The subject is the title of an essay I wrote (http://www.dkroemer.com/page84/page84.html) on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses in Kentucky, an issue that may again come before the Supreme Court. It is takeoff on the title of Norman Podhoretz’s new book Why Are Jews Liberals? In this book there is a chapter titled, “The ‘Torah’ of Liberalism.” It is a reference to Das Kapital, and an allusion to the large number of Jewish intellectuals who became Marxists after losing their faith in God.
My theory is that defining liberalism and conservatism in terms of concern for property rights is no longer relevant. This is my definition of liberalism: According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism.
Two examples of liberals in this mode are Herbert Spencer and Karl Marx. Marx was obsessed with the injustice of private ownership of factories. Herbert Spencer was obsessed with human progress. it was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." Spencer was referring to the early deaths of less productive human beings and their children. Spencer thought this was a good thing.
David Roemer
It seems to me like you're confusing ideology, philosophy, and religion.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: It seems to me like you're confusing ideology, philosophy, and religion.
There are Marxists believe in God and identify themselves as Christians, for example.
Many liberals, such as John Dewey, say they believe in God, but what they really believe in is being good and being concerned with the welfare of their fellow man. Liberal Christianity is a form of such humanism. They believe in following Jesus because Jesus preached "peace and good will." They do not accept or believe in Jesus' teaching that there is life after death. What makes them liberals is that they make a point of saying that we do not have to fear going to hell.
I don't think you can define liberalism in terms of ideology. A liberal will say, "Human beings have natural rights." This is analogous to saying, "Our purpose in life is self-realization." Both of these statements are empty of meaning.
Well I'd say that Marxism is more of a philosophy that entails both ideology and religion. In order to be a "true Marxist" you must be atheist. Or at least that's what self-proclaimed "true Marxists" claim.
Similarly, Objectivism is a philosophy that entails both ideology and religion. In order to be an Objectivist, you must be an atheist.
But liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism are all just ideologies. You could make the argument that there are also philosophical versions of each of these, but it doesn't follow that every person who is, say, an ideological liberal is also a philosophical liberal. But I also feel like a philosophical liberal is completely different from what Americans consider "liberals" on the political scene today. A philosophical liberal is a classical liberal.
It just seems absurd how the OP attempts to link an ideology with no coherent philosophical foundation with religious beliefs. And how do you classify an atheist who believes in free enterprise, is pro-life, and wants an active foreign policy? Such a person would easily classify as a political/ideological conservative, according to modern political terminology at least.
What you're saying is just straight up silly. Is Roman Catholicism "Liberal Christianity?" Catholicism, unlike certain forms of Protestantism and Calvinism, focuses on doing good as a way to reach salvation as opposed to just pure faith (e.g. Calvinism). Yet there are many devout Catholics who are conservatives, and even more who cannot be classified as liberals. Tom Woods, for example, is a devout Catholic who is definitely not a liberal. And Catholics definitely do believe in "life after death."
And what's this about a liberal believing in natural rights? Most liberals don't even believe in natural rights, period. Furthermore, natural rights don't have a thing to do with one's purpose in life being self-realization. Natural rights are often understood as rights given by a creator. Many religious people have pushed the idea of God-given natural rights. They certainly believe in life after death.
You're confounding many different ideas about politics, ideology, philosophy, and religion.
David Roemer:I don't think you can define liberalism in terms of ideology. A liberal will say, "Human beings have natural rights." This is analogous to saying, "Our purpose in life is self-realization." Both of these statements are empty of meaning.
That, of course, begs the question: why are those statements empty of meaning?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism.
I do agree with you in a way, and the correlation certainly seems like that to me. However, Anton LaVey and the CoS seem to be pretty anti-government from what I've read. He contradicts himself sometimes, but his type of atheism is quite individualistic.
It is true that Herbert Spencer was a liberal, but Karl Marx was never a liberal. Also, provide a quote of Herbert Spencer making that claim or else admit that you have libeled him and retract your statement.
Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith.
There are approximately as many important liberal thinkers throughout history that were Christian (John Locke, Adam Smith, etc...) than weren't (Hebert Spencer, J. S. Mill, etc...).
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Mr. Roemer, to address your OP directly, it's clear that your distinction between liberals and conservatives hinges upon the alleged facts of the Judeo-Christian God's existence and (presumably) the literal truth of the Bible. However, why should any of us agree with you about those premises?
My definition of liberalism explains the flip-flop that occurred in both America and England. Democrats in the U.S used to believe in small government, just like Liberals in England. Then they became pro-government. What happened? Why? My theory is that advocating laissez faire stopped satisfying their emotional needs, so they started advocating communism. A stopped clock is right two times a day.
Spencer was referring to the early deaths of less productive human beings and their children. Spencer thought this was a good thing.
Why did he favour charity then?
"Should" is too strong a word. I gave my reasons for believing in my essay, and I am summoning you to believe. It is not a demand. I am not criticizing anyone who doesn't believe in the "literal truth" of the Bible. However, I consider it irrational to deny that God exists. We know God exists just like we know human beings have free will, the sky is blue, England is an island, and Santa Claus does not exist.
David Roemer:My definition of liberalism explains the flip-flop that occurred in both America and England. Democrats in the U.S used to believe in small government, just like Liberals in England. Then they became pro-government. What happened? Why? My theory is that advocating laissez faire stopped satisfying their emotional needs, so they started advocating communism. A stopped clock is right two times a day.
Another question begs itself: what are/were liberals' emotional needs?
In my essay, there is a quote showing that Spencer was against private charity. Crackpots say different things at different times. They are like children.
Should" is too strong a word. I gave my reasons for believing in my essay, and I am summoning you to believe. It is not a demand. I am not criticizing anyone who doesn't believe in the "literal truth" of the Bible. However, I consider it irrational to deny that God exists. We know God exists just like we know human beings have free will, the sky is blue, England is an island, and Santa Claus does not exist.
A fine conversation starter for a more theologicaly oriented website, but probably well outside the scope of any productive dialogue that Mises.org is capable of.
Liberals have a need to give meaning to their lives. They also have a need to persuade themselves that they are intellectually superior to people who believe in the Bible. Their irrationality about evolution is particularly striking. I refer you to my YouTube video titled, "The Truth About Evolution and Religion." In the video I prove by quoting mainstream Darwinist biologists that: 1) Evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 2) Natural selection only explains adaptation, not common descent.
Liberals get emotionally upset at the idea that human beings did not evolve from animals.
Herbert Spencer was not a liberal or a communist. He and the 'social darwinism' are usually associated with right-wing Thatcherism/Reaganomics or libertarianism. 'Survival of the fittest' is not something liberals are going around saying as it pertains to their ideal society. If they believe in evolution, it is in the realm of natural history as a fact of that history.
You are basically saying that Christians are not overly concerned with anything on Earth, since they have heaven. So they can remain selfish. While people who care about matters on Earth are 'obsessed'.
The argument from 'obsession' really makes little sense. On the one hand, Spencer and Marx have little in common besides your disagreement. On the other hand, one could easily say you are 'obsessed' with Liberals for making such a comment. But neither of these things hold weight intellectually.
It seems you are just justifying anti-liberalism based on a selfish stoicism/solipsism that you think religion entitles you to. Which is not really a refutation against Marx or Spencer. Nor a real understanding of those persons' ideologies. But merely your own preferences as projected onto them.
In reality, all political ideologies can be concerned or dedicated to some cause. Or else why even think at all? You are saying that any thinking or action is useless because there is heaven to go to.
It could be said that the Mises institute is 'obsessed' with economics, freedom, anarchism, peace, philosophy, 'progress', etc. And/or many of the same things that apply to Marx or Spencer. At the same time, there is really no religious or anti-religious reason for this. They are causes that justify themselves.
Furthermore, for the most part I think libertarians believe in evolution. I am not a liberal, I support evolution and am not a Christian. You are thinking in the dichotomy of religious conservative vs. secular liberal.
This article is a quick read and can help separate the mythical Spencer from the real one.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Herbert Spencer was not a liberal or a communist.
On the nitpick he is a liberal in the same way that Mises, Bastiat, Burke, Hayek or perhaps you or I would be. Pet peeve of mine, because I like the word and there is no real reason to have much association with the word "conservative" that I can think of (minus a pehaps somewhat "anti- radical revolutionary" sentiment)
"Liberals have a need to give meaning to their lives. They also have a need to persuade themselves that they are intellectually superior to people who believe in the Bible. Their irrationality about evolution is particularly striking. I refer you to my YouTube video titled, "The Truth About Evolution and Religion." In the video I prove by quoting mainstream Darwinist biologists that: 1) Evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 2) Natural selection only explains adaptation, not common descent.
Liberals get emotionally upset at the idea that human beings did not evolve from animals."
what is wrong with giving meaning to life? You don't give any meaning to life?
It seems by making your video, you are trying to persuade yourself that you are superior to someone.
Quotations are not "proof" of something. It is merely argument from authority.
And if you give weight to mainstream biology, then you too must agree with their conclusions. And thus their conclusions do not necessarily lead to being a liberal.
Did you even read Social Statistics?
"in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated"
Supported charity.
The moderator seems to think an analysis of liberalism is not an appropriate topic for libertarians. I stopped being a libertarian when I read an essay by Karl Rahner about theology and power. I am still supportive of Mises.org. It still plays an important roll because of its understanding of economics. But the organization will be stronger when its members realize that they are liberals in the negative sense that I mean.
It's not an analysis, you are just making a lot of arrogant assertions and pseudopsychology from your own religious self-righteousness.
No, I tend to think topics speaking of the existance or role of God, or how religion ought be treated in either hypothetical societies that don't exist yet or in extant governments is simply not going to lead to any worthwhile dialogue on political theory, economics, or legal theory. You can play "follow the subsidy", but that is about it.
EDIT: not that I am speaking as a moderator, I am not threatining to close the topic or anything. I am just giving my personal opinion as to why I think this topic is misplaced.
David Roemer:Liberals have a need to give meaning to their lives.
What are you contrasting this with?
What is your reasoning and/or evidence that this is necessarily true for all liberals?
David Roemer:They also have a need to persuade themselves that they are intellectually superior to people who believe in the Bible.
What do you mean by "believe in the Bible"?
Saying that they have a need to persuade themselves of that implies that, deep down, they know it isn't true. Do you have any reasoning and/or evidence to support that implication?
David Roemer:Their irrationality about evolution is particularly striking. I refer you to my YouTube video titled, "The Truth About Evolution and Religion." In the video I prove by quoting mainstream Darwinist biologists that: 1) Evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 2) Natural selection only explains adaptation, not common descent.
First off, quoting a person doesn't prove anything except that he believes, supports, or thinks certain things. It doesn't prove that those things are themselves true or correct. Trying to argue otherwise is known as appealing to authority.
With that said, stating that evolution applies only to human bodies and not their souls means nothing to someone who doesn't believe that such entities as souls exist. As far as common descent, on the other hand, you're right that natural selection per se does not explain it. However, there seems to be overwhelming evidence from genetic analyses that all life on Earth is indeed related. YMMV there.
David Roemer:Liberals get emotionally upset at the idea that human beings did not evolve from animals.
Human beings are animals. But perhaps liberals get emotionally upset at that idea because they don't believe it's true.
I stopped being a libertarian when I read an essay by Karl Rahner about theology and power.
What exactly about the essay persuaded you?
But the organization will be stronger when its members realize that they are liberals in the negative sense that I mean.
What negative sense? In the idea that we enjoy freedom?
David Roemer:"Should" is too strong a word. I gave my reasons for believing in my essay, and I am summoning you to believe. It is not a demand. I am not criticizing anyone who doesn't believe in the "literal truth" of the Bible. However, I consider it irrational to deny that God exists. We know God exists just like we know human beings have free will, the sky is blue, England is an island, and Santa Claus does not exist.
To say that you find it irrational for anyone to deny that God exists implies that God does exist. Perhaps you'd like to present your reasoning and/or evidence of God's existence. (By "God", I'm assuming you mean the God of the Bible -- that is, you're not talking about the God of the Qur'an, or Zeus, or Thor, or Wakan Tanka, etc.) Along with that, maybe you could explain how each and every one of us on Earth necessarily already knows that God exists.
Brian Anderson:What negative sense? In the idea that we enjoy freedom?
Brian, here's the relevant part of Mr. Roemer's OP:
David Roemer:According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism. [Emphasis added.]
As you can see, Mr. Roemer is implicitly assuming that "revelation" is equivalent to empirical facts and/or logical reasoning. He's arguing that people can be divided into two groups: those who put God first in their lives, and those who don't. He considers this relevant because he assumes that the God and the Bible are true. This assumption, by the way, drives his assumption about "revelation".
The meaning of 'liberal' , for most, changed when FDR started talking about there being a new type of liberalism when he passed the New Deal. That is in response to the defects of capitalism, in his estimation and many others', that caused the great depression. This is why he couched his rhetoric in terms of 'freedom' (ie: the 4 freedoms he outlined): freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of worship, and freedom of speech. This is why it is different than a millenarian or revolutionary stance. It is really trying to strengthen old liberalism through state intervention, as a reaction to what is perceived to be an impediment to liberalism in so-called private avarice. Even Kennedy had the same philosophy: we have to have government that doesn't make bloody revolution necessary.
New liberalism isn't so much a remaking of the world, as a maintainence of the status quo through government intervention where necessary to make administration of things more to their liking.
It has nothing to do with animals or God or whatever else. That is nonsense; or trying to fit everything together simplistically.
From your essay:
David Roemer: The existence of God is a matter of reason, not faith. We know God exists because humans are finite beings, and finite beings need a cause. If all beings in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. This means there must exist at least one infinite being. In Western cultures, the infinite being is called God.
The existence of God is a matter of reason, not faith. We know God exists because humans are finite beings, and finite beings need a cause. If all beings in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. This means there must exist at least one infinite being. In Western cultures, the infinite being is called God.
What's the difference between a "finite" being and an "infinite" being?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
From your 'essay':
Calling creationism and intelligent design “slickly marketed intellectual snake oil” is another example of their contempt for people of faith. What the authors know about evolution comes from popular books and articles about evolution written by laymen trying to promote a particular philosophy or religious point of view. An intellectually curious person learns about evolution by reading textbooks, peer-reviewed articles, and scholarly works.
The universe began 13 billion years ago (the Big Bang) and our solar system condensed into existence 5 billion years ago. Life began on Earth as bacteria and evolved into the present collection of species over a period of 3.5 billion years. There is no explanation for the Big Bang and the origin of life. There is also no explanation for evolution because the complexity of animals is so much greater than the complexity of bacteria. Natural selection only explains why species are adapted to their environment.
Many laymen think either that natural selection explains evolution or that it is a matter of controversy among scientists. Biologists with Ph.D.s know better. The following quote is from research professors who have improved the theory of natural selection with a mechanism they call facilitated variation. There is nothing in this quote or the book itself that says natural selection explains the complexity of multi-cellular life:
Facilitated variation is not like orthogenesis, a theory championed by the American paleontologist Henry Osborn (1857–1935), which imbues organisms with an internal preset course of evolutionary a progression or variation unfolding over time. Natural selection remains a major part of the explanation of how organisms have evolved characteristics so well adapted to the environment. (Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, p. 247)
You seem to be unaware that 'facilitated variation' has nothing to do with God/intelligent design. In fact, it's set up as a rebuttal to intelligent design/irreducable complexity.
Body and soul are the metaphysical concepts of matter and form applied to human beings. Form (soul) is the principle or incomplete being that makes humans equal to one another and superior to animals. Matter (body) is the principle that makes humans different from one another. Whether they know it or not, biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of human beings—embodied spirits—on a rational basis.
What makes humans equal to each other is their mental capability to respects each other's rights. A soul is a fairy tale that you will not find in any scientific text.
Stop trying to inject your religion into the philosophy of liberty. Kneeling before an (invisible) God is slavery just as well.
I. Ryan:From your essay: David Roemer: The existence of God is a matter of reason, not faith. We know God exists because humans are finite beings, and finite beings need a cause. If all beings in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. This means there must exist at least one infinite being. In Western cultures, the infinite being is called God. What's the difference between a "finite" being and an "infinite" being?
Good catch, I. Ryan. I'd like to address this part of his essay as well.
Even if we accept arguendo that there must exist at least one infinite being, in no way does it follow that this infinite being must be the God of the Bible. To claim otherwise is to take a massive leap of faith. (Please excuse the pun.)
The meaning of 'liberal' , for most, changed when FDR started talking about there being a new type of liberalism when he passed the New Deal.
I don't disagree, you're right in a practicle sense (which is what matters). Though I think the word still has its original roots going in Europe, at least somewhat, doesn't it? Likewise, I think in Europe the word "libertarian" I thought referes more to it's original socialist anarchist context. Either way, I really like the word; way better than libertarian, anarchist, conservative, or whatever. It may be a bit quixotic to use, but I'm trying it out for now.
Karl Rahner gave a more general definition of power than is given by libertarians. Libertarians define power in terms of utility theory. Rahner defined power as the ability to affect somebodies consciousness without their consent. Before the fall of man, Adam and Eve interacted freely. The way I think of it is that if Eve tried to nag Adam, Adam could tune her out. After the fall, Adam and Eve were subject to death, concupiscence, and unwanted interference from each other.
It is completely arbitrary to define power in terms of force. Suppose you are stranded alone on an island, struggling to survive, and another weaker persons lands there. Should you cooperate or should you make that person your slave? Liberal answer: cooperation. Conservative answer: follow your conscience. The liberal answer makes no sense at all because we all know what utility theory says. There is no point in saying it twice. What to do in a concrete case depends on the circumstances. The conservative answer is the more rational one.
What is negative about liberalism is that liberals think religious faith is irrational.
I don't disagree, you're right in a practicle sense (which is what matters).
"Liberal" has meant approximately the same thing for almost 300 years. Also, it still does mean what it did in every country except the United States (and perhaps Canada). It gets really tiresome when people accuse others of being liberals for acting in a way consistent only with anti-liberalism.
Nielsio:A soul is a fairy tale that you will not find in any scientific text.
There are lots of things you won't find in scientific texts. This is a non-argument, not a fact.
liberty student: Nielsio:A soul is a fairy tale that you will not find in any scientific text. There are lots of things you won't find in scientific texts. This is a non-argument, not a fact.
There is no comparison between the human soul and a UFO. A UFO is a scientific concept. The human soul is a concept in metaphysics. My guess is that Dr. Tyson is a liberal and doesn't know or doesn't want to know anything about metaphysics.
Since humans have free will and conscious knowledge, they are embodied spirits. Humans are superior to animals, but equal to one another. The soul or form is the metaphysical principle or incomplete being that makes humans equal to one another. The body or matter is the metaphysical principle that makes humans different from one another. Since humans are embodied spirits, the human soul is spiritual. According to the science of evolution, the human body evolved from animals, not the human soul.
Pasting that video is irrelevant to the fact that you made a logical error Niels. Sorry to call you out for being sloppy, but your atheism is sloppy, and it would benefit from being argued better.
I can't prove I have a soul, and you can't prove I do not. Much knowledge is a leap of faith.