Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What religion is the most pro-free market?

rated by 0 users
This post has 41 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875
Freedom4Me73986 Posted: Fri, Nov 4 2011 11:59 PM

Personally I'm thinking Islam (sans its ban on charging interest) is the religion most in-line w/ free market and voluntaryist values. For one thing, they use real money. Also, markets in the Islamic world were some of the freest in history. They didn't see the problems which arose in Europe and East Asia.

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 12:17 AM

I could care less what religion is the most free market.  It's really irrelevant to what the aims of whatever religion you care to adhere to are.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 12:19 AM

Satanism for sure. It's a religion based around a contractual agreement.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 12:23 AM

Neodoxy:

 

Satanism for sure. It's a religion based around a contractual agreement.

Well played.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 12:28 AM

Actually, the Church of Satan had some rather libertarian-ish views on ethics.  It's been questioned whether Rand was an influence on LaVey, but there's really no evidence to support this (but it's fact that Ragnar Redbeards Might is Right was an influence, which "Libertarian historian James J. Martin called it "surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere.' ")

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

Definitely my faith, Zoroastrianism.

Zoroastrianism [...] rejects every form of asceticism, has no dualism of matter and spirit (only of good and evil), and sees the spiritual world as not very different from the natural one, and the word "paradise" (via Latin and Greek from Avestan pairi.daeza, literally "stone-bounded enclosure") applies equally to both.

Central to Zoroastrianism is the emphasis on moral choice, to choose the responsibility and duty for which one is in the mortal world, or to give up this duty and so facilitate the work of druj. Similarly, predestination is rejected in Zoroastrian teaching. Humans bear responsibility for all situations they are in, and in the way they act toward one another. Reward, punishment, happiness, and grief all depend on how individuals live their lives.

In Zoroastrianism, good transpires for those who do righteous deeds. Those who do evil have themselves to blame for their ruin. Zoroastrian morality is then to be summed up in the simple phrase, "good thoughts, good words, good deeds" (Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta in Avestan), for it is through these that asha is maintained and druj is kept in check.

Free market emphasis added by me.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalism.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

Satanism for sure. It's a religion based around a contractual agreement.

So does satanism look down on fiat currency? b/c islam certainly does.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalism.

True, we're pretty religious. =)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

So does satanism look down on fiat currency? b/c islam certainly does.

Dude, you want to run about half naked in a tent, detest civilization, and "do everything yourself".  What does it matter to you about currency or markets - or what is better for them to thrive?  You are one step away from saying "square circle".

Besides all that, in this day and age anything that was worthwhile said in any religion has been absorbed into better clearer grammer long long ago - all it can be in these much brighter and more relevant days is an obvious grammatical error of the worst kind... at best .  At worst empty psychologisms, or a sales pitch to low grade rubes or second rate intellectuals who have out thought themselves.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

For example, I was praying at the shrine of Non-Aggression today, paying tithes to the LP and supporting the Rothbard Caucus, and religiously watching some Rothbard lectures today. God, if I could have chosen one man live for all eternity...xD

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

For example, I was praying at the shrine of Non-Aggression today, paying tithes to the LP and supporting the Rothbard Caucus, and religiously watching some Rothbard lectures today. God, if I could have chosen one man live for all eternity...xD

Than you sir a a heretic - a true Rothbardian would never pay tithes to the LP!!!

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

Than you sir a a heretic - a true Rothbardian would never pay tithes to the LP!!!

Oh, ha, that is true, I will have to switch my alliances at some point, if I get your meaning!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 1:49 AM

I think Taoism is fairly laissez-faire. Certain varieties of Buddhism are free-market friendly... I think Tibetan Buddhism is. Paradoxically, I think that many of India's religions are also laissez-faire. despite India's rampant socialism since being colonized by the Brits. In fact, I take monotheism as symptomatic of a bias towards central-planning and a territorial monopolist of security and law - any polytheistic religion is inherently more tolerant of letting others think what they like. "I believe in Lord Ganesh." "I believe in Durga." "Oh, well, that's fine, Ganesh is Durga's son." "Oh really? I didn't know that."

I'm not saying that theological dogma, including monotheism, is inherently anti-libertarian. There's something to be said for the correlation between the strength of cultural boundaries and the respect for property rights and I think this is what you see in Europe. It was a  long, hard slog for the Church of Rome to sterilize Europe of its indigenous religions and impose Christianity as a pan-European religion ... and they never really succeeded, despite the fact they always talk up whatever success they did have to make it seem like "why, Europe has always been Christian, of course!" The cultures of Europe are notable for their affinity for strong property rights and I believe this fed into the strong localization of Europe. For centuries, the European elites have been trying to break this localization down but, despite all their apparent successes (e.g. the EU), they really have not yet succeeded in imposing their vision of a European monoculture. So, the fact that Europeans have always had a grumpy disposition towards foreign religious ideas may in fact be related to the strong respect for property rights that is an integral part of Europe's cultural DNA.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 2:15 AM

Hinduism is such an intricate and complex religion, on a whole I don't know where to begin.  Though, if you come across some in their explanation it'll come off as polytheism, but behind it monotheism dressed as polytheism, as all the gods/goddesses are variants of Brahma, which is the supreme lord, or soul.

You're pretty right about Europe.  It's only been Christian for about 1,000 years (which really isn't that long), and during that period Christianity had to form itself to the views, beliefs, attitudes, and culture of Europeans at the time (literature like Beowulf is probably more Heathen than it is Christian in attitude and views).  A lot of practices were still carried on, but with a Christian veil (so to speak).  The school system has done a pretty good job of keeping Europe Christian.  I remember in my world history class we'd talk about all these cultures and empires, but oddly enough when discussing NW Europe it's coincidently during the age of conversion that we start off on, and you never hear a word about pre-Christian Europe (besides some Vikings, good propaganda, make it seem everyone in pre-Christian Europe was an outlaw, don't discuss culture, lore, and lines of kings and kingdoms).  At the most we'd discuss the movements of various groups (Danes, Angles, Saxons, etc.), but like any school it's remembering what group was placed at this part of the map at this year in history, and nothing else.

Things like this lead me to have some bias towards Christianity

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310

There is no clear answer, because most religions are over thousand years old and have created many variations and different emphasis through the years. Every religion has certain free market aspects, example Lutherans have hard work and savings, Catholics in Southern Europe respect their family more than the state, protestants of Switzerland belive wealth means place in heaven, etc. And those are just variations of christianity. Islam had much more free market-oriented version going on in middle ages, but times change. You can find support for the metal currencies even from the Bible, Islam is not the only religion which has been pro-gold centuries ago. But sound money is not the only branch of free market ideas.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

So does satanism look down on fiat currency? b/c islam certainly does.

Dude, you want to run about half naked in a tent, detest civilization, and "do everything yourself".  What does it matter to you about currency or markets - or what is better for them to thrive?  You are one step away from saying "square circle".

So what makes you think there'd be no means of exchange in a postciv world? MoE arise naturally and I would expect people to still value gold.  That said I'd much rather praise a religion where free markets are championed than promote religions where there not.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 16
Points 275

The Mormons seem to be pretty free-market, pro-sound money, although you wouldn't know it by the two running for office on the federal level.  But considering Utah is the only state in the Union to declared gold and silver coins legal tender, and willing to cock their snoot at the Fed, I think that places them somewhere in the running.

"...to debauch the currency...engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1920
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 103
Points 2,100

It depends on the particular interpretation in question of a given religion; there's more variation in free-market friendliness between different sects of Christianity than there is between Christianity and Islam in general, for instance. If one were to take the commandments as gospel, so to speak, then all Abrahamic religions are incredibly free market, simply by virtue of 'thou shalt not steal', and the existence of a State being reliant on theft. People who read socialism into Christianity generally lack a proper grasp of nuance; they're unable to understand that, whilst the Bible may advocate virtues of charity, giving to the poor, etc, it doesn't advocate the use of violence to take from the rich and give to the poor, and the difference between the former and the latter is the difference between charity and socialism. So whilst it might be correct to say the Bible supports a society where people give a large portion of their income to the poor and share the products of their labour (like voluntarism), it would not be correct to say the Bible advocates a society where such redistribution occurs non-voluntarily through violent wealth transfers. "There is no compulsion in religion", in the words of Mohammad; it may be 'bad' for somebody not to do something, but that doesn't justify the use of force to control their behaviour, as charity performed under duress is not charity at all. Islam does have a form of mandatory tax, the Zakāt, which might be considered incompatible with free market values, but then I think some interpretations view that tax as voluntary, and the scale of it can also vary widely, as there's no exact percentage set by the Koran (this site is a good reference for market-friendly interpretations of Islam: http://www.minaret.org/).

Esoteric (as opposed to exoteric) Taoism is explicitly free-market in a sense, in that there are passages literally stating 'the smaller the government, the better' and 'the less rules and regulation, the better', but it's also anticapitalist in other ways, discouraging competition and material progress (since if people were perfectly contented, they'd have no need or desire for material improvement). Equally, esoteric Buddhism is not supportive of violence, hence not conducive to a strong state, but also generally discourages material pursuits as leading ultimately to dissatisfaction, so is not compatible with the free market in that sense. Jainism is entirely pacifist, so anti-statist in that sense, but that also prohibits the use of violence for the defence of private property, so I'm not sure how that'd function (I guess technically a free market could exist without the recourse to violent defence of property, if everybody had complete respect for and belief in other people's property). Most religions are ultimately rather market friendly, I guess, as most religions discourage violence (at least amongst the in-group), and the state is an inherently violent entity. My personal opinion is that Objectivism is the most market friendly, since it's basically just free market capitalism turned into a religion, and Juche (the national religion of North Korea) is the least market friendly, for obvious reasons :)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 12:07 PM

+1 Chydenius

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 111
Points 2,310
Heather replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 4:16 PM

I've found some great quotes from Mormon leaders regarding government education and Keynesian economics

 

President Benson from LDS Quotes on Government Schools...

http://ldshomeschoolinginca.org/quotes.html

"I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John DeweyJohn Keynes and others. There are much worse things today that can happen to a child than not getting a full education." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 307.)

 

Brigham Young on taxation being theft..

I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it... I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves and give one tenth to the poor... Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No! (Journal of Discourses Vol. 18, p. 357)

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

Pastafarianism.

That works.  Fortunatly anyone who has grand theories of "ultimate" history narratives,  or people who care about religion are being marginalized.  Both subjects are jokes.

 

 

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

Epicureanism (though not a religion), it preaches a lot of libertarian ideas (respect for the individual).

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sat, Nov 5 2011 11:57 PM

Liberty,

I hope that this is perfectly clear, gold has nothing inherently to do with libertarianism.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

Lol Neodoxy, when did I mention gold?

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 1:13 AM

I've considered the idea of a new spiritual organization based on Misesean ideas. One of the problems people face in digesting the concepts in economic theory and (sound) social science is that it is all so impersonal. Yet our brains are not wired to relate to each other impersonally (I think this is probably a good thing!) Hence, I think most people cannot access the truths of sound social science unless it is restated in more personalized language, that is, in the language of morality and spirituality (self-development).

Tradition is the dominant force in religions which are the usual vehicle of spiritual and moral instruction. This makes them very slow to respond to changing circumstances and new (sound) ideas. But tradition is a feature, not a bug. There are people who go around giving self-development seminars (for a speaking fee) and the customers of that industry might actually be a good target audience for this kind of "spiritualized" Misesean theory.

Don't confuse my use of the word "spiritual" to be about intangible beings. Rather, I'm using it more in the sense of that which can't be measured, that which lies solely within oneself and may as well be a "soul" because of its inherent unsuitability to the impersonal methods of science. Can integrity be studied by science? Maybe, but not by today's science. Is integrity not a crucial virtue which people of sufficient maturity realize they need to learn? This is what I mean by the spiritual: that which concerns "the whole person."

Take, for example, the division-of-labor. The spiritual side of the division-of-labor is learning to overcome one of two possible responses to it that both result from a character flaw or spiritual deficiency within oneself. On the one hand, there is the tendency towards introversion and self-sufficiency... rejection of the existing division-of-labor by attempting to satisfy all one's needs without exchanging with others. On the other hand, there is the tendency towards managing the division-of-labor by imposing unwanted organization or management onto others and forcing them to either exchange when they otherwise would not have (excessive division-of-labor) or forcing them not to exchange when they otherwise would have (insufficient division-of-labor). This is the opposite of the introverted response to the division-of-labor; it is the self-aggrandizing response to the division-of-labor.

The spiritually healthy response to the division-of-labor - that response which is consistent with good character and a healthy spiritual disposition - is to allow others to decide for themselves whether to trade or self-produce, while exchanging for things produced by others whenever it is advantageous in the satisfaction of one's own wants. That is, it is spiritually health to participate in the division-of-labor as a peer with respect for others and without imposing one's vision of what is the right amount of division-of-labor onto others.

I'm sure this approach could be extended to many other topics within Austrian theory and even further.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

deleted

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310

I've considered the idea of a new spiritual organization based on Misesean ideas.

Haha, I've thought that myself too. But limits of this strategy always make me to think is it worth of time it needs. Totally new spritiual movement could be started from the fresh, empty paper, but this will come with expense in the numbers of followes. That's why I'm leaning towards reforming current movements. Example with Catholic church many theologists started to follow Aristotelianistic lines of thought in middle ages, and created a reform in the Western culture. Rothbards 'nature of man' and self-ownership are good philosophical insights for religions - I think for every single one of them.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490

Catholics in Southern Europe respect their family more than the state

Southern Europe is also hecka socialist (Spain, Italy, Greece)

I've considered the idea of a new spiritual organization based on Misesean ideas

giving a new meaning to "Paulites" and the like, inciting the fears of leftists who think that free-market thinkers are people who offer gold coins at the altar of Rockefeller and Bill Gates. Injecting such ideas into religion and social teachings is certainly a good idea, but giving leftists another target, not so much.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 1:37 PM

@Liberty

Sorry I had a derp moment, I was responding to freedom4me and I responded to that, I saw you and it went from freedom ---> Liberty. Lol so sorry for that

@FREEDOM

 

I hope that this is perfectly clear, gold has nothing inherently to do with libertarianism.

 

 

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 1:41 PM

@Wheylous: I don't really factor in the reactions of other political groups into such decisions. What really matters to me is whether other people would actually find it useful and instructive. Is there a spiritual void out there that could be filled, a bit like a business opportunity but regarding moral teaching in one's spiritual self-development? Is anyone out there really talking about stuff like this.

I've seen George Carlin come close but he was always up-front that he's an entertainer, not an instructor. I stumbled across this guy named David R. Hawkins on YouTube... he actually has some really good insights that aren't far from these kinds of ideas but then he goes off into wacky stuff about meditating in higher chakras and opening your third eye. I suspect there's a niche market out there of people who want a strong, logical foundation underneath their spiritual beliefs about how to go about living their lives - something a bit like praxeology. "If you want to achieve X in life, then you must do Y and you must avoid Z." (say, X is satisfaction, contentment).

The body of knowledge regarding virtue and self-development is already vast. People have spent a great deal of time thinking about these things and writing down their conclusions, some of them are total crap but many of them are actually quite useful. But what is often lacking is some kind of "guiding light" to bring it all together... what's the point of meditating? What are you trying to accomplish? Too much of what passes for spiritual teaching is just a lot of mumbo-jumbo muttered quickly enough to sound impressive and deep.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550

Uh-oh, Clayton is going Surok on us...

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490

Clayton, that is a good idea that might indeed be a good business idea - a mentoring company composed of people who know how to achieve goals in life mentoring those who cannot do as much. Having a mentor really helps, as it helps to set goals and to focus efforts. I am really interested in how this could work out. A mentor company - teaching people how to succeed.

Indeed, it could prove the power of the individual - taking people in the middle of depression, lack of self-confidence, and turning them around and giving them bright careers.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 2:20 PM
Clayton:

wacky stuff about meditating in higher chakras and opening your third eye.

Dont be so quick to dismiss things you havent experienced yet.
I suspect there's a niche market out there of people who want a strong, logical foundation underneath their spiritual beliefs about how to go about living their lives - something a bit like praxeology. "If you want to achieve X in life, then you must do Y and you must avoid Z." (say, X is satisfaction, contentment).

I agree

The body of knowledge regarding virtue and self-development is already vast. People have spent a great deal of time thinking about these things and writing down their conclusions, some of them are total crap but many of them are actually quite useful. But what is often lacking is some kind of "guiding light" to bring it all together... what's the point of meditating? What are you trying to accomplish? Too much of what passes for spiritual teaching is just a lot of mumbo-jumbo muttered quickly enough to sound impressive and deep.

Clayton -

I agree there is a lot of crap. But many times it is unintelligible given your pre-existing premises. If you are a metaphysical materialist you wont find chakras interesting. Perhaps you would change your mind upon learning that each chakra corresponds with a nerve ganglia or part of the brain. But I agree that meditation is largely counterintuitive for a materialist. Think of it as reformatting the human hard drive.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 6:08 PM

I agree there is a lot of crap. But many times it is unintelligible given your pre-existing premises. If you are a metaphysical materialist you wont find chakras interesting. Perhaps you would change your mind upon learning that each chakra corresponds with a nerve ganglia or part of the brain. But I agree that meditation is largely counterintuitive for a materialist. Think of it as reformatting the human hard drive.

Perhaps I've phrased it too strongly. I place in the "crap bin" anything that does not conform to cause-and-effect. If I look at an LED clock display while eating cheerios, the segments of the LED do the most bizarre dance (try it, if you never have, it's a 'psychedelic' experience). I don't understand the cause-and-effect nor do I need to in order to experience the phenomenon. I just need to know what to do to trigger the phenomenon. Much of what passes for "rationalism" in Western philosophy is dismissing phenomena for which we have no cause-and-effect explanation. But this is an overreaction. It is folly and arrogance to dismiss phenomena for which you have not yet found a cause-and-effect explanation, much like the Catholic Church dismissing Galileo's results on gravity because they did not understand the cause-and-effect of it.

However, when a person starts saying things like "your chakras open a window on another world and when you enter that world you can do this and that and talk to the spirits of the deceased" and so on, I perceive a causal theory in the absence of phenomena, or a causal theory that assumes far more than is justified. If you take mushrooms and feel like you have a conversation with a long deceased guru, how do you know that it was a long-deceased guru you had a conversation with? Isn't it possible that you were just f-d up on the shrooms and it just felt like you were talking to some long deceased guru?? So wouldn't a more objective reporting of the phenomena be "when entering such-and-such mental state, you can experience the feeling that you are conversing with your long-dead ancestors"? And so on. I feel like the spiritualists often impart ontological reality to things that could just as well be explained by your brain's circuitry giving you the feeling that something is real.

A dream is the obvious case. When I dream, I sometimes feel like I'm really having a conversation with a particular person (someone who might never talk to me) or I'm really seeing some scene or drama unfold. But when I awake, I realize it was only "just a dream". What I perceived was not real in the same sense that my perceptions of the computer monitor in front of me now are real.

I'm not a dogmatic materialist... with Mises, I am actually a methodological dualist. We may as well speak of a soul since, for all practical intents and purposes, we have one. But, at the same time, I plead ignorance of what it even means for something to be "supernatural"... it's either real or it isn't, it's either part of your real experience or it's not. What it's "made of" and "how it works" are separate issues that need not be dealt with before differentiating between what is real (like computer monitors and souls) and what is not real (dreams, fiction).

Hopefully I'm making some sense.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 7:06 PM
I agree with your assessment that most of what passes for spirituality tends to treat what appear to be artifacts of the subconscious as part of objective reality. Witness the skilled clairvoyant ledbetter (who was the first to discover quarks) and his "masters" a collection of wise and ancient enlightened spirits that watched over humanity. For all his achievements, he could not master his own subconscious enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I think what is missing in religion these days is philosophy, specifically philosophy of science. Theories like evolution or buddhism are only useful as far as they allow one to understand data and make predictions. The fact of the matter is that the theories of modern society are generally unfit for explaining modern society. This creates dissatisfaction, because people do not get the results that match their predictions.

As far as your assertion that dreams are not real, that does seem to tend towards dogmatic materialism. The fact of the matter is that some people report meaningful information from these experiences that, I hope we can agree, can be said to occur on an ontologically different level. Here I am referring to out of body experiences, remote viewing, dreams, visions, and the like. Experiences of this nature have been a part of human history for hundreds of millennia and the recent (enlightenment and later) efforts to reject such for practical materialism have, in a few hundred years, marginalized a large part of the human experience. Early man wasnt an atheist. One tribe may have believed in the god that showed them how to track rabbits and pick apricots. Another tribe may have believed in the god who showed them where to fish and how to open coconuts. But it was not until man gained the wealth and leisure time for a large population to lock themselves away in man-made boxes, eat man-processed foods, and spend hours looking at nothing but man-made objects and discussing trivial (relative to long term survival) things with other men, that we started to ask ourselves if "god" really existed. I submit that the cultural wisdom to bring about those experiences and interpret them meaningfully has been lost.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 7:35 PM

As far as your assertion that dreams are not real, that does seem to tend towards dogmatic materialism.

The dream itself is real... it is definitely a fact that I am dreaming. But how can what I am dreaming about be real? If I dream I'm standing on the edge of Niagara falls, looking over, how can that be real when I'm in fact lying in my bed, asleep? I can't be in two places at once.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Nov 6 2011 8:22 PM
First of all, to claim that dreams are objective and contain meaningful information is not to say that they are literal representation of fact. You could meet your cousin in a cafe and have him tell you to buy pork bellies on e*trade for him, in a dream. That doesnt mean your disembodied awarenesses met in an actual earthly cafe. Jung postulated the collective unconcious and while you may not agree right now, it is certainly noncontroversial enough to posit and doesnt violate any known laws of physics.

second, the idea of a disembodied awareness visiting earthly realms may be controversial, but it is also hard to dismiss, given the evidence. The cia/army remote viewing program in the 80s being one example of evidence.

third, and I hesitate to mention this because I dont want you to think I am trolling, it is not strictly accurate to say, in a philosophic/scientific sense, "I can't be in two places at once." we can say that you (and I) are unaware of any credible evidence for the existence of bilocation. But that requires us to dismiss your dream experience a priori.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 10
Jetrpg replied on Mon, Nov 7 2011 4:54 PM

"I think Tibetan Buddhism is." - Clayton

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Just the first result i got from Google (so you can read more). Maybe not so much anymore with china in control. But basically Tibet worked much like feudal Europe in its not so free ways.

Christianity, Buddhism, and a few others that are open to personal interpretation have the greatest ability to be be pro-FE. But, similarly they might be the direct opposite. Look for religions who's holy texts or directives are individual and specific in directing a Religion to accomplish worldly goals; find this you find unfriendly religions to FE.

Otherwise stated, if you avoid tyranny, you avoid control, and progress free enterprise.

Or that is my take on it. Which I feel is a logical one.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (42 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS