Conservative Skeptics?

[bagtaggar]

In many ways I consider myself a conservative, particularly in United States foreign policy, economics, and many social issues (bar things like abortion, for which I am mostly pro-choice). However I am far from a Bible-thumper, in fact I have a deep distrust and disdain for Christianity and religion in general. I am for all intents and purposes aetheist/agnostic.

Are there any politically conservative folk here on this forum who are not necessarily religious nut jobs? I often find that many young liberals choose to be that way as a reaction to the overt morality and religious intolerance associated with conservativism, but also because of notions of personal accountability, strict social perspective, and harsher legal consequences of conservative rule of law.

They stick to naive and unrealistic ideals concerning governments and geopolitics that often have no relationship to history or fact, but somehow liberalism remains the "intellectual's choice".

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

I like to consider myself a fully rational individual, taking the best elements from each side, trimming the fat, and being realistic. It just seems that when you trim away the fat (religion from conservatives and tree hugging from liberals), the intellectually conservative perspective just has much less ********.

 

[Cleon]

Ah, another lesson in humility from the right wing.

 

[Mark]

In many ways I consider myself a conservative, particularly in United States foreign policy, economics, and many social issues (bar things like abortion, for which I am mostly pro-choice). However I am far from a Bible-thumper, in fact I have a deep distrust and disdain for Christianity and religion in general. I am for all intents and purposes aetheist/agnostic.

Are there any politically conservative folk here on this forum who are not necessarily religious nut jobs? I often find that many young liberals choose to be that way as a reaction to the overt morality and religious intolerance associated with conservativism, but also because of notions of personal accountability, strict social perspective, and harsher legal consequences of conservative rule of law.

They stick to naive and unrealistic ideals concerning governments and geopolitics that often have no relationship to history or fact, but somehow liberalism remains the "intellectual's choice".

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

I like to consider myself a fully rational individual, taking the best elements from each side, trimming the fat, and being realistic. It just seems that when you trim away the fat (religion from conservatives and tree hugging from liberals), the intellectually conservative perspective just has much less ********.

Are you trolling?

My favorites are conservative presidents and their wives who won't make a move without consulting their astrologers. Can you say Ronald and Nancy Reagan?

Seems to me, that when you trim away the fat from the conservative viewpoint you are left with an emaciated corpse.

 

[punchdrunk]

Are there any politically conservative folk here on this forum who are not necessarily religious nut jobs?

Yes. You've come to the right place.

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

My favorites are conservatives who actively support pro-life issues but then eat roasted babies in dark back alleys.

I like to consider myself a fully rational individual, taking the best elements from each side, trimming the fat, and being realistic. It just seems that when you trim away the fat (religion from conservatives and tree hugging from liberals), the intellectually conservative perspective just has much less ********.

I think conservatism shares a lot of the same principles as skepticism, and it's no suprise to me that many posters here are self-proclaimed conservatives.

 

[Manny]

Are there any politically conservative folk here on this forum who are not necessarily religious nut jobs?

There are indeed, including many on this very forum. Welcome, bagtaggar. Stick around and you'll quickly identify at least a few fellow-travellers. I'm the resident monetarist, big-business lackey. We've also got libertarians who aren't whack-jobs, who sometimes tend Republican and even a pro-life person or two.

As an added bonus, you'll find that none of the liberals around here consult astrology charts or collect gemstones (well, maybe if they're pretty, but not because of any mystical powers) or dabble in Kabballa or whatever that rot is or anything like that. So you'll see their perspective without any of the baggage you perceive at least some other liberals to have.

Enjoy!

 

[Mark]

I think conservatism shares a lot of the same principles as skepticism, and it's no suprise to me that many posters here are self-proclaimed conservatives.

No disrespect, but I find this comment mind boggling. Disagree with them all you want...it is the people on the Left who tend to be the self-questioners (which is a primary reason they have no power in government anymore). As a group, the shining characteristic of conservatives tends to be that they are so certain all the time.

That is hardly what genuine skepticism is all about.

 

[bagtaggar]

Whew, just saying hello!

 

[Mycroft]

Are there any politically conservative folk here on this forum who are not necessarily religious nut jobs?

I think you will find that religious nutjobs tend to be attacked by both conservatives and liberals here.

I like to consider myself a fully rational individual, taking the best elements from each side, trimming the fat, and being realistic.

Don't we all?

It just seems that when you trim away the fat (religion from conservatives and tree hugging from liberals), the intellectually conservative perspective just has much less ********.

Hmmm. I think both sides have their kooks and their intellectuals, but I will say the couple years I’ve spent here has brought be to appreciate the conservative side more than I used to.

 

[bagtaggar]

I'm a sunuvabitch neo-conservative when it comes to foreign policy and an evil free marketeer who drinks the blood of Cambodian children.

There are a few social issues that I am pretty liberal about, particularly those relating to science, education, and community.

 

[CBL4]

bagtaggar,

I think that conservative skeptics tend to be libertarians. There are many on this board. Some of them are reasonable and some of them are a little out there.

If you listen to the people on this board you will quickly realize that most people here are not really liberal or conservative. They share the traits of both.

Welcome,

CBL

 

[punchdrunk]

No disrespect, but I find this comment mind boggling. Disagree with them all you want...it is the people on the Left who tend to be the self-questioners (which is a primary reason they have no power in government anymore). As a group, the shining characteristic of conservatives tends to be that they are so certain all the time.

You are referring to the Republican party; I'm referring to conservatism. Occasionally the two cross paths.

Under my definition of conservatism (archaic for sure), a "show me" attitude is essential. Stick to the way things are until proven otherwise. This seems to go along with skepticism. Of course, sometimes the way things are isn't the way they should be. So, I don't know; maybe I'm wrong to associate the two.

 

[bagtaggar]

Thank you for the welcome!

 

[bagtaggar]

Under my definition of conservatism (archaic for sure), a "show me" attitude is essential. Stick to the way things are until proven otherwise. This seems to go along with skepticism. Of course, sometimes the way things are isn't the way they should be. So, I don't know; maybe I'm wrong to associate the two.

I agree. One can be conservative intellectually and not necessarily belong to the Republican party.

 

[punchdrunk]

who drinks the blood of Cambodian children.

Well, why didn't you say so? Welcome aboard, and pass the goblet.

 

[Upchurch]

Under my definition of conservatism (archaic for sure), a "show me" attitude is essential. Stick to the way things are until proven otherwise. This seems to go along with skepticism. Of course, sometimes the way things are isn't the way they should be. So, I don't know; maybe I'm wrong to associate the two.

The archaic difinition of liberal is "question everything". Tradition says we do X. Conservativism is to stick with X until something better comes along. Liberalism is to question whether or not X is the best thing and go looking for different possibilities.

I don't think skepticism is either a liberal or a conservative, per se.

 

[bagtaggar]

The archaic difinition of liberal is "question everything". Tradition says we do X. Conservativism is to stick with X until something better comes along. Liberalism is to question whether or not X is the best thing and go looking for different possibilities.

Very good point. I think it's obvious though that there are certain global/social/political issues that are associated with "liberals" and "conservatives" regardless of their adherance to that model. I think it's safe to say that most everyone here is intellectually 'liberal' in many respects, but may be politically/socially either.

 

[punchdrunk]

The archaic difinition of liberal is "question everything". Tradition says we do X. Conservativism is to stick with X until something better comes along. Liberalism is to question whether or not X is the best thing and go looking for different possibilities.

It's probably a little silly to argue over broad definitions, BUT...

What causes a conservative to abandon X and go with something better? Hopefully, sound science, a better awareness, or basically more information. Isn't that skepticism?

If liberalism is questioning everything, isn't conservatism questioning liberalism's results?

 

[Skeptic]

No disrespect, but I find this comment mind boggling. Disagree with them all you want...it is the people on the Left who tend to be the self-questioners (which is a primary reason they have no power in government anymore).

Well, that's a little misleading, wouldn't you say? In the 1950s, indeed, it was the left-wing that was the self-questioning. But since the 1960s, the left became the orthodoxy in certain circles--esepcially in the American Northeast and in institutes of higher education. Certainly the left-wing professors I have met, and I have met many, are as certain in the correctness of their views as I am certain about anything.

Questioning leftist platitudes is just as hard as questioning, say, christian fundamentalism--if you grow up in a society (such as, say, Ann Arbor or Boston or most American college campuses) where those platitudes are taken as self-evident truths.

As a group, the shining characteristic of conservatives tends to be that they are so certain all the time.

Possibly. But I haven't found left-wingers to be less certain in their beliefs; the acceptance of certain dogmas as self-evident truths that no sane person would possibly question, is just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. The dogma is "Bush is evil" (for example) instead of "Jesus is Lord" (for example), but is held no less dogmatically and uncritically for all that.

It is just that on the left things tend to be more hypocritical about it: the dogmas are just as dogmatic and held with just as much certainty, but it is pretended that the emotional and uncritical acceptance of left-wing dogmas was reached after some sort of objective, fair analysis and is just held tentatively.

To use an analogy, left-wing dogmatism is like "Intelligent Design", while right-wing dogmatism is like six-day young-earth creationism. Both believe in certain false dogmas for emotional or social reasons, but the "Intelligent Design" movement pretends it's just "objective" and "skeptical".

Richard Dawkins said, quite rightly, that one's religious beliefs are determined, 99% of the time, simply by the accident of birth and upbringing. True. Only he forgot that the same is true, in many cases, for whether one is right-wing or left-wing. Someone growing up in a small town in the south is likely to be right-wing; but someone growing up in, say, Boston or Ann Arbor is no less likely to be left-wing.

 

[Mark]

No disrespect, but I find this comment mind boggling. Disagree with them all you want...it is the people on the Left who tend to be the self-questioners (which is a primary reason they have no power in government anymore).

Well, that's a little misleading, wouldn't you say? In the 1950s, indeed, it was the left-wing that was the self-questioning. But since the 1960s, the left became the orthodoxy in certain circles--esepcially in the American Northeast and in institutes of higher education. Certainly the left-wing professors I have met, and I have met many, are as certain in the correctness of their views as I am certain about anything.

Questioning leftist platitudes is just as hard as questioning, say, christian fundamentalism--if you grow up in a society (such as, say, Ann Arbor or Boston or most American college campuses) where those platitudes are taken as self-evident truths.

As a group, the shining characteristic of conservatives tends to be that they are so certain all the time.

Possibly. But I haven't found left-wingers to be less certain in their beliefs; the acceptance of certain dogmas as self-evident truths that no sane person would possibly question, is just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. The dogma is "Bush is evil" (for example) instead of "Jesus is Lord" (for example), but is held no less dogmatically and uncritically for all that.

It is just that on the left things tend to be more hypocritical about it: the dogmas are just as dogmatic and held with just as much certainty, but it is pretended that the emotional and uncritical acceptance of left-wing dogmas was reached after some sort of objective, fair analysis and is just held tentatively.

To use an analogy, left-wing dogmatism is like "Intelligent Design", while right-wing dogmatism is like six-day young-earth creationism. Both believe in certain false dogmas for emotional or social reasons, but the "Intelligent Design" movement pretends it's just "objective" and "skeptical".

Richard Dawkins said, quite rightly, that one's religious beliefs are determined, 99% of the time, simply by the accident of birth and upbringing. True. Only he forgot that the same is true, in many cases, for whether one is right-wing or left-wing. Someone growing up in a small town in the south is likely to be right-wing; but someone growing up in, say, Boston or Ann Arbor is no less likely to be left-wing.

If we are talking about the extremists on either side, then (believe it or not) I really do tend to agree with you.

 

[Upchurch]

It's probably a little silly to argue over broad definitions, BUT...

Yes, probably.

What causes a conservative to abandon X and go with something better? Hopefully, sound science, a better awareness, or basically more information. Isn't that skepticism?

Yes, but where does the initiative for that sound science, better awareness, and more information come from? Certainly not from sticking to the tried and true, waiting for someting better to come along. Broadly speaking, liberalism is the impetus, conservativism is the grounding.

For each to do its part well, skepticism is required. It is not the province of one or the other.

If liberalism is questioning everything, isn't conservatism questioning liberalism's results?

It is a reciprocal relationship.