Update on the Traditionalist response to Liberalism

(Note: This post has been expanded, and I've moved much of the contents to the read more section.)

Mr. Auster has finally begun to post some of the comments of his readers on this topic. I for one will be very interested in reading the thoughts and reflections of this outstanding readership on this important question.

So far I've read over the entries quickly, and have submitted a reply (not yet posted Update: this is now posted under the VFR entry.) to Alan Roebuck's assertion concerning liberal virtue.

Alan writes:

Here is the way all liberals initially react to the above fundamental truth: "I don't have to believe in God in order to be good, or do any of the other virtuous things you mentioned." But this response entirely misses the point.

Of course, you can be virtuous if there is no God. You can do any doggone thing you want. But if there is no God, then there is no good reason why you should. [LA replies: I've never heard this argument before. That's powerful. I'm not absolutely sure it's correct, though.]

My contention with Alan's assertion:

In short, I believe this is incorrect. While I believe with Alan that if there is no God, then there is no good reason why one should be virtuous, I do not believe it possible for one to be virtuous if God does not exist. To separate virtue from God's necessary existence is tantamount to claiming the non-existence of both.

So, not only is there no good reason to be virtuous in the absence of God's existence, there's no reason at all, good, bad, or indifferent, because in actuality we do not and cannot exist, which is illogical.

End of initial post.

I've often argued (in one way or the other) that one of the best and strongest arguments in favor of conservatism is the illogic inherent to liberalism. It's also important to not lose sight of the distinction between liberalism and liberals. Liberals are people who are persuaded to believe the doctrine of liberalism. While liberalism is an irrational belief system, those holding to its tenets are not unreasoning beings. It's just that they reason wrongly, or that they reason exceptionally imperfectly, due to any number of factors which can be difficult to delineate. If we can show them the illogic inherent to the liberal belief system (which I acknowledge to be easier said than done), then I think this is one very good way of converting them, or, of having them begin to question their own convictions, which I speculate would result in their conversion.

So, part of the traditionalist response to liberalism would seem to be the logical vs. the illogical basis of the respective belief systems.