For instance, I got the kick out of the title of a global warming skepticism book entitled “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and environmentalism).” Now, one would think that they “PC” way to go about the question of global warming would be to talk a relative stance in an attempt to preserve everyone emotional dignity, but the last time I checked it is those who believe in global warming that say the science is in and that it is no more debatable than the earth being round, while skeptics say that there needs to be two sides to the issue regardless.

My question is: Is the global warming believer or the skeptic that politically correct one. After all, belief in global warming is generically characterized as a left of center belief, so it must be an act of political correctness, right?

Seemingly you could substitute “conventional wisdom” for “ultracalvinist hypothesis” and come to the same conclusions?

Not surprisingly, New England is home to not only Puritanism, but the two other major religions founded in America, Christian Science and Mormanism.

Social ways last a long time and accross later seemingly different classes, ethnicities and religions. They must be cosidered as important as genetics.

I believe Unqualified Reservations is arguing that contemporary atheism is a mutation of Mainline Protestantism, and by shedding a nunfunctional ornament (belief in “revelation”) is outcompeting all other Mainline Protestant sects.

I don't have numbers in front of me, but as I recall contemporary atheism is growing while the rest of Mainline Protestantism (Episcopalianism, Presbytarianism, etc) are all shrinking.

“Opposition to Church-State mixture is important because there are simply no duties of a State that require it to get involved with Churches.”

Perhaps, though it depends how you define Churches. Legally we seem to speak of corporate entities, and this is what the “ultracalvinists have shed.” However, philosophically we speak of intellectual centers all-encompassing normative prescriptions, and this the ultracalvinists retain. Thus “Unqualified Reservation”'s point that contemporary atheism is merely Mainline Protestantism less a nonfunctional surface protein (a corporate existence, a board of directors, etc).

Purpleslog,

The post was very cool. Glad it was so mind-blowing.

We South Dakotans are a simple, salt of the earth, people. And this one in particular will be formally beginning a doctoral program in educational psychology this August. By that time I will already have masters in computer science and ed psych. [1]

Steve,

I don't know about conventional wisdom, but the eastern estabslihment [2] was at least a manifestation of Mainline Protestantism…

ElamBend,

Don't forget the Cthulhu Mythos!

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/06/23/comp-d.html
[2] http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/foreign-policy-and-american-elite-part_31.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovecraft_Mythos#_note-2

Wow. Econlog clearly did its research… and every except is astounding

” I hope you can agree that the Harvard faculty in 2007 by and large believes in human equality, social justice, world peace and community leadership, that the faculty of the same institution held much the same beliefs in 1957, 1907, 1857 and 1807, and that in any of these years they would have described these views as the absolute cynosure of Christianity. Perhaps I am just naturally suspicious, but it strains my credulity slightly to believe that sometime in 1969, the very same beliefs were rederived from pure reason and universal ethics, whose concurrence with the New Testament is remarkable to say the least.” [1]

and “For example, if ultracalvinists are Christians, “political correctness” is religious orthodoxy. Hm, where have we seen this before? Perhaps in Massachusetts? I mean, is it any surprise that Ivy League schools are acting, in effect, as ultracalvinist seminaries? Isn't that exactly what they were founded as?” [2]

and “By my count, Anglophone North America ex Canada is on its fifth legal regime. The First Republic was the Congressional regime, which illegally abolished the British colonial governments. The Second Republic was the Constitutional regime, which illegally abolished the Articles of Confederation. The Third Republic was the Unionist regime, which illegally abolished the principle of federalism. The Fourth Republic is the New Deal regime, which illegally abolished the principle of limited government.” [3]

Every post presents something to think about. Very good.

Adam,

I'm looking forward to Sunday's post! And thanks for the link to last year's series on freethinkers!

[1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/rawlsian-god-cryptocalvinism-in-action.html
[2] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-conservatives-never-quite-catch.html
[3] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/iron-polygon-power-in-united-states.html

As long as “Ultracalvinism” as an intellectual center is understood to be different than simple “atheism,” as in non-belief, then I agree with the theory. “Secular progressivism” clearly grew out of mainline Protestantism and Deism. [1] Groups like the UU and Secular Humanism share both ethical and political allies with liberal Protestants.

So yes, SPs can be seen as “Ultracalvinists” in exactly the way Unqualified Reservations describes.

I question UU outcompeting because as far as I can remember, their growth has stagnated – they're not syphoning off members from Protestant churches. But the number of unchurched is growing.

ElamBend took the words out of my mouth.

I would also be interested in how you view the “new atheism” [1] and if/how it fits into ultracalvinism.

[1] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/06/p_j_orourke_has.html

One of the first responses a fellow student of mine is having while trying to recruit members for the upcoming Godless Razorbacks RSO (or whatever it ends up being named) is that no one wants to be part of a group where we just sit around and piss off Christians the whole time.

As far as the relationship between Ultracalvinism and 'New Atheism' is concerned, I think its part of the same strain – atheism is seen as socially progressive – but I'll write a blog about that on Sunday.

The link I meant to put on the last comment is my several-part review of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. Its written by an Ultracalvinist who makes no distinction between “liberalism,” “atheism” and “freethought.”

http://themetropolistimes.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/09/07/freethinkers-intro-ch-1-2.html