I resigned myself recently that no matter how much empirical data, history, facts and information I provide about the merits of capitalism, the desire of the masses to believe what they want to believe will override it. The appeal or the draw to such a childishly simplistic ideology that if we "just tax the rich a little bit more" everything will be alright, or the blackhole-gravitational attraction of socialism where "you DON'T have to work, but you still can eat" has this scary and eerie ability to turn what would be normally intelligent thinking adults, into greedy, selfish little children. And try to rationalize with them though I might, the exercise is largely futile as charts correlating tax rates versus GDP growth figures just pales in comparison to Obama promising everything under the sun.
Ergo, since trying to reason with them doesn't work, there are only two ways I've found that works.
One is to bet them. It's one thing to advocate socialism and socialist policies, but when a savvy, educated economist challenges a socialist on their philosophy and forces them to put their own hard earned money on what they "know" to be "true," you'd be amazed how many of these zealots won't even wager $20 on something they not only feverishly support, but insist on forcing the rest of society to live under.
The second is to just let them have their way, as no matter how pretty your charts, and beautifully scripted your power point presentations, nothing convinces socialists they're wrong like a collapsing economy, a Stalinist regime, 40 million people dead from starvation and the TRUE elimination of their social freedoms. Give them a little bit of their utopia and they'll be BEGGING for full force free markets to come back.
Now, it takes a while, and as humans are prone to do, they may have to repeat their mistakes several times to finally learn a lesson or two (Tulip Bulbs, Dotcoms, Beanie Babies, and Housing), but inevitably they learn from them, and if they're smart, they start teaching and instilling these hard-learned lessons to future generations, allowing them to avoid the mistakes of the past (and make whole new ones).
But it was this line of thought that got me thinking about economics and how if we mastered it, or at least instilled some basic, simple economics principles in our society, it would not only eliminate a whole host of social problems and ailments, but basically be the guiding force to govern society. I still contest to this day, a population adequately educated in economics could inoculate itself against recessions. I still contest to this day, that I don't care how "mature" the US economy is, RGDP growth of 7% per year is possible. I still contest to this day that if we mastered economics as a society we could have income per capitas of $250,000 per person and effectively eliminate poverty, not to mention extend life expectancies to unfathomable ages. All these benefits are possible if we just master economics.
However, as these advances in economics occur (more so, instilling what we already know about economics in the masses), it will be at the expense of a much larger and older institution; religion.
If you think about it, religion was not created by a "god" or "gods" by which to govern the people. It was created by people to govern people - and not necesarily without merit.
Disagree with religion much as you would like, it provides an otherwise unorganized society a means by which to organize and progress. Religion provides laws, it provides order, it keeps peace, etc. Religion in other words was nothing more than the ancient version of government. ie- it's no coincidence that in the olden days (and even in many archaic societies today) religion WAS the government. The Ten Commandments and other remnants of Christianity are instilled in US government to this day. Not to mention, rules and laws such as how to butcher animals and swine in Jewish texts were not done so because "god" ordained it as such, but rather because it was for the health benefits of society at the time (pre-refrigeration).
However, religion has one primary flaw; in order to give it teeth, and give its clergy "authority" or "legitimacy" to rule over the masses you had to create things like "hell" and deities and wrath, largely things that could not be proven until (conveniently) somebody died and went there. The problem is technological advances in science have not only made some of these rules obsolete, but have disproven or dismissed a lot of the tenets by which religions are founded on. We no longer need to butcher various animals certain ways due to refrigeration. We no longer have to worship the sun as, well, as it turns out it's just one of a gazillion stars out there. And no, AIDS wasn't created to hurt or banish any one group of non-believers or another, it's frankly just a really bad virus.
However, this spells trouble for religion in that as humans learn more and more about the universe and solve its mysteries, it disproves and obsoletes more and more aspects of religion all together. This relegates religion to the position it's in now, second to most governments and secular law, and more a means by which to provide moral guidance and comfort to its followers.
The question is as religion goes the way of the dinosaurs (or adapts to become more acceptable and marketable to the modern day masses - a perfect example being a church in the Twin Cities that has "pet baptismals") what will provide the matter by which we create the laws to most efficiently govern society. And that is where economics steps in.
Economics is such an encompassing study that it is more or less the only thing that could replace religion. It's designed to allocate the resources of society to not only advance it, but keep it from regressing. It's purpose is to enrich the most amount of people to the maximum extent current resources and technology will allow. It insists on relative peace, calm, stability and order within society in order to achieve this, and if it doesn't get it, it mercilessly punishes its people for their mistakes (as it is doing so today).
Ergo, the more people study economics, all the goals and aims religion was designed to achieve (or perhaps I should qualify it by saying, the NOBLE goals and aims) can be achieved without resorting to fairy tales of hell, burning bushes, killing infidels, gays and whatever outmoded hogwash is out there.
The question is whether we will force our children to study economics, finance and personal financial management as much as we force them to study catechism, or in some parts of the world, force them to learn the economic merits of an engineering degree over blowing themselves up.
44 comments:
An interesting commentary.
May I suggest for many people, their self-serving accumulation of wealth and the pursuit of riches have already become their religion.
And for others, they are able to be wealthy while being religious as more and more churches embrace a "success doctrine" where God wants his people to be wealthy - in total disregard of Jesus's "eye of a needle" statement regarding wealthy people getting into heaven.
I do not think economic education motivate individuals to defer their personal economic well-being to improve the economy for the rest of the population. Regardless of education, individuals will still act for their personal gain regardless of the impact to others and the general ecomomy. Education may help those who otherwise would be economic burdens on society, but people will still try all sorts of things bad for the overall economy to raise their personal wealth.
None of this will change that we've become a plutocracy - a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
Besides the golden rule in the Bible and in other religious texts, there are two other "golden rules".
1) He who has the gold, makes the rules.
2) He who makes the rules, gets the gold.
Both of which have replaced the original golden rule.
Religion is pretty much dead already - oh there are people playing church, but the church has lost its way - lost in the "success gospel", the lack of personal sacrifice and the abdication of stewardship.
Hmmmm...economics, the scientific replacement for religion...that sounds familiar. Wasn't this tried already? What was that called? Starts with "Marx-" ends with "-ism" ... it's right on the tip of my tongue...
A new religion perhaps? Econology? :)
Onom, the greenbacked god, is currently very angry, and is punishing us all.
Captain:
Economic theory has already infiltrated our lives in the form of religion:
It's called "socialism" - although today it is dressed up with other words such as "environmentalism."
I'm a big believer in Michael Crichton's position that societies seem to NEED religion...that it may even be hard-wired into our brains. When we dispense with one form of it (Christianity), we soon replace it with another for (Environmentalism) - perhaps without even realizing the similarities.
But, all religions have certain common threads...
1) You must believe that there was once a time where man was in perfect harmony with nature (Eden). This time never existed...but modern liberals like to romanticize about the "noble savage" - which is just another form of the Adam and Eve story.
2) Man took a bite from the fruit of the tree of knowledge (i.e. came up with "technology") and thus, did something that was sinful in the eyes of God (started driving SUVs and filling the atmosphere with those nasty greenhouse gasses).
3) We are all headed to a coming apocalyptic judgment day where we will be made to pay for our sins (i.e. melting glaciers, flooding, and storms "of Biblical proportions").
4) The righteous must repent ("Go Green") and seek salvation ("sustainability").
5) Anyone who questions your views is an agent of Satan (George Bush and/or Dick Cheney) and you must not associate or engage in conversation with them - they are testing your faith.
6) In order to continue spreading the "Good Word", it is necessary that, in addition to repenting, you must put into the collection plate that which you can (i.e. buy "carbon credits" from Al Gore) so that God's disciples can continue their work and all will be forgiven.
The point is that people (or at least societies at large) NEED to hold onto certain item of faith and will find them even in a supposed secular world.
I am not the least bit religious. But, accepting that societies need them, I prefer the old liberal Christian traditions...because at least they professed "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's."
In other words, keep your meta-physical faith separate and distinct from the cold and hard realities of the physical world.
Today, we have a blending and blurring of the two. Hence, you see examples (such as what you have showcased here on your blog) of idiotic people falling into the personality-cult of "leaders" like Obama. Caesar has become God. If it continues then, (as with Lenin and Stalin) the results are potentially horrifying.
I don't think people will ever, en masse, buy into economics (in the form of capitalism) as a form of religion - because it forces a person to deal solely with reality. As with traditional religions, people need to feel that they are "righteous." Only socialism offers them that feeling with no cost or serious self-appraisals. That's why it is so much more enticing - and why the socialist message is getting so much traction.
Economics has nothing to say about ethics, which is arguably the main thrust of religion.
Not to mention the train wreck of epistemological disagreement that is the Economics profession at large. I recall you framing the debate as something like "quants vs jedi masters". That's not to say that the world's religions provide a unified epistemological system, far from it, but trading one for the other is mostly just a big step sideways... or backwards, or maybe upwards. Theologians will be angrily condemning each other over this point for decades, while economists will debate whether we can actually know which direction the step was taken without proper empirical evidence, whether some sort of government intervention would have made the step better, and whether the backwardsideupstep is actually countercyclical or if its apparent effects were just the result of the Fed's interference.
Sorry Captain, economics is not a replacement for religion.
Captain,
I'll have to partially disagree with you here. I am an engineer and my wife is a biochemist. We both look at the world and see how wonderfully complicated it is. Every new scientific discover, while expanding knowledge, also shows us that there is so much more we do not know. Basically, our world is so complex, it is a statistical impossibility that all of this just happened. There is an intelligent design behind it.
Now from a purely scientific standpoint, I cannot say that one religion has it right and another all wrong. Heck, they may all have it wrong. However, the science leads us to the inevitable that there is a God.
Now I do agree that if everyone had a basic understanding of economics, we would all be better off. Just the simple principle of do not spend what you do not have and limit borrowing to a sensible home mortgage and maybe a car would go a long way.
Captain,
Excellent post.
Allen in Fort Worth
Funny, economics is sort of my religion. I couldn't agree with you more. Capitalism is not at odds with spirituality, just organized religion.
"The second is to just let them have their way..."
Nothing proves this point better than modern-day China.
Bravo Captain, well said.
As a hobby economist, I have long since advocated teaching our children in schools the importance of economics. Without the Econ 101 introduction, but in a meaningful and relevant way that kids in grade 4, 5, and 6 can understand. So what does the school do? Ensure that my 17 year old can make a nice colour cover page for his social studies essay on why nationalism is bad. *gah*
I will continue to fight though. I have found one way to combat the incipient stupidity of the education system and its pawns is to volunteer for Junior Achievement. Going in and teaching the kids is a lot of fun, and I get to tailor the discussions to fit MY agenda (eg, comparing the value of buying assets vs buying buying entertainment).
It's not perfect, but it's all I've got right now.
Ya know, they tried exactly that in places like the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and the "People's Republic of China." Yes, it was economics that you and I both disagree with, but before endorsing replacing religion with economics, it should be remembered how things turned out the first few times it was tried, no?
Quote from Eric: "However, the science leads us to the inevitable that there is a God."
And here is one of the reasons for religion. A highly educated man (and apparently along with his wife) sees something very complex and not fully explained right now, and decides he needs to worship it. One question Eric: Who designed God?
I think the only way economics could become a religion is to make sure it remains mysterious and too complex to explain. Then it will qualify as something to be worshiped.
The only problem with that is now it becomes open to all sorts of interpretations, including those of the socialists.
I think the basic attraction to socialism is first biology, specifically the family, and the natural human inclination to social organization (i.e., collectives). Anybody who was raised in anything resembling a family unit understands the attraction of this collective. Anybody who has been part of some other "successful" group activity (e.g., a sports team, a club, a "gang", etc.) knows the intense feelings of comraderie, of belonging, of being a part of something bigger than yourself as an individual. It's only a short step from a family and other team activities to the idea of one big team, one big collective. Religion makes this leap, as does socialism.
Changing something like that can't be done with facts or reasoning. In fact, trying to change it could make you somebody on a different team, somebody that must be defeated, because you're trying to defeat my team.
I think the best that could be hoped for is what the Constitution seemed to be shooting for, i.e., everybody simply minding their own business and taking responsibility for themselves. Well, we can see how well that worked.
I think we'll need to wait for evolution, or maybe that intelligent designer, to come up with a species that is rational enough to keep it's nose out of other people's business.
Well...I kind of agree with the "religionists" that econ is a poor replacement. I'm not sure that one could use capitalism as a sole means to construct moral axioms -- rather it seems that capitalism either embodies moral axioms external to it or at the least is agnostic to those.
Keith:
Don't be mean. Asking who designed God is a fair question, but it might be at the same level as my computer programs asking who designed me. There are some serious epestimic (and epistimological) questions that science may never be able to overcome. (e.g. their is likely a limit to how much information we can extract from a given chunk of the universe.) Thus, there will be many things which we could attribute to chance or God and never know which of the two it was.
I will agree somewhat with Eric that I see intent and that the universe is an artifact. Where is the artificer and what are the properties of that entity -- well I really don't know.
Otherwise, I also agree (and my better half and I have discussed this frequently) that we NEED an economics course in the HS curriculum. *NEED*
"I think we'll need to wait for evolution, or maybe that intelligent designer, to come up with a species that is rational enough to keep it's nose out of other people's business."
That, my friend, is why God has inspired mankind to invent fences and firearms. :)
Yeah, it's sad to see a scientist making such a foolish statement. Eric is basically saying:
"The universe is so complex that my mind can't conceive how it could have happened in a natural way. Therefore, Magic Man did it!"
Of course, such a conclusion ("MAGIC!") wouldn't be acceptable in ANY field of science, so it's sad to see educated people applying it to their personal beliefs. Not only is there no evidence to show that "god did it", but there is also no evidence to show that "god" even exists, nor does such an explanation actually tell us anything about the universe.
It's the same trap that humans have fallen into for thousands of years.
How does the sun rise?
God.
Why do we have lightning?
God.
Why does the earth shake?
God.
Why did my crops die?
God.
Every time humans have run up against something they couldn't explain, the vast majority of people simply shrugged, sacrificed a chicken, and carried on being a bunch of superstitious savages. And every time, a small group of men and women decided to do further research in order to find the real answer. If everyone had simply accepted that lighting happens when god is angry, we'd still have no clue how it's really caused, let alone how we can harvest electricity for our own purposes. That's because the answer "god did it" is not an answer at all - it's simply something you pull out of your ass in order to stop further questions. People don't like to say "we don't know"; they'd much rather make up silly fantasies than admit their own ignorance.
Lastly, Eric, if you have any respect for the scientific method, I strongly urge you to stop using science as an excuse for your beliefs. Be honest. Admit that you're simply not comfortable with uncertainty, and that convincing yourself that a god exists makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. I - and most of your coworkers, I'm sure - would have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you stop blaming science for your delusions.
Quote from Keith: "And here is one of the reasons for religion. A highly educated man (and apparently along with his wife) sees something very complex and not fully explained right now, and decides he needs to worship it. One question Eric: Who designed God?"
I do see the world as very complicated and amazing, but I do not worship it. That is what environmentalist tree huggers do, worship the Earth. I believe in an intelligent designer and worship that designer, not that designers creation.
Who created God? Nobody. God always has been and always will be. Of course that is a statement of faith. I can't really prove that but nor could you disprove that either.
Cap'n:
You should read Dinesh D'Souza's speech in November's issue of Imprimis at http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=11
The key to his speech was that if it weren't for Christian religion, and it's individualistic view of rights and responsibilities, we would not have gotten to the place where we are, and that as Atheism and non-individualistic ideologies try to destroy Christianity, individual rights will also suffer.
Not that Milton Friedman was Christian, but he also had some great things to say regarding individual rights and the ability to choose.
Economics has quite a bit to say about ethics Ryan.
The guy who wrote "The Wealth of Nations" was the same guy who wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments."
Economics is part and parcel of human morality and ethics. It answers questions about how we divy up scarce resources in a way which is considered "fair", efficient, and promotes growth and development.
The trouble is that some people who ignore the lessons of Economics feel that everyone CAN have a pony and it is RIGHT for everyone to have a pony. They value not the motivation of misery.
"That which we gain too easily we esteem too lightly."
The basic tenet of modern economics is self-INTEREST, not selfishness. Nothing about capitalism precludes altruism. In fact, the surplus of wealth it creates has made us the most generous society the world has ever known. The guy who puts gold coins in Salvation Army buckets every year is not a freaking worthless leftist!
Just like on an airplane, you have to put your mask on first before you help others put theirs on.
We're not Ferengi from Star Trek which is the Hollywood-leftist view of the unbridled pursuit of wealth.
"In fact, the surplus of wealth it creates has made us the most generous society the world has ever known."
That's actually why even Karl Marx was, to one extent or another, a supporter of capitalism. He believed that only capitalism could create the level of wealth required for communism to be possible. He also believed that a sufficiently wealthy capitalist world would eventually slide into communism through natural means, without the need for a violent revolution.
Judging by the world today, he was probably right; most wealthy western nations are socialist, and getting closer to true communism all the time. The only question is whether communism/socialism will actually be a viable system once we've become wealthy enough. That's where his opinion and mine diverge drastically.
"In fact, the surplus of wealth it creates has made us the most generous society the world has ever known."
That's actually why even Karl Marx was, to one extent or another, a supporter of capitalism. He believed that only capitalism could create the level of wealth required for communism to be possible. He also believed that a sufficiently wealthy capitalist world would eventually slide into communism through natural means, without the need for a violent revolution.
Judging by the world today, he was probably right; most wealthy western nations are socialist, and getting closer to true communism all the time. The only question is whether communism/socialism will actually be a viable system once we've become wealthy enough. That's where his opinion and mine diverge drastically.
Christianity is most successful where there is a free-market on religion. Like the USA compared to the UK. It is also successful where it is repressed, like in China where there is an huge underground house church movement. People must have liberty to believe as they will.
Religion/faith cannot be proven empirically, but if you have a revelation you know about it.
"Economics has quite a bit to say about ethics Ryan.
The guy who wrote "The Wealth of Nations" was the same guy who wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments.""
I think you're confusing economists with economics. While a great many economists hold strong normative opinions and well thought out ethical positions, when they start advocating those they are abandoning descriptive science in favor of normative claims.
A scientist may describe a scientific phenomenon and he may have opinions as to whether it is beneficial or not, but those opinions are not the science itself. Those opinions are arrived at through a very different intellectual framework than that which was used to discover or describe the phenomenon in the first place.
To get back to economics specifically, there is absolutely nothing in economics that tells us that minimum wages are bad. We know that they cause unemployment and prevent all sorts of Pareto improvements and a variety of other inefficiencies and suffering, but it is not economics that tells us that a lower standard of living is an undesirable thing. It is a system of values that arises from something other than the framework of economics.
Then again, I'm rather Austrian in my perspective that Economics is strictly wertfrei. Moral theorizing can certainly recommend economic policies as a means to an end or condemn some economic policies as immoral, but the science of economics itself has no moral basis whatsoever.
Alex, on the topic of religion and science, I must agree that religion and superstition are too often overlapping, but assuming this is always so and that the scientific method is antithetical to religion in general -- well, that runs perilously close to setting up a straw man. Just because some yahoos don't like that the Universe every now and then contradicts the *exact* words in an old book doesn't imply that ALL theists are so prejudiced.
I believe that the Universe is an artifact -- that doesn't equate that I think epilepsy is a divine gift.
Eric's position (correct me if I'm wrong, Eric) is analogous to stumbling across a computer while wandering through the forest. Yes, it is possible that matter could arrange itself spontaneously as such during, for instance, the geological accretion of certain minerals, etc. but my first inclination (as well as most others) is that the computer is an artifact. Given enough monkeys banging away on those old IBM Selectrics, we'll get our work of Shakespeare. But if we ONLY saw the typed manuscript and not the process that produced it -- it would be VERY difficult to differentiate the two, would it not? Some might even think that Shakespeare wrote it.
Now, more on topic -- Yes, Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and economist, but that doesn't mean the two are one and the same. I absolutely agree that the productive potential of capitalism has allowed us to be the most generous people in human history, but the motivation for the giving of surplus goods is not itself found within capitalism. As to the proper origin of those motivations, I will happily defer to someone else -- perhaps evolutionary psych, perhaps religion, etc.
Economics will never replace religion, although I wish it would. Simple reason.
POOR THEIST MORONS have about 5 kids per couple.
Brilliant economics chase some tail but never reproduce. Make a model of this Captain and see where it takes you.
Alex,
Even atheistic scientists like the famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking have admitted that it is statistically impossible that the millions of variables that make it possible for life to exist on our small planet in this universe turned out just right to allow for intelligent life. He, like you, still refuses to accept that there is a creator. He has just created his own "faith based" explanation of our own existance.
He theorizes that there are multiple universes just to increase the odds that somewhere, some place, all these millions of variable could have all turned out perfectly for life such as ours to exist.
While my fellow scientist Hawkins and I both agree the odds of Earth just happening the way it did are a statistical improbability, we just have different scientifically unprovable nor disprovable faith answers to that question.
"Economics will never replace religion, although I wish it would. Simple reason.
POOR THEIST MORONS have about 5 kids per couple.
Brilliant economics chase some tail but never reproduce. Make a model of this Captain and see where it takes you."
Oh, those poor deluded fools and their winning evolutionary strategy.
Theists are not all stupid, nor do they all have large families. It's just stupid to assert otherwise.
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/809/30/
Eric, you said:
Even atheistic scientists like the famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking have admitted that it is statistically impossible that ... just right to allow for intelligent life.
Followed by:
While my fellow scientist Hawkins and I both agree the odds of Earth just happening the way it did are a statistical improbability, we just have different scientifically unprovable nor disprovable faith answers to that question.
So, which one is it? For a "scientist" you're being rather imprecise. The difference between "improbable" and "impossible", when talking about statistics, is like the difference between a drop of water and the Atlantic ocean.
Actually, I know which word should be there, because someone like Stephen Hawkings would never have made an absurd statement like "It's impossible for this universe to arise by chance". He may have said it's improbable, though, in which case he's correct.
What people like him understand, and what people like you apparently do not, is that something being improbable is irrelevant to whether or not it happened. It's improbable that I will win the lottery tomorrow. It's improbable that I will win the lottery ever. Yet someone wins the lottery on a daily basis.
This is a common, and rather absurd, mistake that creationists and theists of all stripes make on a regular basis - you start off assuming that our universe was a goal in creation, and then say it couldn't have happened because it's improbable. That's like going up to tomorrow's lottery winner and saying "sorry buddy, statistics clearly indicate that you couldn't have won the lottery, so you don't get the money". It's absolutely absurd.
You also state that:
He, like you, still refuses to accept that there is a creator. He has just created his own "faith based" explanation of our own existance.
NO! Saying "you guys are full of shit" is not a faith-based claim. If you tell me that there are purple lizards living on mars, and I examine the evidence and say "you're full of shit", I'm not making a faith-based claim; I'm simply stating that you have not provided enough evidence to back up your assertion. It's a well accepted fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; yet religion - people making the most extraordinary claims in the history of humanity - not only do not offer extraordinary evidence but offer no evidence at all. And you have the nerve to say that a rejection of your assertions is a "faith-based explanation"? Are you out of your friggin' mind???
Lastly, you state that:
"we just have different scientifically unprovable nor disprovable faith answers to that question"
That's absolute rubbish. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory which can be tested and examined. We may not have the tools at the moment to examine it in the detail that we would like, but we can make some attempts, and we can improve our tools. On the other hand, they hypothesis that "God Did It" is completely untestable no matter how you approach it.
Moreover, just because two assertions are both unproven, that does not mean they are equal. Imagine, 5,000 years ago, two men sitting around talking about lighting:
One says "I think lightning must be some sort of naturally-occurring energy traveling from the sky to the earth".
The other says "Nope. God did it."
Which hypothesis is better? Which one is more useful? Which one can be tested, and either proven or disproven? Granted, NEITHER of them is correct, but which one actually has a chance of explaining something about the world around us, and which one is willful ignorance masquerading as knowledge?
"The difference between "improbable" and "impossible", when talking about statistics, is like the difference between a drop of water and the Atlantic ocean."
Actually, it's more like the difference between a drop of water and NOT a drop of water.
In any case, people who claim to have proven or disproven God are, without exception, either trying to define God into something which they think they can prove or they are assuming they have a whole hell of a lot more information than they really do.
Due to my own personal experience, I believe in God. My experience is just hearsay for someone else, so I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Given our extremely limited understanding of the universe, agnosticism is the most intellectually defensible position and it would be my belief if not for my own experience.
"NO! Saying "you guys are full of shit" is not a faith-based claim."
Hawking's claim was that there are multiple parallel universes, from which ours arose as one. Hawking wasn't claiming that theists are "full of shit" as you're supposing. You're setting up a straw man to defend your position against, which is a pretty stupid thing to do.
"Granted, NEITHER of them is correct, but which one actually has a chance of explaining something about the world around us, and which one is willful ignorance masquerading as knowledge?"
Now you're begging the question. Theism is not necessarily willful ignorance. If God actually plays some role in the universe, then atheism is willful ignorance. Since nobody has proven or disproven God, drop the intellectual wankery and look at the universe with that matter as an open question.
"My experience is just hearsay for someone else, so I don't expect anyone to take my word for it."
Congrats on being one of the few theists who seem to understand which stadium the game is being played in.
"Given our extremely limited understanding of the universe, agnosticism is the most intellectually defensible position and it would be my belief if not for my own experience."
Er, no, it wouldn't, since agnosticism is not a position.
If I ask you "Is the sky blue?" and you say "I don't know", then yes, you're being agnostic, but no, you're not picking a position or answering my question. Saying "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question of "What do you think/believe?"
"You're setting up a straw man to defend your position against, which is a pretty stupid thing to do."
"Straw man"? I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. If I had been putting words in Eric's mouth, and then attacking those words, THAT would be a strawman. Responding to only part of his argument is not a strawman.
To be fair, I should probably have taken the time to point out the difference between a "faith based explanation" and a scientific hypothesis. But that still doesn't make my response to him a "straw man".
"Now you're begging the question."
And I KNOW that THAT phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
"If God actually plays some role in the universe, then atheism is willful ignorance."
You know HOW I knew that you didn't know what that last phrase meant? Because the above sentence is a PERFECT example of "begging the question". Here, I'll even source it:
For example, here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:
1. Suppose Paul believes what he (himself) says.
2. Paul is not lying. Therefore,
3. Paul is telling the truth.
Although these statements have a logical form, they do nothing to convince one of the honesty of the speaker because the matter (that is, what the words actually symbolize) of the major premise (that Paul believes what he says) and the conclusion are actually the same thing. The speaker is stating a tautology: "If Paul believes what he says, then Paul is not lying".
You're doing essentially the same thing - saying "If Atheists are wrong, then Atheism is ignorance". Well, no shit! Thank you Captain Obvious!
"Since nobody has proven or disproven God, drop the intellectual wankery and look at the universe with that matter as an open question."
Nobody has proven or disproven Santa Claus either. If I tell you that I AM Santa Claus, your default response should be to refuse to believe until you're shown evidence which backs up my claims.
Since in the absence of evidence the default position is a LACK of belief, and since you admit that nobody has proven that God exists, you are essentially arguing that everyone should be Antitheist. Don't you see how self-defeating your line of argument is?
You started off well - you said you had a personal experience which convinced you, and that's fine. You obviously accept this "experience" to be good evidence, and I have no problem with that. You also admitted that your personal experiences don't constitute evidence for anyone else, which is also great - I was rather impressed by your honesty. But then from there, you completely fell apart. You accused me of two logical fallacies, which I did not make, you made a logical fallacy yourself, and then you made a great argument for why people SHOULDN'T believe. I think you should have just stopped after your second sentence.
"Er, no, it wouldn't, since agnosticism is not a position."
Call it a definitive "maybe" if it makes you feel better. It's acknowledging the possibility that the theists are right without confirming or denying, which is mutually exclusive with atheism. The impossibility of proving a negative is the insurmountable failure of the atheist position.
""Straw man"? I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. If I had been putting words in Eric's mouth, and then attacking those words, THAT would be a strawman. Responding to only part of his argument is not a strawman."
But that's exactly what you did. You responded to his argument as though Hawking said that "you guys are full of shit" and Eric said it was a faith based claim. Hawking said nothing of the sort, Eric didn't say Hawking said that, but you responded as if he had, defending a "You guys are full of shit" remark as though Eric said it was a faith based claim.
"And I KNOW that THAT phrase doesn't mean what you think it means."
You'd be wrong, then. You're assuming the correctness of your own position in order to make your argument. Your proposition assumes your conclusion, and that's exactly what begging the question is.
"You know HOW I knew that you didn't know what that last phrase meant? Because the above sentence is a PERFECT example of "begging the question"."
Ok wanker, I was finding fault with your claim that theists are willfully ignorant and your basing that claim on the correctness of your atheist position. I was showing that the existence of God (which is not proven) would make the claim you made against theism apply to atheism instead, and since God's existence is not proven it is foolish to assume the atheist position.
"Nobody has proven or disproven Santa Claus either. If I tell you that I AM Santa Claus, your default response should be to refuse to believe until you're shown evidence which backs up my claims."
Now you're just being stupid. First of all, people have been to the north pole and found no Santa Claus, so lets just ditch that example as flawed. Lets say that I say my eyes are blue. I provide no evidence of this. Following your reasoning, you should believe that my eyes are *not* blue, but rather any other color except for blue. What if I say they're brown, and likewise provide no evidence? The rational person believes that it may be true or may not, pending further evidence. They do not just claim "bullshit" while having no evidence either way. Claiming that something is untrue while having no evidence is just as irrational as claiming that something is true while having no evidence.
When you don't know something, you just *don't know*. That's very different than assuming that everything you don't know must be untrue. For atheism to be a defensible position, you would need to disprove the existence of God, which is impossible.
"Since in the absence of evidence the default position is a LACK of belief, and since you admit that nobody has proven that God exists, you are essentially arguing that everyone should be Antitheist. Don't you see how self-defeating your line of argument is?"
Everyone should be agnostic (which for some reason you just called "Antitheist"), unless they have personal experience that persuades them otherwise. I've got my proof, but it's worthless to someone else. That's why I am a theist who advocates agnosticism except under circumstances of personal experience that provide the necessary evidence to convince someone otherwise.
"Call it a definitive 'maybe' if it makes you feel better"
Call it whatever you want; it doesn't change the fact that "agnostic" is not a position. It's a methodology, not a belief.
"But that's exactly what you did"
I'm not going to get into an argument over what you think he said - obviously you and I are interpreting his comment in different ways. Unless he shows up to clarify what he meant, there's no point in discussing it.
"You'd be wrong, then. You're assuming the correctness of your own position in order to make your argument."
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Even if you assume that some kind of god exists, saying "god did it" is still less useful than proposing a testable hypothesis. Whether or not the hypothesis is correct is irrelevant - I was pointing out that it's more useful in that it can actually be investigated and either confirmed or disproven. On the other hand, the statement "god did it" cannot be investigated and gives us no new knowledge even if it's true. When we're trying to determine how a phenomenon works, "god did it" is the equivalent of saying "shut the fuck up".
When we use the scientific method to try and answer a question, we usually end up with one answer and a lot more questions. Even if we don't get an answer, we at least expose more questions. On the other hand, when we accept the theist "explanation", we learn nothing and get nothing new to investigate. For science, answers are simply the beginning of the discussion - for religion, they're a conversation stopper. THAT is why a naturalistic explanation is always superior to a supernatural one, regardless of whether or not it's true.
"I was finding fault with your claim that theists are willfully ignorant"
You failed. See above.
Also, congrats on manufacturing your very own strawman. I never said that "theists are willfully ignorant", I said that using the phrase "god did it" as an answer is willful ignorance.
"Now you're just being stupid. First of all, people have been to the north pole and found no Santa Claus, so lets just ditch that example as flawed"
Let's not. I can't believe you'd try and pull something so sophomoric.
Before the advent of flight, people believed that god resided in the clouds. Once we got up there and didn't find him, did they say "ok, well, we've been there, he's not there, ergo he doesn't exist"? Or did they simply move the goalposts?
Similarly, I can say "Well, Santa actually lives in an invisible bubble at the north pole". Or we can say "we just didn't see him because he doesn't want to be found". Taadaa! You still haven't proven that he doesn't exist. Try again?
"Lets say that I say my eyes are blue. I provide no evidence of this. Following your reasoning, you should believe that my eyes are *not* blue, but rather any other color except for blue."
No! And this is where theists continually fail to grasp simple logic. Atheism is not the belief that god does not exist. Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of god. There is massive difference between the two. If I disbelieve your claim that your eyes are blue, that doesn't mean I believe they're NOT blue. It only means I don't believe your claim because you haven't provided any evidence of it.
Moreover, the claim "my eyes are blue" is not the same as:
"An invisible guy who is obsessed with blood-sacrifices created everything around us, sacrificed himself to himself so that he could forgive you for things you didn't do, thinks you're a HORRIBLE person who deserves to suffer for eternity, but is willing to forgive you as long as you kill homosexuals, don't work on sundays, stone your unruly children, and get on your knees for some guy in a funny hat. Oh, and by the way, he's really really nice and really really loves you. Even though you don't deserve it."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While I may not immediately believe that your eyes are blue, I'll accept that there's a fairly good chance that you're telling the truth. That's because you're making a small claim which has no impact on my life, and I have no evidence either way. Whereas the theistic position is anything but small, it DOES impact my life (whether or not I accept it), and I DO have evidence which I can examine in order to verify the accuracy of the claim.
"For atheism to be a defensible position, you would need to disprove the existence of God, which is impossible."
No - for antitheism to be true, you'd have to disprove the existence of gods. For atheism to be true you don't need any special conditions. Atheism is simply the lack of theism. In fact, most theists are athists or antitheists too - your average christian will vehemently reject the existence of Thor and Zeus despite the fact that there is every bit as much evidence for those gods as there is for the christian god, and even though their own "holy book" implies that other gods exist. When it comes to 99% of religions which have existed, christians are atheists. They are only theists in respect to their own religion.
In fact, the word "Atheist" was originally used by the Romans to refer to christians. Romans considered Christians to be atheists because of their rejection of the Roman gods. And they were right.
"Everyone should be agnostic (which for some reason you just called 'Antitheist')"
Apparently you entirely missed the point of that paragraph. Anyway, you're wrong. For the last time - agnosticism is not a position, it is a methodology. Agnosticism is the way you asses your answer, not an answer in and of itself. When it comes to religious beliefs there are only 4 categories you can fit into: Theist, Desist, Atheist, or Antitheist. You fall into the first, I fall into the last. Deists are people who believe in some sort of "higher being" without accepting religion. And Atheists are everyone else. If you're not sure whether a god exists, you're an atheist. If you think gods probably don't exist, you're an athiest. If you think gods might exist but aren't certain, you're probably an atheist or possibly a deist. Agnosticism doesn't fit anywhere into that spectrum, except as an extra qualifier: you can be an Agnostic Theist, an Agnostic Deist, an Agnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic Antitheist, but simply saying you're "agnostic" doesn't tell me anything about what you actually believe.
As for the idea that everyone should simply say "I don't know" unless they've seen god, that's even more idiotic. You may as well say that everyone should be agnostic about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and whether or not Elvis is still alive. The evidence for each of those phenomenon is as "good" as the evidence for gods, yet only a moron or a relativist (one and the same, really) would argue that the default position on each of those beliefs should be "I don't know". The default position is always a lack of belief, until we have the evidence to prove otherwise.
"Call it whatever you want; it doesn't change the fact that "agnostic" is not a position. It's a methodology, not a belief."
After looking around a bit, I think you're pulling your semantics from wikipedia rather than any of the other dictionaries I checked. I got suspicious after you started trying to define agnosticism into something that I've never heard mentioned anywhere else, and trying to wedge atheism into the etymological gap you created by misdefining agnosticism.
As far as you can really go with "agnosticism" is to divide it into people who believe that we don't know, and people who believe that we can't know. The rest of what you're claiming about agnosticism is just bullshit.
"THAT is why a naturalistic explanation is always superior to a supernatural one, regardless of whether or not it's true."
I think we've reached the point where we're both comfortable with you being wrong. It took you a while to talk yourself into it, but I think we've made a breakthrough.
"As far as you can really go with 'agnosticism' is to divide it into people who believe that we don't know, and people who believe that we can't know."
Neither of which answers the question of whether or not they believe in god. It's quickly becoming apparent that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but I'll restate this one more time. Maybe this time it'll burrow through that thick skull of yours:
If you ask someone whether they believe in something, there are only two possible answer - "yes", or "no". Any other answer is just a subset of those two. Attempting to answer the question with "I can't possibly know that" is not an answer. If you are accepting "I don't know" or "I can't know" as an answer, then it's obvious that you don't even understand the question.
"I think we've reached the point where we're both comfortable with you being wrong."
Sure. I've been comfortable with the possibility of being wrong for a long time now. Uncertainty no longer bothers me. That's why I don't have to resort to Magic Man In The Sky to answer every question. I can live with uncertainty as a fact of life, which gives me much more flexibility when it comes to how I approach everything from politics and religion, to science and personal relationships.
The problem here is that you, like 99.999% of theists, can't stand uncertainty and cannot accept the idea that you may be wrong. Which makes you as rigid and inflexible as it's possible for a human being to be. I know that I have almost zero chance of changing your mind about anything - the only reason I engage in these discussions is because they may influence others who haven't been so thoroughly brainwashed.
Oh, and P.S., check those dictionaries again, and try actually reading what they say instead of what you want them to say.
Take care, now!
"If you ask someone whether they believe in something, there are only two possible answer - "yes", or "no". Any other answer is just a subset of those two. Attempting to answer the question with "I can't possibly know that" is not an answer. If you are accepting "I don't know" or "I can't know" as an answer, then it's obvious that you don't even understand the question."
Ok idiot, what color are my eyes?
There are only two answers, right? And saying you don't know isn't an answer. Now you have to commit yourself to one or the other, even though you're clearly lacking the information necessary to make an informed decision. Yet, that is what your epistemology forces you to do, because it's stupid.
"Sure. I've been comfortable with the possibility of being wrong for a long time now. Uncertainty no longer bothers me."
Acknowledging possibility is the realm of people who are uncertain. You've got an idiotic fixation with denying uncertainty in favor of concrete answers, since "I don't know" just isn't an option for you.
Besides, I didn't say you "might" be wrong. I said you were, and you said you'd rather have your methodology and your answer even if it's wrong. It's a stupid thing to say.
"The problem here is that you, like 99.999% of theists, can't stand uncertainty"
That's an interesting thing to say about the guy who advocates uncertainty as the default mindset for all of humanity.
"Oh, and P.S., check those dictionaries again, and try actually reading what they say instead of what you want them to say."
So far I checked dictionary.com, the Oxford online dictionary at www.askoxford.com, or the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at http://www.merriam-webster.com. None of them define agnosticism the way that you do. Feel free to check them yourself the next time you want to have a discussion with your betters, instead of just going to Wikipedia like a lazy idiot and then arguing semantics from a definition that's incorrect to begin with.
"Ok idiot, what color are my eyes?"
Judging by your comments, Brown.
"There are only two answers, right? And saying you don't know isn't an answer."
Your question is open-ended, so there's a multitude of possible answers. When it comes to religion, it's not an open-ended question. Religion states "God exists", and asks "do you believe us?". The answer to that is either a yes or a no.
As for the dictionary definitions, you're still obviously misreading them. I checked five different sources before the last comment I posted, including the ones you suggest. Since you can't even understand a single sentence definition in a dictionary, I don't suppose I can expect you to understand what I'm talking about.
I'll have to explain those definitions for you, won't I?
....
Fine. After this, though, you're going to have to put on the Dunce hat and go sit in the corner.
AskOxford: a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.
Miriam-Webster: 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
Both definitions talk about knowledge. Since the question at hand is "do you believe", knowledge plays no part in it. Ergo agnosticism cannot be the answer to the question of "Do you believe in god(s)".
Both definitions mention the word "belief", but in a completely different context. Saying "I believe the existence of God is unknowable" answers a completely different question. My response to such an "answer" would be "I didn't ASK if the existence of god is knowable, I asked if you believe in god".
The Miriam-Webster entry also qualifies qualifies one of the definitions with the phrase "not committed to". Not being committed to a certain belief does not mean you do not HAVE a belief - only that you acknowledge the uncertainty of that belief, and are willing to change it if presented with sufficient evidence.
Lastly, the second Miriam-Webster definition gets it exactly right - an agnostic is a person who is unwilling to commit to (ie. unwilling to answer) a question. Which is what I've been telling you this whole time - it's not an answer, it's simply avoiding the question.
Anyway, we're done. I've explained this concept so many times that you're either being willfully blind or you're a drooling cretin. Whatever the case, I don't feel like going over it any more. Goodbye.
Oh, and one more thing:
Next time your girlfiend / wife / "significant-other" asks you if her ass looks big in those pants, try telling her you're agnostic, and see what she thinks of your "answer".
Cappy,
I don't care if you post this comment or not.
And with the best of intentions, because, you are my economics hero.
You are a bright guy, but when you write a sentence like this.
"It's purpose is to enrich the most amount of people to the maximum extent current resources and technology will allow."
it makes you look not so literate. It should read. "The greatest number of people" I blame the educational system for not teaching you better grammar.
Alex and Ryan, why don't you two get a room and do your philosophical dry-humping there. You are wasting too many ones and zeros here. I am tired of having to do such a long scroll-by.
I can settle this for you. It is not possible that anyone created this universe as a back-drop for the likes of us. Okay? ... no God, just the cosmos and whatever else grew out of it by chance including our sorry asses.
There is no big Dada in the sky looking out for you. The closest thing we have to that is Bill O'Reilly.
Hey Capt, maybe if you had picked up some philosophy courses (or God forbid, theology courses!) in university, you'd be on the floor like the rest of us worthless philosophy majors laughing.
Do you honestly think that this has been discussed and resolved centuries ago? Do you really, really think that theologians are dumb enough to never have considered whether or not it's 'turtles all the way down?'
Look, Aquinas spent his whole career trying to disprove God. And really, he's spent a lot more time than you doing so. Turns out God is a thinking thing that exists out of time and space (God is eternal & immaterial). And if anyone is gonna start bringing up Dawkins over and over again, please remember that Dawkins never actually disproved God, because he uses bad theology to make his points (he rips on the watchmaker argument, for instance, which is the single lamest excuse for a proof of God that nobody takes seriously). The reason that buses in Toronto couldn't say "There is no God, now stop worrying & enjoy your life" is because the transit authority isn't allowed to print ads that aren't proven to be true.
Captain, it's not always the best idea to assume that you're the only one who is thinking really hard about 'stuff' and it's also a misguided idea to think that religious scholars haven't spent whole careers proving to themselves that they aren't pulling God out of thin air. Even Hume falls short of disproving God, and if he can't do it, nobody can.
Besides, if economics were to become a new religion, then we wouldn't be able to teach it in schools anyway!
Leave economics to the economists -- I parrot your figures an awful lot -- one prof even referred to me as 'captain capitalism' without realizing where I was getting my info -- and you can leave politics to politicians, and theology to theologians.
The new religion is ecology.
Ryan Fuller said...
Economics has nothing to say about ethics, which is arguably the main thrust of religion.
Absolutely ... arguable. And I will argue that statement with you.
Yes, ethics is part of it, but subsidary. Any religion provides a way of living, an excuse and explanation of life, and defines what is ethical behaviour, being within that way of living. But the reason for the way of living is at the heart of any religion, the "ethics" drops out the back, as it were.
MM, as much as I don't want to wade into this circus, it is not a question of proving or disproving the existence of some imagined entity.
It is a question of evidence and logic. Here are a few logical points pertinent to the god discussion, but not to the Captain's post. I beseech the Captain allow my post as it will end it all.
1. There can be no supernatural being; anything that exists is, by definition, natural (yes, including micro-wave ovens).
2.Existence isn't a lucky chance; it is a logical necessity. By definition, the alternative, that of a state of NON-EXISTENCE, cannot exist as ...let me spell this out: non-existence does not exist; it is a non-state, a Norwegian Blue Parrot.
3. All the current religions were formulated during a state of human, child-like ignorance. The universe is MUCH bigger now. And besides, why are we ignoring polytheism. Perhaps, as the Greeks stated, there are a happy race of gods, not a singular, pathologically lonely, God. The Hindus still believe this.
yomovies Yomovies is the first thought that crosses the mind when it comes to entertaining yourself with movies without paying a penny from your pocket. Yomovies has gained fame under “free movies”.
Post a Comment