Ironic enough, I tend to use the conservatism/human nature point to rebut any claims that conservatism is THE Christian ideology. That conservatism accepts human nature as it's license is something that is actually counter to Christianity. Not that I argue that mine or any others is THE Christian ideology. But it never ceases to amaze me how tightly some have fused conservative politics with the Gospel. Greg Boyd covers all I need to say on the matter for anyone interested enough to read up on that. (or just search youtube for Boyd and Charlie Rose for the visual option)

Not sure what Derb's point was about human nature leading to us as a species being religious. Obviously, there's any number of ways to read that. For me, I'm not sold on the need or desire to be "religious" given what I know the term to mean. Others may use the term more innocuously and innocently (and perhaps that's Derb's method), but even then I think it's a stretch to assume that his conclusion that human nature leads to religion, which defines conservatism. At it's basest level, that would certainly add some fuel to the Ponnurru fire which approaches an equation of fundamentalist conservatism with radical Islam. Not sure where Derb stood on that debate, but I've gotta be a bit doubtful that he would want to move the argument further along.

Oh, and sorry about the lack of commentary on the Trinity U lateral play. I wasn't impressed. It looked like a bunch of 7-yr olds playing soccer the way everyone was huddled around the ball and couldn't make a play to save their life. Cal/Stanford still has that one beat. Trinity ups the value in terms of what was on the line for their opponent. I have nothing short of respect for any team that goes all out to play spoiler like that. But the merits of the play, itself? Far from satisfying.

I've always thought the appropriation of Christianity for conservative political purposes was dubious. While I agree with a lot of the political conclusions of my religious conservative parents, I do so for entirely different reasons. The original LJ post was made for the benefit of Mina, whom I'd consider generally conservative in her outlook, but not at all religious.

I think the main thing, though, was the approach. That the truly (i.e. non-theological) conservative disposition tends toward acceptance of human nature and (as some would consider religion to be) its follies.

As to whether religion is a natural feature of man, I'd say that on the whole, it is. Religious thought of one variation or another is found in virtually every corner of the globe - and yet those variations can differ so fundamentally that some people tend to doubt they are just different reflections of the same truth. Some religions are essentially a form of ancestor worship. Some are polytheistic. Some aren't. But they have a handful of aspects in common, and those aspects seem to be innate. To wit.

But they have a handful of aspects in common, and those aspects seem to be innate.

Why did I just know you were headed to some Evo-Devo point in all of this?

Granted, my quibble is more along the lines of Christianity in specific. And if I believed in an equivalence between Christianity and simple superstition or fear of the unknown, I might agree with the point. But somewhere among the overarching messages of the Bible, it would seem that there's absolutely nothing innate about that faith. To wit: Israelites on Exodus (among everyone else).

Acceptance of innate human qualities as our centrally/primarily justifiable driving force, around which we need to plot and plan policy around, then, most certainly places conservatism as contradictary to Christianity. Incredibly so, I might add.

But if the intellectual stock of National Review suddenly want to equate all religions, I think it only heightens my point about that contradiction.

Note, I don't argue that liberalism or progressivism or any other -ism is more Christian than the other. I could point to fault lines in each of those ideologies, including whatever mashup that I choose to operate by, that has similar contradictions. In the end, none of them are anything close and any tangents are simply on loan as a matter of convenience to adherents of said -isms.

And if I believed in an equivalence between Christianity and simple superstition or fear of the unknown, I might agree with the point. But somewhere among the overarching messages of the Bible, it would seem that there's absolutely nothing innate about that faith. To wit: Israelites on Exodus (among everyone else).

Of course you don't equate them: you're a Christian. And yet I imagine some of those Third World natives would find very amenable your concepts of mystical men who can walk on water, part seas, and change water into wine. They also could probably relate to the rituals of eating gods (communion) and burials. You just happen to believe the intellectual complexity of your faith and rituals outrank and render theirs ridiculous. But as people evolve, so to has religious complexity.

The innate component refers to the part of the mind that is appropriated to contruct concepts of people you can't see but act, etc. The human behavioral narrative is a responses to the beliefs that are part of the system. That's where rituals come from. It's not about a particular religion being innate; it's about mental concepts that are innate and give rise to religions thought and behavior everywhere on Earth.

Acceptance of innate human qualities as our centrally/primarily justifiable driving force, around which we need to plot and plan policy around, then, most certainly places conservatism as contradictary to Christianity. Incredibly so, I might add.

Quite the contrary: both Christianity and conservatism acknowledge the fallibility and imperfectablity of men on earth. The concept of original sin and a Hobbesian state of nature are hospitable to one another in terms of generalizing about human behavior. And both ideas suggest the need for a tempering authority (church and state, respectively).

It's really only secular leftism, with its Rousseau-influnced concept of the noble savage that imagines man as an innately earthly perfectable human, and that it's the outside influences that corrupt. To me, that stuff reads like comedy.

But if the intellectual stock of National Review suddenly want to equate all religions, I think it only heightens my point about that contradiction.

Um, calling Derbyshire - who actually stands quite apart from the NRO rank-and-file on this issue - their "intellectual stock"? Are you implying he speaks for the magazine? Oh, TH... you yourself constantly implore others not to generalize from one to an entire group like that. Don't fall into your own trap.

1. Last I checked, Derb still wrote for N.R. ... ergo, he qualifies as part of the "intellectual stock." Nothing really incendiary intended by that, but rather a simple statement of fact. Given the Ponnuru reference earlier, I'm not exactly stretching to suggest that there's more than one on hand that equate a theologically conservative Christianity with fundamentalist radical Islam. Revisiting the debate that Ponnuru instigated with that comparison, I also recall that he wasn't alone. Might not have been in the majority, but it's by no means a minor point that some at N.R. have adopted.

2. A key omission on the concept that Christianity is somehow (I'd say comically) relevant to a Hobbesian-based worldview. Quite the opposite of what you suggest, Christianity is based on the redemptive quality of man - NOT the acceptance that we are fundamentally flawed and should just as well accept it. Unless I've missed a quote or two in Revelation, I don't see the story in the Bible essentially being one that argues "Oh well, you're all going to hell anyway. Now open your hymnal." Then again, I'm neither Catholic nor Lutheran.

3. The central element of where I *think* we disagree is that I still see a misuse of the word "religion" in Derb's adaptation. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that he's using the term benevolently to encompass people of various theistic faiths. If his point that people were naturally given to join and give in to peer pressure and form urban legends, I'd agree with his take. But I don't think that's the way he's using the term "religion." To me, the word has a very different meaning than most people probably use it. Then again, this was one of my favorite songs of the 80s.

!) It seemed to me that, the Ponnuru reference notwithstanding, you were still somehow imputing the ideas of Derbyshire to NRO in general. You know as well as anyone that a post in The Corner is anything BUT an official endorsement by the magazine of the individual opinion therein. Frankly, I don't see what NRO has to do with anything other than that's where I found the quote. Could just as easily have found it on Derbyshire's presonal webpage. What then?

2) You've misread what I wrote: Christianity, in no denomination I can think of, explicitly accepts or endorses the idea that man can be perfected ON EARTH. The point is that an atheist and a Christian can agree that man ON EARTH is flawed, and both would argue that man can and should strive to perfection while acknowledging its impossibility. The difference is that the religious believe that perfectability is possible in an afterlife. Atheist don't believe in one.

3) Your reductionist/exclusionary definition of religion on Derb's behalf is a straw man. Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Bingo. Just about what I said in my last response (ideas about causation and morality, and behavior that comports to those ideas.) Maybe you conflate "faith" with the definition of religion. Suggestion: when a word you use "has a different meaning that most people probably use it", you might consider changing the word because it probably means you're using the wrong one. Your personal faith can be whatever you want it to be, but the generally accepted semantic definition of religion.... not so much.

Let me see if I can be more precise in my last point above with an example:

Let's say that Thrillhouse believes there is a "creator" of this universe in some manifestation or another that is essentially supernatural in the sense that he/she/it cannot be directly seen but exists and possibly exerts influence here. He also believes that the will of this creator with regard to how humans behave can be divined and reinforced through certain rituals, personal and social. Maybe on Wednesday evenings in a real big building, even.

Result: Thrillhouse goes to a certain building where others of a like mind gather (peer pressure) to discuss this unseen creator and his divined will (urban legend). Certainly he does not conciously believe he is acting on "urban legends" and "peer pressure", and conciously he isn't. But his behavior nonetheless can be described by social scientists as "religious".

What's funny is that he thinks people on the other side of the globe who might think the world was created by a giant pink bunny whose nature is intensely warlike, who wishes people to act likewise and on the premise of selfishness, and who demands human sacrifices every 13th day, are "superstitious". Their behavior to appease the bunny is "fear of the unknown", but Thrillhouse's moral behavior to avoid going to hell is most certainly not the same thing! Why, the very suggestion!

What you're missing is that you are both subscribing to religion; you just subscribe to separate faiths. Your "urban legends" are different, and so are your rituals. You think theirs are ridiculous, and they think likewise of even deeply intellectual, ritualized and institutional faiths such as Roman Catholicism.

The desire and the mental mechnism that makes it possible for both of you to believe is innate. Not every human acts thusly, just as not every human reproduces, but the mental mechanisms that make them possible are there.

And I'll be similarly precise: If Republicans wish to advance the view that all beliefs represent a morally equivalent stock (Brownback certainly joins that chorus as of late) in order to connect their political party with people who wouldn't be caught dead agreeing to such an equivalency, who am I to stop them?

You conclude that the desire and mental mechanism that makes it possible for both me and the Pink Bunny Tribe to believe is similarly innate. My contention is that there is a different belief in each group that is critical ... one that may well be a function of natural biological processes and one that requires something more. Your attempt to minimize the differences are a bit too banal, though. Would it matter if I simply argued that the belief in heavy metal being superior to classical music constituted a "religious" belief?

My point is that such a belief does not really qualify as anything spiritual. I may have an innate ability to believe in that point, just as I may believe in the opposite. But neither viewpoint is supportive of the notion that there is a "religion" gene that makes me or anyone else more inclined to be such. I see your argument as carrying the logic incredibly too far - that since we all have the innate ability to believe, there's no difference between a faith in the supernatural versus the most weakly held political viewpoint.

Your argument basically attests to nothing more than the fact that we possess the innate ability to believe ... something. Not exactly earth-shattering. It says nothing about the specific nature of that something, aside from the incorrect lumping of them as similarly "religious" ... without really describing what "religious" means. My point is that the "something" matters here.

Trying to keep this polite, but I can't help but point this out:

You've misread what I wrote: Christianity, in no denomination I can think of, explicitly accepts or endorses the idea that man can be perfected ON EARTH.

It would seem that I might not be the one with the problem. What I wrote was this:

Christianity is based on the redemptive quality of man - NOT the acceptance that we are fundamentally flawed and should just as well accept it.

Nowhere did I mention anyone being perfected. As it stands, you completely miss my point by interpreting it incorrectly. We are called to be redeemed ... on earth, as it is in heaven. If you disagree with that one, then we might have to start another topic just to keep things organized and tidy.

And to possibly move the conversation along ... or prolong it even further:

Maybe you conflate "faith" with the definition of religion. Suggestion: when a word you use "has a different meaning that most people probably use it", you might consider changing the word because it probably means you're using the wrong one. Your personal faith can be whatever you want it to be, but the generally accepted semantic definition of religion.... not so much.

Quite the contrary ... I argue that "religion" should have something close to zero similarity to Christianity. My point regarding the semantics is that I believe it is Derbyshire and yourself that match the two terms inappropriately.

Your point about just giving into the way other people use the term, however, isn't one I'm about to take up. There are sermon catalogs rich with examples of Christian pastors bemoaning "religion." It may be that the secular world wishes to fuse it, but there is at least one broad and substantial school of thought among Christians that the two have nothing to do with each other. The link to my 80s Christian punk anthem has been fixed for a musical sampling of that view. If desired, I can supply at least a handful of sermon MP3s I've listened to on the topic in the past week alone.

*sigh* Are the ignorance and mischaracterizations in your responses willful? Appears so, but I'll hit the posts in order:

And I'll be similarly precise: If Republicans...
Stop right there. I have never in this conversation mentioned "Republican". You must be itching for some serious political dogfighting, but you're not getting it here. The point was conservative, as in an ideological disposition. Pull your head out of The Hill for a second and see that this isn't political.

the notion that there is a "religion" gene
You certainly didn't hear "religion gene" from me either. That characterization shows that you don't even begin to comprehend the argument. It's not about "a gene" - it's about different mental processes that are innate. That's not the same as a "religion gene". You want to talk about banal characterizations? There's a hot one.

your argument.... there's no difference between a faith in the supernatural versus the most weakly held political viewpoint.
What are you talking about? When did I or Derbyshire or anyone but you make that point? Who are you talking to?

we possess the innate ability to believe ... something. Not exactly earth-shattering.
Finally, you get something right. And then you blow it with incorrect lumping of them as similarly "religious" because nowhere in your refutation of that is any distinction made that isn't tautological. What, there's a difference between them that can be explained beyond "Um, my ideas are smart; theirs are stupid." I haven't seen you make any argument beyond that one yet.

NOT the acceptance that we are fundamentally flawed and should just as well accept it.

Talk about irony. In your sad attempt at schoolmarming my post, you made a giant leap that I never made. Let's take another look at my post, but I'll give you some visual help:

The point is that an atheist and a Christian can agree that man ON EARTH is flawed, and BOTH WOULD ARGUE THAT MAN CAN AND SHOULD STRIVE TO PERFECTION while acknowledging its impossibility.

Where in my post did you see "should just as well accept it"? Oh, that's right. You didn't. In fact, the precise opposite. Try not to light any matches around that gigantic straw man you're building there, G.

Nowhere did I mention anyone being perfected. I'll certainly accept that you didn't say that... because I said it!! All I said was that man cannot be perfected on earth but ought to try and you seem(ed) to agree with that. So please, I beg you, tell me how did I "completely miss your point"? Did you even make one that I hadn't already made and that you agreed with?

Quite the contrary ... I argue that "religion" should have something close to zero similarity to Christianity.

That point is so absolutely ridiculous on its face that I pretty much feel like my point has been made... if not for the "should". But then, that word absolves you only because it shows that you're not making an argument about the world we live in and its definitions. You're arguing about the world you want to live in and about what you think words should mean. Dream on.

In the interest of comity, let me see if I can get this back on course because I think you may have taken Derb's comments personally somehow, and I'm not sure why. He wasn't truly arguing between believing and not. Yes, he says that historical religious accounts seem to him made up, but witness that he specifically distinguishes himself from an atheist. Yes, he says that humans are innately and instinctively religious, but that is not the same argument as that there is no God. Those ideas are not necessarily incompatible - for all we know, God made us instinctively religious! - but that's beside the specific point.

Look at his penultimate statement: Human nature has its unappealing side, but grand projects to overhaul it invariably end with a mountain of corpses. That's it in a nutshell. What Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens are doing is the "grand project to overhaul" man's instinctive nature to believe. Yes it's true that Christianity can be said to be a grand project to overhaul men's souls too, but at least it prescribes a way to peaceably coexist, which is why conservatives are probably a bit more amenable to it than atheism, which is merely the dogma of refutation. All Derb said is that a truly conservative dispostion tends to be distrustful of former because religiousity itself seems to be more in man's nature than atheism, and fighting it therefore fruitless. He's not saying YOU need to believe (or not believe) anything. He's not addressing that issue; he's addressing the conservative response to it. What's the beef?