so i have heard some atheists say that theists are irrational and believe in the self contradictory and that the existence of god is self contradicting. if some in a society get their ethics and moral code from a god, while other say they get their ethics and moral code from a secular methodology of rational and empirical thought, how compatible are the two? can people really be free if they are theists? are claims that libertarianism should not associate with theists as the two are incompatible right?
It happens to be that most people that consider themselves religious believe it is wrong to lie, steal, murder, etc. which happen to line up quite nicely with libertarian morals, IMO. In fact, most religious people also claim to believe in a Golden Rule, with is nearly the same as the NAP. It sounds to me like you are a little biased against theists, as they don’t use “rational and empirical thought.”
Yes, theists can really be free. If you disagree, explain why they cannot.
While egoistic materialism is true -“atheism” is just an over romantic intellectual term for people with nothing to do, and a search for “Truth” which does not exist.
To quote Max Stirner: “Our atheists are pious people”. The mere fact that “atheism” is an intellectual position is probably self refuting, and asocial. It’s the “easy ticket” to appear tobe intellectual. This is probably why it pays so low, and no one really cares.
Besides that it’s probably impolite. It’s probably just best tobe a polite liberal and be semi “passive aggressive” and secular towards these things. With the market process, obviousness and manipulability manifest themselves much easier, and obfuscating languages trying to back door their way into saying something meaningful becomes rapidily obsolete. This is the nature of socialbility. Buying, selling, producing, consuming, cell phones, computers, video games, etc is the “answer” not Platonic intellectual arguments.
As nuts as it is, it’s fine to think of some super strong Hobesian material"thing" out there, If you wish to call that or whatever else is stronger than you “god” so be it, though I would be empircally skeptical of the thing in existence. Likewise if you find something interesting and you call that “god” and choose to focus soley on that be it: triangles, working out, making the love, etc whatever floats your boat I guess.
And if it’s fashionable to “meditate” and that makes you happy,whatever. If it is fashionable to do so you may as well because that will help increase social status. If your boss says “take yoga”, you may as well take yoga. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Finally we could just reduce things like Bramhin, pantheism, or whatever to the “laws of logic”.
And when some dude says “the trees have spirits”, or what ever ask him what the hell that means. If the answer is something along the lines like “see the wind blow through the leaves”…I guess one could just be satisfied that wind blowing through the leaves is “tree with spirit”,making the love, or lighting a candle is “God”, etc - whatever that means.
Whatever they call god, just affirm it, move on about your business, and nod your head and smile at such things, if it’s useless obfuscating asocial thinking (and I think it is), it will be bred out by more useful and pleasurable things unless someone backdoors a subsidy on your ass, which is likely with reactionaries and intellectuals (i.e. priests). In fact one could even say we are “spiritual but not religious” as a subversive way to get rid of intellectual subsidies and universities. That would be far more useful than arguing or caring about such things.
Both atheists and theists are incompatible with the “market process”; because it’s way too “intellectual” , antisocial, impolite, Platonic, and/or intentionally obfuscating for the sake of subsidy. If it wasn’t for the market process we would not be able to think about things like materialism, darwinism, etc - all of which are necessary things to think clearly and support the obvious picture of reality we see and share everyday.
The answer to theists, atheists, ethics, or whatever: cell phones, video games, working at your job, etc.
Whatever works works, everyone has a worldview, and I can’t act like I never seen this thread pop up a dozen times. Here’s a photo of a painting of Jesus in my girlfriend’s living room I added captions too:
im mainly just looking at some of the material from athist ancap writers so some of this comes from their conclusions.
it could just be certain religions here
in christianity, it looks like commandments 6-10 are compatable with virtues in nap, but commandments 1-5 are not.
people are taught that salvation comes through god, and what they do in this life will affect what happens after they die. donating to a church can be a obligation, or a choice that helps a person gain in the afterlife. many theists are taught that they will face negative consequences in the afterlife if they do not beleive and have faith in a certain god.
thiests can beleive that a persons consentual choices can be corrupt, sinful, land them in hell in the afterlife. teaching that a nonbeleivers will go to hell seems like a trap, who would want to go to the place discribed as hell?
one way to go about this could be
if people are taught that to lie is not a virtue, then after receiving rational evidence that their god does not exist, to continue to beleive in their god would be a lie, thus breaking the virtue of not lieing. not all religions can be correct, so at least all but one are a lie, if not all.
here could be another example
saying homosexuality is a sin, but i don’t know how homosexuality would violate NAP, is saying that some actions and choices are sinful and immoral even if they are consentual free choices between adults.
some of the morals and ethics seem compatible libertarianism, but others seem to call it a sin to engage in free will consentualy and not violate nap.
The first 5 commandments are not incompatible with the NAP, though, are they? Following these laws does does aggress against another or against his property.
The thing is, you won’t have “rational” evidence that God does not exist. “Rationality” is especially subjective here. How would you think you would prove that God doesn’t exist? I promise it’s no more “rational” than their evidence that He does exist.
Also, I see no reason why all but one religion must be false. That idea can only exist to one that believes in religion. Otherwise, again, the “rationale” behind this is subjective (not that it isn’t for religious people either, though).
The point is you seem to be the one suggesting a violation of the NAP. You think that if you “prove” (to yourself) that a religion is false that the followers should abandon their faith. Unless you plan on forcing them too (this is the violation of the NAP), then it does not matter what they believe so long as they are not violating the NAP either.
If you wish to be free to not believe in any sort of religion so long as you do not violate the NAP, then there is NO REASON why you should be opposedto others believing in a religion so long as they are not violating the NAP.
I does not matter why someone considers some act to be unethical or sinful. So long as they do not take justice into their own hands (unless I suppose they live in a minarchy that adopts a charter with the commandments as law, maybe) and aggress against who they believe are sinners, who cares?
Many of the greatest thinkers were Chrisitan. I think they could hang with the atheist crowd. Many of the most vile States of the 20th century were supposedly atheistic. China is atheistic. USSR was atheistic. America, as bad as it’s getting, was brought about by many a christian or theistic men and it was a radical experiment in freedom at the time. The US abolition movement was heavily quaker (christians).
However, I do believe that with freedom of association that theyd likely break off into factions.
I believe that if it werent for this lack of freedom, especially via public schools (and employers/businesses), America would be a lot less atheistic today. The US was much more religious in the past, and if schools had been privatized, most of those religious parents would not have put their kids in schools where atheism strongly exists. If they had been put in these more pious schools, Im pretty sure that those kids would be less atheistic than public school kids today. Atheism used to be taboo and I seriously doubt that the more religious parents of the past would have wanted to expose their kids to such ideas.
Also, atheists would have tended to be ostracized and people holding such views would tend to modify them or keep them to themselves due to this peer pressure. People are heavily influenced by their environment. Look at how before all of the technology dialects or accents were much heavier. People tend to mimmic that which is around them, subconciously and conciously. In this regard, I believe that as America has moved further from the constitution and closer to totalitarianism, atheism has become more prevalent.
Yes there are counter arguments to my comments and I’m sure there are millions of atheists that could make a better case for the opposite view, but based on your premise, I thought the christian or theistic perspective needed some representation, however weak my comments may be.
And I’ve heard the argument that you shouldn’t attach ahteism to political views such as statism. I dont see why not. Youve attached it to a more rational, libertarian view and whenever ‘christians’ do something like abort babies or go on murder sprees their ‘christianity’ is strongly pointed out.
I’ve never read a good or admirable critique on religion from any libertarian associated author. Mises and Rothbard were atheists, and I’m a bit glad someone like Mises didn’t further expand on it or he’d come off sounding like Rand (the few quotes/paragraphs I can remember from Mises were rather off putting on the subject).
I’m “religious”, and I don’t believe in God, sin, or any of that other Abrahamic related mysticism. One may be surprised that one can be involved in a religion and not believe in gods. Here I am standing in the middle ground
Someone like vive la has pointed out the trendiness of intellectualism, and atheism is just another form of that just like leftism. You may see a rise in atheism just as much as leftism and neither has to be together, it’s simply fashionable (at the same time I could say it’s fashionable in my circle of associates to be “anti-atheist” or something to that extent).
I believe that if it werent for this lack of freedom, especially via public schools (and employers/businesses), America would be a lot less atheistic today. The US was much more religious in the past, and if schools had been privatized, most of those religious parents would not have put their kids in schools where atheism strongly exists. If they had been put in these more pious schools, Im pretty sure that those kids would be less atheistic than public school kids today. Atheism used to be taboo and I seriously doubt that the more religious parents of the past would have wanted to expose their kids to such ideas.
I believe it’s the opposite, what we see is the burgeoning of “rational thought,” but without all the mumbo-jumbo you have kids that begin to question and counter tradition on their own lines. I see this as a natural progression in thinking. Are you saying more freedom = more religious? Also, I must assume you mean Christianity, but if we have more freedom wouldn’t people begin to question and counter said tradition?
Im saying america has become ‘less christian and theistic’ in part because christian and theistic families have put their kids into an environment that they otherwise wouldnt have if all education were private. In a free-market, Christian families are very likely to put their kids into schools that have prayer, bible study and encourage a belief in god. Their kids being in such an environment would tend to influence them to retain those beliefs. Our State has crowded out much of the competition in education and it does not allow a pro-christian agenda.
In a freer society parents would tend to influence their children more than in a state because the parents would have more choices and those choices would influence their kids.
From my understanding and experience in public school is that it is pro-Christian and pro-State, and any opposing views are not met well.
Also, being met with irony, I’ve known non-religious types to go to private Christian schools or send their children to one simply because of the education, not because of the religious aspect.
But maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree here, I’m a Heathen who views deities as unconcsious and pscyhological projections
if there is any advocacy of christianity in public schools, its certainly not in an official sense and any such biases have been severely diminished over the last several decades. And I dont think that this diminution of christianity could have occured as rapidly as it has without the power of the state. People were certainly ‘more christian’ in the past and in a freer society the children of christian parents are much more likely to remain christian because the parents would have a greater choice over the institutions that would influence their lives.
how about the land ownership side of things?
i know some religion claim land because god gave them the land. some religions even claim god gave another religion the land. that people own land because god gave it to them and because they were born a certain race. one example would be Jews , the state of Israel, and the Christians that push that Jewish people have the god given right to the land based on genetics ( although they still let people go even if they turned Jewish, but more orthodox require genetics to be jewish). is owning land through god’s authority libertarian?
some of these religions require a state, and that people with certain genetics live there because god said so, for the religions end time prophecy to come true.
No, religious beliefs do not entitle anyone to any land by any libertarian principle.
Now, if, for example, no one claimed that Israel/Palestine did not belong rightfully to those of the Jewish faith, then there would be no conflict. That is obviously not the case, however. Jews don’t have any right to force Palestinians out of the holy land and neither do Palestinians have any right to forces the Jews out. But should those people decide to war with each other, that’s their business. Christians that, for example, live in America have no right to tell the Palestinians they must leave. The society here has no right to force the population to fund a military to help force any people from any foreign land. That is, it would be anti-libertarian to do so. But I would also say, if we are a free society, any American that wanted to go to the holy land and fight alongside the Jews could if he so chose. He would have to find himself, and arm himself. It would still be anti-libertarian to aggress against a Palestinian who did not violate his rights, but we should not stop the man from being anti-libertarian, should we?
The average man is not, will not be, and does not need to be a philosopher. Not everyone is capable of understanding or handling the reality of life, hence the utility of certain fictions. We ask “is this belief true?” when we should be asking “is this belief useful?” Certain religious beliefs have been very useful, and could yet be useful, as seen from a libertarian perspective, and should therefore be respected. The same applies to tradition.
The war against all religion and all tradition is a dangerous one, and one which is fundamentally alien to the liberal cause, having its origins in the Left, in their desire to create a homo sovieticus; hence we should have nothing to do with it. It’s makes me cringe when self-ascribed libertarians like Molyneux attempt to incorporate antipathy to the family or to religion into the libertarian vision of the world.
ok ill ask if the beleif is useful
is it useful to say a person owns land because god says so?
my understanding is this would not be in line from a libertarian perspective, so the beleif that people own land because god said so is not useful for libertarianism and should not be respected?
is it useful to fight a war because god says so?
god can say to fight a war whether or not libertarian principles have been violated, therefor fighting a war because god said so is not libertarian and should not be respected? respect for a war would have to come from more than just god said so. it would also have to be in line with libertarian principles to be a just war.
is it useful to accept beleifs that reject libertarian axiums if people that have such beleifs donate money in the name of the libertarian cause?
It need not be respected that X owns some land because X says God says so. There is no need to not respect his beliefs, however. Kind of like opinions. It’s fine if someone opines that the sky is red, but that doesn’t mean you have to rename blue to red or refer to the coloring of the sky as red.
And again, if X attacks you and says God told him to, that does not mean you must qualify his aggression as just. However, if X says, “God is telling me to attack you,” this does not really constitute a threat or an attack. He is entitled to his beliefs, even if he believes that God has commanded him to aggress against someone, however, if he actually threatens you, like if he says, “I will now kill you because God told me to,” or actually attacks you, that is not justified, and you may defend yourself.
Beliefs and opinions are not aggressions.
if a person beleifs god told them to attack, but does not attack, the person is disobeying the order from the persons god.
so that makes it required to either disobay or edit orders from god to be a libertarian.
They are perfectly compatible so long as neither group aggresses upon the other. If that holds true, they will interact to the extent that it benefits them, and disassociate to the extent they find desirable.
I see no reason why not. Others may think they are not free, other may not want to live their lives according to the rules theists do, but then so long as the theists aren’t forcing others to live a certain way, why would that be an issue? It would be like saying someone isn’t free because they eat oranges all the time, and since you like apples and hate oranges, they must be simply yearning to break free from the grove to the orchard. And that would be ridiculous. As long as the individual makes the choices that govern his actions, he is free. Whether anyone agrees with those choices or not is only relevant if they’re claiming those choices materially impacted them and their freedom to choose.
The entire edifice of a liberal civilization rests on the underlying culture.
People are not biologically determined to respect property, but there is an evolutionary pressure for some degree of respect for property. Property must be respected to some extent, because in the complete absence of such respect, the society in question would collapse: and be driven into extinction by competing societies. However, as history tells, it is possible for societies to sustain themselves all along the spectrum of respect for property.
What determines the degree to which a society will respect property is the culture.
What is culture? Culture is the set of all valuations and beliefs existing in society. I would divide these into two categories: ends and means. Fortunately, the vast majority of human beings have basically the same ends: peace and prosperity. A tiny minority loves violence for its own sake. People do not need to be taught these ends, and they are fairly constant over time. What is in flux are the means: i.e. the ideas about how we can best achieve our ends. AIn other words, ethics. What rules of behavior should be adopted to yield the desired results? Some small fraction of the population is capable and of and interested in reasoning out this question. Supposing their ends are peace and prosperity, they will inevitably become libertarians. But the vast majority of the population is either incapable of or uninterested in reasoning out the question of means. So they resort to magical thinking. They listen to priests who convince them on an irrational level that certain spells and rituals (e.g. communion, inflation, prayer, war) will yield them the results they desire.
There’s no possibility of making a rational libertarian out of everyone. The majority will employ magical thinking in the pursuit of their ends. What we need to do is provide them with magical thinking which brings them (unwittingly) into support of libertarian ethics.
There’s a thread about the possibility of creating a purpose-built libertarian religion ( The First Church of Mises - #7 by bloomj31). But until such time as that can be accomplished, we need to embrace aspects of existing religions which are useful for our purposes. The same for culture in general. I think a libertarian should, in his public role and whatever his personal beliefs, be a cultural conservative. The new culture being imposed now by the Left is far more hostile to liberalism than the traditional culture, and so the latter should be defended in order to halt the advance of the former - again, until such time as an originally libertarian culture can make headway.
No. Not every religion person believes that God has told them to attack someone, to aggress against their property, or to restrict their liberty. They’re are plenty of people who are religious that don’t do these things and simultaneously don’t believe God has commanded them to do these things, maybe even the majority of religious people.
You seem to further indicate a bias against religion by trying to find that religious people cannot, in some way or another, be libertarians, and that’s just not true.