God and Country

theism is neither necessary nor sufficient to be American

I’ve noticed many traditionally religious Americans, usually Christians of some variety, seem to assume that Christianity, or at the very least belief in God is required for those hoping to join the crusade against the various anti-American currents in society and government that threaten to destroy our way of life. Not only does this assumption constitute a strategic blunder by excluding a huge number of dedicated Americans, it is also an anti-American sentiment itself. That said, many atheists/agnostics (I’ll just say atheist from here on out, I understand the distinction, but it isn’t particularly important for the arguments I’m making) do end up becoming anti-American parallel to their lack of belief in a higher power. Being able to differentiate “friend” from “foe” in the context of atheism will have broad application for anyone interested in applying ideological litmus tests as the battle lines are drawn.

Constrained vs. Unconstrained Vision

Nathan Smith provides an excellent synopsis of Thomas Sowell’s classic dichotomy:

In essence, if you are of the constrained viewpoint, you believe human nature is inherently flawed which prevents society from being perfect. If you take an unconstrained viewpoint, you believe that humans are inherently good and any flawed behaviors can only be attributed to societal conditioning. Under the unconstrained viewpoint, society has the potential to become perfect through constant restructuring. Under the constrained viewpoint, compromises in society must be made to account for flawed human nature.

Simply put, Americans tend to have constrained viewpoints and anti-Americans tend to have unconstrained viewpoints. The interesting thing to consider here is that the foundational beliefs resulting in a constrained vision will be substantially different between theists and atheists. What determines whether a traditionally religious person is seduced by the utopian allure of the unconstrained vision is a complex subject worthy of its own article. Here, I’ll just talk about what makes the difference for atheists.

Enter biological realism. I don’t know if Michael McConkey coined the term when he wrote this book, it doesn’t seem like he could have. It just has so much… utility. In any case, an atheist that doesn’t accept that human beings are constrained by biological realities is susceptible to the delusion that is unconstrained vision. What do I mean by biological realism? If you’re traditionally religious, bear with me. Simply put, a biological realist accepts that human beings are life forms, and so are subject to all of the same rules that living organisms are subject to (such as the information required for our structure and function being reducible to what is encoded in our DNA). This includes recognizing that environmental selection pressure shaped our minds more than any other force. This recognition puts lie the foolish notion that socialization is the dominant force in shaping human nature. So why aren’t all atheists biological realists, especially given that so many of them profess to “fucking love science” so much? I have some ideas, but I’ll save them for later. For now, suffice it to say that some atheists start engaging in magic thinking at some point prior to accepting the doctrine of biological realism along with all of its implications, and that this magic thinking fosters a mental environment where delirious unconstrained visions of humankind are able to thrive. If you’re interested in observing a case study of what I’m talking about, look no further than the intellectual disaster that is the life’s work of Stephen J. Gould (this article does a decent job of outlining his steadfast commitment to confession through projection). If you’re interested in a more thorough introduction to biological realism short of a book, I highly recommend Michael’s recent article applying this framework to the Roe v. Wade debate.

Objective Morality

Another important factor to consider in determining whether a given atheist’s beliefs will be compatible with Americanism is their view on morality. Specifically, there are grave consequences for the atheist that believes morality is objective. With God, deriving objective morality is trivial. God sets what is right. Without God, though, the only source of morality is the individual. As with any other preference (as can be logically derived with a methodological dualism), value is subjective. Without God, this necessarily includes moral values. Unfortunately, probably due to biological constraints, it doesn’t seem particularly intuitive that our moral values are entirely subjective, even for atheists. For this reason, many atheists assume there is an objective morality. This assumption has substantial implications. For the Christian, knowing God’s will is not possible (although certain churches at certain times in history have faced popular backlash for proclaiming to be the only earthly aribiters of this will). For the atheist who believes in objective morality, it becomes easy to see oneself as the arbiter of what is good and right in the world. Stack on top of this a surety in ones superior knowledge of nature achieved secondary to a commitment to “The Science”, and you have a powerful recipe for tyrannical behavior.

Putting it Together

By determining what vision (unconstrained vs. constrained) and what morality (objective vs. subjective) a given atheist subscribes to, you can reliably determine if they hold the kinds of beliefs that lead to hundreds of millions of deaths (as occurred in the USSR and PRC), or beliefs that lead to the American way of life that, if you’re reading this, you probably cherish. This reveals an important consideration for Americans interested in discussing religion with one another, namely, that to be an American, some of the beliefs you hold that make you American aren’t sever-able. If a Christian stops believing in God, but keeps a belief in objective morality, they become anti-American. If an atheist becomes convinced that evolution by natural selection is the legacy of white supremacy and systemic racism and abandons biological realism, they become anti-American. For this reason, I don’t think it makes sense for Americans who are Christian to argue with Americans that are atheist over these issues. Let us instead argue about the best possible way we can work together to restore American values in the U.S. government at every level. This will require hard work and creativity, but most of all, I think it will require making a deliberate effort to respect all Americans as brothers and sisters-in-arms in this fight without any regard for their particular religious beliefs, sexual preferences, skin color, or gender. I know that might sound obvious, but it isn’t. I’m not saying racism and sexism are substantial problems, they aren’t. The hard truth I’m talking about is this: At the end of the day, my Christian brothers and sisters believe that I’m going to burn in hell forever for my lack of faith in Christ. We don’t need to talk about that, and I’m good with it. We have a fight here and now, and just as you’re bound to a certain code as a Christian and an American, I too am bound by biological constraints that ensure my loyalty to the cause every bit as much as your faith guides you. For every anti-American atheist woketard there is an anti-American neoconservative “Christian” promoting senseless wars with support from people like Ted Haggard.

Reflecting on our differences destroys our ability to connect, while focusing on our similarities as Americans does the opposite. Once rapport is established, talk about whatever you want, but getting into debates about these particular differences is a strategic error that anti-Americans will continue to encourage with ever increasing ferocity and hatred (this is CRT in a nutshell). These anti-Americans are worthy of derision, but only because of their beliefs and objectives are counter to our own. The fact that some of them are atheists is irrelevant. The only relevant demographic to consider? American or anti-American.