On great number of debates on AD, with a few notable exceptions, most of the poeple who label them selves as "Conservative" also APPEAR, IMO, to be anti-rationalists.

As Erasmussimo so ably defined the stance
" As a rationalist, the first question I always ask when considering a question is, "what answer would I prefer?" I then subject that answer to the harshest skepticism. A standard method I use is to present the my take on the question to others and ask for their critique. If anybody comes up with a criticism I had not thought of, I consider that I have failed badly and go back to the drawing board. If all the arguments presented against the thesis are ones that I had already considered, I congratulate myself and proceed immediately to the conclusion."

I will let that stand as rationalism for the definition in this debate.

My question is,

Is the conservative movement, as it stands today, able to do that kind of self criticism of thier ideals in order to form a conservative-rationalist set of ideals and morals

Here is a quote when a scientific explanation on a debate was given -
"Besides, much of what passes for "science" is just plain junk these days. "

Totally discarding the fact that, if anything, scientific papers published in journals are subject to verification, re-expirimenting, peer review now, more than ever!

So, since Conservatives claim high moral values, in fact "superior" moral values- and I quote [/B]I'm saying that the judeo-christian value set is superior to any other value set. - does anyone think that this statement would be contrary to the rationalist train of thought?

[B]Are social conservatives able to see that thier may be other solutions outside than "the judeo-christian value set" -especially when confronted with the violence and horrible things commanded for believers to commit against unbelievers in their book?

Obviously, I don't want this to degenerate into a biblical discussion so it gets locked up, but more interested if the modern conservative movement is able to look inside thier own philosophies and find the flaws in that philosophy.

I'd like to introduce my reply by beginning to state that debates shouldn't include intentionally insulting a whole group of the American popultation. Saying that conservatives in the US aren't rational is pretty inflammatory.

1. There are no portions of the Bible that incite violence upon non-believers. I think that would be the Muslim ideology, and there are no biblical references to commanding believers to assault non-believers. Frankly, it's quite the contrary. Please show me any biblical passage that asks believers to harm non-believers... (**hint-there are none!**)


2. The modern conservative movement isn't comprised of men and women toting bibles around in the streets awaiting converts! Apparently, you haven't made any attempt to study the other side of the "aisle", so to speak. Conservatives are often times relatively secular people, who lean to the right due to their fiscal beliefs, distrust of government, or views on states rights (or gun control, etc, etc, etc).

(**SIDE NOTE**- Science is very rarely absolute. We do depend on science for medical technology, etc, but it is often inexact and based upon theory. It often is open for change and interpretation, hence our ever changing medical landscape.)

You use the phrase "superior moral values" as if it's on the front pocket of every republican in the US. That's NUTS!
However, I will address your statement in reference to rational thought and conservatives. I will use Ayn Rand as a basis for my argument, as her idea of objectivism is a widely entertained and non-partisan ideology. It employes that reason is man's only means of perceiving reality. This basically states that your reasoning and reality would definitely differ from mine, but neither are inherently correct or incorrect.

So, basically, rationale is a non-concrete term. Factors such as age, geography, experience, and lifestyle can all affect this idea. So, basically, I'm saying that saying conservatives and judeo-christian ideology are no more or less rational than anyone else in society. It's a matter of perception. Finally, using science as a basis for an argument is like citing a poll citing less than the entirety of the US population. It could be inherently flawed, may change, and is based generally on conjecture. Think of what doctors in the last century thought of the human body, and consider what we "know" now. It changes, it sincerely changes...