F.A. Hayek writes, "Thus I confess that I always have to smile when books on evolution, even ones written by great scientists, end, as they often do, with exhortations which, while conceding that everything has hithero developed by a process of spontaneous order, call on human reason--now that things have become so complex--to seize the reins and control future development." (p. 22) Hayek's argument throughout The Fatal Conceit is that cultural, political, and economic institutions were not created by any council of wise men, but rather developed organically. "Civilisation is not only a product of evolution--it is a process; by establishing a framework of general rules and individual freedom it allows itself to continue to evolve. This evolution cannot be guided by and often will not produce what men demand." (p. 74)

Like Hayek, the typical intellectual accursed with the fatal conceit seldom believes in God. Their faith in their schemes, however, seems unshakable. Is the desire to create the world anew through social-engineering schemes related to atheism? In other words, does the intellectual seek not just to depose God, but to replace Him?

Now finished with my paper, and am still hopped up on caffine, so I'm not entirely sane right now, so forgive me if this makes no sense.

Why intellectuals tend to be non believers is not a mystery to me like why they lean to the Left. Religion, requires a certain level of anti-intellectualism—faith. The reason why so many conservative intellectuals convert to Catholicism is probably because it has the greatest intellectual tradition in terms of trying to rationally justify God and Christian concepts rather than just rely on faith alone.

Getting to the main question. I think the issue is not whether or not you are religious, but rather that you recognize hat there is a limitation to human nature. Many atheist conservative heroes like James Burnham and HL Mencken were well aware of our limits. Traditional Christiantiy believed that man is flawed and find anything that tries create man a new as impossible at best and blasphemous at worst. This is more/less conducive to a good society.

However, there are many forms of Christianity such as dispensationalism, the social gospels etc. that all seek to form Heaven on Earth and IMO are very dangerous.

Now as Human Events still considers Darwin’s Origin of Species and Descent of Man to be among the worst books of last 200 years, it isn’t surprising that Conservatives completely ignored the huge strides made in sociobiology, behavorial genetics, and evolutionary psychology.

Men like EO Wilson have completely demolished the idea that all men are equal and have blank slates for social engineers to write on, which is the basis for modern liberalism. What has the right done about it? For the most part ignore (or be oblivious) to its implications. Others who saw it, but didn’t’ really want to be able to actually discuss its implications would say something like “well, we’re not scientists…”, yet of course many of these people are the same people who have no problem weighing in on subjects like Global Warming or the viability of a fetus after two trimesters. Some jumped on the fact that now they can hail that their religious dogma can be seen to be wonderfully egalitarian (see it disproves all those evil “social darwinists”), others simply sound like the Left in calling anyone who looks at these facts as racists. (The sole exception to this was the Bell Curve, but no one has talked about it in the last 8 years. Paul Gottfried’s second edition of the Conservative Movement goes into detail about how the mainstream right completely ignored this revolution.)

The only semi mainstream conservatives that even talk about these things now are Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Charles Murray, and John O’Sullivan. (Sailer seems to be persona non grata at National Review for this reason, and has been called a white supremacist by both David Frum and Jonah Goldberg. John O’Sullivan was of course demoted at Natoinal Review, and now it seems like John Podhoretz is on a mission to muzzle Derbyshire.) John Tierney seems to be somewhat interested in this, so perhaps he’ll bring it up in his columns, but who knows.

Given that intellectuals (who both Hayek and I think are crucial to have on our side) are not as likely to accept religious justifications for limits on human nature, this would have been a very powerful tool if anyone besides the scientists (most of whom were disinterested in politics) pushed it. The Marxists clearly recognized that (fraudulent) Boasian anthropology strongly advanced their cause and in fact helped push the field forward. They also recognized the threat that sociobiology represented to their ideology. If conservatives pushed these people 1/10 as much as they did to Milton Friedman, the level of discourse on many issues would be much greater.

I’d say the reason is that. 1) the influence of the religious right and catholic creationists 2) political correctness and 3) many “conservatives” pretty much accept all the liberal premises of a blank slate, and this shatters their world view as well.

Just one interesting point on creationism, and mainstream conservatives. John Derbyshire writes here that there are no creationists at National Review. Here is an interesting article about 8 years ago from Ronald Bailey in Reason about neocons new found love for creationism. And here is steve sailer on the same topic.

Sailer speculates that the reason why neoconservatives didn't embrace Steve Pinker's Blank Slate is becasue it could have hypothetically rocked their alliance w/ the Religious Right who is their key line in supporting a hardline Israeli foreign policy. Bailey saw the same reason, but didn't mention Israel.

While this could be a factor, If they were so worried about antagonizing the Religious Right, why did almost every single prominent neoconservative call The Passion blood libel, and the almost all support gay marriage, and many support legalized abortion. I think the religious right cares much more about those issues than evolution.

Can Hayek's position be reconciled with the American Founding? What were all those brilliant men doing in Philadelphia anyway? Watching the "process of spontaneous order" flow by?

What of an innovation such as federalism? It had no historical precedent. It was a fairly large-scale change to the structure of the regime. And it has apparently been successful.

P.S. Sandra Day O'Conner just stepped down. Let the games begin!

"What of an innovation such as federalism? It had no historical precedent." -Brad.

1) You're changing the topic.
2) You Kristol-clone still think of the founding as equivalent to the founding of the Soviet Union. That is factually unsupportable. There is incredible continuity underlying the changes in the American government from 1775 to 1785 to 1795.
3) You are factually wrong about your example. Federalism had historical precedents not only in the hundreds of years of European feudalism (which layered levels of authority often by region), but directly in the British King's relationshipship to the 13 colonies.

The 13 already understood themselves as self-governing via independent parliaments and governors but at the same time united under a more expansive authority, especially (but not only) in their foreign policy and military policy via the king. "No historical precedent"! Get over it. Federalism is great, and it was innovative, but it's creation wasn't ex nihilo.

'Precedent' in your hands ceases to be a term of distinction. Anything and everything has a 'precedent'. Innovation? What's that? Deliberation? Who needs it? It's all part of the spontaneous flow. Please.

Why not become a structuralist and get it over with. Why did the Founders even need to be there. Surely the 'text' could have written itself.

Brad: You chose the word "precedent," not me. Did the founders act like gods making a new universe? Hardly. They very wisely built on what they had, using models and precedents from what they had seen before.

I don't think Hayek draws the line clearly, but he doesn't condemn all deliberate activity (as you insinuate). He condemns constructivist delusion in favor of peice-meal deliberate changes. One could make an argument that the Founding is a good, though perhaps imperfect, example of this. I would like the line drawn better, but he's certainly not making the structuralist mistake.

Of course the Founders built on what they had (ex nihilo creation is impossible for mortals, even for socialists). They were not, however, mere editors, assembling pre-existing parts into a barely novel arrangement. They were superior intellects who deliberated on the best regime, and thereby brought history together with innovation to produce something the world had never seen before: federalism.

Hayek (and you to the extent you defend his position) creates a false dichotomy between slight, 'piece-meal' changes arising out of a spontaneous, genetic process and ex nihilo creation by tyrants in white lab-coats. Certainly the Founders were in the middle. A fact that destroys Hayek's position - i.e., the Founders obviously used reason to construct a new regime. Even their use of experience is itself rational. That is, experience was not at work through spontaneity, but through the deliberate application by reason.

Brad: Here you just misunderstand Hayek. Spontaneous order and ratinalist constructivism are not our only two options. He favors, (1) humility about degree of our abilities to redesign stuff and (2) smarts about how we try to redesign stuff, given that human practices will continued to adapt and develop and are to us mostly uncontrollable. I repeat: he doesn't reject all deliberate change. In fact, Hayek (I believe) ends up advocating a substantial change in the American regime, separating the legislative powers into two types of legislature (I've heard). So it's just not true that he says no to all deliberate reordering.

I didn't say that the founders were just rearranging stuff. I was just pointing out that you overstated their constructivism. The US is not the capitalist version of the USSR. That's all.

Dan Flynn asks "Is the desire to create the world anew through social-engineering schemes related to atheism? In other words, does the intellectual seek not just to depose God, but to replace Him?"

My reading is that most intellectuals have idealistically “fallen” into their attempt to replace God. It is not that they primarily seek to replace God. It is that their sense of justice drives them to seek a replacement. As a preliminary to defending this statement let me make a point about an earlier Dan Flynn question I missed because I had no internet access for a few days.

Kristol quotes extensively from Hayek in "Two Cheers for Capitalism" and does not refute him but ultimately finds him inadequate. Hayek's says his system cannot give us "justice" (since no system can). Kristol gives only two cheers because justice is needed. Kristol echoes Madison who said that people will strive for justice until they lose liberty in its pursuit. Hayek gives us no reason for living, no goal higher than survival. The most he can offer in defense of his version of "morality" is "it does enable us survive, and there is something perhaps to be said for that." (p. 70)

This is the alternative left to atheistic intellectuals who understand the truth of Hume's statement "the rules of morality are . . . not conclusions of our reason." (p. 8). Hayek is strong minded enough to face this dark implication of his beliefs (though not strong enough to allow him to rethink the pervasive atheism of his class and time (see page 53)).

Most intellectuals are not so strong-minded. Like other people, they want a reason to live. They con themselves into believing they can reason their way to first principles. This starts them on an idealistic quest for a non-existent grail that, they believe, will change their lives and sanctify society. In their desperation, some of them are fooled by anything that looks like it might work. Many of them are, like Rousseau, are fooled by the vision of an Edenic past time or simpler moral life which they think can be recreated. The particulars of their delusions vary but they usually share one attribute--because they are rationalistic they are postulated to be comprehensive and authoritative. Thus, the deluded often are seduced into authoritarian, if not totalitarian, fantasies.

Hayek sees the folly of these delusions. Not all atheists need to replace God. The honest, tough minded ones, like Hayek, see that without God there is no justification beyond survival and accept the traditions that have let us live. (Traditions I prefer to see as gifts of God and our ancestors and they prefer to see as part of an unguided process). The weak-minded ones postulate justifications that, in part to convince themselves, they must coerce us into believing.

I offer as evidence for my hypothesis the strange behavior of the legions of those, like the Marxists, who think that their systems are historically inevitable or "on the cutting edge of history" and yet are willing to struggle and even die to implement them.