- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
No (free) country other than America has such a strong correlation between political leaning and religiousness. Its a shame how a political group that promotes "freedom for the individual" would routinely alienate a whole segment of the population, just because they don't share an unrelated and non-political belief!
I think the title question is semantically null, because one describes politics and the other describes a lack of religion. There is no connection between the two, except for the rationalizations and stories we tell ourselves so that two of our beliefs will seem to support each other (cognitive dissonance). Thats what the guys in the video were doing.
It is true that people who claim to be Christians can claim to be socialists or capitalists. Those contradictions are their own. However, if you look at explicitly religious states such as Saudi Arabia the matter is clear. In most times and most places, most rulers claimed divinity or divine mandate. Ancient Greece was an exception. America followed in that by declaring freedom of religion: it was not a matter for the federal government to determine, though various states did have state-supported churches.
Most of the "conservatives" here are libertarians, not traditionalists. But if you consider traditionalists such as Patrick Buchanan and Ann Coulter, you see that explicit religious beliefs do lead to explicit political claims. Traditionalists believe that you must subordinate yourself to God's Chosen Society.
Political Systems are about power and control, they only give ethics and morals lip service, and that only rarely.
I disagree with their premise that being a good and moral person requires that there be a god.
The Judeo-Christian God is different (although I'll grant you that there are examples of petulance in the Bible).
While it is certainly possible for a human to be moral and good without a belief in a deity - I venture to say there are quite a few here in the Gulch - the likelihood is greatly diminished. Take AR's famous postulate that "selfishness is a virtue." Many, if not most, will read that solely as "me first and to hell with others," which can lead to neighbor using offensive force against neighbor. If the understanding stopped at that point, it would be a very corrosive society indeed. What religion does, is bring about the deeper meanings beyond just "me first," as does Objectivism. Not only should there be "me first," but there must also be "not at your expense of my use of force against you and your interests." That is the underlying context of religion.
Immanuel Kant's theory of deontology was "good for the sake of being good." It is always wrong to lie, so if someone is hiding from an attacker in your bushes and the attacker asks "Where is he?" then you have to tell the truth. That is "good for the sake of being good" without reward. I trust that you do _not_ advocate that.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism asserts egoism that leads to happiness. Your own life is your standard of value. Something can be "good" for you in one context and bad for you in another. Some people find fasting to be healthful, but death by starvation is bad (almost always; but not always). The standard of judgement is the value of your own happiness. That is ethical egoism.
I don't see homosexuality as "bad." It is stupid on an individual level, and evil on a societal level. Carnal pleasure at the individual level is not inherently good nor bad. So long as the participating individuals consent to the activity and do not "harm" one another or others, what they do is up to them. I find it stupid as the "plumbing" was meant to work in a certain way. There is nothing that a MM, FF coupling can do that a MF coupling cannot also do.
However, as a societal norm, it is evil and suicidal. "Go forth and multiply," is not merely a benign blessing, it is a command for species survival. Any species must perpetuate itself, otherwise it will cease to exist. That, therefore, must be law number one. Societal homosexuality violates law number one, and thus is the ultimate evil, for it leads to species extinction.
Time is often part of consequences. Someone has unprotected sex and much later symptoms of an STD show up. The short term benefit had a large cost delivered much later.
1. Christianity produces states that respect liberty, therefore we should believe it's true. -> Argument from final consequences. Things can be false and have good consequences.
2. Christian promotes liberty, therefore all liberty comes from Christianity. -> Error of the converse. There could be other things besides Christianity that promote liberty.
3. It's arrogant to think we know everything about the universe, therefore we should believe in God. -> Argument from ignorance. They're saying we don't know where the universe came from, therefore we must accept a particular possibility.
4. We would rather believe a baby girl's soul will outlast the earth than that it will be gone billions of years before the earth. -> Argument from final consequences. Sometimes the truth has consequences you don't like.
5. It's better to believe in god than toil endlessly for the benefit of state. -> False choice.
I strongly agree with salta that these guys are trying force together unrelated things. I agree with them on personal liberty, ideas they call "conservative", but I categorically reject the falsifiable religious claims. All those logical fallacies IMHO do a dis-service to a movement based on rationality.
I think it is possible but agree with the video that it may not be logical. Seems more likely an atheist being libertarian.
There have been more humans murdered, tortured, and lives ruined in the name of religion than any other cause in history and every religion, especially the judeo/Christian one, has had their hands in the bloody mix.
No thread hijack intended...
as a unofficial litmus, let's take the opinion show "The Five" on FOX. When the Boston bombing happened, all of the conservative hosts were four square behind the declaring of national emergency and imprisoning individuals in their homes and going door to door.
They were also initially completely with NSA and against Snowden's actions. on a current post of mine, we are vigorously discussing the validity of police checkpoints. who is for them? Conservatives.
Don't confuse Republicans with conservatives - few R's are truly conservative.
http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Partys-...
$1.99 on Kindle
I used to speed read, but as I've gotten older, I realize I am not absorbing at the same rate I used to. I tend to go back and re-read which in the long run defeats the purpose. My father-in-law was able to keep up the skill until he suffered a stroke that basically blinded him in one eye.
In this way they're the opposite of classical liberals.
Religion is a deeply held set of moral beliefs, often including a deity, but a deity is not required.
Aren't the moral beliefs of Objectivists deeply held? If they are, then isn't Objectivism a religion?
Buddhism is a set of spiritual practices and observations on the human condition. So I would not call it a faith-based system, although the spiritual side makes for a blurred distinction. Maybe its basis of observations could classify it nearer to Objectivism? (as a system classification, not as a comparison of its resulting beliefs)
In political terms, the US is the ONLY country founded purposely on reason. Even in GB, the premise of many of their fundamental documents (like the Magna Carta) are based on the premise that their rights are derived from the King who has a divine right to bestow. Even Margaret Thatcher took Queen Elizabeth's role very seriously.
And our Articles of Confederation, our first governing document, also referenced a power greater than themselves - And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.
While the constitution itself does not reference a greater power, to cite it without the full context of these two preceding documents would be a mistake. Reason is a powerful force in the rationality of how the governing document is crafted, but please make no mistake that our founding fathers found that reasoning via deep religious faith. And without it, I dare say, we would not have had the US Constitution crafted the way that it was.
When analyzing the religious references in the founding documents, remember it was almost a century before Darwin, an era when religion was the default. Those documents are powerful because of they are rational (as you said) and succinct, and would remain so even after you extract the dialect and idiom of that century.
Right. They were saying those rights exist fundamentally, that they're not granted by a benevolent gov't to the people. They didn't know how the universe was created. We still don't know, although we know a lot more than they did. That does not mean they accepted any particular story about who created us. They just "our creator".
Faith results in zero levels of doubt about the belief. Reasoning always results in some degree of doubt, because a new observation might contradict the belief (eg. if a science experiment breaks a theory).
But we use the word "faith" in other ways, just meaning we are "very certain" about some reasoning. Thats just the relaxed English language. The difference would be when we find a contradiction we apply more reasoning to adjust the reasoned belief. For an actual faith-based belief, we instead would apply rationalizations to fit the contradiction with the original belief.
Faith either applies to ALL hypothetical endeavors or it applies to none. I can not accept the conditionality you seem to want to impose.
The specific description I gave yesterday is the one I was using in my original comment about faith-based beliefs. Trying to use the same word in the relaxed way (eg: I have faith in the reliability of my car) I think does not help, and should be avoided. In my humble opinion, your comment that any belief has some degree of faith is an example of the relaxed usage.
But anyway, trying to define a single word is moving us a long way from the core topic which was the correlation between politics and religion.
What I take issue with is people that attempt to say that religion is not scientific in its basis, and therefore the use of "faith" in a religious context automatically runs afoul of logic and reason. That is simply not the case. Are there some religions that operate on false principles or precepts? Absolutely, just as there are scientists that do the same - just look at global warming. But we do not simply deride all scientists because some choose to abandon the scientific method. Neither so should we deride those who associate with religion. Instead, we should examine the tenets of each: the hypotheses as they were (whether they be advocating a global heat wave or the second coming of the Messiah) as correct or incorrect principles and make our conclusions from there.
Religion is no different than science: it proposes a hypothesis and then asks you to try it for yourself to confirm the hypothesis. In both science AND religion, those seeking to test the hypothesis take a leap of faith (wording intentional) in order to test the validity of the hypothesis. The main difference insofar as I can see is that "science" primarily deals with external principles (gravity, light, heat, materials, etc.) while "religion" primarily deals with internal principles (love, responsibility, right, wrong, etc.).
To me, religion is more relevant to politics than science because what we are actually dealing with in both religion and politics is human behavior - internal principles as exercised by autonomous, self-aware beings. Both politics and religion study and debate over which internal principles are the most conducive to societal formation and perpetuation and their effects on said beings. For me, the notion of "separation of church and state" is one of the most profoundly ignorant statements ever to be issued because it assumes a bi-polar or potentially conflicting internal state of principles within the individual. It is the same flawed logic used by some to argue that corporations and individuals should be treated differently with respect to freedom or speech. It is as blatant an inherent contradiction as I can find to assume a consistency of the doubly-minded.
It's remarkable (and familiar) how many of those in the Gulch with religious views tend to hold them 'piecemeal' or 'a la carte' --- sifting out the 'not so pleasant' parts and cobbling together bits of common sense into a belief system that is less punishing to man's nature.
We all find ourselves at different levels of understanding of what we think. If we don't occasionally check our premises, then we'll stop learning or forget how we got where we are.
If I may ask, why? Simply because God is involved?
If one believes in something as a result of faith, then one should acknowledge that belief for what it is - a thought accepted as a given without objective evidence. It is what it is. Reason didn't make the final "leap" in that process. If someone thinks it did, then they desperately need to check the premises and gaps of their logical progression.
Those fundamentally defending their beliefs by trying to co-opt the virtue of reason are without religious integrity. Again, if that is bothersome, then personally check your premises and "render unto" accordingly.
To me, faith is a precursor to proof, but is not proof itself. Faith is what leads us to derive and test a hypothesis, but it is neither the assumptions, the hypothesis, the test, nor the conclusion.
"Faith, belief in the unprovable"
Is false concept. "Blind faith" is an oxymoron. One has faith that a test may be performed to determine validity. Nothing more, nothing less. Faith impels one to act and test the hypothesis: without faith/action, it is rendered simply random conjecture that is thrown to the dust heap of irrelevance. Faith itself is neither true nor false - only individual principles are true or false.
I would posit the following, but please correct me if you see something I have erroneously omitted.
1. We use our reason to posit some aspect of truth about the universe. We do this by building on knowledge through either education or (very rarely) through intuition.
2. We examine whether or not the topic of our reason is important enough for us to do something about and whether or not we want to know the answer. We exercise our self-actualization and determine if there is _potential_ value in proceeding.
3. Based on the possibility of that _potential_ value, we are moved to act: to design, build and test a hypothesis. But we do all these without knowing the outcome of the test beforehand. THIS is faith. It is an investment of our time, energy, and resources in the hope - but no guarantee - of a positive return.
4. We then view the outcome of the test and compare to our hypothesis. If the outcome matched our expectation, we call this "confirming our hypothesis" and we extend this to mean that we have successfully identified a sound chain of reasoning. If the outcome differed from our expectation, we are then forced to re-evaluate our hypothesis and either the underlying assumptions or reasoned associations from which it was born.
I think my caution would be against making the conclusion that simply because one person has not attempted to verify the validity of a hypothesis (or has used an inconclusive or improper testing mechanism), that no one else has been successful either.
I fully respect the right of everyone to believe in what they will and to choose their own path. You have the right to believe me or not when I say that I know of a test that can establish the truth about "religion". You have the right to believe me or not when I tell you that the results of my personal test confirmed my belief in God. None of that has any effect on you. It only matters for me, because only MY internal principles, motivations, and knowledge are ultimately affected by MY actions. YOU are the only one with the power to alter YOUR internal principles, motivations, and knowledge. The question boils down to whether or not you are interested in learning more about the test to the degree you are willing to perform it and live according to its results. That is the great leap of faith that is one of the most daunting challenges to all of mankind: to step face to face with himself and his heritage in order to determine who he really is and what he may become.
Blarman: "To me, faith is a precursor to proof, but is not proof itself. Faith is what leads us to derive and test a hypothesis, but it is neither the assumptions, the hypothesis, the test, nor the conclusion."
In my view, "blind faith" is redundant. Your definition of faith sounds like it is covered by the concept of Curiosity. It is also, unlike the generally acknowledged definition of faith. Curiosity has led us all down countless paths - not all of which were rational. Yet, it is an amazing part of our nature which can drive us to incredible achievement.
Respectfully, we disagree.
I think that your position rides wholly on this one statement: "Simply because faith and reason are, by definition, polar opposites."
I have explained to you what I believe faith to be, and why I can not find a contradiction between faith and reason. Obviously, you do not accept my proffered definition, so I would ask you to cite your own. I can't seem to find it in your posts other than to refer to it as a noun ("a" faith meaning a specific instance of a religion) or a negative inference (opposite of reason). Would you mind telling me how you define faith?
Fundamentally, religions and religious views are based on beliefs. On the other hand, science is fundamentally based on objectively derived facts - a process using reason, not faith, to reach conclusions.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' --Sherlock Holmes
I think we have established that you and I cannot agree on the definition of the critical concepts required to further this discussion. I read your assertions as a mix of contradictory conceptual packages and you probably see that as a failure on my part to understand. We disagree. :)
In my view, the absence of understanding is not a void to be filled with subjective hopes --- nor is it decided because most people have similar thoughts.
For someone who likes to get into defining terms, you must know that a science "hypothesis" is an unambiguous and falsifiable statement. It has to be that way to be testable. Scientists throw out many hypotheses before settling on one that seems to be unbreakable. Religious statements are not falsifiable, they are usually subjectively interpreted. That subjectivity is the main reason it does not blend well with politics. We live in hope that the few we elect will act objectively. The more heavily religious the politics (towards theocracy), in general the more intolerant.
Any test which is based on false principles or incorrect knowledge is going to fail because the hypothesis is incorrect. Would you agree? And there is certainly the aspect of confirmation bias that can be applied to both religious and non-religious followers. In your post, you are stating your belief that all "religious" tests are false, but I would argue that that is because you do not have the requisite knowledge with which to construct a valid test. It isn't like putting two chemicals in a beaker and watching them foam up or turn colors. They are a different kind of test altogether, but I assure you, they work if you first take the time to learn the tools and then perform the test correctly.
What I find is that many people who say that religion can't be tested using the scientific method are themselves looking for an external validation. I would ask this: if you go to watch a fireworks display, does it make you patriotic? No. Patriotism is a belief that exists independent of the fireworks. Such as with most religious tenets.
True "religion" comes from within - not without. If you do not have the internal desire to change your behavior - and most especially if one resists admitting the possibility he may be wrong - not even an outward manifestation such as an angel or earthquake is going to affect you in any way other than to harden you. True religion involves identifying and then living true principles - willingly. It is in the living of these principles that the hypothesis is confirmed, and only occasionally the external "sign".
"The more heavily religious the politics (towards theocracy), in general the more intolerant."
This is an example of guilt by association - a logical fallacy. If you want to talk principles - that's great. Let's be specific. Principles apply in a logical fashion. But generalizations do no one any good.
Have there been men of power associated with religion who have abused their station? Indubitably. Does that mean that the principles of the religion are invalid - or merely that the person chose to abandon the principles in favor of power? It can also mean that that religion's basis of power stands on principles that are inconsistent with logic. Please understand that I am not advocating the abandonment of reason OR logic. Truth is truth - no matter what scope it falls into.
One would be encouraged, however, to posit the following: WHY are there so many religions - so many groups of seemingly conflicting beliefs - if man has such a capacity for logical reasoning? Further, despite all the noise present from all these conflicting belief sets, does there still exist a kernel which is in fact built on correct principles? Is there a sparkling diamond hidden in the masses of coal? It is very easy to glance at the coal pile and say it is just coal. For those who search, however, the diamond is there.
Your continued characterizing of religion as a testable field is impressive. If I ever see a falsifiable religious concept, then I will yield, but for now we will have to agree to disagree. Enjoy your weekend.
While the pursuit knowledge may certainly be tried in as many ways as there are individuals (with each resulting in a proportional variety of belief sets), if one seeks the truth and is willing to adopt correct principles whenever he sees them, one will eventually accumulate truth and through these experiences be better attuned to recognizing other truths as they manifest. But what if there is another, more direct way than sampling each and every vice in the process of testing them?
As the saying goes, I don't have faith in there being no god any more than I have faith in their being no FSM.
And if I were to tell you that such a test does exist and is laid out for any and all to try, what would you say?
I'll be in touch.
The whole underpinning of objectivism is faith in yourself and your own rationality.
BTW constantly capitalizing it like a religion is a pretty good indicator of the status you grant it.
Basically both the faithful and the Obj believe in a common morality, they just derive it from a different basis.
I think the primary difference is the length and extent of those consequences: those who believe in God and life after this life see consequences that extend into the next life. For those who deny such, their view of consequences is limited to this life. Those are two radically different value sets no matter how you look at things.
Confidence based on performance when you are judging your own performance is not objective proof at all.
But we will never agree on this, obviously.
I do think that man always has a choice to act virtuously and with reason. I also think the more freedom man has and the more his property rights are protected, the more rationally he acts.
"In my view, the absence of understanding is not a void to be filled with subjective hopes --- nor is it decided because most people have similar thoughts."
The number of people who believe something does not make it so, i.e. truth is not subject to majority rule, I agree. Ultimately, the individual has to decide whether or not to pursue truth and knowledge. They have to decide that their own prejudices and biases about a matter are inconsequential to knowing the truth and pursuing it.
"With due respect, I take issue with the idea that religion and science are fundamentally the same. The contradictions generated to maintain such thoughts are almost as numerous as those that have them. If someone is religious, own it! Stop trying to smuggle it into concepts that reject the premise of faith. The beliefs of religion are not the same as the principles of science.
It's remarkable (and familiar) how many of those in the Gulch with religious views tend to hold them 'piecemeal' or 'a la carte' --- sifting out the 'not so pleasant' parts and cobbling together bits of common sense into a belief system that is less punishing to man's nature.
We all find ourselves at different levels of understanding of what we think. If we don't occasionally check our premises, then we'll stop learning or forget how we got where we are."
So again, I appreciate the exchange, but we disagree on too many key concepts. I don't think either of us is interested in a circular discussion.
Fare thee well.
Our criteria for "facts" are very different...and from what I've read of your views, not likely to be resolved.
The quantity of people that _believe_ an idea do not make it a fact. Galileo can't help your cause...his rational conclusions were in the minority at the time...your general beliefs are in a majority today.
No, we probably won't agree. That's OK.
I was ripped recently for stating that the human-human interactions of the Ten Commandments were non-contradictory. The person ripping me came up with some very unlikely, but not impossible, cases where those commandments could be in contradiction. Regardless of their origin, any society that would not be self-destructive would come up with similar rules, with the possible exceptions of envy (implied in the last commandment) or adultery. Are the human-human interaction commandments self-evident? If they are, then there is no reason why an atheist cannot be conservative. If they are not self-evident, then contradictions would occur between conservatism and atheism.
Is what is being conserved the society or the individual? If it is the individual, then AR's philosophy is entirely reasonable. If it is a society that is to be conserved, then that means that either a) the society's leader must be preserved (a dictatorship) or b) the society must be carefully limited by a written constitution and upheld by people of honor (like us and like Americans before 1900). Both are somewhat unstable, for different reasons.
The national security branch of conservatism has grown out of control over the last several generations. The US has an extremely well-trained military, and enough of both conventional and nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire world many, many times. However, its weak underbelly has been exposed (like a dragon's) in the recent invasion by children from Central America. While I support a "strong national defense", we could easily have a strong national defense with 10% of the current budget. In addition to its weakness in being too tolerant, particularly with regard to children, America is most vulnerable economically because of its huge debt.
The economic branch of conservatism is generally consistent with AR philosophy.
Wikipedia cites: "Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion," and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments." (yes, take it with a grain of salt, but fairly accurate).
And William F. Buckley identified conservatism as "It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side."
When I was in highschool, liberals were "radical" and conservatives were "reactionary", which is consistent with the definitions of the words.
But a Freemason can't.