Is there any proof for any of the “rational positions”? The obvious answer is no and it takes faith to be an atheist as it takes to be theist since neither is truly falsifiable, so by merely raising “deism, agnosticism and atheism” above theism in a false manner you display your dogmatism. Rational inquiry is extremely limited in the discipline of theology and it doesn’t even lead to any true conclusions, rather it takes faith, which you wrongly associate with only theism, to come to any conclusion in this field. You pretend that’s there’s concrete proof for your own beliefs so that you don’t have to admit that you have at least some similarities with the faith of the theists, and by that you are incredibly dogmatic.
The first one is really rather a neutral commentary than a critique. On the second youre right, it wasnt the most successful sentance. But on the third you`re wrong big-time. And you actually quote Nietzsche? Yuck!
Yes, the first one is kind of neutral, but I point out possible complications facing anyone trying to be a “plumbline” libertarian. In other words, “the plumbline” is completly vague, and hence Block’s attempt to appear neutral is misleading.
I didn’t quote Nietzsche, I referenced him in name. I am not a Nietzscheian, but I think it’s silly to brush his work off entirely. His observations of religious morality and its evolution are incredibly insightful. I think he’s commonly misunderstood.
Nietzsche is very insinghtful as a case of what happens when parents don`t spank their brats nearly enough.
So, in other words, you’re going to brush him off entirely by going along with the cultural dogma that he was an evil proto-nazi nihilist? A shame.
I don’t know, meat from Argentina is excellent.
Dear BrainPolice, admittedly i have only read about the big N secondhand, (i have read some short extracts of his own work first hand but nothing approaching a whole book). Is it not fair to say that whilst contributing a lot in critique of accepted norms and positions, his positive doctrine left a lot to be desired?. (plus the whole proto-nazi thing [:)])
Again, I’m not a Neitzchian (there’s a big different between drawing influence from someone or engaging in a synthesis that involves their ideas on one hand, and being a total devotee to their entire doctrine on the other hand). And the proto-nazi thing comes from the musings of his sister, not him. An in-depth look reveals that he opposed both judeo-christianity and the anti-semites. He even ended his friendship with Wagner over Wagner’s anti-semitism. But all of this is sidetracking from what was originally a sidetrack anyways.
well the OP asked for thoughts on Hoppe and mentioned Neitzchian tone, you seem better placed than most to offer an opinion on that subquestion at least
Well I see some parralels between his “slave morality” concept and Rand’s opposition to altruism. Indeed, his extreme epistemological skepticism aside, one can easily see how Rand was at least indirectly influenced by him. Furthermore, he was extremely hostile to democracy and socialism. Another interesting question is the degree to which Max Stirner influenced him, since Stirner was a german and Stirner’s egoism predates his own by a number of decades, and Stirner has been influential on anarchists ranging from Benjamin Tucker to none other than Emma Goldman. Personally, I’m far more intrigued by Stirner than Neitzche. As for his philosophy being lacking, to a degree I agree, although I’d point out that despite his appearance of being nihilistic, he functionally very strongly advocated a particular personal morality that was very much like a Greek view (although his emphasis was on many pre-socratics). This is probably because he was a philologist.
Sorry, it looks as if you don’t know what agnosticism is. Maybe you should look it up and then see if you can honestly claim that revealed religion/theism has the same epistemological status as agnosticism. Again, theism and a-theism are not the only options.
Not that it matters, but agnosticism is my ‘preferred’ position, although I find deism interesting.
I kind of agree. Still some rational inquiry is possible and it happens to prove that theism is baseless…
No, I associate faith with DOGMA of any type. We just happen to be discussing revealed religion.
I didn’t say what my beliefs are until this very post nor provided any proof, so…
I’m not sure what you mean. You can pretend that any idea is just ‘faith’. Do I have ‘faith’ in mathematics/logic ? Do you ? Do you have proof that a=a ? Or is it faith…? Or ?
Juan, you get more shrill with each response. You’re doing my work for me. Keep it up.
Alas, I cannot falsify whether there is not any evidence for a deity, ergo it is impossible for me to know for sure. Surely one can decide that, with the massive amount of the knowledge mankind has already gathered, that there is no evidence for a deity and ergo no reason to believe in one and become agnostic. Nevertheless, that action of being an agnostic is still an act of faith, albeit faith in that fact mankind will never know if there is a deity and therefore no reason to believe in one.
You don’t need faith if, as in the social sciences or mathematics, a theory can be properly deduced, like either economics og eucidean geometry, or, as in the physical sciences, like physics, it is in accord with experimental data, is economical with its assumptions, and is falsifiabe (though would also add that in the physical sciences, with theories being falsifiable and constantly improved, that the prevailing theories on year can be abandoned for a new theory the next). However, what one needs faith for is propositions that can’t either be deduced properly or falsified, and the existence of a deity cannot be absolutely proven through either or those methods beyond doubts (I am personally of the belief falsification is the must here, but that can be challenged). Therefore, each individual, in deciding this problem, must rely on their belief and faith that they are correct; even the proposition “a deity might exist” demands faith.
No, but your bias is painfully evident, and your bias is influenced by your beliefs.
In “other” words? I don`t do “other” words. I do the words I do.
Nietzsche didn`t have basic ethics straight. He was a hysterical child and an intellectual midget. I have nothing to learn from him.
Of course it is very easy to see how he influenced her. He got her hoked on the same mushrooms he was doing. The feel-like-your-own-personal-god mushrooms.
Hooked on the same mushrooms? Their philosophies significantly differ. Neitzche’s egoism is a pluralist egoism, while Rand’s is not, and his views on epistemology and metaphysics are almost in the entire opposite of Rand’s.
Well, that’s not exactly agnosticism. Agnosticism is not about empirical evidence, rather it’s based on a-priori reasoning. For instance : You either believe that everything has a cause, so you embark on infinite regression, or else you claim there’s a first uncaused cause, god. But an uncaused cause is a contradiction in terms so…
Either way you can’t really answer the problem. Infinite regression is an incomplete answer at best and the other option is a contradiction…so, it seems (to me) that in reality the human mind can’t deal with things like god or the infinite.
I’m not sure I would agree with that…
I’m not sure I completely follow you. Are you saying that you can’t use the natural sciences to solve a supernatural problem ? I agree.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that theists have carte blanche and that their claims can’t be analyzed using a common sense/a scientific approach since there’s nothing supernatural about revealed religions. I mean a revealed religion is just a set of beliefs held by people who can’t prove that their beliefs are true… .
I don’t like organized religion for political reasons which I consider objective. Is that a bias ?
Juan: I’m not sure if you’ve answered this already, so apologies if you have:
a) Is the following scenario incompatible with libertarianism: An individual, or group of consenting individuals, buy or homestead an area of land and set up a conservative religious community where [group] are excluded and those who voluntarily join the group agree not to [activity/lifestyle choice].
b) If you do think there is something wrong with the scenario in a) then what would you “do about it”, if anything?
At first sight, what these people do is rather libertarian no ? They respect property rights and use their freedom to live in a way they think is the ‘right’ way. Fine.
But, it seems to me that the second generation, born in that nice little religious community, will be living under a theocracy they did not choose. Is this in line with the spirit, if not the letter of libertarianism ? I don’t think so. What’s the answer ? Love it or leave it…? I think I’ve heard that slogan somewhere…
I don’t know. Maybe I will found a charity to help children who are being coerced and brainwashed by their parents.
Yes.
No.