This is an interesting point and I think we should discuss it further. But first, we need to finish what we were talking about.
We’ve been exploring the justification for the state to be created in the first place, not to be maintained as it currently is. So to finish this, which people (in the absence of a preexisting state) who think that might makes right do we need to defend ourselves against?
The entire question is stuck in purgatory as long as there is no current real world, present-time example of a working stateless society (this is the reality, but that doesn’t make it futile to attempt).
Whatever answer is proposed will ultimately be unsatisfactory, imo.
This is plain false. The positivists, and empiricists never utilized Hume’s theory of causation for both sought to verify theories through experience. In fact, Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, based largely on the problem of Hume, showed any attempt to verify theories based on experience is misguided because theories cannot be verified, but only falsified by singular experiences.
Because Karl Popper is neither a positivist nor an empiricist. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. He’s the creator of, well, “Popperism.”
JAlanKatz,
While I am willing to concede your point that simply observing a phenoma does not necessarily drive us to accept a particular conclusion, I am not willing to concede that my argument is erroneous or unsound. The crucial question is whether there is enough evidence to support the conclusion, hence my disagreement with your ‘Twilight Monster’ analogy.
Though I am willing to concede that my original argument may have been better categorized as a conditional argument, rather than a reductive one, this still does not damage my argument; It just makes it presuppositional. That is, it leads us to question the veracity of the Bible itself, but this is a different question and, as I stated, I believe with good, sound reason that it is trustworthy.
Perhaps I should have phrased it as a conditional argument such as "If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q.
rather than in the form of a syllogism, but again, this doesn’t make the arument necessarily erroneous, only presuppositional.
Also, I am willing to concede that your argument re: ‘Twilight Monster’ IS valid but, unsound. Not invalid as I originally stated. That is my mistake.
As far as the two “powerhouses” of meaning argument goes, I stand by it for the reason I stated. I dont think that isolating certain instances leads one to an accurate picture or conclusion on the matter. I think one must look at this with a more “full-orbed” or broader perspective to see this accurately.
Finally, my citation of particular references re: ‘Authorities’ was not intended to be an argument from authority at all; Only to show that this view is and has been widely held from a variety of sources. That is all. Nothing more and nothing less.
bloomj31
Your assertion that “If there were a God…” is faulty. It implicitly assumes that God rejects man, not the other way around. How did you come to this conclusion?
chloe732,
While you are certainly free to accept the responses you listed as being the ones that seem to get closest to answering your question I would recommend taking a closer second look at most of them. Under scrutiny they don’t appear to me to answer the “Why?”, they appear to me to merely describe the symptoms. That is, the “What” people do or don’t do under certain conditions. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is what I see.
bloomj31,
No offense but, your answer to whether you believe the concept of human freedom rose from a vacuum or is of human construct is lame. It doesn’t answer the question at all. Would you care to try again?
Wilderness and I have hypothesized that we have this condition because people regard fear greater than they do liberty. That when liberty becomes more highly regarded the social structure may then change.
The establishment recognizes that fear is high on the list of concerns for the common man, and therefore they can effect the masses by perpetuating and fostering that fear. With fear impeded strongly in the hearts and minds of man it becomes easy to sell ‘social safety nets’ IE the state.
If liberty was regarded higher than fear our social structure may be entirely different, since the State by it’s very nature is the opposite of liberty.
Your conclusion I think is unfounded. What we have simply is a widespread cognitive issue at a cultural/societal level.
You cannot have liberty without safety.
Those are the responses I felt most closely address my question. I was careful not to use the word “answer”.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying this: “The reason human beings do not desire liberty is that they are spiritually fallen, and need God to fill the void. The fact that there is a void explains the reason they do not choose liberty”. But I was not asking the forum to answer, or even address, a spiritual question. I sincerely wanted to know, from a human standpoint, why it is we don’t see liberty being chosen, libertarian social structures formed centuries ago, and “statists” being laughed at and considered to be the “extremists”. The responses I cited address my question and were useful to me.
Getting back to your response, a researcher pursuing a new form of chemotherapy might ask: “What is the cause of cancer?”. Your answer would be, “mankind is fallen, our bodies were stung by sin, and are now subject to disease. That is the cause of cancer”. In a spiritual sense, you answered his question. But how does that help him design a new treatment for cancer? Your answer might be quite useful to a person inflicted with cancer, but useless to the researcher. In this particular case, I am asking as a researcher. I will never ask this forum to provide spiritual incite, as that is not the purpose here. If I were looking for such incite, I would go elsewhere, most likely to a pastor, not an internet forum.
filc,
I think you are very close to the correct answer to this dilemma and the psychological relationship to the effects of fear, and, in my view, since fear, or, more accurately, an IRRATIONAL and/or UNFOUNDED fear is a sin and since we are sinners by our very nature, many will choose enslavement of a certain kind. In this particular case, slaves to the State and all that this entails and not fulfilling our true potential with God.
In order to illustrate my point better, (I hope), let’s grant for the sake of argument that God does exist, created us and does desire to have a personal relationship with us. What good, sound reason do we have for rejecting Him and choosing to live instead with an irrational, unfounded fear of a free society and be slaves to the State? Was this not Israel’s problem with Pharoah?
Looked at another way, if we reject the hypothetically true irrational, unfounded fears that go with living in a free society would this not, at least potentially, allow us to live more harmoniously with one another and God?
I agree with your statement that the dilemma(s) we face here in the U.S. are CULTURAL, NOT POLITICAL. Hence, my disagreement with JAlanKatz on the necessity to see that there have been and can only be two “powerhouses” of meaning in any society; Religion and the State. This is why the State always seeks to be the dominant, or more desirably (from the States point of view), the SOLE voice of meaning in society. The State doesn’t like Religion at all because Religion has a subversive effect on its adherents that undermine the States goal(s). Typically these goals include possessing the ability to define, mandate and control what we all say, think, feel, do, eat, read, etc. Hence, their VERY strong aversion to getting out of the “public education” system. That is, “schools”.
Religion has always been the “counter-punch” to Statism. Unfortunately, as I noted earlier, it does align and/or overlap itself with the State at times. I believe this is what we are experiencing now. A free society cannot thrive under these conditions and shame on the Church for allowing and/or encouraging it. We all pay in the end…
This is news to me.
chloe732,
Re: From a research point of view.
I believe you are committing the fallacy of a false dilemma. That is, by attempting to categorically separate the “spiritual” from the “scientific”. Why EXACTLY is this distinction necessary? Is it not at least possible that it could be “both and” rather than “either or”? If not, why not?
My response is not so much intended to be “spiritual” as it is to consider the possibilities. Does truly “good” research demand less?
Esuric,
What is your point?
Can someone please tell me exactly how to put and keep my responses in line with those I am responding to rather than scattered about? I appear to be making a mess and simply don’t know how to do this.
Use reply, rather than quick reply, and use the quote feature.
What do you mean by “desire”? Why does Nature “desire” gravitation?
Is liberty something you can “desire” or is liberty something inherent in human beings?
My 2 cents on that question is that freedom is part of human nature, which means you can not opt out, Even if you agree to become a voluntary slave, it still doesn’t change the fact that you will always decide your own actions and you won’t be able to throw off the responsibility for your actions.
Maybe the denial of being free is a reasonable way to cope with ones own burden to be responsible for everything you do. Having a master is nice if you do not want to be made responsible for your actions. I am not guilty, he made me do it:-)
Happy new year
I don’t have a point. I never knew fear was a sin. Where exactly does it say that fear is a sin?
There is also the option of The Individual, which has been the counter to both.