Is it possible to be conservative and LDS?

[PolarVortex]

As a sidebar, I'd like to tackle the issue of religious involvement in politics, and the oft cited "don't force your religion on me" stance some take. In "The Republic," Plato argued that the citizens of a state must believe in the same "highest things" (i.e gods/belief system) in order to be able to function in that state. Historically, in America, those "highest things" have basically been a Christian and Protestant worldview. These days, a more atheistic viewpoint seems to be gradually supplanting it. Ultimately, if we can't reach a consensus on the highest things, odds are we will just continue to talk past eachother on political issues. The fundamental differences between the two worldviews are simply too radical to harmonize.

 

If I read the New Atheists correctly (Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, the late Hitchens, Krauss, etc) they do not deny the existence of morality or the utility of morality as an organizing principle of society.  In fact, I think the second-fastest way to pick a fight with an atheist is to claim that atheists cannot be moral.  (The fastest way is to claim that atheism is a religion.)  These two worldviews may split on the question of the origin of morality, but I think they'd be agreed that a moral order is a good thing.  I don't know of any atheists who advocate the building of a human society based on the abolition of any moral system or indifference to human suffering.  Maybe these worldviews can't harmonize like a barbershop quartet, but I think they can find a way to get along in most political systems.

[Claire]

If I read the New Atheists correctly (Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, the late Hitchens, Krauss, etc) they do not deny the existence of morality or the utility of morality as an organizing principle of society.  In fact, I think the second-fastest way to pick a fight with an atheist is to claim that atheists cannot be moral.  (The fastest way is to claim that atheism is a religion.)  These two worldviews may split on the question of the origin of morality, but I think they'd be agreed that a moral order is a good thing.  I don't know of any atheists who advocate the building of a human society based on the abolition of any moral system or indifference to human suffering.  Maybe these worldviews can't harmonize like a barbershop quartet, but I think they can find a way to get along in most political systems.

 

I'm not so much denying that the New Atheists (or anybody else for that matter) have a moral standard so much as I'm arguing that the basis of their moral standards are too different from the basis of Christian moral standards for the two to be reconciled. 

 

While individual atheists base their morality off a rather large range of standards, though some common philosophies they tend to subscribe to (and their perception of the good) are: Utilitarianism (maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for as many people as possible), Marxism (the good of the humanity at large trumps the good of individuals), Nietzscheism (no such thing as good or evil, just the power of the will), and so forth. While none of these systems are entirely wrong (though some are definitely much more wrong than others), certainly none of them could be entirely reconciled with Christianity. For example, each of the systems listed here (and most other secular philosophies) could be reconciled with things like abortion, while the Christian belief in inherent human dignity would seem to preclude it out of hand.

 

To summarize, Atheists and Christians (and all other people) strive to do good according to their perception of what good is. The problem is that, unless we can get our perceptions of what is good and what is evil in line, we're not going to be able to agree on morality, and thus we won't be able to agree on laws either.

[PolarVortex]

Interesting discussion, thanks.

 

If we are talking about all theoretical possibilities, then I would agree with you.  In a universe where all permutations of human opinion are equally likely, then I can certainly imagine societies of the type you describe.  For example, I can imagine a society that is half atheist and half theist, and the atheists manufacture some moral system that is the mirror image of the theists' religion-based morality.  The theists would want laws that punish murder, and the atheists would either oppose those laws or even advocate laws that reward murder with tax breaks or whatever.  Because the two groups cannot agree on the origin or even an objective basis for morality, passing nontrivial laws would be really hard.  Legislatures in these bizarre societies might even be as dysfunctional as our present Congress.

 

Yet this does not seem to happen in the real world.  Richard Dawkins came out with some atheist manifesto for a moral order in one of his many books.  If I remember correctly, it included all kinds of nice things, such as humans have the right to love and be loved.  He was criticized a lot for that, because his manifesto overlapped Christian morality to a significant degree, and many atheists couldn't bear the idea that something useful could ever come from religion.  

 

If you locked ten randomly selected atheists in a room and told them they couldn't come out until they write down their idea of a good moral system for society, I'd bet my next paycheck that their moral system would contain a huge number of things that also appear in Christian moral systems.  Nothing in the laws of physics or biology would require this, but it would happen nevertheless.  You're right, abortion would be an obvious difference, and I'd add same-sex marriage.  But otherwise, at least on Earth in the 21st century, these two moral systems would be more similar than they are different.  The fact that they cannot be entirely reconciled does not mean that no parts of them can be ever reconciled, or that the existence of any conflicts prevents the passing of laws.  

 

To summarize, radical disagreements over the definitions of good and evil would surely lead to social chaos.  But with a few exceptions, most humans in practice tend to form similar definitions of good and evil regardless of their religious beliefs.  They can thus agree a lot on morality and thus can agree on laws, too. 

 

If we need some data points, the Czech Republic has a wild mixture of voters with all kinds of religious views.  Mostly atheist or agnostic, a significant chunk of Christians, and a lot of people who believe in some sort of "life force or spirit" that they cannot define further.  I'm not aware of any special problems the Czechs have in passing laws.  On the other hand, Egypt is often held up as one of the most monolithically religious societies in the world, and their political system is not without problems.

[drham3rd]

Another example is India. I remember reading about the formation of the Indian government post the British.  One point was made that when a school schedule was being constructed, they had a big problem; if every religion was accommodated their holiday..there would be no school!  If the Indians can construct a democracy out of having multiple religions represented,, then that does support the notion that regardless of religion, humans can find a common moral ground.  And in most of the worlds democracies, that common ground mostly reflects the Judeo/Christian/Islam ethic of the Bible!!

[Blackmarch]

This is a shameless play off the thread about LDS and liberalism.  However, at its most basic, to be conservative means to avoid change.  Can one is has a great need for stasis, for "unchanging truth" survive in a religion that embraces continuing revelation?

 

Some conservatives leave one a major prophetic revelation comes.  Others form splinter groups.  Still others stay, but grimace, and lament the better days of yesteryear.

 

So, I ask again, can one who is conservative in disposition flourish as an LDS member?

while i think conservatism can favor something like religion a bit more than liberalism, it would be dependant on how much the mores, morals, and laws that were already in place. My answer would be, in moderate amounts... altho in the US a lot of laws and sociality had at one point a pretty strong christian influence so I think conservatism is probably more favorable in the LDS sphere.