Like clockwork, such threads always bring out hostility from all sides.
At Daniel Waite:
Nice. And thank you for staying on track in a thread that has now devolved (pun absolutely intented) into the old horse of ID/evolution - which is interesting in its own right. However, your question is to my mind nothing short of brillant:
Daniel Waite:Which begs the question, if we don't see liberty, then there must always be some form of group coercion. What makes this scenario predominant throughout history?
The scenario of group coercion might presumably be the result of inherent biological traits in our species - so that, in fact, we do not crave freedom but rather something else. Might it be that we as a species are ill-suited for freedom and instead perhaps pre-disposed to submit to a form of benign tyranny (like alpha males in gorillas)?
A recent poll named the Danes the happiest, or most satisfied, people in the world. Yet, Denmark is manifestly one of those societies that are just at the brink of devolving into perhaps a form of enlightened socialism (if there is such a thing). Marginal taxation in Denmark is 63% of your income ((and some 35% of the population qualifies for that dubious honor of paying this tax). Schools, hospitals, nurseries etc. are (virtually) all publicly funded. The population is extremely homogenous with some 90% of the population having a shared cultural heritage. It seems that if I look, act, talk and think like my neighbor apparently I am predisposed to giving up my own basic rights to the fruits of my own labor for a (misunderstood) benefit to my society. And I am happy to do so!
If evolution contributes this mentality of tribalism - a socialist sentiment, really, and not freedom per se - does this not then mean first of all that freedom does not (to take a phrase from Daniel Dennett) evolve? Group coercion evolves.
Rytz:A recent poll named the Danes the happiest, or most satisfied, people in the world.
the idea that such a poll could be at all scientific beggars belief.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: Rytz:A recent poll named the Danes the happiest, or most satisfied, people in the world. the idea that such a poll could be at all scientific beggars belief.
I agree. But thats not really my point.
my opinion at this point in our conversation is that looking at it from an evolutionary perspective is a red herring appraoch. why do i say this? its too much of a determinist, nature dictates position, that doesnt take into account the fact that Humans Act. It is either a denial of the fact that some of us here are libertarians, obviously wrong, or a denial of the prospect of others, who perhaps having been ignorant of the arguments in favour of freedom, have settled for the status quo; lets call them the Statist Quo:- they appreciate that the state is an evil but dont know their options.
to put this another way. we dont need evolutionary arguments to explain why statist social coercion exists widely throughout time and place on earth. You merely need to posit the predatory parasite state class, and that the vast majority of their subjects might be a) knowledagble of states nearby in time and place which are 'worse states' b) ignorant of the benevolence of freedom (by extension capitalism) i.e. believe socialist/marxist fallacies.
the idea that the danes need socialism to be happy, or that happiness breeds their socialism, or that their uniformity of race or culture is a causal explanation for how come happiness and socialism approach synonimty with them as opposed to other races or culture is missing the point.
do the danes understand the benefits of division of labour, incentive, competition in the market place,the benefits of real saving and investment, the unintended consequences of government intervention and the like.
so basically , i suggest putting the Ideas that people have in their Minds more to the forefront of your analysis than the Genes they have in their Bodies
JCFolsom: spontaneous order of markets orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer
spontaneous order of markets
orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Seriously though, I don't see how anyone can believe in biblical or "ID" creationism.
That some being may have once created everything is no less likely (IMO) than that it was always there, or spontaneously began to exist, but it in no way follows from this that somehow we were created 6-10,000 years ago, produced out of incest etc. Nor does it follow that this being/God has to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent etc. Nor does it follow that he had to create the world in any certain way.
Thedesolateone: Seriously though, I don't see how anyone can believe in biblical or "ID" creationism. That some being may have once created everything is no less likely (IMO) than that it was always there, or spontaneously began to exist, but it in no way follows from this that somehow we were created 6-10,000 years ago, produced out of incest etc. Nor does it follow that this being/God has to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent etc. Nor does it follow that he had to create the world in any certain way.
To be fair, those that believe in biblical creationism or ID don't necessarily believe in a literalist interpretation. It is a bit intellectually dishonest to categorize all of them as such.
At nirgrahamUK:
Your case is convincing. One could put it even more succintly: Not all our biological traits are "morally good" (we clearly have a biological imperative to do great evil in the world, as well as great good), hence the politics of the future should not be determined by what comes most natural to us but rather by enlightened debate about Ideas (as you put it). I agree.
The only slight problem I see with this is the following: The arguments for capitalism and economic freedom are basically altruistic ones; i.e. a free, unhindered exchange of services, good, and ideas benefits all or most in a society - it reaches continually an optimum of productivity and creativity which is for the good of all. However, you cannot completely ignore the fact that your fellow man, if left to his own devices, could very easily fall prey to our basic, genetic imperative to either submit or rule - or the fact that group cohesion in societal development might simply be the natural result of naturally occuring group coercion prompted by our very genes (that was my point about tribalism being the "natural equilibrium" in the evolution of small primate societies). Simply put: I don't exist in a vacuum. My freedoms depend upon the actions of my fellow women and men. Freedom must be maintained if tribalism is indeed the historical norm. Which brings me back to my original speculation (my initial post in this thread): How else is freedom maintained than through some form of enlightened coercion - taking in modern approximations of free societies the form of, for example, parliamentarism? And with parliamentarism substantial amounts of my rights are basically granted to a select few individuals in our society (elected or not) that are the guardians of a constitution and of our very freedom itself?
In a sense Genes are relevant because they contradict the Ideas - and because that might lead to the inevitable conclusion that to suppress our very nature we need communal systems (some form of State) to counteract the effects of our natural tendencies. In that sense, the idea of freedom to the extent that we libertarians embrace it become somewhat of a paradox. Or is it just me and long saturday afternoons trying desperately to be coherent in spite of being overwhelmed by a small platoon of children who are so going back to kindergarten come monday?
Rytz: Simply put: I don't exist in a vacuum. My freedoms depend upon the actions of my fellow women and men. Freedom must be maintained if tribalism is indeed the historical norm. Which brings me back to my original speculation (my initial post in this thread): How else is freedom maintained than through some form of enlightened coercion - taking in modern approximations of free societies the form of, for example, parliamentarism? And with parliamentarism substantial amounts of my rights are basically granted to a select few individuals in our society (elected or not) that are the guardians of a constitution and of our very freedom itself?
how else is freedom maintained than through some form of enlightneend coercion?
well certainly it is impossible by definition that freedom could be maintained by some for of coercion. freedom does not necessitate any degree of non-freedom(i.e. coercion)
freedom is to be maintained firstly by individals understanding that they have it, and that it is good for them. It is not as you have suggested purely altruistic and for the good of the many, it also has a definite subjective egoist benefit, often this calls forth attacks from socialists and the like.These individuals in order to benefit from the division of labour and economies of scale we might expect to form voluntary alliances (i.e. not a vacuum) where they support each other against infringements which might be attempted by those less enlightened in their midst. This is where private production of law and defence comes in. but its a fairly advanced topic. To cut to the essence of it the market solution is superior than the monopoly or socialist solution without exception, not least in the provision of security, and services that serve to defend ones freedoms.
sirmonty: Thedesolateone: Seriously though, I don't see how anyone can believe in biblical or "ID" creationism. That some being may have once created everything is no less likely (IMO) than that it was always there, or spontaneously began to exist, but it in no way follows from this that somehow we were created 6-10,000 years ago, produced out of incest etc. Nor does it follow that this being/God has to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent etc. Nor does it follow that he had to create the world in any certain way. To be fair, those that believe in biblical creationism or ID don't necessarily believe in a literalist interpretation. It is a bit intellectually dishonest to categorize all of them as such.
Fair enough.
However, surely one has less evidence for a non-literal, but still creationist view, than a literalist view; at least a literalist has the bible directly supporting everything he says.
Thedesolateone:However, surely one has less evidence for a non-literal, but still creationist view, than a literalist view; at least a literalist has the bible directly supporting everything he says.
A fallacious statement, you are glossing over the entire discipine of biblical interpretation to fit your views.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
nirgrahamUK:well certainly it is impossible by definition that freedom could be maintained by some for of coercion. freedom does not necessitate any degree of non-freedom(i.e. coercion)
True. But on a semantic level. And then only if freedom is considered a static, absolutist term - I mean, we can feasibly talk about degrees of freedom, can we not? And also degrees of coercion in the same sense, so that a society has to balance the scales of "freedom -- coercion" for the benefit of the individual and the benefit of many. I could claim that a proper and strong constitution is exactly this balancing act - in that I am granted certain rights as long as they do not infringe on the same rights of others.
nirgrahamUK:It is not as you have suggested purely altruistic and for the good of the many, it also has a definite subjective egoist benefit, often this calls forth attacks from socialists and the like
Well ... No, I don't really agree. The argument from "enlightened self-interest" is upon closer examination basically an altruistic one, I would like to maintain. When reading Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics the argument is that distributive, non-centralised mechanisms of interaction (trade, communication of ideas, etc.) makes entire societies prosper because they are "individuality-enablers/and protectors" - and that trying to centrally control these delicate mechanisms through (most) goverment measures makes entire societies suffer. Ayn Rand also operates around these themes: I may feel as if I fight egotistically for myself when I stand up to Labor Unions as an employer but actually - and this is the kicker - I am fighting the good fight, for all (even the Union people themselves). The fact that I don't have to know that I am doing good - or doing it for altruistic reasons- do not affect the validity of the central altruistic argument.
nirgrahamUK:This is where private production of law and defence comes in. but its a fairly advanced topic. To cut to the essence of it the market solution is superior than the monopoly or socialist solution without exception, not least in the provision of security, and services that serve to defend ones freedoms.
I agree. But you are presenting two different ideas in these paragraphs. Am I right in distilling your sentence as the following?
1) Freedom - my individual rights as derived from the libertarian ideal - is (or can be) protected through private production of law and defense
2) The market provides this private production of law and defense
The two sentences do not necessarily add up to a strong argument. I mean, labor unions have had quite a bit of purchasing power throughout history - and have done their dirty deed through mob connections (their own private supplier of law and defense). Yet, protectionist unions are adamantly opposed to the free exchange of ideas, services and goods. And the market is blind, as we all know. It does not only protect freedom (though it can); it also enables the oppressors of freedom. So I'm basically back where I started: Do we not need extra-market forces (a State or a form of communal apparatus and the coercion that this entails) to safe-guard our freedom?
And just a personal remark: We are almost having a real-time conversation here. And its mighty nice. Thank you very much - you write well and its a real pleasure on my day off.
Rytz: And the market is blind, as we all know. It does not only protect freedom (though it can); it also enables the oppressors of freedom. So I'm basically back where I started: Do we not need extra-market forces (a State or a form of communal apparatus and the coercion that this entails) to safe-guard our freedom?
And the market is blind, as we all know. It does not only protect freedom (though it can); it also enables the oppressors of freedom. So I'm basically back where I started: Do we not need extra-market forces (a State or a form of communal apparatus and the coercion that this entails) to safe-guard our freedom?
The state is blind. It does not only protect freedom (thought it might); it also enables the oppressors of freedom. So basically we need market forces to safe-guard our freedom from the state.
Rytz:True. But on a semantic level. And then only if freedom is considered a static, absolutist term - I mean, we can feasibly talk about degrees of freedom, can we not? And also degrees of coercion in the same sense, so that a society has to balance the scales of "freedom -- coercion" for the benefit of the individual and the benefit of many. I could claim that a proper and strong constitution is exactly this balancing act - in that I am granted certain rights as long as they do not infringe on the same rights of others.
an interesting point, i've spent some time thinking about this and my take on it is that Freedom is defined by the absence of its negation. I.e. Freedom is the absence of coercion. (Think of this like Cold is the abscence of heat).
Just as a free act or a free individual is only free when not being coerced to any degree. Absolute zero is only truly 'cold' with the absence of heat.
so it makes sense to talk of degree of coercion, and degree of heat, even degree of illumination if you will, but not so much sense in degree of freedom, or degree of cold or degree of dark. you've either got freedom, absolute cold or absolute dark or you havent. if you havent got it , youve got something else, some coercion, some heat, some light.
I believe in a strict interpretation of natural law, as i've outlined on the now huge Brainpolice comments thread. as such I think voluntary consitutions are the only thing that can substitute for the total abscense of produced law. As whilst natural law is logical tenable it is not a pleasant cuddly place, and free market produced law lets human beings Oblige themselves to act in certain ways. When one takes on an obligation one is not from that point 'coerced'. one is as free as ever and that is how society can do the 'balancing act' that you require
Rytz:Well ... No, I don't really agree. The argument from "enlightened self-interest" is upon closer examination basically an altruistic one, I would like to maintain. When reading Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics the argument is that distributive, non-centralised mechanisms of interaction (trade, communication of ideas, etc.) makes entire societies prosper because they are "individuality-enablers/and protectors" - and that trying to centrally control these delicate mechanisms through (most) goverment measures makes entire societies suffer. Ayn Rand also operates around these themes: I may feel as if I fight egotistically for myself when I stand up to Labor Unions as an employer but actually - and this is the kicker - I am fighting the good fight, for all (even the Union people themselves). The fact that I don't have to know that I am doing good - or doing it for altruistic reasons- do not affect the validity of the central altruistic argument.
i completely agree the invisible hand makes the private interest work for the public interest. but you see the driving impetus is the incentive. the aforementioned private interest. Perhaps its just a question of emphasis, who do you want to talk about capitalism with. for people that accept that capitalists and their supporter are in it for themselves and dont care about the common man or whatever rot, you do well to talk about the benovelence of capitalism, division of labour, all that good stuff you state in the paragraph just here. but when you think about why a capitalist gets up in the morning, and about why you might want to go out get a job, or start a business, its decidely because its in your private interest. (but thats all to the good!)
Rytz: I agree. But you are presenting two different ideas in these paragraphs. Am I right in distilling your sentence as the following? 1) Freedom - my individual rights as derived from the libertarian ideal - is (or can be) protected through private production of law and defense 2) The market provides this private production of law and defense The two sentences do not necessarily add up to a strong argument. I mean, labor unions have had quite a bit of purchasing power throughout history - and have done their dirty deed through mob connections (their own private supplier of law and defense). Yet, protectionist unions are adamantly opposed to the free exchange of ideas, services and goods. And the market is blind, as we all know. It does not only protect freedom (though it can); it also enables the oppressors of freedom. So I'm basically back where I started: Do we not need extra-market forces (a State or a form of communal apparatus and the coercion that this entails) to safe-guard our freedom?
i see 1 + 2 as complementary:
1) my natural rights could only hope to be protected without fear of contradiction by private production of law and defense. (Public provision could not hope to do it)
2) its possible that the market could private production of law and defense . (i.e. its not impossible for the market to provide it)
So in other words
1) The only way one could hope to skin a cat is X
2) its possible that Y can provide X.
(no cats were harmed in the making of this example)
I will go on the record and say labour unions that used state granted power, or hired muscles on the ground can hardly have been said to have promoted freedom. Both those actions demonstrate the opposite.
Rytz: Do we not need extra-market forces (a State or a form of communal apparatus and the coercion that this entails) to safe-guard our freedom?
no, because extra-market forces, means coercive forces. So its wrong to look there for solutions, and on the hopeful side its plausable that voluntary agreements can get the job we want doing done. So i can only suggest that we give it a try. At least while we were trying it we would know that we werent in contradiction to our own principles.
Rytz:And just a personal remark: We are almost having a real-time conversation here. And its mighty nice. Thank you very much - you write well and its a real pleasure on my day off.
oh, and back atcha !
nirgrahamUK:So its wrong to look there for solutions, and on the hopeful side its plausable that voluntary agreements can get the job we want doing done. So i can only suggest that we give it a try. At least while we were trying it we would know that we werent in contradiction to our own principles.
Just a quick remark on this subject of "social experimenting" (lets call it that, anyway). In "The Prefect" (in my memory isn't failing me), sci-fi author Alastair Reynolds describes this cluster of orbital stations - each housing an autonomous and independent society. Some of these societies, and he describes this in some details, are social experiments in tyranny gone horribly wrong; where what was supposed to be a kind of benign rule over content and somewhat lazy inhabitants takes a turn for the worse and develops into full-scale Hitler-Horror.
In general, I think I am in complete agreement with you. It is probably worth stating, though, that the premise of this stance (that we "might as well give it a try" - "Give Freedom a Chance", as it were, and that's one for the t-shirts) is that we are generally merciful, coorporative, and rational creatures. And that is a conclusion yet to be drawn from the study of the evolution of our species. To begin with, though, I think it is safe to conclude that all manners of socialism and its modern hybrids and derivatives directly contravenes what we know about our species - if you want to create productive and prosperous societies.
Perhaps this is the wrong way at looking at things, like you suggest in your post, nirgrahamUK. Freedom is not something we embrace because it makes perfect societies. Its the other way round: No society can be perfect without freedom.
At MatthewF:
MatthewF:The state is blind. It does not only protect freedom (thought it might); it also enables the oppressors of freedom. So basically we need market forces to safe-guard our freedom from the state.
Well ... I mulled over this quite a bit. "Is the state really blind?", I've been asking myself. "Is that the proper description?" Just to set my mind at ease: Is what you mean this:
Following Hayek (for one), each node in a distributive transactional market system (a farmer, for instance) derives information from the transactions flowing through this node (the farmer's sales, to put it simply) to rationally perform certain actions in an enlightened state (purchases, investments, savings etc.), right? The parallel activity across all the nodes (can be described algoritmically but is subject to the complexities of chaos theory) in a system describes the optimum production within this system - guaranteeing the lowest prices, the best products the consumer demand, etc, etc.
The state, looking at all this activity from the outside, is of course blind. Only an "invested agency", as it were, can ever see clearly, has access to information - and only his or her part of the system. Something like that? (Lets call it "hayekian state-blindness" - and now it's a concept ... !)
Thedesolateone: Fair enough. However, surely one has less evidence for a non-literal, but still creationist view, than a literalist view; at least a literalist has the bible directly supporting everything he says.
When it comes to people's individual perspectives and beliefs, I have found it is rather hard to pinpoint what an individual accepts as evidence or not. So where you may see a lack of evidence to support someone's belief, another may see evidence abound. It is fallacious to think that everyone sees the world in the exact same light as you do.
To me, the whole ID/creationism/evolution debate is rather silly. Let people believe the story in whatever way they want to hear it.
sirmonty: When it comes to people's individual perspectives and beliefs, I have found it is rather hard to pinpoint what an individual accepts as evidence or not. So where you may see a lack of evidence to support someone's belief, another may see evidence abound. It is fallacious to think that everyone sees the world in the exact same light as you do. To me, the whole ID/creationism/evolution debate is rather silly. Let people believe the story in whatever way they want to hear it.
This is a fantastic point of view - reminiscent of postmodernist relativism. When you write "It is fallacious to think everyone sees the world in the exact same light as you do" I think you are understating the differences between a naturalistic worldview and a supernatural one. It is not just a matter of opinion: I remember my old university professor bringing up the point by asking: "If Socrates got in a rowboat and just kept on rowing, would he at some point fall over the edge of the world?"
Objectivism vs relativism is not just about "exact same lights". It goes deeper than that. It touches the very core of every discourse we have with one another - if embraced, the form of relativism that you espouse in the above, does away with a common world. Very little is "interpretation" in science; theories are system built to meet observations that can be repeated and repeated. A "flat earth theory" would need quite a bit of embroidering to meet the repeated observation (and from many converging strands of evidence) that the earth is round. The same actually goes with ID/creationism vs Evolution: Its not just that evolution as a theory has never been contradicted by the way the world works; it also enlightens us about present-time phenomena like disease, tumor growth and the effects of pesticides in farming. Socrates does not fall over the edge of the earth, no matter what he thinks.
Now, I don't have a problem with people's beliefs in general - and I agree with your implication that it is really none of my business (as a libertarian). I am in fact very fond of small church communities, and I feel strongly that this must be a great way of life. However, I also see fit to confront the form of malignant ignorance that creationism is - and to confront people who are unable to align their values and view of the world with the very world they inhabit. It is not without consequence for their children who will grow up ill-equipped to deal with the world; and it is not without consequence for me who might someday encounter a raging suicide bomber bred from the ignorance that creationism represents. Since I have no legal recourse in this matter (and I do not want it - being the freedom-lover I am), all I have left is confrontation, dialogue, and debate. In all kindness, of course. Any thoughts, sirmonty?
nirgrahamUK:my opinion at this point in our conversation is that looking at it from an evolutionary perspective is a red herring appraoch. why do i say this? its too much of a determinist, nature dictates position, that doesnt take into account the fact that Humans Act.
Rytz: This is a fantastic point of view - reminiscent of postmodernist relativism. When you write "It is fallacious to think everyone sees the world in the exact same light as you do" I think you are understating the differences between a naturalistic worldview and a supernatural one. It is not just a matter of opinion: I remember my old university professor bringing up the point by asking: "If Socrates got in a rowboat and just kept on rowing, would he at some point fall over the edge of the world?"
I never said that there is no actual objective world, merely that people view it differently. If everyone actually saw everything in the same manner as one another, there wouldn't be any differences of opinion.
Objectivism vs relativism is not just about "exact same lights". It goes deeper than that. It touches the very core of every discourse we have with one another - if embraced, the form of relativism that you espouse in the above, does away with a common world.
Except I don't recall where I specifically said that truth is objective or any such thing. If anything I merely pointed out that it is silly to think that everyone is going to see metaphysics in the exact same way. Much like people place subjective values on things in economics, there are subjective values people place on beliefs or ideas.
Very little is "interpretation" in science; theories are system built to meet observations that can be repeated and repeated. A "flat earth theory" would need quite a bit of embroidering to meet the repeated observation (and from many converging strands of evidence) that the earth is round. The same actually goes with ID/creationism vs Evolution: Its not just that evolution as a theory has never been contradicted by the way the world works; it also enlightens us about present-time phenomena like disease, tumor growth and the effects of pesticides in farming. Socrates does not fall over the edge of the earth, no matter what he thinks.
I don't recall where I ever disputed that, or even made any assertions directly about ID/creationism vs Evolution, really.
Indeed, Socrates may not fall over the edge of the world, but what harm to other people is there if he believes he will? Of course people's opinions can be wrong, but I see no reason for people to get so aggressively bothered by other people's views on religion or whatnot.
And that is fine. I wasn't saying people shouldn't debated it, but people should 1) be intellectually honest (avoid blanket collective generalizations of the other camp) and 2) calm down. These kind of debates often spin into a big ad hominem fest when one side starts accusing the other side of being an idiot or dellusional, etc and it usually turns to crap.
sirmonty:And that is fine. I wasn't saying people shouldn't debated it, but people should 1) be intellectually honest (avoid blanket collective generalizations of the other camp) and 2) calm down. These kind of debates often spin into a big ad hominem fest when one side starts accusing the other side of being an idiot or dellusional, etc and it usually turns to crap.
I think I agree if your comment was only on the tone of the debate. But it wasn't really, was it? Leaving aside ID/evolution, would you in general maintain that any view is as good as the next? I mean, look at it this way; there are two kinds of claims:
1) Value claims "Pigs are filthy animals"
2) Predicative proposition "My pen is blue"
You are absolutely correct concerning claims in category 1. And you are correct to the extent that ID and creationism are, in fact, value claims - and not claims about the world. They are examples, one might say, of a religious language used about the natural world to promote certain values in society and discourage other (more secular) values. The problem, though, is that proponents of ID and creationism themselves claim to make claims in category 2. Would you agree?
sirmonty:I never said that there is no actual objective world, merely that people view it differently. If everyone actually saw everything in the same manner as one another, there wouldn't be any differences of opinion.
You did not say that there is no objective world, granted - but you did imply that different views can be equally valid, thus undermining a strong concept of truth (as tied objectively to the world). Otherwise, you would have to discuss in some detail why you think that evolution and ID is mutually compatible ... and hence why they both can be true when postulated about the very same world. Of course, if all you meant was that people have different preferences and values then I grant you that.
sirmonty:I don't recall where I ever disputed that, or even made any assertions directly about ID/creationism vs Evolution, really.
I know. Sorry. And I do get your point - and I understand the sentiment that sometimes you would just like people to shut the frick up (and ID/evo is getting kind of old, perhaps).
This probably has been said before, but Evolution explains diversity in biology- not cosmology or any other natural phenomenon.
Also I never see any Atheist/Agnostic Austrians around here. Do they just keep it to themselves?
You're just not paying attention if you don't see any. Seriously.
Usually that's not discussed here... but you're probably right. Then there's the Christian avatars everywhere...
hi zach, just for the record im agnostic
I'm one of the godless.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Again, I'm an atheist.
Rytz: I think I agree if your comment was only on the tone of the debate. But it wasn't really, was it?
I think I agree if your comment was only on the tone of the debate. But it wasn't really, was it?
Yes, actually that was what I was really talking about. The tone of these kind of debates almost always degrades to crap.
Leaving aside ID/evolution, would you in general maintain that any view is as good as the next? I mean, look at it this way; there are two kinds of claims: 1) Value claims "Pigs are filthy animals" 2) Predicative proposition "My pen is blue" You are absolutely correct concerning claims in category 1. And you are correct to the extent that ID and creationism are, in fact, value claims - and not claims about the world. They are examples, one might say, of a religious language used about the natural world to promote certain values in society and discourage other (more secular) values. The problem, though, is that proponents of ID and creationism themselves claim to make claims in category 2. Would you agree?
I mean, look at it this way; there are two kinds of claims:
Yes and no. I will agree that they often do (as do many proponents of lots of things, including evolution, do as well), but I'm not going to say they all do. I know many people that believe in a God, and believe He created the world and everything in it, but they also believe in the mechanism of evolution. One could very easily say they believe in ID, evolution, and creationism and see no contradiction. To make such blanket statements tends to lead to 1) mischaracterizing people's views and 2) only go so far in their relevance with any given subject.
Well I'm sorry you got that implication. I think views must be looked at within their respective contexts. I do believe that "meaning" is self-referential. Even if the universe were ultimately subjective (which is very much possible), I don't think it neccessarily follows that all views would be equally valid, either.
It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't seem to always degrade into name calling and general mischaracterizations of each side. You know what they say: If you can't think of something nice to say about somebody........
(....then you are probably thinking of Hillary Clinton.)
Thedesolateone: JCFolsom: spontaneous order of markets orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer
Chopping up a quote in a misleading fashion is very naughty and disingenuous. You have forgotten the face of your father.
Clearly you didn't just chop up my quote, you ignored the rest of my statement. I, for one, am not a member of the Christian faith, nor have I ever been able to bring myself to really believe in their bible. Intellectual cowards and bigots like to categorize everyone who has ID leanings into the biblical creationist camp because this allows them to attack aspects of Christianity instead of the actual question at hand.
JCFolsom: Thedesolateone: JCFolsom: spontaneous order of markets orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer Chopping up a quote in a misleading fashion is very naughty and disingenuous. You have forgotten the face of your father.
You will notice I started the next post with "but seriously". I merely found that mildly amusing.
JCFolsom: Thedesolateone:However, surely one has less evidence for a non-literal, but still creationist view, than a literalist view; at least a literalist has the bible directly supporting everything he says. Clearly you didn't just chop up my quote, you ignored the rest of my statement. I, for one, am not a member of the Christian faith, nor have I ever been able to bring myself to really believe in their bible. Intellectual cowards and bigots like to categorize everyone who has ID leanings into the biblical creationist camp because this allows them to attack aspects of Christianity instead of the actual question at hand.
I said nothing of the sort. Intelligent design is merely creationism with bells, depending on how it is interpreted. Deism I don't scorn, but theism I do. When infinite different things could have created the world, why believe in such a specific, unlikely thing. I don't care whether you're Christian or not - for me the position of default is going for the simplest view. Creationism/ID is not the simplest view.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I think it does, but not in the manner which you might consider. As I stated earlier, the notion that humans need some sovereign or government (state) to impose order upon them is the same notion as the ID "Well, it looks like design, therefore there was a designer, and everything was designed since there is order" hidden premise.
There's a difference, humans are conscious and act purposefully, unlike DNA. In fact, I think there's a book about that by some dead Austrian economist.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
And yet humans do not require some Overall Sovereign in order to provide them a framework. I think there's a book about that by some dead Austrian economist.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And yet humans do not require some Overall Sovereign in order to provide them a framework. I think there's a book about that by some dead Austrian economist.
That's because they can act, as Giles Stratton sai, purposefuly.
Yes, I know. The point being that requiring the outside force to provide the framework is like ID.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, I know. The point being that requiring the outside force to provide the framework is like ID.
Its not, ID is with insentient matter, while human action is with sentient individuals - the two are intirely different by their very nature.
Zach:Also I never see any Atheist/Agnostic Austrians around here. Do they just keep it to themselves?
From what I've seen the religious individuals around here are the minority. In fact I can barely think of any Christians on these forums.