Your thoughts?
I read that article. Personally, I disagree. I think of the church as the main partner with the state for the oppression and control of mankind.
I don’t see how that follows. Where does Murphy imply the Church? I see God and the Bible, but not the Church.
he seems to assume that morality is only possible with some deity dishing out rules.
i disagree that a deity is ‘necessary’.
this is a non-sequitur to what he writes immediately before.
what inconsistencies do atheists and agnostics suffer from, if they are libertarians?
It’s a position I’m becoming more and more comfortable with. Epistemologists, who deny the existence of GOD, have pondered the existence of universal order and questioned the origin of universal law. Descartes realized that without some super-human entity (GOD), knowledge about the ‘external world’ is unattainable. It seems quite convincing: without GOD, one must deny causality, absolute truth, the existence of morality, the emergence of law (in fact all forms of natural law), cannot trust his senses, and does not know if he’s awake or sleeping. Indeed, these are the positions put forth by various philosopher’s since Descartes’ method of doubt, in an attempt to justify Aristotle’s position, namely that philosophy is the ‘genus’ science which provides a stable foundation for natural/mathematical/social sciences (Quine was forced to reject this distinction). Rejection of GOD has lead to historicism and nihilism; so say what you will about the various religious institutions, they’ve never done as much harm as those philosophical positions. This debate continues today; many philosophers see that our civilization is seemingly being guided down a specific path. Richard Rorty rejects this position, as he must as an atheist, and claims that we should abandon objectivity in favor of solidarity.
He writes, "If we could ever be moved solely by the desire for solidarity, setting aside the desire for objectivity altogether, then we should think of human progress as making it possible for human beings to do more interesting things and be more interesting people, not as heading towards a place which has somehow been prepared for humanity in advance."
At the same time though, I’m uncomfortable with the belief that we’re somehow ordained by GOD as the good guys fighting evil. It’s definitely comforting, but it can lead us towards disaster.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Created reason and liberty through grace are temporally unconstrained.
Evolved reason is at best a temporary excuse for liberty.
One ought to distinguish faith from reason in the same way law is distinct from gospel. Each is at the same time independent and complimentary.
Faith in the laws of science, reason, self, or human nature are in the same way independent and complementary to the existence of liberty.
Liberty exists but is not evident or conceived without faith. It is a form of grace (gifted) not mercy (rational).
One might say that faith is logically prior to reason.
We have the gift of liberty and the only (free will) choice is to reject it.
I often like to express that “Liberty does not exist by degree of government sanction, it is either complete or it is an illusion.”, but from the perspective of this topic it may be more correct to say that “Liberty does not exist by degree of rational determininsm, it is either lived or denied.” Both statments are true but distinctly different. One appeals to reason, the other to spirit.
Ac:22:25: And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
Ac:22:26: When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
Ac:22:27: Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
Ac:22:28: And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
This puts Mr. Murphy in the same category as the mystical and “barbarian” collectivists. The State, Democracy, and everything else that has to do with "collectivism”, is based on myths and fallacies. In other words, FAITH! God is obviously based on FAITH and not reason. Mr. Murphy is practically basing the non-aggression principle on mystical grounds. Well then, Obama is also basing his aggression principle on mystical grounds. Good luck with the religious warfare. Nothing can advance the “progressive” socialist ideals more then by contaminating the libertarian movement with religious activism.
Whatever rocks your boat. Some will find hope for triumph in the belief in God and the hope will spurr them into action. Others will find hope in something else. Stil others will be just as determined regardless of whether they have any hope for the final triumph. And finally some may be made more determined by a lack of hope.
This would imply his position is that only a theist can be a moral absolutist and everyone else must be a utilitarian. I would disaggree.
Actually, there is an Aristotlean dodge of Cartesian skepticism, which I think is fairly powerful. It is, in some sense an inverted anthropomorphism argument.
Suppose that you are a brain in a box or Neo in the matrix or whatever. Your perceptions might be entirely unreliable and so even may be your thoughts (I always feel very rational during a dream). If that’s the case, you’re screwed. You are fundamentally cut off from a rational understanding of any external facts, i.e., there are no potential regularities you can discover in your universe. Aside: this is really a secular version of Christian hell, being cut off from God’s grace. We might posit some magic pill to transcend illusions in some way, just like the matrix, some thread of true reality that we can grasp. The only thread that Descartes could find is “I am real” which is not, by itself, enough to avoid being screwed.
The leap of faith one takes is “I’m not screwed”. Maybe you really are, but you’ll never really be able to really know that (even knowledge of being screwed means that you aren’t really screwed). Call it optimism if you want, but it is the only basis upon which you can attempt to act in the world. So, if you’re not screwed, you must have some faculty for understanding the external facts of the world. Aside: a secular version of your God-given ability to find God.
The Aristotlean dodge comes to full fruition by suggesting why we might not be screwed: “I have been produced by a world that is not trying to screw me”. In some sense this is an anthropomorphic assertion about the universe; in another it is a universa-morphication of the self. Aside: yes, this is a secular version of man reflecting the image of God. Again, you can deny the statement if you want, but if you do, you might as well lay down and die – you cannot act meaningfully.
It is from this reflective position that you can start talking about primary information the way we commonly do: the eyes can be trusted, except when they can’t. Our reason is pretty good, though we can make mistakes. Our primary information gives us some inkling of the truth, though it is only through practice and refinement that we learn how to get the most truth out of them. And you get up off the couch and start trying to understand the world your in, this understanding being made possible because you are a piece of the world, shaped by the same forces that shaped it.
You may not know the meaning of life yet, but it must have something to do with being alive. Your sense of pleasure and pain gives you the first inklings of what your life is for. As you practice this important sense, you develop and refine your purpose in the world and you move beyond raw hedonism just as an experienced food critique moves beyond cheese fries. And it is here that secular ethics is thought to arise, as the intellectual refinement of pleasure and pain signals (not a pitch I’m prepared to make at this time, myself). It is an interesting point that some medeival scholastics observed that natural rights theory was directly a production of rationality, a product of God only insofar as rationality is His product.
So my point is that in making the case for diety and against atheism, you should at least give consideration whether there are atheistic ways to develop the features that you treasure. Similarly, a case for the State and against the Market cannot be made by saying “the State gives us this, surely the Market can’t give us this”.
Yeah, but it’s just another posit, no more reasonable or rational then Descartes’ posit. Atheists like to walk the line, they accept many things on faith, but attack those who accept god on faith. You are either plagued by dogma, or you’re a complete nihilist. Follow your positions through logically, and you realize you need a super-human omnipotent creator for absolute universal truth and natural law. The physicist doesn’t ask this question because he’s not questioning the origin of the laws, but just trying to understand them. The philosopher, though, asks these questions. This is why philosophy, since the abandonment of GOD in western society, continuously moves down the path of absolute subjectivity.
But for purely pragmatic reasons, economists should not attach themselves to religion; it’s just too distracting, and you will mobilize the Marxists.
Which is just another posit? That one is not screwed? That posit essentially reduces to “man acts”. It is more reasonable than Descartes’ posit because it is impossible to assert Descartes’s posit. A Cartesian mind in a vat has no means of making his assertion if that is what he is. In order for any posit of any kind whatsoever to be possible, one must already suppose the possibility of reaching the truth.
You may say what you like about atheists. I don’t know what lines they walk. However, I do think that one is in a better position to make a case for libertarianism if one can do it in the most widely acceded terms. It is more cost effective to two men to agree to the premise that “man acts” or “truth is a possibility” and work a theory of justice out from that than for the two men to settle fundamental matters of the afterlife religion as a prerequisite to living in peace.
I have a feeling this conversation might be headed into some “if you believe X you must believe in God because without God there is no X because God makes X”. Again I substitute “State” for “God” in there and it sounds all too familiar. Certainly Rand abandonned God but derived a philosophy which was anything but absolute subjectivity. I use her example not to inflame the discussion or confess any leanings of my own, but to present a case for consideration of a someone who apparently is both an atheist and non-subjective.
not being screwed= man acts?
you are playing fast and loose…
No, we don’t. Do not project.
False dichotomy.
No, we do not, Anselm.
I did not say “=”, I said “reduces to”. As in “from the premise that ‘action is possible’ we can conclude ‘you are not screwed’ (in the Cartesian sense).” Equivalently, “if you are screwed then action, in the usual sense, does not exist.” There are numerous points in the category of action where the possibility of truth in necessary. For example, connecting appropriate means to end or the valuation of one end against another.
.
If, “ultimately[, …]they are doomed to defeat” and if “we believe in some higher power […] that has constructed the very fabric of the universe to ensure that good will triumph over evil”, why fight whatsoever? We apparently already won!
So the fate of libertarianism is controlled by “the god of the bible” - and the god of the bible will, sooner or later, be regarded no differently than zeus, poseidon or apollo - I guess the fate of libertarianism is sealed…
i don’t think that you can so simply. perhaps its because i haven’t much of an idea what you mean by ‘you are not screwed’; it seems like a subjective valuation as to the benevolence of someone’s circumstance. honestly, isnt such ‘data’ uncertain in the Knightian sense?
you are stretching. the means are only likely to achieve your ends if they are an ‘objectively good technical way of achieving the end’; but this is not a given; entrepreneurial error happens all the time. poor means are selected. they weren’t thought of as poor means before the fact; but they are revealed so after (or they just are; all of you that have tried to blow up balloons by poking them with knives). so where is the ‘necessary’ possibility of truth here?
I respect Dr. Murphy’s thoughts on the matter but I disagree with his convictions that only theism can guide us through the forest. I think there is space for non-theistic reason and deductive logic within libertarian ethics.
How do you resolve Cartesian doubt? How do you explain objective truth and natural law? How do you prove the external world? Why have epistemologists, for the most part, abandoned any hope in answering these questions? Please tell me, I could use this in a paper I have to write.
Okay, I agree.
So you just assume we’re not screwed and don’t give a reason. At least Descartes gave some kind of reason (though not well justified).