I’m not looking for the universal constant (well, I am, but not here).
My only point is to concur with the thesis of the ["Why Atheists act like Creationists..."] blog post, that non-theists cannot insist upon treating politics as if it is above the very system their logic claims produced it. If natural selection begets ethics, and ethics begets politics, then one cannot object to the notion that politics is a product of natural selection. Which begs the question why the term “social Darwinism” is a term of derision. [To dive deeper, another commenter suggests to read up on sociobiology.]
Not to stray from the topic, but I would go even further in agreeing that collectivists, especially those of an atheist stripe, tend to try to have it both ways. They veer toward statist politics that tend toward collectivist (read, coerced) solutions, while claiming that nature must be free to grow into its most productive genetic coding. I see an unholy alliance here between the theistic and atheistic collectivists.
But I digress from the central point…
There is a profound practicality to understanding the nature of ethics and politics. The most immediate example would be being able to spot a politician who is trying to get away with having it both ways–claim a non-theistic ethic, but use a non-natural system to explain (or impose) his politics or ethics.
Theists have it pretty easy here. They just point to their book, or what not, and they’re pretty much done.
Atheists bear an immense burden, which I think is assisted in knowing the nature of their ethical impulses and imperatives.