Believing in something is not the same as determining if something is true. There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason, we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we know something is true because God has told us. Faith is a positive response to revelation. It is both a decision and a gift from God.
David Roemer
You've given three definitions of liberal so far in this thread. The first one was anyone who wants to improve the lot of man. That means Catholics are "liberals," according to your definition. The second one was anyone who believes faith is irrational. That means that Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, and other Christian existentialists are "liberals." Your third definition basically was anyone who doesn't believe in "life after death." SO a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-economic freedom deist (think: Founding Fathers) is a "liberal" by this definition. A pro-choice socialist atheist would also be a "liberal" by this definition. However, the moment these two individuals start believing in a heaven and hell, they magically stop being "liberals," even though they have wildly different views on political issues.
The facts of the matter are:
1) Your definition makes no sense whatsoever. It confuses many issues from philosophy to ideology to religion; issues which should not be confused with each other because they are from completely different subject matters.
2) You continually avoid all the hard questions.
Political Atheists Blog
You're skipping over the part where it logically follows that this "infinite being" is an omnipotent God, and more specifically, the God of the Bible/Koran/Torah etc. All we know is what we can see in the observable universe, and you yourself state that a finite being could have created our existence. So how is it at all possible to draw and logical conclusions about the nature of the divine that are NOT vauge?
First off "reason" is not a type of knoweldge, it is a process. Secondly, if "faith" is something we know is true because God told us, your first have to have a way to differientiate "the word of God" from the word of man, and potentially your own dreams, delusions, and hallucinations. And in order to do that, you need to know the nature of "God". Now, where are you getting your information on the nature of God? I've already discussed how your rational proof can only be vauge and amorphous to the point where it's useless for determining this. Other than that, I can only imagine that you're getting your information from 1.) Those who raised you (The word of man) 2.) Religious texts (The word of man) 3.) Your own anectdotal experience. none of which are the self-evident logical proofs you keep talking about.
I'm really failing to see a coherent arguement here, other than "I think you should believe in God". Your definitions are all over the board.
David Roemer: " 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." All of this depending on proof of Christianity or organized religions.This seems a rather culturally conservative definition. "A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. " Sounds like a militant atheist. "it was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" Spencer did not coin the term.This is a false charge. See Herbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues by Roderick T. Long Defaming Herbert Spencer? A Reply to Edwin Black by Roderick T. Long Too Awful to Read? Susan Jacoby on Herbert Spencer by Roderick T. Long
" 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."
All of this depending on proof of Christianity or organized religions.This seems a rather culturally conservative definition.
"A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. "
Sounds like a militant atheist.
"it was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest"
Spencer did not coin the term.This is a false charge.
See
by Roderick T. Long
Too Awful to Read? Susan Jacoby on Herbert Spencer by Roderick T. Long
Too Awful to Read? Susan Jacoby on Herbert Spencer
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
In the West, God is the name we give the infinite being. That God exists is a no-brainer. There is nothing to decide. Saying God does not exist is like saying humans don't have free will.
The decision that has to be made is whether or not God has communicated himself to mankind. I believe that God has because of historical events, and because people who don't believe give bad reasons for not believing.
An example of the word of man, as you put it, is the resurrection of Jesus. It is an historical event that the followers of Jesus swore up and down that Jesus was alive. The word of God is that Jesus is alive in a new life with God.
Ok, so what are the consequences of this on political or economic philosophy? What can and can not be said? How do you enter into a discussion in an ever changing and ever unique world? What would be the "pragmatic" universal dialogue you would use. If there is none, than there is simply nothing to discuss.
The topic is "Why Are Liberals Liberals". Liberals say and do certain things. Generally, the support the Democratic party. Other liberals, such as libertarians, support Republicans. I think it is quite important to understand why some people are liberals and some people are not. Naturally, liberals think they are being rational don't need to be psychoanalyzed.
I think my analysis of whether or not there should be slavery brings out the irrationality of liberalism and libertarianism.
I'm a liberal because I prefer civilization to barbarism. That said, "psychoanalyzing" individuals does nothing for political or economic philosophy if we are trying to speak of universal principles of governance. Be it talking about a practiced art, such as legal theory or a science, such as economics.
The intellectual/vizirs/etc for the god-man Pharaoh, The emperor of Holy Byzantium, The divine-rights given King of France, Western Democracies, Holy Russia, The USSR, Maoist China, The Puritans at Plymouth Rock, England and her Church, Athens and her patron god Athena, Sparta and her patron God Hera, the Muslim Caliphits, the Zoroastrian Sassanids, The Emperor of China etc could all speak of politcal and economic sciences. And I bet, they could all do it in an inter-subjective sense with each other to try to make sense of things. If they couldn't we'd probably be in an awful lot of trouble.
David Roemer: " Other liberals, such as libertarians, support Republicans." That's called a paleocon. "I think my analysis of whether or not there should be slavery brings out the irrationality of liberalism and libertarianism. " ? I think we've shown your throne and altar conservatism.
" Other liberals, such as libertarians, support Republicans."
That's called a paleocon.
"I think my analysis of whether or not there should be slavery brings out the irrationality of liberalism and libertarianism. "
? I think we've shown your throne and altar conservatism.
David Roemer: "In the West, God is the name we give the infinite being." 1. Conceptions of god vary. 2. What does "infinite being mean"? 3. What is this 'being'? made of -spirit? energy? 4. where is this being? 5. prove this being exists? "That God exists is a no-brainer." Despite countless millenia no one has proven god(s) exist or proven they do not. "Saying God does not exist is like saying humans don't have free will. " The latter is undeniable fact requiring impressive contrary evidence to prove otherwise just like the former really. "The decision that has to be made is whether or not God has communicated himself to mankind." If God does/did exist then the answer seems to be no -at least if you mean direct communication. "I believe that God has because of historical events," ? Hegelian historical materialism? "and because people who don't believe give bad reasons for not believing. " And people who do believe also give bad reasons. "An example of the word of man, as you put it, is the resurrection of Jesus. It is an historical event that the followers of Jesus swore up and down that Jesus was alive. The word of God is that Jesus is alive in a new life with God. " prove it was an historical event and not just a metaphor.
"In the West, God is the name we give the infinite being."
1. Conceptions of god vary.
2. What does "infinite being mean"?
3. What is this 'being'? made of -spirit? energy?
4. where is this being?
5. prove this being exists?
"That God exists is a no-brainer."
Despite countless millenia no one has proven god(s) exist or proven they do not.
"Saying God does not exist is like saying humans don't have free will. "
The latter is undeniable fact requiring impressive contrary evidence to prove otherwise just like the former really.
"The decision that has to be made is whether or not God has communicated himself to mankind."
If God does/did exist then the answer seems to be no -at least if you mean direct communication.
"I believe that God has because of historical events,"
? Hegelian historical materialism?
"and because people who don't believe give bad reasons for not believing. "
And people who do believe also give bad reasons.
"An example of the word of man, as you put it, is the resurrection of Jesus. It is an historical event that the followers of Jesus swore up and down that Jesus was alive. The word of God is that Jesus is alive in a new life with God. "
prove it was an historical event and not just a metaphor.
I'm a conservative because I prefer rationality to irrationality. This is my list of bad governments: The USSR, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Castro's Cuba.
David Roemer:That God exists is a no-brainer.
What do you even mean by "God exists"? I know what "this computer exists" means: it means I can see it, touch it, and it takes up space. God isn't even alleged to have any of these properties, so I cannot process the utterance "God exists." At least, until you tell me what existence means in this context.
Why anarchy fails
I'm glad to see you support Chavez in Venezuela, comrade! And the congo! And Sudan, pakistan, iran, saudi arabia, thailand...
I mean... just wow
(BTW, what of Czarist Russia, fascist Italy, imperial China, etc?)
And you had the gall to claim moral superiority in your OP....
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
David Roemer:We can comprehend free will, but we can't define it.
OK, walk me through this. There's this term ffrreeewwilll, but you can't define it for us. So that means I am not allowed to see it as anything other than a bunch of letters. How is this supposed to be communicating anything at all?
David Roemer: "I'm a conservative because I prefer rationality to irrationality." Bahahahaaa.What? Not only is that a non sequitur but given historically what conservative has meant and done it's hilarious. "This is my list of bad governments: The USSR, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Castro's Cuba." So conservative governments like Thatcher,Reagan, Bush get the go ahead.Aha!
"I'm a conservative because I prefer rationality to irrationality."
Bahahahaaa.What? Not only is that a non sequitur but given historically what conservative has meant and done it's hilarious.
"This is my list of bad governments: The USSR, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Castro's Cuba."
So conservative governments like Thatcher,Reagan, Bush get the go ahead.Aha!
"7) Governments get the ability to give people rights because they have power over people. "
How to governments get a 'right to rule'? why are governments legitimate?
David Roemer: "Defining power in terms of affecting another person's consciousness without their consent includes coercion. It is more general."
"Defining power in terms of affecting another person's consciousness without their consent includes coercion. It is more general."
That's so broad that affecting anothers consciousness includes argumentation.
David Roemer: . The statement "human beings have rights" is nonsense. The only rights humans have are given to them by governments. (We can say U.S. citizens have more rights than Cuban citizens. )
. The statement "human beings have rights" is nonsense. The only rights humans have are given to them by governments. (We can say U.S. citizens have more rights than Cuban citizens. )
Haha.Conservative dogma.How does government get this 'right to hand out rights'?
David Roemer: "You and me are finite beings because we are different from one another." Non seqitur. "One of the reasons to believe God has communicated himself to mankind is that the Jewish name for God is "Yahwey" (Exodus 3.14). " Proves nothing.I can write that word down now. "The human authors of Exodus did not know anything about essence and existence." I'm sure they did and if they didn't how did they worship their (according to you) false gods?
"You and me are finite beings because we are different from one another."
Non seqitur.
"One of the reasons to believe God has communicated himself to mankind is that the Jewish name for God is "Yahwey" (Exodus 3.14). "
Proves nothing.I can write that word down now.
"The human authors of Exodus did not know anything about essence and existence."
I'm sure they did and if they didn't how did they worship their (according to you) false gods?
David Roemer: Free will leads logically to God's existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins. Non seqitur. Free will could only broadly lead to a need for salvation not prove god itself. "It is because of free will that humans are finite beings. God is an infinite being" so free will= finite. Does not follow.Finite does not describe that but properties of an object. infinite=? no free will.So your saying God has no free will.
Free will leads logically to God's existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins.
Non seqitur. Free will could only broadly lead to a need for salvation not prove god itself.
"It is because of free will that humans are finite beings. God is an infinite being"
so free will= finite. Does not follow.Finite does not describe that but properties of an object.
infinite=? no free will.So your saying God has no free will.
Sure Roemer, and I'm sure the government also gives you:
-Your religion
-Your morality
-Food, water, shelter
Your argument does not follow through.
Also, please, this is an economics and politics board, keep your religious views to yourself.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
There are real beings, like ourselves, and mental beings, like Santa Claus. Mental beings only exist when a human is thinking of the mental being. God is not a mental being, God is a real being. We don't know we exist because we see our selves. We know we exist because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
All historians agree that the Resurrection of Jesus is an historical event, not a metaphor. The followers of Jesus swore up and down that Jesus was alive. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan trace the Resurrection to within a few years of his death.
@Roemer
Santa Claus isn't real? You're wrong there buddy, I just saw him at the mall this past Christmas!( I am not taking you serious for obvious reasons, if you want to talk religion maybe you should go to a religion forum)
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
How do you differentiate between a mental being like Santa Claus, and God, which you claim is a real being? We have no means of proving the real existence of either.
Right, I believe in Santa Claus. All historians agree that St. Nicholas was a real being. Thus, Santa Claus is real, North Pole factory and all!
Let me walk everyone through the concept of freewill. Science is a method of inquiry based on knowledge gained from seeing, hearing, etc. Metaphysics is a different method of inquiry. An example of a metaphysical proposition is that, "humans have freewill." Another example, is: "I think, therefore I am." In metaphysics, we ignore questions we can't answer or say that the question is a mystery.
Metaphysics sheds light on knowledge: Knowledge is the openness of being to the self-manifestation of being. I can't think of any similar statement that sheds light on freewill. One implication of freewill is that humans possess a center of action that makes us unified with respect to ourselves but different from other beings. In other words, free will means that humans are finite beings.
David Roemer, bold and underline by AJ:There are real beings, like ourselves, and mental beings, like Santa Claus. Mental beings only exist when a human is thinking of the mental being. God is not a mental being, God is a real being. We don't know we exist because we see our selves. We know we exist because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
Can I interpret the underlined to mean, "we can know stuff about ourselves"? And therefore that something exists if we can know something about it? I know something about Santa Claus. In other words, this is too vague. We still aren't communicating.
The proof of God is called the cosmological proof. I have already explained it. What is wrong with the proof? Are you saying there is a logical flaw? What is it? Are you saying the basic assumptions are not true? One of the assumptions is that the universe is intelligible. This is what science is based on also. Why do experiments and spend decades studying scientific data if the universe is not intelligible?
David Roemer:One implication of freewill is that humans possess a center of action that makes us unified with respect to ourselves but different from other beings. In other words, free will means that humans are finite beings.
I don't really see a definition of free will there. You said just essentially, "If humans have free will, then they are finite." (And what does finite mean in this context? That humans take up finite physical space?)
The meaning of finite is this: You exist and I exist, but I am not you and you are not me. We are two different beings. Our being is limited to ourselves. In other words, humans are finite beings.
So by finite you mean two humans are not the same person. Hence your definition of free will is that without free will we would not be separate people, but instead we would be the same person? That doesn't seem like a definition.
Given that the definition seems elusive, is it your claim that the words "free will" cannot be defined, or are you just not sure how to phrase your definition yet?
Economics is a branch of metaphysics. Human beings employ means to achieve ends. The "ends" are called the "final cause" in metaphysics. Humans have to choose which ends to satisfy. Choose is another word for decide which has to do with free will. It makes no sense for economists to question whether or not humans have free will. Naturally, a liberal is going to deny that humans have free will because liberals only believe in scientific concepts. A liberal's approach to economics is called "positive" because of their emphasis on measurements rather than pure reasoning.
@ Roemer
So according to you Milton Friedman was a pretty liberal guy?
At a lecture he once gave at a libertarian conference, I asked Milton Friedman why he didn't believe in the Austrian theory of the business cycle. He said, "You can't prove it." Milton Friedman is definitely a liberal.
I was going to ignore this thread completely, but than this struck me as interesting. I can't quite put it into better words at the moment, but doesn't the law of identity at least imply subjectivism? In other words, and I can't believe I am saying this, in a sense didn't he give somewhat of a definition?
William: I was going to ignore this thread completely, but than this struck me as interesting. I can't quite put it into better words at the moment, but doesn't the law of identity at least imply subjectivism? In other words, and I can't believe I am saying this, in a sense didn't he give somewhat of a definition?
First I'm going to need to know what the law of identity is.
This might sound weird, but seriously I have no idea what the whole "A = A" thing is even about.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
How would you define subjective reality? And how would you look at that in relation to choice (or at least percieved choice)? I guess the best definition of the law of identity may be "a thing which can define itself and that can contextualize the world around it".
Also, how can you find causal relationships between things or categorize different things (e.g. a circle from a square) without a thing being what it is? How can something be not be what it is?
So by finite you mean two humans are not the same person. Hence your definition of free will is that without free will we would not be separate people, but instead we would be the same person? That doesn't seem like a definition. I was going to ignore this thread completely, but than this struck me as interesting. I can't quite put it into better words at the moment, but doesn't the law of identity at least imply subjectivism? In other words, and I can't believe I am saying this, in a sense didn't he give somewhat of a definition?
If free will is synonymous with individuality, why not just call it individuality rather than free will? The point being that although individuality may be necessary in defining free will, it is not sufficient. Free will must have some other property not yet mentioned.
If free will is synonymous with individuality, why not just call it individuality rather than free will?
dunno, I really don't like using the word free will for anything, as it is a rather odd phrase and concept, my point was the man may actually have given a definition. Also you could simply invert your question "if individuality is synonymous with free will, why not just call it free will...individuality must have some other property not yet mentioned".