Atheism is still a taboo for American politicians

[Antonio the Sixth]

On Moral Foundations Theory, it's worth keeping in mind that it's not in fact a moral theory: rather, it's a descriptive theory about the origins of human moral intuitions. To treat its conclusions (assuming that they are descriptively accurate to begin with) as normative is to commit a naturalistic fallacy. You can't derive and ought from an is, even when the "is" is about human moral thinking in the first place. So to say that certain people lack the "sanctity" dimension of moral thinking does not in itself make them morally deficient: in fact, under certain ethical frameworks, this dimension can be deemed immoral, in which case lacking it would be a sign of moral virtue.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Kind of silly, considering how few of them give the impression that they care about God.

     I wish I could recommend this twice. Outward atheism might be taboo, but politicians across the spectrum do a good job of instantiating inward atheism through their words and deeds.

No wonder I don't know the word. It's yet another product of the useless pastime!

in·stan·ti·ate
/inˈstan(t)SHēˌāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: instantiating

    represent as or by an instance.
    "a study of two groups who seemed to instantiate productive aspects of this"
        Philosophy
        (of a universal or abstract concept) have an instance; be represented by an actual example.


I think it is more just another iteration of don't ask, don't tell myself. As long as you keep your atheism closeted, it's OK to actually be one and hold elective office. The kiss of death is to wear your atheism on your sleeve.

     Undoubtedly that's true, but my point is more that this nation already lived as if it were atheist, even if it refuses to profess as much. A lot of conservatives look to the 1980s as a golden age, but I've seen enough movies from the era to know how worldly the culture was then. The decline of American faith in recent years is definitely not a positive development in my estimation, but it's also more an outward acknowledgement of what was already the content of the national heart.

Do you consider atheism a synonym for amoral? I ask because however delusional it may be, I consider myself to be ethical, and would never do something I considered "wrong" for personal gain, as a matter of honor if nothing else, and have been willing to sever ties over ethical concerns.

So ascribing atheism as the loci of what ails the public square, beyond perhaps missing the point, makes me uncomfortable as a personal matter. Make sense?

     I would consider it a synonym for a certain kind of amorality. Specifically as regards what Jonathan Haidt identifies as the dimension of sanctity. Very few politicians demonstrate high regard for sanctity in both their personal lives and their attitudes towards policy, which makes it odd that they are uniformly expected to profess a belief that carries implications in re sanctity. Atheists typically have low regard for sanctity, so I don't think you would see the things that concern me as a problem at all.

https://moralfoundations.org/

“5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).”

And there you have it. I suspect the LGBTQ goes into the degradation box without passing go. And then the “contaminants” bit to seal the deal. Yikes! OK, I’m done. Stick a fork in me.

I do appreciate my horizons being broadened though. Thanks. See even a really old dog can learn a new trick, even if not score one. 

     I would say that it does the concept of sanctity a disservice to reduce it to "gays r bad". I won't deny that that issue is a piece of the puzzle, but the earliest problem I see rising to the surface in American attitudes towards sanctity was the acceptance of sexual anarchy within marriage, i.e. the idea that all of the things that gay people or even unmarried straight people were criticized for and even banned from doing in certain locales suddenly became fine when done between a husband and wife. Such notions make a mockery of marriage and reduce it to little more than a license for indulgence.

     This connects to Tony's point as well; while it is true that wicked rulers who have failed to live what they profess have always been a thing, it is rather novel to see that ethos be normalized throughout a society to the extent that it was in America and Europe in the late 20th century. I understand the pushback to calling this "atheism", and I would note that I first described it in this thread as "inward atheism"; they may claim whatever they want about religion, but their actions lead one to believe that they do not fear God, and that they live much the same as they would if He did not exist. I could get more to the point and call it "godlessness", if that term helps clear the air.

[Associate Justice PiT]

On Moral Foundations Theory, it's worth keeping in mind that it's not in fact a moral theory: rather, it's a descriptive theory about the origins of human moral intuitions. To treat its conclusions (assuming that they are descriptively accurate to begin with) as normative is to commit a naturalistic fallacy. You can't derive and ought from an is, even when the "is" is about human moral thinking in the first place. So to say that certain people lack the "sanctity" dimension of moral thinking does not in itself make them morally deficient: in fact, under certain ethical frameworks, this dimension can be deemed immoral, in which case lacking it would be a sign of moral virtue.

     Indeed, which is why I noted to Torie that he probably would take no issue with many of the things that concern me; it is not possible to show per se that taking into account more moral foundations makes you a more just person. I'd actually go further with your post here and say that the concept of scientific morality is inherently nonsensical, but that's a different topic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     This connects to Tony's point as well; while it is true that wicked rulers who have failed to live what they profess have always been a thing, it is rather novel to see that ethos be normalized throughout a society to the extent that it was in America and Europe in the late 20th century. I understand the pushback to calling this "atheism", and I would note that I first described it in this thread as "inward atheism"; they may claim whatever they want about religion, but their actions lead one to believe that they do not fear God, and that they live much the same as they would if He did not exist. I could get more to the point and call it "godlessness", if that term helps clear the air.

I'll concede that wicked rulers of old probably did, in some sense, fear God and take seriously elements of their religious faith and practice (how they managed to reconcile that with their many evil deeds is another question, but not worth getting into here) in a way that today's political class clearly does not. I do think calling this "atheism" misses the mark in important ways, in that there is a fundamental difference between the affirmed nonbelief in God and the general nihilism that pervades our political class. We could get into arguments about how postmodern nihilism is an inevitable byproduct of the loss of faith in God, and I fundamentally disagree with this notion, but even if we granted that, we have to acknowledge that they are different phenomena with a different impact. Plenty of people have had strong ideals they believed in while being atheists, and vice versa, as you say, our modern religious leaders all profess Christianity regardless of their genuine faith. So talking about having genuine beliefs in something greater than oneself is not the same as talking about the dominance of ostentated religiosity. You might argue the two are correlated in some way, but not enough to justify this conflation.

     Indeed, which is why I noted to Torie that he probably would take no issue with many of the things that concern me; it is not possible to show per se that taking into account more moral foundations makes you a more just person. I'd actually go further with your post here and say that the concept of scientific morality is inherently nonsensical, but that's a different topic.

No, if I understand you right, I agree completely. To the extent that moral principles can be derived from anything, it's from metaphysical postulates, not physical ones. In other words, whatever pre-empirical postulates undergird our scientific theories might also provide the basis for our moral theories, but scientific facts themselves cannot.

[Torie]

For the record, you may have noted that I frequently refer to myself as Godless, and prefer the term when referencing myself. That is just a matter of my aesthetic tastes.

Thanks for the discussion from both of you btw. It's a nice change from situation normal around here, if you know what I mean.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

"Atheist" is a dirty word. It's how I describe myself, rather defiantly, because I don't like that people think it's somehow more aggressive than just saying you aren't religious. People get uncomfortable with the term because it makes them think of edgelords with beards in a basement laughing at anyone who believes in god. Personally I think it's important to use the word in self-description, when it actually fits your belief system. But that's just me; ultimately people can describe themselves however they wish. If I remember correctly there was a study that showed "Atheist" was one of very few types of people where a near-majority said they wouldn't vote for a candidate who was that thing, much higher than the percentage for simply "non-religious" or "doesn't believe in god"

[RINO Tom]

Torie, I wouldn't be too apologetic.

To borrow a phrase, American 'nones' aren't 'temporarily embarrassed Christians'; the fact so few identify as Atheist despite Gallup recently identifying only 64% to 81% believing in God depending on how the question is asked is a reflection of US discourse.

None is None. It's not a holding pen.

It’s also not some “pre-Atheist” stage or collection of “soft Atheists.”

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This connects to Tony's point as well; while it is true that wicked rulers who have failed to live what they profess have always been a thing, it is rather novel to see that ethos be normalized throughout a society to the extent that it was in America and Europe in the late 20th century. I understand the pushback to calling this "atheism", and I would note that I first described it in this thread as "inward atheism"; they may claim whatever they want about religion, but their actions lead one to believe that they do not fear God, and that they live much the same as they would if He did not exist. I could get more to the point and call it "godlessness", if that term helps clear the air.

I'll concede that wicked rulers of old probably did, in some sense, fear God and take seriously elements of their religious faith and practice (how they managed to reconcile that with their many evil deeds is another question, but not worth getting into here) in a way that today's political class clearly does not. I do think calling this "atheism" misses the mark in important ways, in that there is a fundamental difference between the affirmed nonbelief in God and the general nihilism that pervades our political class. We could get into arguments about how postmodern nihilism is an inevitable byproduct of the loss of faith in God, and I fundamentally disagree with this notion, but even if we granted that, we have to acknowledge that they are different phenomena with a different impact. Plenty of people have had strong ideals they believed in while being atheists, and vice versa, as you say, our modern religious leaders all profess Christianity regardless of their genuine faith. So talking about having genuine beliefs in something greater than oneself is not the same as talking about the dominance of ostentated religiosity. You might argue the two are correlated in some way, but not enough to justify this conflation.

     I've been busy lately, but I was thinking about this and it's definitely true that a lot of atheists can have deeply held beliefs that could be reasonably categorized as falling under the sanctity moral foundation; you see this in particular with communists and libertarians, though it is by no means specific to them. What I would say is that those people hold a conviction that is basically analogous to religion, and C.S. Lewis helps lay the groundwork for this idea when he describes man as a machine that runs on God; we intuitively seek something to worship and to place our trust in. In that sense I might say a lot of formal atheists are less inwardly unbelieving than those who stand at the levers of political power, with the general nihilism you observe in them (which from a Christian perspective would be explained as them deadening their conscience in exchange for receiving the things of the world).

     With that said, I will admit that the way I've used "atheism" in this thread is not coherent with how the term is typically defined, and that I should take care to use it in a way that does not cause confusion or unnecessary offense. I can understand why atheists would not appreciate being associated with the listless materiality of politicians in the West!

[Samof94]

Torie, I wouldn't be too apologetic.

To borrow a phrase, American 'nones' aren't 'temporarily embarrassed Christians'; the fact so few identify as Atheist despite Gallup recently identifying only 64% to 81% believing in God depending on how the question is asked is a reflection of US discourse.

None is None. It's not a holding pen.

True. I would rather vote for a well qualified atheist than for someone like Roy Moore.

[Torie]

     This connects to Tony's point as well; while it is true that wicked rulers who have failed to live what they profess have always been a thing, it is rather novel to see that ethos be normalized throughout a society to the extent that it was in America and Europe in the late 20th century. I understand the pushback to calling this "atheism", and I would note that I first described it in this thread as "inward atheism"; they may claim whatever they want about religion, but their actions lead one to believe that they do not fear God, and that they live much the same as they would if He did not exist. I could get more to the point and call it "godlessness", if that term helps clear the air.

I'll concede that wicked rulers of old probably did, in some sense, fear God and take seriously elements of their religious faith and practice (how they managed to reconcile that with their many evil deeds is another question, but not worth getting into here) in a way that today's political class clearly does not. I do think calling this "atheism" misses the mark in important ways, in that there is a fundamental difference between the affirmed nonbelief in God and the general nihilism that pervades our political class. We could get into arguments about how postmodern nihilism is an inevitable byproduct of the loss of faith in God, and I fundamentally disagree with this notion, but even if we granted that, we have to acknowledge that they are different phenomena with a different impact. Plenty of people have had strong ideals they believed in while being atheists, and vice versa, as you say, our modern religious leaders all profess Christianity regardless of their genuine faith. So talking about having genuine beliefs in something greater than oneself is not the same as talking about the dominance of ostentated religiosity. You might argue the two are correlated in some way, but not enough to justify this conflation.

     I've been busy lately, but I was thinking about this and it's definitely true that a lot of atheists can have deeply held beliefs that could be reasonably categorized as falling under the sanctity moral foundation; you see this in particular with communists and libertarians, though it is by no means specific to them. What I would say is that those people hold a conviction that is basically analogous to religion, and C.S. Lewis helps lay the groundwork for this idea when he describes man as a machine that runs on God; we intuitively seek something to worship and to place our trust in. In that sense I might say a lot of formal atheists are less inwardly unbelieving than those who stand at the levers of political power, with the general nihilism you observe in them (which from a Christian perspective would be explained as them deadening their conscience in exchange for receiving the things of the world).

     With that said, I will admit that the way I've used "atheism" in this thread is not coherent with how the term is typically defined, and that I should take care to use it in a way that does not cause confusion or unnecessary offense. I can understand why atheists would not appreciate being associated with the listless materiality of politicians in the West!

At the risk of repeating myself, my sense of things is that many if not most perceive that a considerable percentage of politicians, if not a majority, are disingenuous in professing to be God fearing, but they actually appreciate such disingenuousness as a sign of respect for the "civic religion," by keeping their true beliefs to themselves. To profess a disbelief in God is disrespectful and rude. People tend to shy away from people whose style is  confrontational.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This connects to Tony's point as well; while it is true that wicked rulers who have failed to live what they profess have always been a thing, it is rather novel to see that ethos be normalized throughout a society to the extent that it was in America and Europe in the late 20th century. I understand the pushback to calling this "atheism", and I would note that I first described it in this thread as "inward atheism"; they may claim whatever they want about religion, but their actions lead one to believe that they do not fear God, and that they live much the same as they would if He did not exist. I could get more to the point and call it "godlessness", if that term helps clear the air.

I'll concede that wicked rulers of old probably did, in some sense, fear God and take seriously elements of their religious faith and practice (how they managed to reconcile that with their many evil deeds is another question, but not worth getting into here) in a way that today's political class clearly does not. I do think calling this "atheism" misses the mark in important ways, in that there is a fundamental difference between the affirmed nonbelief in God and the general nihilism that pervades our political class. We could get into arguments about how postmodern nihilism is an inevitable byproduct of the loss of faith in God, and I fundamentally disagree with this notion, but even if we granted that, we have to acknowledge that they are different phenomena with a different impact. Plenty of people have had strong ideals they believed in while being atheists, and vice versa, as you say, our modern religious leaders all profess Christianity regardless of their genuine faith. So talking about having genuine beliefs in something greater than oneself is not the same as talking about the dominance of ostentated religiosity. You might argue the two are correlated in some way, but not enough to justify this conflation.

     I've been busy lately, but I was thinking about this and it's definitely true that a lot of atheists can have deeply held beliefs that could be reasonably categorized as falling under the sanctity moral foundation; you see this in particular with communists and libertarians, though it is by no means specific to them. What I would say is that those people hold a conviction that is basically analogous to religion, and C.S. Lewis helps lay the groundwork for this idea when he describes man as a machine that runs on God; we intuitively seek something to worship and to place our trust in. In that sense I might say a lot of formal atheists are less inwardly unbelieving than those who stand at the levers of political power, with the general nihilism you observe in them (which from a Christian perspective would be explained as them deadening their conscience in exchange for receiving the things of the world).

     With that said, I will admit that the way I've used "atheism" in this thread is not coherent with how the term is typically defined, and that I should take care to use it in a way that does not cause confusion or unnecessary offense. I can understand why atheists would not appreciate being associated with the listless materiality of politicians in the West!

At the risk of repeating myself, my sense of things is that many if not most perceive that a considerable percentage of politicians, if not a majority, are disingenuous in professing to be God fearing, but they actually appreciate such disingenuousness as a sign of respect for the "civic religion," by keeping their true beliefs to themselves. To profess a disbelief in God is disrespectful and rude. People tend to shy away from people whose style is  confrontational.

     It's something that frustrates me that voters actively reward and prefer blatant hypocrisy. Voters punish overt atheism, but they also punish people who seem to regard religion as something more than a personal affectation. It gives us a generally lower caliber of leader, with the ranks of politicos swelled with careerists who casually say one thing and do another. There is a certain saying about democracy that has been resonating with me lately: "in a democracy, the people end up with the government and leaders they deserve". If we feel tempted to complain about hypocrisy and corruption, maybe we should consider that there is a reason why people like that end up in power.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Torie, I wouldn't be too apologetic.

To borrow a phrase, American 'nones' aren't 'temporarily embarrassed Christians'; the fact so few identify as Atheist despite Gallup recently identifying only 64% to 81% believing in God depending on how the question is asked is a reflection of US discourse.

None is None. It's not a holding pen.

It’s also not some “pre-Atheist” stage or collection of “soft Atheists.”

Considering that atheism is a lack of belief in God and not antitheism, it kind of is. Atheism is okay, and should not be seen as lesser to any religion.

[°Leprechaun]

"Atheism is okay, and should not be seen as lesser to any religion."

Unfortunately it all too often is and there are many who would condemn atheists to eternal hell fire.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Torie, I wouldn't be too apologetic.

To borrow a phrase, American 'nones' aren't 'temporarily embarrassed Christians'; the fact so few identify as Atheist despite Gallup recently identifying only 64% to 81% believing in God depending on how the question is asked is a reflection of US discourse.

None is None. It's not a holding pen.

It’s also not some “pre-Atheist” stage or collection of “soft Atheists.”

Considering that atheism is a lack of belief in God and not antitheism, it kind of is. Atheism is okay, and should not be seen as lesser to any religion.

It depends on if we're defining that lack of belief in an affirmative way or not, though. A lot of "nones" (side note: why have we not come up with a better term than this?), if pressed, describe themselves as agnostic or as uninterested in the question or as going back and forth on it depending on the situation.

[LabourJersey]

Torie, I wouldn't be too apologetic.

To borrow a phrase, American 'nones' aren't 'temporarily embarrassed Christians'; the fact so few identify as Atheist despite Gallup recently identifying only 64% to 81% believing in God depending on how the question is asked is a reflection of US discourse.

None is None. It's not a holding pen.

It’s also not some “pre-Atheist” stage or collection of “soft Atheists.”

Considering that atheism is a lack of belief in God and not antitheism, it kind of is. Atheism is okay, and should not be seen as lesser to any religion.

It depends on if we're defining that lack of belief in an affirmative way or not, though. A lot of "nones" (side note: why have we not come up with a better term than this?), if pressed, describe themselves as agnostic or as uninterested in the question or as going back and forth on it depending on the situation.

The only other term I've heard that's marginally better is "unchurched," so that would leave people who may not attend church regularly/ever but do in fact have strong religious beliefs.

[James Monroe]

The messaging is the problem with atheism in American culture. There needs to be a broader reach with common Americans that are religious who are wiling to hear a voice of rationalism and reason if presented. Jamie Raskin would be the type of person that would win a election if he was running for the executive office.

This is less of an issue in a more enlightened age where the Christian Nationalist coup has damaged the good standing of religion in America. In the future no politician is going to need to speak publicly about their belief or lack of a God on the campaign trail.