Libertarians and Atheism

Nitroadict:

I'm actually surprised there isn't more mentions of Ignosticism;

What are the supposed differences between all these ridiculous names?  Atheist, agnostic, ignostic, etc; AFAIC, they're all the same thing.

Paul:

Nitroadict:

I'm actually surprised there isn't more mentions of Ignosticism;

What are the supposed differences between all these ridiculous names?  Atheist, agnostic, ignostic, etc; AFAIC, they're all the same thing.

In an earlier post, that is for some reason still pending moderation (I guess for including too many links?  It's a bit annoying...), I question the issue of many thinking Ignosticism/agnostic/athiesm/etc. are all the same.  They are in fact fundamentally different.

[from the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism]

"Theodore Drange sees atheism and agnosticism as positions which accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition; atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" and agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met.  If Drange's definitions are accepted, ignostics are neither atheists nor agnostics. An atheist would say, "I don't believe God exists"; an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether or not God exists"; and an ignostic would say, "I don't know what you mean when you say, 'God exists' ".

Ignosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, a position of apathy toward the existence of God. An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as meaningless, yet they may also see it as meaningful, and perhaps even true."

[from http://ignosticism.org]


"Ignosticism, a word coined by the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine, is the view that the question of whether or not God exists is inherently meaningless because (1) the notion of God has no consistent definition among the various religious factions, and (2) all definitions of God refer to words that do not point to anything verifiable or testable in the 'real world' but only to presupposed 'attributes' extracted through an arbitrary collection of other words."


Additionaly, some compare Ignosticism with theological noncognitivism, although I think the term "Ignosticism" is relativley new, in comparison with some of the others above.

I think the religion vs. atheism is an overblown false dichotomy. I have been spiritual from an early age, but the experience has always been only personal. I have never had an interest in organized religion nor have I had any evangelical aspirations. So to me, talking about religion vs. atheism is pointless. At least, until someone wants to regulate other people's lives based on religion or atheism.

I came to the conclusion that it is pointless when I realized the limitation of language. Words function only when we have a common reference point. We all know what the word 'table' refers to, since we have seen a table or can give a coherent description of a table to those who have not seen one. Words even work with some emotions, since they seem to be mostly comparable. But what about intensely personal experiences, like spirituality? I could try to explain my own experiences, but I would have to reduce them to common reference points. This would not convey them accurately nor coherently.

Libertas est Veritas:

I think the religion vs. atheism is an overblown false dichotomy. I have been spiritual from an early age, but the experience has always been only personal. I have never had an interest in organized religion nor have I had any evangelical aspirations. So to me, talking about religion vs. atheism is pointless. At least, until someone wants to regulate other people's lives based on religion or atheism.

I came to the conclusion that it is pointless when I realized the limitation of language. Words function only when we have a common reference point. We all know what the word 'table' refers to, since we have seen a table or can give a coherent description of a table to those who have not seen one. Words even work with some emotions, since they seem to be mostly comparable. But what about intensely personal experiences, like spirituality? I could try to explain my own experiences, but I would have to reduce them to common reference points. This would not convey them accurately nor coherently.

Ditto on the bold parts; the limitations of language is partially what made Athiesim less consistient to me.

 

ViennaSausage:

Relating this to economics, this is a Keynesian/NeoClassical arguement, someone has to run the economy, to think up it exquisite (dis)order.  In Austrian Economics, the economy would spontaneously order itself, quite similar to how many Atheists would view how the word was made, spontaneous order (over a couple billion years).

 

Your argument is not for atheism but for a large pantheon in polytheism, even an animism. For markets may, as a whole, be undesigned, but are made up of a very large number of designed and conscious decisions. Therefore, your analogy fails to support atheism.

Paul:

Your position doesn't even attempt to solve the "problem"; you just hand-wave over it.  The existence of a watchmaker, in the literal sense, requires the existence of the watchmaker's parents...and their parents, and so on and so forth.  You're putting the watchmaker in the position of the watch and saying there must be some "god" who made the man, but that's just raising the same question: where did the god come from?  If you have an answer to that question - any answer at all - you can use the same answer for the man and dispense with the need for the god!

The watchmaker is an imprecise analogy, because the watchmaker has a body. Only ordered, physical bodies whose origins have been seen always have a designer. No one has seen the creation of a consciousness. No scientific data can thus be compiled, and no pattern shown. My statement that highly ordered complexity must have a designer is based on observations only of physical objects, and thus can only logically be extended over objects in that category. God, in not having an inherent physical form, is not bound by this rule. Only physical phenomena need a cause; you may guess that non-physical entities do as well, but there is no data to support that, and indeed, as you say, logic would tend to render such a need incoherent if the purely mental/spiritual is to have the meaning and purpose given here.

Nitroadict:

"Ignosticism, a word coined by the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine, is the view that the question of whether or not God exists is inherently meaningless because (1) the notion of God has no consistent definition among the various religious factions, and (2) all definitions of God refer to words that do not point to anything verifiable or testable in the 'real world' but only to presupposed 'attributes' extracted through an arbitrary collection of other words."


Additionaly, some compare Ignosticism with theological noncognitivism, although I think the term "Ignosticism" is relativley new, in comparison with some of the others above.

 

Bah, intellectual laziness. At least some aspects of the nature of God can be derived from the purpose and functions God would have to fulfill in order for this universe to have come about. God has a conscious mind. God has at least the power to create the initial conditions for the creation of the universe and provide some guidance during its development. God has no inherent physical form. God has desires, and therefore emotions.

Nitroadict:

and an ignostic would say, "I don't know what you mean when you say, 'God exists' "

Oh, but ISTM we already have a word for that - it's "idiot".  Or "liar", I suppose, depending on whether the person saying "I don't know what you mean" really doesn't or just pretends not to.  (There is a third possibility: the person doesn't understand English and only knows the phrase "I don't know what you mean when you say ..." and then repeats back whatever phrase he heard.  This could also be a computer, or a well-trained parrot or something)

JCFolsom:

The watchmaker is an imprecise analogy, because the watchmaker has a body. Only ordered, physical bodies whose origins have been seen always have a designer. No one has seen the creation of a consciousness. No scientific data can thus be compiled, and no pattern shown. My statement that highly ordered complexity must have a designer is based on observations only of physical objects, and thus can only logically be extended over objects in that category. God, in not having an inherent physical form, is not bound by this rule.

Gets my vote for cop out of the century.

Paul:

Nitroadict:

and an ignostic would say, "I don't know what you mean when you say, 'God exists' "

Oh, but ISTM we already have a word for that - it's "idiot".  Or "liar", I suppose, depending on whether the person saying "I don't know what you mean" really doesn't or just pretends not to.  (There is a third possibility: the person doesn't understand English and only knows the phrase "I don't know what you mean when you say ..." and then repeats back whatever phrase he heard.  This could also be a computer, or a well-trained parrot or something)

So much for contributing to dialouge  .

 

 I agree that traditional religious authority lead me to prefer freedom. But what led me to libertarianism was actually the beliefs of Anton Lavey.

I prefer to see myself as god. Not that I can perform miracles, but that I am in control of my actions. And because of that, I can inflict harm on others, but i choose not too because it is social and philosophically wrong and counter productive. Liberty I see as being able to create your own enviroment without authority from others.

And I've read that there exists a space between action and thought  so that we really don't have free will. But the fact that I can refuse to do something proves free will existst. I have power, hence if there is a god, and no free will, then (a I am stronger than god. or (b there is no god. I prefer B as a more plausible answer

I define god as one who has power over free will

Andrew:

 I agree that traditional religious authority lead me to prefer freedom. But what led me to libertarianism was actually the beliefs of Anton Lavey.

I prefer to see myself as god. Not that I can perform miracles, but that I am in control of my actions. And because of that, I can inflict harm on others, but i choose not too because it is social and philosophically wrong and counter productive. Liberty I see as being able to create your own enviroment without authority from others.

And I've read that there exists a space between action and thought  so that we really don't have free will. But the fact that I can refuse to do something proves free will existst. I have power, hence if there is a god, and no free will, then (a I am stronger than god. or (b there is no god. I prefer B as a more plausible answer

I define god as one who has power over free will

That's an interesting answer.

When asked about my religious beliefs, I usually say, "We are each our own God".

 

 

Paul:

Gets my vote for cop out of the century.

It can only be your own statement you refer to, which is a fairly bizzare self-referential thing, but be that as it may...

How about instead of just denigrating my argument, you try to answer it. If it be so ridiculous as you imply, then it should be easily demolished. But then, I've only seen one atheist here who has actually offered even a poor defense of his position.

Andrew:

 I agree that traditional religious authority lead me to prefer freedom. But what led me to libertarianism was actually the beliefs of Anton Lavey.

 

Bwah hah hah! Hail SATAN! Szandor the lion-tamer and his little black book.

Ahem, anyway, I have some sympathy for your position. I've come to see the antinomean position as a fairly childish one, though. I have no problem with the man as god paradigm, either, as my own faith has the goal of apotheosis.

JCFolsom:

How about instead of just denigrating my argument, you try to answer it.

There's nothing there to answer.

JCFolsom:

Paul:

Your position doesn't even attempt to solve the "problem"; you just hand-wave over it.  The existence of a watchmaker, in the literal sense, requires the existence of the watchmaker's parents...and their parents, and so on and so forth.  You're putting the watchmaker in the position of the watch and saying there must be some "god" who made the man, but that's just raising the same question: where did the god come from?  If you have an answer to that question - any answer at all - you can use the same answer for the man and dispense with the need for the god!

The watchmaker is an imprecise analogy, because the watchmaker has a body. Only ordered, physical bodies whose origins have been seen always have a designer. No one has seen the creation of a consciousness. No scientific data can thus be compiled, and no pattern shown. My statement that highly ordered complexity must have a designer is based on observations only of physical objects, and thus can only logically be extended over objects in that category. God, in not having an inherent physical form, is not bound by this rule. Only physical phenomena need a cause; you may guess that non-physical entities do as well, but there is no data to support that, and indeed, as you say, logic would tend to render such a need incoherent if the purely mental/spiritual is to have the meaning and purpose given here.

 

I love how those argueing for a god tend to remove every single piece of criteria for logic and evidence one by one as a way to "prove" it. If god is not subject to logic and the laws of the universe, is this not the same thing as non-existance? At least according to our perception and currently existing scientific knowledge, something that exists "outside of time and space" is the same thing as something that doesn't exist. The natural universe is all that we are capable of percieving. Something that is outside of it must be assumed to either not exist or at least be impercievable.

Anyways, I believe what Paul was talking about is the infinite regress that both the formal concept of a god and the big bang theory run into: what created the creator or what caused the first cause? This leads to a paradox because the moment that one points to an "origin of the origin", the same logic applies and you end up with an infinite regress and paradox. The only way out of the paradox is either (1) to posit infinity, which is unprovable or (2) some notion of spontaneous order. Many people try to avoid this paradox by simply declaring god to be immune from the laws of the universe and logic and hence removing such criteria altogether, which seems rather absurd and like a cop-out.

Brainpolice:

I love how those argueing for a god tend to remove every single piece of criteria for logic and evidence one by one as a way to "prove" it. If god is not subject to logic and the laws of the universe, is this not the same thing as non-existance? At least according to our perception and currently existing scientific knowledge, something that exists "outside of time and space" is the same thing as something that doesn't exist. The natural universe is all that we are capable of percieving. Something that is outside of it must be assumed to either not exist or at least be impercievable.

Anyways, I believe what Paul was talking about is the infinite regress that both the formal concept of a god and the big bang theory run into: what created the creator or what caused the first cause? This leads to a paradox because the moment that one points to an "origin of the origin", the same logic applies and you end up with an infinite regress and paradox. The only way out of the paradox is either (1) to posit infinity, which is unprovable or (2) some notion of spontaneous order. Many people try to avoid this paradox by simply declaring god to be immune from the laws of the universe and logic and hence removing such criteria altogether, which seems rather absurd and like a cop-out.

The laws of the universe, I guess you could say so. But nothing I said violates pure logic. Indeed, I believe God to be bound by logic, but that trying to apply the laws of cause and effect, something not necessitated by pure logic but only by our observations of the physical world, would be fallacious. I am almost surprised at the lack of logical precision being shown here.

As for things that people think exist but cannot prove directly, there are a number of postulated substances and objects in physics which said to exist not on the basis of direct observation, but based on the observations of their effects. Now, I don't necessarily buy that all those postulates are true, but those that do dominate the physics establishment. Similarly, while you are correct in saying we cannot directly observe a God (or any!) consciousness because it is outside of space (I never said it was outside of time, mind is fairly meaningless without time, but explain what and why time is!), we can nonetheless see that the universe, really from first to last, needed a designer, and that logically that designer must preexist the designed, since the universe is physical and thus bound by cause and effect.

I don't see how it logically follows that order needs a single designer or planner. Why can't the universe be like a free market, with no real central plan? Why does human interpersonal relations not require a designer, but our existential character does? But in either case, even if we accept your assumption that the universe needed a designer, this does nothing to address the paradox of where that designer comes from. The laws of logic would require that the designer had a designer too, and once again this leads to an infinite regress. The only way to resolve the paradox is to question its assumptions or to essentially remove the question from the criteria of logic altogether at some point. Logic does not allow paradoxes to objectively exist because logic is a method for weeding out contradictions. If something contains contradictions, logic resolves it. So long as the formal concept of a god contains inconsistancies, it must be considered illogical to that extent. And things that are illogical don't exist in any objective sense.

Andrew:

And I've read that there exists a space between action and thought  so that we really don't have free will. But the fact that I can refuse to do something proves free will existst.

We don't have free will in a fundamental sense, only a perception of free will. Everything I've read about physics and quantum mechanics points to predictability. Even the more erratic elements of quantum mechanics are ultimately predictable, if my understanding is correct. This makes us sophisticated reactive information processors in a universal chain reaction.

But this is such a fine point that it is essentially useless. Even if it is true, it is merely a philosophical realization with no actual application.

Brainpolice:

I love how those argueing for a god tend to remove every single piece of criteria for logic and evidence one by one as a way to "prove" it.

 

By the way, I love how atheists cling to the same tired deflections (infinite regression) to try to explain away the necessity of a designer, without ever actually demonstrating or even suggesting a method whereby the order of the universe could have come about.

A watch, really, is too complicated to effectively make the point. If you come to the beach and see three pieces of driftwood and a piece of seaweed, there is of course nothing special there. If the drifwood is arranged so it stands as a little pyramid, held together at the top with a loose wrap of seaweed, you can be virtually certain a person was involved. Why? Because nature does not do that sort of thing on its own, putting things in higher-energy, higher-order states than is necessary. Nature's tendency is to decay order, not create it.

Brainpolice:

I don't see how it logically follows that order needs a single designer or planner. Why can't the universe be like a free market, with no real central plan? Why does human interpersonal relations not require a designer, but our existential character does? But in either case, even if we accept your assumption that the universe needed a designer, this does nothing to address the paradox of where that designer comes from. The laws of logic would require that the designer had a designer too, and once again this leads to an infinite regress. The only way to resolve the paradox is to question its assumptions or to essentially remove the question from the criteria of logic altogether at some point. Logic does not allow paradoxes to objectively exist because logic is a method for weeding out contradictions. If something contains contradictions, logic resolves it. So long as the formal concept of a god contains inconsistancies, it must be considered illogical to that extent. And things that are illogical don't exist in any objective sense.

 

Show me where causality is a necessary feature of logic. One more time, causality is established by repeated observation, not pure logic. We have not perceived the creation of consciousness, so we can draw no conclusions about it. We have only observed the creation of physical objects, so we can only make conclusions (causation) about physical objects.

Human interpersonal relations do require designers. At least two, in fact: the people interacting. Overall markets and societies, after all, are really just the sum of conscious, planned interactions.

JCFolsom:

Brainpolice:

I love how those argueing for a god tend to remove every single piece of criteria for logic and evidence one by one as a way to "prove" it.

 

By the way, I love how atheists cling to the same tired deflections (infinite regression) to try to explain away the necessity of a designer, without ever actually demonstrating or even suggesting a method whereby the order of the universe could have come about.

A watch, really, is too complicated to effectively make the point. If you come to the beach and see three pieces of driftwood and a piece of seaweed, there is of course nothing special there. If the drifwood is arranged so it stands as a little pyramid, held together at the top with a loose wrap of seaweed, you can be virtually certain a person was involved. Why? Because nature does not do that sort of thing on its own, putting things in higher-energy, higher-order states than is necessary. Nature's tendency is to decay order, not create it.

 

Well, many atheists probably take a humble or agnostic approach to such a metaphysical question as how the universe came about and therefore they don't claim to know the answer. Others might points you to theories of spontaneous order for a possible alternative to the fatalistic universe premise. Still yet others may be extreme causal determinists yet still reject the notion that it is a deity that had to have been the "first cause". But in either case, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. In this particular case, that would be those claiming the mantle of the need-for-a-central-planner premise. From my perspective, there is no need to try to answer the question because the question (at least how it is often phrased) assumes what it's trying to prove, I.E. that the universe was caused at a single point or agent. And then you proceed to ask me to provide a singular causal agent.

I don't understand the statement that nature's tendency is to decay order, not create it. Doesn't nature create order all the damn time? Is not all order "natural" in a sense? Is not everything "natural" in a sense? And while nature indeed does involve entropy, entropy is not a lack of order but a part of nature's broader order. Nature's order is a dynamic process. I think that's what scares people about it, I.E. it's not static.

Libertas est Veritas:

We don't have free will in a fundamental sense, only a perception of free will. Everything I've read about physics and quantum mechanics points to predictability. Even the more erratic elements of quantum mechanics are ultimately predictable, if my understanding is correct. This makes us sophisticated reactive information processors in a universal chain reaction.

But this is such a fine point that it is essentially useless. Even if it is true, it is merely a philosophical realization with no actual application.

 

This is only true if you take consciousness to be an ultimately physical phenomenon, which has never been established and indeed, the weight of evidence is against. As I have said elsewhere, causation is only applicable to the physical, which is indeed entirely deterministic and/or random.

You are correct, however, in saying that there is no place for free will in the materialist conception of the universe.

Libertas est Veritas:

We don't have free will in a fundamental sense, only a perception of free will. Everything I've read about physics and quantum mechanics points to predictability.

Of course, by definition physics or mechanics or "natural philosophy" deal with deterministic systems. But it does not follow that humans are purely deterministic.

JCFolsom:

Brainpolice:

I don't see how it logically follows that order needs a single designer or planner. Why can't the universe be like a free market, with no real central plan? Why does human interpersonal relations not require a designer, but our existential character does? But in either case, even if we accept your assumption that the universe needed a designer, this does nothing to address the paradox of where that designer comes from. The laws of logic would require that the designer had a designer too, and once again this leads to an infinite regress. The only way to resolve the paradox is to question its assumptions or to essentially remove the question from the criteria of logic altogether at some point. Logic does not allow paradoxes to objectively exist because logic is a method for weeding out contradictions. If something contains contradictions, logic resolves it. So long as the formal concept of a god contains inconsistancies, it must be considered illogical to that extent. And things that are illogical don't exist in any objective sense.

 

Show me where causality is a necessary feature of logic. One more time, causality is established by repeated observation, not pure logic. We have not perceived the creation of consciousness, so we can draw no conclusions about it. We have only observed the creation of physical objects, so we can only make conclusions (causation) about physical objects.

Human interpersonal relations do require designers. At least two, in fact: the people interacting. Overall markets and societies, after all, are really just the sum of conscious, planned interactions.

 

The point is that there is no real singular cause or central plan necessary for society-wide developements to take place. Methodological individualism supports this view. The broader whole is the sum of a plethora of different causal factors, and its "order" is not the design of a single person or even every single person within it. A significant part of its "order" was in fact not intended at all. That's precisely the beauty of it. People didn't just intentionally get together and say "let's form society". No society is entirely "designed" and neither is any society truly static. Rather, society naturally formed and evolved as a result of a wide variety of different interpersonal relations, much of which wasn't really intended by anyone at all. It truly has no permanent form or order to it because people's behavior and circumstances are constantly changing. This is a hard concept for many people to grasp.

Brainpolice:

The point is that there is no real singular cause or central plan necessary for society-wide developements to take place. Methodological individualism supports this view. The broader whole is the sum of a plethora of different causal factors, and its "order" is not the design of a single person or even every single person within it. A significant part of its "order" was in fact not intended at all. That's precisely the beauty of it. People didn't just intentionally get together and say "let's form society". No society is entirely "designed" and neither is any society truly static. Rather, society naturally formed and evolved as a result of a wide variety of different interpersonal relations, much of which wasn't really intended by anyone at all. It truly has no permanent form or order to it because people's behavior and circumstances are constantly changing. This is a hard concept for many people to grasp.

The view of society as an entity is merely illusiory. Society is only, and nothing more, than the sum of the individual interactions seen as part of that society. People may behave in a somewhat uniform fashion because of a culture they learned as individuals from other individuals, but that makes their behavior no less individually chosen. Just as THE government or THE corporation are just convenient, collectivist fictions, so is THE society. It is just shorthand for the sum of conscious individual interactions.

It is just shorthand for the sum of conscious individual interactions.

I think that's his point.

Ego:

It is just shorthand for the sum of conscious individual interactions.

I think that's his point.

 

It is my point, except I'm approaching it from a different angle than him. I'm saying that the implication of this is that society as a whole is not "planned" or "designed" in any strict sense, and in fact it would ultimately be impossible to do so even if one tried to. I don't see how he implied a collectivist view of society from what I'm saying at all, since I'm merely drawing what I consider to be the obvious conclusions of methodological individualism. No society has a singular design or is the result of one, and all attempts to impose one will fail in the long-term because of the spontaneous and dynamic nature of people's decisions.

Yeah, I was pointing out that his last idea is inconsistent with what he was saying earlier; he's not applying the same standard to "society" that he does to "the universe".

I'm stepping out, though!

Ego:

I think that's his point.

 

Well, then, color me confused. Because society would not exist without conscious interactions, even if society as a whole is unplanned. Two opposing gods who each had a hand in designing the world might not coordinate, but the world would a sum of conscious choices just the same. That seems to me what the analogy of society supports, not atheism. If that is your best example, you should be a Zurvanite Zoroastrian or some such.

Ego:

Yeah, I was pointing out that his last idea is inconsistent what he was saying earlier; he's not applying the same standard to "society" that he does to "the universe".

I'm stepping out, though!

 

That's precisely part of what I've been driving at.

Why doesn't the notion of methodological individualism and spontaneous order apply to metaphysics or the universe as well as earthly interpersonal relations among human beings? In short, how can religious libertarians reject the claimed need for human central planning of economies or societies while simultanously proposing the need for god as central planner of the universe and human affairs?

And there are other related questions. If the state is not necessary for human beings to act morally, why would one posit that a diety is? If polycentric and/or spontaneous orders result from human interaction in the absence of a singular cause, why can't the same be true of the universe and in the metaphysical realm? It seems to me that the formal concept of a god has all of the traits and involves all of the assumed premises of the state. Why does god have the status of a metaphysical monopolist on causality?

And is there not an inherent contradiction between religious fatalism and the concept of free will or individual autonomy? Does it not reduce us to the sock-puppets of god no less than secular versions of hard determinism reduce us to the sock-puppets of nature? I don't think that materialism or atheism necessarily naturally leads to a hard determinist position, and I can easily see how many if not most religious metaphysical concepts are fatalistic (and therefore incompatible with freedom).

JCFolsom:

Your argument is not for atheism but for a large pantheon in polytheism, even an animism.

The argument/analogy was meant to illustrate the lack of need of a central planner, aka God, in response to your statement regarding the need for a central designer.  No central designer is necessary.

Furthermore, defering that an arguement is for polytheism, animisim, or Zurvanite Zoroastrian, does not prove your arguement that a God exists.

Another issue to think about is causality. A creator is a hypothesis that an entity exists outside the natural world, making the claim unverifiable. How can you verify something that exists outside the natural world?  The only way to verify is if this creator openly displays himself. ID arguments are not open display of evidence. There is plenty of non-intelligent design, such as useless limbs and organs. Why do we have an appendix and wisdom teeth?  This are faulty designs.  What about cruel design like smallpox, malaria, and other nasty diseases? Is this designer not benevolent?

The universe is an indifferent place and quite violent at times. Why does this designer allow for extinction, such as the dinosaurs? Why did this designer wait 10-15 billions to create intelligent life as we know it?  Why is the universe mostly devoid of life? Why not just create a utopia in 6 days, like in Genesis?  Did this designer not choose to create an utopia or was this designer limited in power?

ID says nothing about the designer; whether the designer still exists or ceased to exist after he created the universe. Does this designer still exist? If so, how does he interact with the universe?

To answer the OP question about libertarians and atheists, I do believe that there is a correlation between libertarian/anarchism ideologies and skepticism.  I think it is a logical deduction since libertains and anarchists are skeptical of false claims made by statist.  To verify my opinion, one would need to conduct a sample.

The truth is that god is unobservable, undefinable, and untestable.  Yes, I am an atheist.  I lack a belief in god based on unverifiable evidence.  Will my belief change with verifiable evidence?  Yes.

 

A friend of mine within market anarchist circles, Xomniverse, made a concise and brilliant blog post related to this not long ago.

What do socialism and intelligent design have in common?

ViennaSausage:

The argument/analogy was meant to illustrate the lack of need of a central planner, aka God, in response to your statement regarding the need for a central designer. No central designer is necessary.

An analogy is not a proof. Yes, 'society' doesn't need a central planner to work. Still I can believe that the laws of nature have been designed by some sort of supernatural entiy. Actually, if you read libertarians like Molinari, Spencer, Bastiat (and I suppose others) you'll see they claim that society is ruled by natural laws of divine origin.

Brainpolice:

Why doesn't the notion of methodological individualism and spontaneous order apply to metaphysics or the universe as well as earthly interpersonal relations among human beings? In short, how can religious libertarians reject the claimed need for human central planning of economies or societies while simultanously proposing the need for god as central planner of the universe and human affairs?

The universe as a whole is not a collection of conscious beings but a series of interconnected mechanisms. It is essentially a giant clockwork. Unlike human beings, the paths of planets and stars, the properties of chemicals, and all the other non-living components, so far as we know the vast majority, are deterministic. Spontaneous order does not apply to the universe as it does to societies for the same reason it does not apply to a watch as it does to societies. They are fundamentally different things, and their order made up of fundamentally different units. 

Brainpolice:

And there are other related questions. If the state is not necessary for human beings to act morally, why would one posit that a diety is?

Who said anything about morality? I am challenging atheism here, not trying to get you to actually worship anything. I don't worship per se, yet I'm a theist.

Brainpolice:

And is there not an inherent contradiction between religious fatalism and the concept of free will? Does it not reduce us to the sock-puppets of god no less than secular versions of hard determinism reduce us to the sock-puppets of nature?

Who said anything about fatalism? My personal belief is God put us here to get as individual and in many ways different from God as possible. Not all religion need be fatalistic.

 

Juan:

An analogy is not a proof.

You appear correct here, however, it does provide an illustration, which was my intention.

Juan:

Still I can believe that the laws of nature have been designed by some sort of supernatural entiy.

You can believe whatever you want or not.  I personally have no beliefs whatsoever.  Here appears a link to the concept of "no beliefs" http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm.  However, a belief is based on faith not on reason.  The original poster suggested that atheism is not rational and that by default, belief in a higher power is the rational conclusion.  However, beliefs in general are not rational.

Juan:

Actually, if you read libertarians like Molinari, Spencer, Bastiat (and I suppose others) you'll see they claim that society is ruled by natural laws of divine origin.

Arguement from authority is not proof either;).

Hey! It was not an argument from authority =] - I was just pointing out a historical fact.

edit :

Also, I said some people believe that natural laws have been designed. Deists believe that natural laws logically prove the existence of a designer...So, for deists, it's not faith, but reason. I am an agnostic - I don't have a definite conclusion on all this. My point is, however, that the 'belief' in design is not something directly associated with socialism.

IDigSluts_ky:

Another issue to think about is causality. A creator is a hypothesis that an entity exists outside the natural world, making the claim unverifiable. How can you verify something that exists outside the natural world?  The only way to verify is if this creator openly displays himself. ID arguments are not open display of evidence.

Neither do electrons submit themselves to direct observation. We can observe these things only by their effects. Again, if you believe in only the things you can see directly, you ought to be at best agnostic that anyone else has a consciousness.

IDigSluts_ky:

There is plenty of non-intelligent design, such as useless limbs and organs. Why do we have an appendix and wisdom teeth?  This are faulty designs.  What about cruel design like smallpox, malaria, and other nasty diseases? Is this designer not benevolent?

Appendices have been found of late to perform important immune functions, especially in infancy. As for wisdom teeth, in case you didn't know, people used to lose teeth a lot back in the day. A wisdom tooth might well have had a gap it could grow into by the time it emerged. All that aside, the argument is superfluous. Your argument only holds if we define God as having some reason to make the world free of suffering or defect. It may be that God's purpose is better served by a world that appears flawed to us. Cannot beauty and character be derived from sorrow? Can rage not be magnificent to behold? Would life be so rich without death? Paradise, to my mind, is a Hell of boredom.

 

 

 

 

Ego:

he's not applying the same standard to "society" that he does to "the universe"

Why should he, when society is comprised of teleological humans and the universe is comprised of deterministic atoms?