Why are a lot of non-theists favoring the left wing more?

[davidm]

No real reason to do bother with this, but it's late, I'm at work and a bit bored, and The Library is slow tonight, even with my Midnight Serenade.

Originally Posted by alphamale

There are a number of reasons, but I'll give you two:

- In the U.S., "theist" still overwhelmingly means christian, a religion that emphasizes personal choice, freedon, and free will.

Really? Did you know that for centuries, Christian theologians have been grappling with the problem of God's infallible true beliefs (foreknowledge) and human free will? What do you think the problem there might be?

These are all anathema to the liberal/left, whose adherents see the ideal society as one controlled by an all-wise, all-knowing, and all-good elite (that would be themselves) - in other words, a statist society wherein the state effectively becomes "god".

Yes, we should let God legislate instead. What's his position on the minimum wage, do you think? And teaching creationism in public schools?

- The liberal/left has decided that there is no such thing as morality, no code of what is right and wrong - which of course is what many people who have a religion (and many who don't) try to adhere to.

When you don't know something (which is normally the case) you have exhibited the interesting tendency to characterize as "snobs" those who know more than you. I suspect you know next to nothing about problems in normative ethics, metaethics, the Humean is-ought gap and the like. Maybe ethics and morality are a bit more complicated than you make out? On the other hand, you probably think that the philosophy of ethics, which has a pedigree of centuries, is a "hoax," like modern art. That's what a steady diet of Rush, Sean and Fox News will do to you, I guess.

They believe that even suggesting to someone else that something is "wrong" is being "judgemental" - one of the worst things you can be according to the left. You can see it crop up in the way they use language - where someone might in the past say "that is wrong", they might say "that is inappropriate".

Let's follow this train of logic: if something was called "wrong," and it was called wrong "in the past," it must really have been wrong. Since in the past, Christians invoked the Bible to prove that it was "wrong" to free the slaves, it must really have been wrong, since slavery had Biblical sanction.

They see the control of individual behavior as being effected by the law only, so there is no unchanging code of behavior, as with for example the Ten Commandments.

What Idiot Wrote These Ten Commandments?

[Darren]

The test put me on the Left (the dot appeared on the angle). I'm mostly agnostic, but I do get bursts of theism, particularly when I'm anxious about something or, more often, someone.
I suppose my rational ideas of right and wrong are based on the concept of human society (both how it operates internally and it's place in the biosphere).

To my mind, society is much more than a simple accumulation of individuals - there are social structures which amount to more than a sum-of-parts, which are more like the emergent properties of a higher level of humanity (structurally) than the individual human.
Cognitive science seems to back this up, pointing as it does to the existence of hardwired structures in the developing brain which are set up so as to allow a human child to fit into (and develop in) their social context. The human Language faculty is a good example of this.

I do get the feeling that many non-theists lean to the Left because they recognize the existence and importance of human society, and see its well-being as the key to many of the problems facing humans and Humanity (a hallmark of the Left).

[alphamale]

No real reason to do bother with this, but it's late, I'm at work and a bit bored, and The Library is slow tonight, even with my Midnight Serenade.

I read your stuff - may I suggest next time you just take a nap.

Really? Did you know that for centuries, Christian theologians have been grappling with the problem of God's infallible true beliefs (foreknowledge) and human free will? What do you think the problem there might be?

Gosh, no kidding?! Christian church doctrine still holds that people have free will. It's an absolutely fundamental doctrine.

Yes, we should let God legislate instead. What's his position on the minimum wage, do you think? And teaching creationism in public schools?

So the choice is between theocracy on the one hand, and a statist "god" on the other? Gosh, you sure are an intellectual!

When you don't know something (which is normally the case) you have exhibited the interesting tendency to characterize as "snobs" those who know more than you. I suspect you know next to nothing about problems in normative ethics, metaethics, the Humean is-ought gap and the like. Maybe ethics and morality are a bit more complicated than you make out? On the other hand, you probably think that the philosophy of ethics, which has a pedigree of centuries, is a "hoax," like modern art. That's what a steady diet of Rush, Sean and Fox News will do to you, I guess.

Don't read me the table of contents from your ethics book. The vast majority of people who call themselves liberals in the U.S. at least sneer at the very idea of morality.

Let's follow this train of logic: if something was called "wrong," and it was called wrong "in the past," it must really have been wrong. Since in the past, Christians invoked the Bible to prove that it was "wrong" to free the slaves, it must really have been wrong, since slavery had Biblical sanction.

You missed it completely, Socrates. Current day liberals appear to oppose the idea that there could be ANY standard of morality, not just the christian based one.

What Idiot Wrote These Ten Commandments?

Not worthy of a serious reply.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The vast majority of people who call themselves liberals in the U.S. at least sneer at the very idea of morality.

And you are telling other people their comments aren't worth a serious reply?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by weeniemale

Gosh, no kidding?! Christian church doctrine still holds that people have free will. It's an absolutely fundamental doctrine.

Then explain how come whenever christian church doctrine enters politics, it almost always takes the form of "prohibiting", "banning" and "restricting".

Seems that christians are really eager to forget freewill once they leave the church.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Then explain how come whenever christian church doctrine enters politics, it almost always takes the form of "prohibiting", "banning" and "restricting".

Seems that christians are really eager to forget freewill once they leave the church.

That is an interesting point. Wonder how church theologians would respond.