik

An Epicurean wouldn't accept the distinction physical/spiritual. They would claim that the mind is what is meant by spirit, and the mind is also material. And so since sexual pleasure is felt in the mind, it is of the same kind as what you call spiritual pleasure, and in no way different in substance. However, the pleasures of the mind are to be preferred over the pleasures of the flesh simply because the pleasures of the mind can be achieved more easily, at lesser costs. Thus Epicurus would argue that the sage isn't interested in sex, because there is nothing to gain from it - the costs always outweigh the benefits.

I betrayed the trust and loyalty that my wife placed in me and which should have prevented me from succumbing to the temptation of physical pleasure for the sake of (at the very least) a mental contentment that comes from knowing that I can constrain myself, that I'm more than a mere beast seeking to satisfy its natural desires. — Erik

Going away from traditional Epicureanism now, which discourages physical love and attachments. The question isn't only that you betrayed the trust and loyalty that your wife placed in you. The question is that if you do this, then your wife will also (likely) do this, and you do not want that because you would experience jealousy then. So you merely feel guilty because you know what awaits you. If even you cannot be trusted, how could your wife be trusted? And this becomes the problem. If you fail, then not only have you failed her, she has also failed you.

There are some people for example who don't care if their wife cheats on them. These are the very same people who don't care about cheating on their wife either - they wouldn't feel guilty. It's the fact that you care about your wife cheating on you that makes you feel guilty if you cheat on her - it's an outgrowth of the golden rule. You do want the physical pleasure of sex, it's just that you realise that most scenarios of getting it lead to you ruining yourself. So you choose to abstain. You recognise that gaining it simply isn't in the cards for you. And you accept it.

Same thing with friendship. Without a belief in anything more valuable than my own happiness and well-being, why not just use other human beings in a utilitarian way to the extent that they can assist my attempt to achieve things like bodily health, longevity, etc. — Erik

Sure, do that, but they might not be your friends for long :)

I see no grounds here to do unnatural things like lay down my life, or sacrifice my own well-being, for the sake of another person, and I would not expect them to do so for me if they were guided by similar considerations. — Erik

You would see them, when you have no alternative. Say your wife is in danger. If you don't risk your life to save her, will you ever have another wife? Probably not - probably people won't respect you anymore. You'll be considered a coward and a wimp. Nobody will want to be around you anymore. And so it is better to risk losing your life, because if you don't, then you've already lost what is of value in it. And consider the alternative - you risk your life and manage to save her and survive - everyone, including your wife, will consider you a hero! You've won big league as Trump would tell you ;)

Well, I believe that I'm a conflicted being with conflicting impulses. Plato's tripartite division of the soul makes more than a bit of sense to me and I, like most people I'd imagine, often struggle with controlling my natural desires. There's a 'higher' and a 'lower' part to me, it seems, and while I agree that the physical and the spiritual are intimately related, I know which part each aspect is drawn to.

I stand firm at present in my belief that rejecting the 'spiritual' element (not to be confused with belief in the immortality of my individual soul, or a desire for an afterlife of everlasting bliss) would ipso facto drain the 'higher' values of much of their significance. I would feel no deep pangs of conscience for fucking a woman other than my wife, I would not willingly sacrifice my life for my children without hesitation, or even more unpractically, for an abstraction like freedom of thought and belief. I would probably seek happiness in the moderate satisfaction of physical desires and other pleasant diversions, but this would not lead to the type of elevated love that Jesus showed for others, or that Socrates willingly chose to die for. They didn't posit other worlds either; no, the 'spiritual' is here and now and all around us.

Anyhow I'll try to respond in more detail later though after chewing on this a bit. I intuitively feel that Dostoyevsky was right: if God doesn't exist then anything is permitted. For me God could mean the non or supra-material aspect of life which gives meaning and significance to the tangible world beyond human projections. If the ancient Greek atomists had a conception of matetr which allowed for this, then count me a materialist in their sense.

I would also quickly add, Agustino, that I think your 'conservative' ethics is ripe for the type of highly functional sociopaths who can successfully pass themselves off as virtuous while actually being the opposite. Socrates was prescient, I think, in pointing out the paradox of the genuinely good man coming across as evil while those who are evil often come across as good. Go ahead and remind me, What happened to Socrates and Jesus? Yeah, they were put to death.

Plato's meditations seem fixated on justifying philosophy--which should result in a life of virtue--in the face of the impractical and even dangerous possibilities it contains for its practitioners. My guess is that Epicurus would have made many concessions to the dominant social and political forces that Socrates (and Jesus) was unwilling to make, and that the reason for this could be traced to their respective understandings of human existence and, more specifically, to the existence or non-existence of a 'soul' whose needs can be at odds (at least on occasion) with the desires of the body. But this is obviously conjecture on my part.

All of what you wrote resonates a great deal with me. I'm assuming of course that I understood it, but I would say that this seems very close to my own feelings on the matter. I struggle to articulate my views, but my sense of spirituality or religiosity is very this-worldly and is probably even more akin to materialism than it is to usual conceptions of religion found in the Western tradition, with their completely transcendent God and otherworldly Heaven.

I do read fiction, but I don't really like present-day fiction, I have an aversion to it. It's too progressive for my liking. I like reading the likes of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Garcia Marquez, Jane Austen, etc. — Agustino

Everything old was once new and "progressive."

Well I don't know the book, but if you state the themes I could respond that way I guess. — Agustino

Perhaps get your hands on it, I think you may like it.

I would also quickly add, Agustino, that I think your 'conservative' ethics is ripe for the type of highly functional sociopaths who can successfully pass themselves off as virtuous while actually being the opposite. — Erik

I think not. Again, there never is a time when not acting virtuously is better pragmatically than acting virtuously. And thus, even if the character in question is a sociopath, they could never "show their face" so to speak. And if they can never show their face, and therefore they never do anything sociopathic, in what sense are they even a sociopath? The problem with sociopaths is that they hide and hide - but at one point they have to show their true colors, otherwise in what way are they sociopaths? For them, this showing their true colors ultimately is their undoing. Virtue is its own reward, and evil self-destructs. Even your so called sociopaths don't think sufficiently in the long-term. They are irrational.

My guess is that Epicurus would have made many concessions to the dominant social and political forces that Socrates (and Jesus) was unwilling to make, and that the reason for this could be traced to their respective understandings of human existence and, more specifically, to the existence or non-existence of a 'soul' whose needs can be at odds (at least on occasion) with the desires of the body. — Erik

Epicurus wasn't interested in politics, and advocated that his followers live a tranquil life, focused on study, exploration of nature, friendship, and enjoyment, and away from potential sources of pain, such as politics, sex, and the like.

Well, I believe that I'm a conflicted being with conflicting impulses. — Erik

I don't find this in myself.

I would feel no deep pangs of conscience for fucking a woman other than my wife, I would not willingly sacrifice my life for my children without hesitation, or even more unpractically, for an abstraction like freedom of thought and belief. — Erik

Then you are a very strange human being, who would willingly advance towards his own destruction, and who, if he wouldn't have a notion of the spirit, would willingly pour poisons down his throat...

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility. The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to receive a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should prefer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning — Benedict de Spinoza

I for one, for example, do feel pangs of conscience - even if I were to believe there is no spirit at all. For example, I feel pangs of conscience for fucking a woman other than my future wife. I don't understand why, absent spirit, you would go head long doing that. It's like, absent spirit, I wouldn't want my wife to be special to me and me to her. It's like, absent spirit, I wouldn't care about what my future wife is currently doing (and what I am currently doing). It's like absent spirit I wouldn't care if my wife is a loose slut or not. That is so foolish, as Spinoza said, that it's hardly worth refuting.

or that Socrates willingly chose to die for — Erik

If you were Socrates, would you have chosen to die or to live? I would have chosen to die. We all have to die in the end, better to die as a great hero that all of history will remember, than die as a coward, begging for a few more days of life, humiliated and despised for my weakness by all, and suffused in such great shame. Such a life would indeed have been worse than death! Socrates, and Jesus, simply didn't have any better alternatives. They picked the best path they had available.

Everything old was once new and "progressive." — Heister Eggcart

Yes but my problem isn't just that they are "new". My problem is that their ideas, and even their characters, seem quite superficial and uninteresting, it's like such people don't have anything of value to teach me. Someone "forced" me recently to read "Revolutionary Road" by Richard Yates - such a great disaster! Honestly the story is so disgusting and serves nothing more than illustrating pure stupidity. It's the story of an alcoholic couple who nevertheless are well perceived by their suburban conservative world, both with serious problems who ultimately self-destruct because of their restlessness, unrestrained ambition and simple lack of intelligence.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. — Shakespeare

You know, when I read a novel, I must learn profound things from it. Otherwise, why am I spending my time reading it?

Well, you can be disgusted with me if you decide to read it and your tits weren't subsequently blown off by some momentously profound illumination, :D

I will look into it, but I wasn't referring to your recommendation, but to modern literature in general. Of course there are exceptions, for example Paulo Coelho's Alchemist was good. But the state of modern literature is by and large, from what I see, truly despicable. It's like authors have gone into the business of mass producing low quality novels (many which honestly read like leftist propaganda >:O ) The job of an author isn't to parrot the popular memes of his culture - unless all he intends to do is sell books.

There are good books out there, but like any good thing, they're buried under the muck most of the time.

"Natural morality" (as I conceive it) doesn't have its basis in religion as it is and has been commonly practiced. Religion, sometimes and in some ways, incorporates natural morality. Social conservatives are not religious because of an adherence to natural morality, but because they accept the tenets of organized, institutional religion. To the extent those tenets include natural morality, they accept natural morality. To the extent they don't, social conservatives reject natural morality.

Organized religion in the West is fundamentally dependent on revelation and faith. Reason is a secondary concern. Many in the Church hierarchy were greatly concerned when the works of Aristotle became available again in Europe and were widely admired, because those works indicated revelation and faith were in most cases unnecessary; reason, instead, would serve to explain the world; certainly, Christian faith and revelation were unknown and unnecessary to the man they called "the Philosopher."

I suspect that if social conservatives are mostly religious it's due to the fact that religion disregards reason and the results of the application of reason when it conflicts with doctrine or cherished views and customs. This is not to say that all social conservatives are against reason and science all the time, but that they think they may disregard them when they conflict with what they believe to be true and proper regardless of them. In other words, with what they believe to be true and proper on grounds which can't be arrived at through the application of reason; which are in effect beyond reason.

To my naive view, it seems like the satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible would make most people very happy. — Erik

You think so? In developed economies, are high rates of sexually-transmitted diseases, and large numbers of children born outside marriage, not to mention epidemics of cybersexual addiction. This simply a kind of hedonic fantasy that equates pleasure and happiness.

Plato's meditations seem fixated on justifying philosophy--which should result in a life of virtue--in the face of the impractical and even dangerous possibilities it contains for its practitioners. — Erik

I think any real philosophy ought to recognize the perilous nature of existence itself. I was reading a summary yesterday of a PhD research programme concerning Western practitioners of Buddhist meditation - the working title being 'A Precarious Path'. It detailed how many difficulties and obstacles practitioners face. And that is as it has to be! Life is perilous and precarious, and a real philosophy has to acknowledge that. Whereas, increasingly, the 'philosophy' of the consumerist society is bent on making the world a safe place for the ignorant; the whole social order is based on encouraging 'consumers' by stimulating their demands for often useless products, or engaging in ridiculous escapist fantasies through screen entertainment and the internet.

The significance of Jesus, Socrates, Plato - the 'spiritual examplars' - is to call attention to the ultimate reality of human experience - which is death. Socrates said 'philosophers make dying their profession' (according to Arthur Hermann Plato vs Aristotle).

Why is social conservatism generally associated with religion?

How many adult atheist progressives migrate to the opposite end of the spectrum and become religious conservatives? I would guess few. Similarly, how many religious conservatives make that trip and become atheist progressives? Again, not very many. Why?

As Alexander Pope noted, "Tis education forms the common mind, Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined."

Conservative believers and progressive atheists alike are usually the product of their education -- not just formal schooling, but the education that comes from living in a particular milieu. There may be backflips off the high board along the way -- the offspring of the conservative religious parents who in college becomes quite the progressive. Usually that progressive fit fades away, and a few years out of college the one-time white campus champion of colored people, gays, women, migrants, etc., is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary.

The same can happen to the boy from the wrong side of the tracks whose parents are union folk and at best lukewarm towards the church. He might do the Collegiate About Face and get into Republicanism and religion, maybe because it confers an advantage among his immediate peers. But like his opposite, a few years out of college and he'll be back among the progressives, and will be trying to get his workplace unionized.

There are exceptions, of course. But a common theme among people aging out of youth into middle age is how they find themselves resembling their parents more and more. They find themselves doing the annoying things that parents used to do. They start thinking more and more like their parents did. (That one is becoming one's mother and father is a humbling realization.)

So you're basically saying that it's a historically contingent fact that social conservatism is associated with religion instead of with atheism?

Yes.

Posters have offered various reasons why religion is associated with conservatism, and they are good observations. But the effect of inter-generational instruction has to be counted too. We were not blank slates until we were old enough to have political opinions. We had already absorbed a lot of politics, from radically conservative to radically revolutionary. Language, diet, politics, hygiene, etc. are all heavily shaped by upbringing.