Religion is just another form of human action. Some people like to go to the beach to get tan. Some people like to go to mass. The ways in which humans act are merely the result of biological “accident”, that is, they are ways of acting which are compatible with (or, even, contributory to) our evolutionary history.
I find it ironic when atheists place religion in a special category apart from all other human actions … it’s like a Freudian slip that there actually is a residual belief in the atheist’s mind. Why else should religion receive any more focus than, say, shuffle-board? Religion may be mumbo-jumbo, but so are all human actions… religion is not especially mumbo-jumbo, it’s just one among the infinite varieties of mumbo-jumbo we can engage in.
I bet there’s an even stronger correlation between Theists/religious and thoughtful, effective AnCap activism. Exhibit A: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama.
Seconded. I am an atheist but I’ve never been too interested in focusing on religion as the problem. I think the “militant” atheists would be spending their time in a much better fashion if they focused on fighting statism.
I expected the poster of this thread to reiterate the classic recogniton, that to realize that to “create” the marvelous complexity of society does not require a central planner seems to suggest that, perhaps, just perhaps, to “create” the marvelous complexity of nature also does not require a central planner.
But, instead, I was greeted by some sort of bizarre non-sequitor.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that taking religion out of the equation means that there is no god. Proofs for the existence of god don’t work anymore than proofs against it, and vice versa. Since logic hasn’t de facto proven either side, it would be naive to think that libertarians (as followers of reason) have some need to believe one over the other based on anything besides faith, values, choice, etc.
There are plenty of rational arguments I could make against drug use, but that does not mean that libertarians who drink or smoke or shoot heroin are hypocrites.
The word “atheist” usually means “de facto atheist”. Most atheists, I am sure, do not believe that to “prove a negative” is possible. Instead, I think that many of them use it in much of the same way as many proponents of “austrian economics” use the the word “anarchist”, to be sensational.
“Why else should religion receive any more focus than, say, shuffle-board?”
People do not generally detonate their rectums because of a shuffleboard game.
People don’t get burnt at the stake or put in a gas chamber after losing shuffleboard.
Shuffleboard admits the possibility that the Earth is slightly older than 6000 years.
Suppose I had complete faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that will reward me with eternal bliss for murdering his opponents. Would you consider that an acceptable matter of faith?
Or is it a form of ignorance that should be combatted?
Just because the things you’ve stated are have happened in the name of religion, does not mean that they are inherent to the idea of religion. If the question was “is suicide bombing and genocide as religious doctrine compatible with libertarianism?” We would all say of course not.
IMO “atheism” requires a similar “leap of faith” as religion requires since it’s no more provable. Either way it’s just a personal guess. When you get into specifics of organized religion yeah it’s harder to buy into, but as far as simply the existence of a grand creator, that’s just as defensible (most would say more defensible, based on statistics) of an opinion.
If the question was “is suicide bombing and genocide as religious doctrine compatible with libertarianism?” We would all say of course not.
So even though my god is omniscient and omnipotent, you’re saying I shouldn’t follow its instructions to murder others?
“but as far as simply the existence of a grand creator, that’s just as defensible [as atheism]”
Is the belief that green-haired superintelligent cats live on Saturn as equally defensible as the belief that green-haired superintelligent cats do NOT live on Saturn? Is there a 50-50 chance?
I am a theist. My biggest blow to theism while learning AE was when Mises described what is and how something can be omniscient. The conclusion I came to is that if God does exist, he cannot be perfect, otherwise he would have no reason to act.
If you are trying to get me to recant my belief in god, you are too late. I wasn’t trying to defend the tenets of every religion ever. I just wanted to show that there is nothing incompatible between religion per se, and libertarianism.
Quite the opposite. St. Augistine, an 11th century Catholic, is still today considered the greatest theologian and logician of the Catholic Church. I had assumed you knew who he was. This was his reply to the illogical beliefs of that religion. He agreed that logic was the best refutation to their beliefs. And he proceeded to provide numerous apologies (combating arguments).
I used his quote to show that most Christian religions can be based only on pure faith. However, there are many other religions that state they are not based on faith, are logical, and further include and demonstrate verifiable experience and proofs of the existance transcedental reality.
For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them. There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc.
You could, of course, define the word religion to mean only beliefs based on faith. But then you need to provide another word for the remaining religions.
Reason and the senses are our only tools for the comprehension of reality. My senses tell me that there’s a world external to myself, and my reason integrates perceptions of it. I don’t need faith to effectively utilize this information. In fact, it’s pretty irrelevant whether the outside world actually exists, because I perceive that it does—therefore, I will act as if it does.
It’s similar to this Mises quote: “It is vain to object that life and reality are not logical. Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.”
“Atheist” and “antitheist” are synonyms. “No belief in god” would more accurately be described as agnosticism.
These do me absolutely no good as they are immanent, second-hand accounts of transcendental experience. An account of a transcendental experience is not itself a transcendental experience.
Clayton -
P.S. I am a rare bird called an “agnostic theist” [:)]