Libertarians and Atheism

Miscellaneous General
61

Show me where causality is a necessary feature of logic. One more time, causality is established by repeated observation, not pure logic. We have not perceived the creation of consciousness, so we can draw no conclusions about it. We have only observed the creation of physical objects, so we can only make conclusions (causation) about physical objects.

Human interpersonal relations do require designers. At least two, in fact: the people interacting. Overall markets and societies, after all, are really just the sum of conscious, planned interactions.

62

Well, many atheists probably take a humble or agnostic approach to such a metaphysical question as how the universe came about and therefore they don’t claim to know the answer. Others might points you to theories of spontaneous order for a possible alternative to the fatalistic universe premise. Still yet others may be extreme causal determinists yet still reject the notion that it is a deity that had to have been the “first cause”. But in either case, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. In this particular case, that would be those claiming the mantle of the need-for-a-central-planner premise. From my perspective, there is no need to try to answer the question because the question (at least how it is often phrased) assumes what it’s trying to prove, I.E. that the universe was caused at a single point or agent. And then you proceed to ask me to provide a singular causal agent.

I don’t understand the statement that nature’s tendency is to decay order, not create it. Doesn’t nature create order all the damn time? Is not all order “natural” in a sense? Is not everything “natural” in a sense? And while nature indeed does involve entropy, entropy is not a lack of order but a part of nature’s broader order. Nature’s order is a dynamic process. I think that’s what scares people about it, I.E. it’s not static.

63

This is only true if you take consciousness to be an ultimately physical phenomenon, which has never been established and indeed, the weight of evidence is against. As I have said elsewhere, causation is only applicable to the physical, which is indeed entirely deterministic and/or random.

You are correct, however, in saying that there is no place for free will in the materialist conception of the universe.

64

Of course, by definition physics or mechanics or “natural philosophy” deal with deterministic systems. But it does not follow that humans are purely deterministic.

65

The point is that there is no real singular cause or central plan necessary for society-wide developements to take place. Methodological individualism supports this view. The broader whole is the sum of a plethora of different causal factors, and its “order” is not the design of a single person or even every single person within it. A significant part of its “order” was in fact not intended at all. That’s precisely the beauty of it. People didn’t just intentionally get together and say “let’s form society”. No society is entirely “designed” and neither is any society truly static. Rather, society naturally formed and evolved as a result of a wide variety of different interpersonal relations, much of which wasn’t really intended by anyone at all. It truly has no permanent form or order to it because people’s behavior and circumstances are constantly changing. This is a hard concept for many people to grasp.

66

The view of society as an entity is merely illusiory. Society is only, and nothing more, than the sum of the individual interactions seen as part of that society. People may behave in a somewhat uniform fashion because of a culture they learned as individuals from other individuals, but that makes their behavior no less individually chosen. Just as THE government or THE corporation are just convenient, collectivist fictions, so is THE society. It is just shorthand for the sum of conscious individual interactions.

67

I think that’s his point.

68

It is my point, except I’m approaching it from a different angle than him. I’m saying that the implication of this is that society as a whole is not “planned” or “designed” in any strict sense, and in fact it would ultimately be impossible to do so even if one tried to. I don’t see how he implied a collectivist view of society from what I’m saying at all, since I’m merely drawing what I consider to be the obvious conclusions of methodological individualism. No society has a singular design or is the result of one, and all attempts to impose one will fail in the long-term because of the spontaneous and dynamic nature of people’s decisions.

69

Yeah, I was pointing out that his last idea is inconsistent with what he was saying earlier; he’s not applying the same standard to “society” that he does to “the universe”.

I’m stepping out, though!

70

Well, then, color me confused. Because society would not exist without conscious interactions, even if society as a whole is unplanned. Two opposing gods who each had a hand in designing the world might not coordinate, but the world would a sum of conscious choices just the same. That seems to me what the analogy of society supports, not atheism. If that is your best example, you should be a Zurvanite Zoroastrian or some such.

71

That’s precisely part of what I’ve been driving at.

Why doesn’t the notion of methodological individualism and spontaneous order apply to metaphysics or the universe as well as earthly interpersonal relations among human beings? In short, how can religious libertarians reject the claimed need for human central planning of economies or societies while simultanously proposing the need for god as central planner of the universe and human affairs?

And there are other related questions. If the state is not necessary for human beings to act morally, why would one posit that a diety is? If polycentric and/or spontaneous orders result from human interaction in the absence of a singular cause, why can’t the same be true of the universe and in the metaphysical realm? It seems to me that the formal concept of a god has all of the traits and involves all of the assumed premises of the state. Why does god have the status of a metaphysical monopolist on causality?

And is there not an inherent contradiction between religious fatalism and the concept of free will or individual autonomy? Does it not reduce us to the sock-puppets of god no less than secular versions of hard determinism reduce us to the sock-puppets of nature? I don’t think that materialism or atheism necessarily naturally leads to a hard determinist position, and I can easily see how many if not most religious metaphysical concepts are fatalistic (and therefore incompatible with freedom).

72

The argument/analogy was meant to illustrate the lack of need of a central planner, aka God, in response to your statement regarding the need for a central designer. No central designer is necessary.

Furthermore, defering that an arguement is for polytheism, animisim, or Zurvanite Zoroastrian, does not prove your arguement that a God exists.

73

Another issue to think about is causality. A creator is a hypothesis that an entity exists outside the natural world, making the claim unverifiable. How can you verify something that exists outside the natural world? The only way to verify is if this creator openly displays himself. ID arguments are not open display of evidence. There is plenty of non-intelligent design, such as useless limbs and organs. Why do we have an appendix and wisdom teeth? This are faulty designs. What about cruel design like smallpox, malaria, and other nasty diseases? Is this designer not benevolent?

The universe is an indifferent place and quite violent at times. Why does this designer allow for extinction, such as the dinosaurs? Why did this designer wait 10-15 billions to create intelligent life as we know it? Why is the universe mostly devoid of life? Why not just create a utopia in 6 days, like in Genesis? Did this designer not choose to create an utopia or was this designer limited in power?

ID says nothing about the designer; whether the designer still exists or ceased to exist after he created the universe. Does this designer still exist? If so, how does he interact with the universe?

To answer the OP question about libertarians and atheists, I do believe that there is a correlation between libertarian/anarchism ideologies and skepticism. I think it is a logical deduction since libertains and anarchists are skeptical of false claims made by statist. To verify my opinion, one would need to conduct a sample.

The truth is that god is unobservable, undefinable, and untestable. Yes, I am an atheist. I lack a belief in god based on unverifiable evidence. Will my belief change with verifiable evidence? Yes.

74

A friend of mine within market anarchist circles, Xomniverse, made a concise and brilliant blog post related to this not long ago.

What do socialism and intelligent design have in common?

"A common argument I hear from socialists (both anarchist and statist) is that libertarians seek to impose the market onto people against their will. To me, this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what the market is.

The market is an abstraction and does not refer to something that is deliberately implemented. It describes the naturally occurring exchanges that occur between people in the absence of coercion. These exchanges, which are never done for the sake of creating a free market, occur because people mutually benefit from interaction and trade.

The market is similar to evolution in this regard. No animal ever acts for the sake of evolving. Rather, animals act for their own survival and reproduction naturally, and this results in an abstract process we call evolution. Both the market and evolution are examples of what is sometimes called spontaneous order, where an orderly system forms despite no intelligent being deliberately constructing the system.

Those of us (well, most of us) who argue for a free market are not arguing for a system to be implemented onto people by force. To the contrary, we see a naturally forming system that works better than any system that can be implemented by force, and we seek to remove coercion from human relationships so that this system can work automatically and at optimal efficiency.

The fact that socialists don’t see the market this way seems very similar to how some Christians don’t see evolution this way. They both see an orderly system and conclude that this system is implemented rather than naturally occurring. The socialist concludes from this that free market anarchists are out to impose a free market system on people, whether they want it or not.

But if the market just describes the natural interactions of people when coercion is not involved, what is a “free market system?” Any non-coercive social arrangement, even voluntary communes and syndicalist factories, would be a part of a “free market system.”

The point is, apart from a few abstract principles about non-aggression, the free market isn’t a system anymore than evolution is. The whole point of advocating a free market is that no particular way of life is imposed on anyone. When you look at it this way, it’s hard to imagine anything being legitimately called anarchism that isn’t a form of free market anarchism."

75

An analogy is not a proof. Yes, ‘society’ doesn’t need a central planner to work. Still I can believe that the laws of nature have been designed by some sort of supernatural entiy. Actually, if you read libertarians like Molinari, Spencer, Bastiat (and I suppose others) you’ll see they claim that society is ruled by natural laws of divine origin.

76

The universe as a whole is not a collection of conscious beings but a series of interconnected mechanisms. It is essentially a giant clockwork. Unlike human beings, the paths of planets and stars, the properties of chemicals, and all the other non-living components, so far as we know the vast majority, are deterministic. Spontaneous order does not apply to the universe as it does to societies for the same reason it does not apply to a watch as it does to societies. They are fundamentally different things, and their order made up of fundamentally different units.

Who said anything about morality? I am challenging atheism here, not trying to get you to actually worship anything. I don’t worship per se, yet I’m a theist.

Who said anything about fatalism? My personal belief is God put us here to get as individual and in many ways different from God as possible. Not all religion need be fatalistic.

77

You appear correct here, however, it does provide an illustration, which was my intention.

You can believe whatever you want or not. I personally have no beliefs whatsoever. Here appears a link to the concept of “no beliefs” http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm. However, a belief is based on faith not on reason. The original poster suggested that atheism is not rational and that by default, belief in a higher power is the rational conclusion. However, beliefs in general are not rational.

Arguement from authority is not proof either;).

78

Hey! It was not an argument from authority =] - I was just pointing out a historical fact.

edit :

Also, I said some people believe that natural laws have been designed. Deists believe that natural laws logically prove the existence of a designer…So, for deists, it’s not faith, but reason. I am an agnostic - I don’t have a definite conclusion on all this. My point is, however, that the ‘belief’ in design is not something directly associated with socialism.

79

Neither do electrons submit themselves to direct observation. We can observe these things only by their effects. Again, if you believe in only the things you can see directly, you ought to be at best agnostic that anyone else has a consciousness.

Appendices have been found of late to perform important immune functions, especially in infancy. As for wisdom teeth, in case you didn’t know, people used to lose teeth a lot back in the day. A wisdom tooth might well have had a gap it could grow into by the time it emerged. All that aside, the argument is superfluous. Your argument only holds if we define God as having some reason to make the world free of suffering or defect. It may be that God’s purpose is better served by a world that appears flawed to us. Cannot beauty and character be derived from sorrow? Can rage not be magnificent to behold? Would life be so rich without death? Paradise, to my mind, is a Hell of boredom.

80

Why should he, when society is comprised of teleological humans and the universe is comprised of deterministic atoms?