There's another argument for statism and war. War is only "profitable" when you can force people to pay the cost via taxes. "War is the health of the State."
War primarily exists to transfer wealth to politically-connected military contractors. The publicly stated goals of the war are irrelevant.
If government were exposed to true free market competition, and a government started a war, then it would rapidly lose its customers.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
The State is more than an imaginary body, it's ideological meme Statism, requires that any other memes be assemalated or destroyed. It makes perfect sense that Reglion, or any other source of morality either ceeds itself to the state, or is destoryed by it. Whether you believe in a deity should be irrelevent to the understanding that the State can and will either use religion (If statism itself is not a religion) or terminate it.
Mlee: Whether you believe in a deity should be irrelevent to the understanding that the State can and will either use religion (If statism itself is not a religion) or terminate it.
Whether you believe in a deity should be irrelevent to the understanding that the State can and will either use religion (If statism itself is not a religion) or terminate it.
To put it in economic terms, religious institutions and the state have an oligopoly on coercion and lies. They could of course compete, but in many cases it becomes awfully lucrative to team up and form a cartel.
Fred Furash: What kind of an argument is that? So you're saying that just because people might still kill each other for another reason, we shouldn't get rid of the current one?
What kind of an argument is that? So you're saying that just because people might still kill each other for another reason, we shouldn't get rid of the current one?
What exactly would you like to do to me to destroy my faith in G-d?
But no, that isn't the point of the observation. The point of the observation was connected to the first part of my post, which you didn't quote. G-d chose to reveal himself on Sinai and to intervene in history. Much earlier, he chose to speak to Abraham. He would only do that if there were gains to humanity from having religion. He would not introduce something into the world over which he knew people would kill each other if it wasn't beneficial for religion to exist. Having said that, I speculated that perhaps he saw that people who kill each other over religion would kill each other anyway. I can't prove it, nor do I have any particular reason to believe it - I don't have access to G-d's reasoning.
Let's make the first important statement
Christianity and Christians are not the same.
The actions of christians must be viewed in light of Christianity, a majority of Americans who base their decisions in politics off of the bible are not theologians, hence it would be rather naive to suppose that they are going to mysteriously have an informed opinion on the book, or the individual scriptures.
People have something known as rational ignorance, that they aren't going to put to much effort into figuring out what the bible says about voting since it doesn't dramatically affect them. It is more important to study the latest financial report from your buds in accounting, than to carefully devote yourself to a study of the scriptures which involves years of study and the acquisition of multiple languages.
Brainpolice was absolutely correct in pointing out the origins of the Catholic Church, that indeed the Roman State might have found it quite convenient to unite the nation under one faith. There have been entire books written which detail the politics behind the Council of Nicea (Incorrect spelling) which was the process by which the modern gospels were selected, creating a religious cannon. It would be more beneficial to observe the workings of the early Church, which existed much more separate from the contamination of other memes (Example: The Roman State), hence might give us a better picture of Christianity. That isn't to say that Christianity is perfect, or even true.
As it has been said, although many wars have been fought in the name of religion, it is impossible to claim that religion was the cause. People fight wars, not ideas, people kill people, guns are merely means to an end, just as religion is a means to the end of wars, which are fought for a small number of people. You cannot get rid of religion, whatever you would define as religion. Faith's are what people have almost always fought over, whether it be imaginary territory (Based on a religious faith that acquisition of just property came from war) conversion of the infidels, the elimination of the counter-revolutionaries (You know who I am talking about) and the killing of traitors (Based on the myth of national sovereignty).
Bingo!!!!
Brainpolice:Well I reject the premise that Christianity has enhanced liberty in "the west". On the contrary, I'd argue that what has enhanced liberty in "the west" has been the revival of Greek (and particularly Aristotilean) thought, and liberty began to increase precisely when religious orthodoxy was beginning to be seriously questioned (I.E. the enlightenment). Practically all of the proto-libertarian thinkers throughout western history were not really Christians (at least by traditional standards), they were deists at best.
Well that is at least an alternative explanation one may consider. And not something that smells like ad hominem like Juan was trying to pull. This option - that Aristotelianism was the motor of liberty - is not mutually exclusive with the option of having it deducted from more specific christian ideas.
That Christian orthodoxy was dominant at first, but seriously questioned at later stages I won't see as a "proof of growing" liberty. That's rather the result of changing hegemonies. Christian doctrines were the hegemonial ideas of entire eras.
But the point I think Raico, Block and to some extent Hoppe were trying to make is that with the church one had counterbalancing institutions to the nobles of the feudal era. This may have enhanced liberty and I think I can follow this line of thinking at least to some extent. So we have two proposals:
Given the complexity of roleplayers I won't say that the one necessarily excludes the other from being a possibility.
Well that is at least an alternative explanation one may consider. And not something that smells like ad hominem like Juan was trying to pull.
On the other hand all the moral, philosophical and yes also scientific impulses that christianity lead to are simply ignored.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
JAlanKatz: What exactly would you like to do to me to destroy my faith in G-d?
What? Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you said there.
JAlanKatz: G-d chose to reveal himself on Sinai and to intervene in history. Much earlier, he chose to speak to Abraham.
G-d chose to reveal himself on Sinai and to intervene in history. Much earlier, he chose to speak to Abraham.
I'm gonna have to stop you here and ignore the rest of your argument for now (because it is based on this). The problem is that you state these things as if they were fact, yet the historicity of these events has never been proven.
Ok think of it this way. You do not believe in the divine revelations of islam, or hinduism, or greek gods, norse gods, roman gods, etc. Yet their claims of revelation and historical events have not one shred more evidence than your religion possesses (I'm assuming you're Christian or Jewish). Please explain to me by what logical process you eliminated their claims as untrue, while maintaining the truth value of the claims of your own religion?
The only honest answer is that there was no logical process involved. Your beliefs are nothing more than the product of circumstances (family, friends, local religions), and have no relevance to truth. In other words, they are prejudices. This might sound harsh but its the only reason why you believe what your religion states, while others believe what theirs' state.
Fred Furash: What? Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you said there.
You had suggested that, rather than a live-and-let-live kind of libertarian approach, you wanted to stamp out what you considered as false, dangerous beliefs. That sounds fine in the abstract, I'm just wondering what you're willing to do to me, personally, if you fail to convince me not to believe in religion. Are you willing to use violence to persuade me?
Fred Furash:I'm gonna have to stop you here and ignore the rest of your argument for now (because it is based on this). The problem is that you state these things as if they were fact, yet the historicity of these events has never been proven.
You're correct, I don't have a deductive proof. I do have strong circumstantial evidence which I personally consider convincing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzari_Principle
The other religions you mention do involve revelation, but personal revelation, not communal. To claim that G-d appeared to one person isn't particularly convincing, to claim it happened communally, to have people believe it at the time the story is made up - that's hard.
I'd also point out that the Torah says that the pig is the only land animal which has split hooves and doesn't chew it's cud. To this day, another hasn't been found. Were the authors expert biologists living in the desert? It also says that no fish has scales but no fins, or vice-versa. Again, they lived in the desert - and no such fish has been found.
I'm also puzzled as to why someone trying to pass off a counterfeit Bible would include the commandment of the shmita cycle - that every 7 years, the land is to lay fallow - and in the 6th year, G-d will double the harvest so they can eat. Seems like this would have been rejected in, oh, 7 years, if it were fake.
None of this is, to me, conclusive. But then, I don't have conclusive evidence for the American Revolution either.
This debate is silly. Everybody knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the One True God. Death to the infidels!
JAlanKatz: You had suggested that, rather than a live-and-let-live kind of libertarian approach, you wanted to stamp out what you considered as false, dangerous beliefs. That sounds fine in the abstract, I'm just wondering what you're willing to do to me, personally, if you fail to convince me not to believe in religion. Are you willing to use violence to persuade me?
Oh not at all. I wouldn't do anything to you obviously. My quarel with religion is just a debate topic, and nothing more. The beliefs are only dangerous when they become dangerous. I.e. if religious institutions were to start a war that somehow involved me as a victim, then i'd be able to use self-defense, but that's obvious anyway.
If I were to use violence to persuade anyone of anything I would be enacting a performative contradiction invalidating all of my core ideologies.
JAlanKatz: You're correct, I don't have a deductive proof. I do have strong circumstantial evidence which I personally consider convincing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzari_Principle The other religions you mention do involve revelation, but personal revelation, not communal. To claim that G-d appeared to one person isn't particularly convincing, to claim it happened communally, to have people believe it at the time the story is made up - that's hard. I'd also point out that the Torah says that the pig is the only land animal which has split hooves and doesn't chew it's cud. To this day, another hasn't been found. Were the authors expert biologists living in the desert? It also says that no fish has scales but no fins, or vice-versa. Again, they lived in the desert - and no such fish has been found. I'm also puzzled as to why someone trying to pass off a counterfeit Bible would include the commandment of the shmita cycle - that every 7 years, the land is to lay fallow - and in the 6th year, G-d will double the harvest so they can eat. Seems like this would have been rejected in, oh, 7 years, if it were fake. None of this is, to me, conclusive. But then, I don't have conclusive evidence for the American Revolution either.
The interesting thing is I had a similar argument about half a year ago with a muslim, who claimed that his Qur'an had a bunch of astronomical claims that predated any scientific discoveries on the subject. I can't remember exactly what they were, but after doing some research I found out people as early as plato (and probably before) already had similar or exact same theories.
While what you say above may be true, the fact is there were also false predictions. For example, I remember somewhere in the bible (Mark 13:30, also Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:31) it was mentioned that not a generation would pass before Jesus would come back again, and yet it has been 100s of generations, and still no second coming. While you could write off the few correct "predictions" as coincidences or prior knowledge, the presense of incorrect ones certainly removes any chance of divine inspiration, don't you think?
Fred Furash: For the sake of argument, let's replace "religious institutions" with "government". See what we get: "Careful not to lay the blame soley on government..it's the human mind that made them up, and the human that acted on the atrocities." Oh look, a wonderful defense of statism...except it's not.
For the sake of argument, let's replace "religious institutions" with "government". See what we get:
"Careful not to lay the blame soley on government..it's the human mind that made them up, and the human that acted on the atrocities."
Oh look, a wonderful defense of statism...except it's not.
Exactly. It's not a defense of any form of -ism. It's an animal farm like problem that starts in the human.
JAlanKatz: I'm just wondering what you're willing to do to me, personally, if you fail to convince me not to believe in religion. Are you willing to use violence to persuade me?
Thought I might throw this quote into this discussion.
"This template for discussing religion and faith is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that different groups of faithful people approach their religions in the same way football fans approach their favorite teams: I cheer passionately for mine, you cheer passionately for yours, and we all agree to play by the rules and exhibit good sportsmanship. For people of faith, religion isn't like that. A person of Muslim faith and a person of Christian faith engaged in honest conversation about religion are not like two fans pulling for their respective teams. They are more like two men in love with the same woman, each trying to express, safeguard and be faithful to his relationship with his beloved. Love brings with it complexities that football does not." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802558.html