Conservative Religious Caricature of Liberalism
Larry Fisher writes in The Daily Citizen:
The fundamental difference between the consistent liberal and the consistent conservative vision of life seems to be over authority and who or what is the final determiner of truth. The conservative believes that absolutes exist. In other words, it was wrong yesterday, is wrong today, and will be wrong tomorrow. There are ethical standards that are binding on our conduct and social structures such as family, government, religious life, and social interactions.
Absolutes... like slavery? Segregation? Second-class status for women? Those are all "absolutes" that conservatives have defended in the past. Either Fisher thinks they were right, in which case he should be honest and say so, or he thinks that they were wrong, in which case he should be honest and acknowledge that conservatives have often defended "absolutes" that not only weren't "absolutes,' but weren't at all moral or just at all.
That aside, though, it should be noted that many liberals also believe in absolutes: justice, fairness, equality, etc. Perhaps they aren't the absolutes that Larry Fisher believes in, though? This is quite similar to how many conservatives talk about liberals not following any "morality" when the truth is that they simply don't adopt the same morality on sexual issues that conservatives consider so important.
Put another way, the conservative believes there are transcendent norms or standards governing human behavior and society. Christian conservatives look to the Bible for these absolutes and consider it their duty to uphold them individually and in society. The Christian conservative believes reason is given to mankind by the Creator to be used, among other things, in the pursuit of these absolutes and how best to apply them in all areas of life.
Many liberals also believe in "transcendent norms" — religious liberals in particular believe such things. They may not believe in the exact same norms, but the fact that they believe in different norms doesn't mean that they don't believe in any norms. A common feature of conservative caricatures is that they portray such disagreements as if they meant that liberals hold no values or morals whatsoever. It's a dishonest argument and it's difficult to see how people like Fisher could genuinely not realize that it's dishonest.
Liberals, in general, reject the notion of stable, absolute, or transcendent norms for the individual and society. To them the world is constantly changing and what is ethical and acceptable today may not be so tomorrow. The past is not important, thus history is of little value. Everything is evolving ever upward, thus practically all liberals are biological evolutionists.
The liberal will oppose any mention of scientific data that supports the idea of divine creation. Only evolution can be taught. To the liberal mindset, evolution is fact, creation is myth, and there is no credible evidence against evolution. Evolution theory is so pliable that one can always make up a story to accommodate seemingly contradictory evidence. Creation smacks of the supernatural, thus it must be resisted.
Conservative atheists who object to my criticisms above should keep in mind that people like Fisher have the same disdain for science and evolution that they have for political, social, or religious liberalism. It's all part of the same ideology that is, at it's heart, a disdain for reality-based thinking and the reality-based community. Fisher obviously doesn't understand the least little thing about evolution, otherwise he wouldn't portray it as being about "evolving ever upward" or suggest that there is "credible evidence against evolution." Ignorance (if we are going to be generous) doesn't stop him from pontificating about liberalism, so why should it stop him from pontificating about evolution and science?
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment