Expert: Margaret Placentra Johnston - 1/31/2010

Question
QUESTION: Margaret, I am an athiest and a republican.  Generally, people think that if I'm an athiest, I can't possibly be a republican because so many of the pundits, politicians, and other noteworthy figures in the party are quite vocal about their faith in God.  My wife and I know other athiests who are republicans, but it's difficult to find authors or other noteworthy figures with this common ground, and it's somewhat frustrating.  Any advice?

ANSWER: This is an interesting issue.  My sense is that:

1) many or most atheists and agnostics are at the "critical distance" stage of spiritual development, as described and named by Paul Ricoeur. For a simplified explanation of this see: http://www.exploring-spiritual-development.com/Paul-Ricoeur.html on my website. You can read more about this level at: http://www.exploring-spiritual-development.com/The-Rational.html.

This means they have moved beyond the need for the "Faithful" type of religion: http://www.exploring-spiritual-development.com/The-Faithful.html.  Now maturing past the "Faithful" level would have nothing to do with politics, but rather more to do with life experiences, religious and family background and possibly level of reasoning skills.  

2) Now, pardon me for what may sound like biases but, in recent years it seems the Republican party has been "taken over" by very vociferous people who are either:
       a) almost militant members of the Faithful level, who have no awareness that the Rational level exists (they think everyone who is not religious must be at the "Lawless" level:  http://www.exploring-spiritual-development.com/The-Lawless.html and thus in need of conversion or management by the Faithfuls) - OR -
       b) they are implicitly or explicitly aware of these levels and wish to gain power for their party by convincing others that those at the Faithful level of religion are better than everyone else.  (thus suppressing the power of those at all the other levels.) Where they are wrong about this is that while SOME people who are not at the Faithful level are Lawless, there are many, many others at the Rational level, and there are a few at the Mystic level.

Now, the piece of logic that would tie all this together is worldview.  We are speaking in very broad generalities here but as a rule, the Lawless individual is ego-centric in worldview (only interested in his own concerns.)  The Faithful person is generally ethno-centric (focused on his own group - here is why you have Faithful level Republicans making so much noise about how everyone else but them is wrong, evil, etc.)  Then the Rational level individual has a somewhat broader worldview.  (He no longer limits his concerns to his own group, but would also care for the poor, the unfortunate, the sick...can you see how this fits in better with Democratic ideals?)  But - the Mystic goes even broader than the Rational. He is universal in worldview - looks for unity in all people and does not like to see divisions.  

So spiritual development spirals from a very limited worldview, to continually broader worldviews, and alternating positions of religious belief of a superficial nature (Faithful level) frequently to non-belief (Rational level) and then back to a more authentic type of spirituality that does not have such a specific, anthropomorphic god and probably does not have so much to do with an institution (Mystic level.)  

So in very, very general terms, a political party that spouts out Faithful level ideals will attract more ethnocentric people, and a party that promotes worldcentric ideals will attract more people at the Rational level.  

I think there are probably a lot of people with a socially worldcentric worldview (would care for those outside their own group)- but who otherwise hold conservative financial ideals ( don't want to see taxes increase, want to keep government out of their lives, etc.) I suspect you and your wife are "moderate" Republicans.  Other moderates on both sides are keeping pretty quiet these days - again because they don't have a ready "tribe" to join up with.  If there are any authors or "noteworthy figures" from your faith stance and political leanings they are probably keeping their mouths shut on these issues, as they are probably confused too.  

I don't know about you, but I am old enough to remember a time when the average Republican was much more moderate.  In recent years, there is so, so much more divisiveness between the parties that there is little room for those in the middle (the atheists who may lean Republican or the traditional believers who may lean Democratic.)  

As there are more Republicans in (or speaking out from) the Faithful group, and more Democrats in the Rational group, your people who are confused by your stance as Republican and atheist don't have a nice, neat pigeon-hole to put you in. I imagine this frustrates them - and it may be frustrating to you, as you don't have a "tribe" that matches your ideals exactly.

While I do not have a solution for you, I hope this at least might shed some light on the reasons for what you are experiencing.  I wish you good luck in reconciling this confusing situation.

I appreciate any feedback on whether this made any sense to you, (by means of follow-up question, please) as I am searching for better ways to express this belief vs non-belief scenario.  Others have tried, but though there is a lot of correlation between those who have studied it, the concept has never reached the general public to any appreciable level.   




---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Margaret, Thanks for your great response.  It's interesting that my perception of the Republican party, which is based more on the Republicans I have known personally than those with the loud voices, seems to line up better with your description of the Rational group, especially these two sentences from you website, "For them, the truth is more important than security. Individual integrity is more important than sticking to the group." (http://www.exploring-spiritual-development.com/The-Rational.html)

I settled on the Republican party while in college.  My feeling was that the Democrats were driven by emotions (not necessarily concern for others), and regularly ignored facts that conflicted with their world view.  This was also how I viewed the Faithful group in my life experience.  The students I knew were easily influenced by propaganda, and in my opinion, felt that the Democratic Party had more appeal because it was the more exciting, rebelious party, while the stereotype for the Republican party was rich, old, white, Christian men, which was boring.  I think the stereotypes influenced me to play devil's advocate in classroom debates.

Eventually, I had taken enough economics courses to learn how near free market capitalism helps improve the standard of living for the needy better than government managed systems have.  Even when people are pursuing their own ego-centric goals, they simultaneously help everyone else.  As for the poor in other countries, the generosity offered from the United States and its citizens has been far greater than that from more socialized countries, and I think the "invisible hand of self interest" has helped make such offerings possible.

Unfortunately, I think you are right that the middle-right Republicans have been keeping their mouths shut, or at least aren't receiving the same publicity.  This is probably because people are naturally drawn to others with strong/extreme opinions.  However, this is separating more people, and it makes me concerned for my party.  I hear people talk about moving to the Libertarian party, but I have even less common ground there.  Hopefully, the Faithful types will start to soften up to the Rational types in the near future.  Thanks for your help.

Answer
Interesting you bring up college...I started college in 1969 so there was plenty of upheaval going on.  I noticed many of those doing all the protesting were not doing so out of moral principle, but rather just to go along with the group and challenge authority without any real underlying basis.  Many of them seemed to just want change for the sake of change itself with no thought to the consequences.  They may have been at the Faithful stage - or I would not be too surprised to learn that many of them were at the Lawless level back then.  

However, that was college and the thing is - thankfully! - people mature.  (I too was at the Faithful level in those days.)  The most appropriate age to shift from Faithful to Rational is early adulthood - so it should be no wonder we both encountered so many probable "Faithfuls" in college.  Hopefully most of them have moved on by now to a more mature level.  I feel most of the types I encountered in college have. Some are even broaching the Mystic level by now - very rare before middle age.

As for the Republican party, I really don't know what to tell you - except that one time a few years ago I saw the best thing in - was it the Wall Street Journal?, I don't remember - a bunch of moderate Republicans had taken out a full page ad listing their grievances about the way things were, saying this was not the Republican party they wanted to belong to, etc, etc. I think it would be a good thing if more "rational" type Republicans would start complaining about the basically immature and divisive tone much of the party has taken and try to turn it around. But then I do not claim to know anything much about politics.

But on another topic, since you mention economics - and perhaps we could continue this conversation in private - you can hit the "contact" button on my website to send me a regular email - I (who know little about economics) would love to hear your opinion (as someone who has taken a lot of courses in it) of why/how it is that this free market capitalism has failed so tragically in our health care system.  In my "day job" I am a health care provider, so obviously this is a subject of great concern to me.  How does free market capitalism work when the goals of the managed care corporations (profit) run directly counter to the goal of any right-minded health professional (keeping the good of the patient as the highest priority?) With our current managed care system countless millions have been funneled right from the patient level to grossly overpaid CEO's and stockholders, forcing decreases in the quality of care, lives lost needlessly because of delayed or denied procedure authorizations and piles of needless paperwork. Obviously this is a hot button for me - but any logic you can add to help me understand would be appreciated.