The Marketplace of Christianity
The Church of England has some monopoly power in this area, causing it to lose its focus and ignore the needs of its consumers. The Economist calls for its disestablishment. An excerpt:
Establishment brings fewer material advantages to the Church of England these days than the Lutherans, for example, enjoy in much of Scandinavia. And a creeping disestablishment is under way. Yet centuries of crowning kings, burying princesses, celebrating the nation's victories, running a lot of its state-funded schools and getting Parliament to cast an eye over the decisions of its ruling General Synod have made the Church of England what it is. It prides itself on keeping the door open to all comers, though few pop in. It stresses inclusiveness and stands up for a public space for all faiths. Admirable stuff--but its numbers are falling.
Compare that with churches in America, or Africa. No theocrats they, but fishers of men in competitive waters. Their messages must be more sharply defined to win souls. But by keeping the focus soft, as an established church must, the Church of England, which dominates this least authoritarian of associations, has blunted the contest of ideas and distorted debate within the Communion (and its own ranks). Time, surely, for all sides to fight their corner, free of the shackles of the state.
Comments (55)
Yes, separation of church and state.
We also could use a separation of market and state.
And separation of school and state.
And separation of mail delivery service and state.
And separation of ...
Published: August 7, 2008 2:27 PM
I was very amused, during a conversation with Richard Dawkins, they were discussing why religion in the US is so very successful, compared to the UK where there is substantial apathy and atheism.
They credit the idea that, by being a government product, people are not provided with a high-quality religion, and thus are more ready to look into atheism.
In the US, where there is a "free market" in religion, the evangelicals have come to provide an extremely effective and efficient product for the indoctrination of converts and keeping of the faithful.
Interesting idea, that. While missionaries are a world-wide religious thing, it took America to produce the over-the-top evangelicals.
Published: August 7, 2008 2:52 PM
State-sponsored religion is worse than state-free religion and much worse than state-suppressed religion. The first causes true faith to die by encouraging easy religion. The second allows true faith and easy religion. The third encourages true faith by causing false religion to die.
Published: August 7, 2008 5:13 PM
State-sponsored religion is worse than state-free religion and much worse than state-suppressed religion. The first causes true faith to die by encouraging easy religion. The second allows true faith and easy religion. The third encourages true faith by causing false religion to die.
Published: August 7, 2008 5:14 PM
I wouldn't look for the decline of the Church of England in state sponsorship. The Episcopal Church in the US is declining, too. Both are declining because they don't believe in anything except socialism. The evangelical churches that are growing are fundamentalist in that they still believe in a personal God and the Bible. The god of the Anglican Church in England is a wimp with low self-esteem and no relevance to humanity. The God of evangelicals and Anglicans in Africa changes people's lives for the better.
Published: August 7, 2008 5:22 PM
I don't understand the connection between the title and the excerpt.
Published: August 7, 2008 7:14 PM
"Compare that with churches in America, or Africa. No theocrats they, but fishers of men in competitive waters. "
There it is.
Published: August 7, 2008 8:52 PM
Patriotic Secession is the Only Remedy for Christians--Freedom Baptist, Belleview, Florida--A Non-501c3 Alternative
"Have you ever wondered why Americans still think they are free? You will be really perplexed as to why they can think this after listening to this broadcast. The Declaration of Independence has been set aside in it's complaints against the crown as Americans enjoy task masters over them the likes of which the American Colonists would have never dreamed possible. The Strong Delusion has over taken the vast majority posing as Patriots."
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=77081015273
Published: August 7, 2008 10:42 PM
Fundamentalist
"I wouldn't look for the decline of the Church of England in state sponsorship. The Episcopal Church in the US is declining, too. Both are declining because they don't believe in anything except socialism."
It's not just the Episcopal Church. Not too long ago, the Catholic Churches in my area had a conference that focused on a variety of social problems; i.e. poverty. They came up with ten solutions. Instead of the focus being primarily on what they as a religious organization could do, approximately 9 out of the 10 solutions started the with words "The State should..."
Published: August 7, 2008 11:45 PM
While there is no state-sponsored religion per-se in the US, religions generally recieve special tax status.
Religious exemptions are the only way out of Romneycare in Massachsuets, and overpriced manditory vacinations in many states. Churches are one of the few tax-dedcutable socil venues. It would be intersting to see if religon were as strong in the absence of attacks on secular economic freedoms.
Published: August 8, 2008 12:15 AM
Evolution is a subject that Australians can't avoid. A doctrine which is compatible with evolution is needed. It might also help if people had the promise of personal development. Lo and Behold! 1 Corinthians 14 and 15 tells Christians to strive for the spiritual gifts, like Prophecy, healing, etc.! Permission for Christians to have personal evolution! That might be a church which really grows!
See you all when my Church moves into your district!
Published: August 8, 2008 12:17 AM
No matter how irrational religion might be and no matter how much evil it brings into the world it will never disappear - so it is either used by the state to control others or used by the people to free themselves from the state - whether used for good or evil, state or freedom the religious are deluded.
Published: August 8, 2008 1:32 AM
Haas: "...the religious are deluded."
I'm religious. What do you think I'm deluded about?
Published: August 8, 2008 8:02 AM
Quote from Fundamentalist: "I'm religious. What do you think I'm deluded about?"
The same thing socialists are deluded about, that their fantasy of a better world will come true if only they believe.
I sense a paradox here. If religion begins to wither away if it is embraced by the state, and socialism begins to whither away if it is embraced by the state (e.g., the Soviet Union, and maybe China), and if religion forced to fend for itself in the market gets stronger, then will forcing socialism out of government cause it also to become stronger?
Published: August 8, 2008 9:48 AM
Last time I checked, people like Tom Woods & Jeffrey Tucker are Catholic. Can you explain to me how they are deluded or inherently ignorant for their personal beliefs?
Published: August 8, 2008 9:54 AM
Last time I checked, people like Tom Woods & Jeffrey Tucker are Catholic. Can you explain to me how they are deluded or inherently ignorant for their personal beliefs?
Published: August 8, 2008 9:55 AM
Keith: "The same thing socialists are deluded about, that their fantasy of a better world will come true if only they believe."
The only people who believe that are the Anglicans mentioned in the article. They believe it because they are socialists, not for religious reasons. Evangelicals don't believe that a better world through better people is possible because they know that most people won't believe and even those who do won't be perfect.
In fact, atheistic socialists were the ones who tried to create perfection on earth and murdered 100 million people in the process.
On the other hand, capitalism and the modern liberties we enjoy today came from the very religious Protestants and Catholics of the 16th century.
Published: August 8, 2008 10:45 AM
We have state sponsored religion in the US.
It's called political correctness and global warming "science".
Published: August 8, 2008 10:47 AM
Evangelicals don't believe that they can make people and the world better through their religion?
Quote from fundamentalist: "On the other hand, capitalism and the modern liberties we enjoy today came from the very religious Protestants and Catholics of the 16th century."
Yeah, and they also gave us wonderful things like the Spanish Inquisition and the religious wars in the Netherlands, and don't forget the 30 Years War and the English Civil War (although those were 17th century). Yes, religion has always been about liberty.
Published: August 8, 2008 12:23 PM
Keith writes:
"I sense a paradox here. If religion begins to wither away if it is embraced by the state, and socialism begins to whither away if it is embraced by the state (e.g., the Soviet Union, and maybe China), and if religion forced to fend for itself in the market gets stronger, then will forcing socialism out of government cause it also to become stronger?"
Keith if you define socialism to mean a better life for the marginalized in society, then yes, separating socialism from the state will allow private charities to once again flourish. As we all know, the free market provides the best opportunity for the poor to advance themselves and allows them to achieve greater satisfaction than obtainable under governmental intervention. So separating the goals of socialism from the apparatus of state intervention will make it much more likely that the worthwhile goals will be achieved at the lowest cost to society as a whole.
Published: August 8, 2008 1:48 PM
Evangelism has prospered in America because of short attention spans, mixed with modified behavior based on consumerism, shaken in a depressive jar and left in a cold crowded room called religion until it is chilled and ready to drink.
In other words America has ADD and with every new evangelist comes the potential for new and exiting things that tap into it. America loves to buy things and with every new evangelist comes the same old worthless blabber packaged in a newly designed package just ready to be bought and bagged. Americans are depressed and with every new evangelist comes the possibility to become a happier person. Americans love to belong to a group and most importantly a popular group. With every new evangelist comes the possibility that just such a belonging will happen.
Evangelists, rather evangelism has become successful because it taps into all of these traits. There’s enough evangelism to go around for everyone. It’s important to understand that while evangelism has been successful, that does not mean all evangelists are successful. They are not. But together in the form of evangelism, they are doing just fine.
And let us not be fooled. America does have state sponsored religion, by virtue of its strong coexistence within the legal and political system. While it does not have a specific state sponsored sect, it still sponsors religion and it is wrong.
Published: August 8, 2008 3:09 PM
Since no one commented on my comment ('I don't understand the connection between the title and the excerpt.') I will do so.
There is no real connection between the marketplace and the priestocracy. Christianity as referred to in the excerpt implies that the Churches are reflections of the Christian Faith but they are not, they are priestocracies, guilty of the same type of error as the economic interventionists but in a different form, the form of ego-driven interpretation.
The Christian Faith is a faith of human action and that is where there is a connection with the marketplace. And that is also where economics and ethics are inseparable since they are always intimate with human action.
Those who pretend that ethics and economics are separable probably think that using the word 'marketplace' makes an analysis economic. And those who pretend that 'Christianity' is the same as the Christian Faith probably think that some mere human has the authority to interpret.
Economics has the same problem. The authority to intervene into the economy is falsely claimed by the ego-driven interventionists.
That is why I see no connection between the tiltle and the excerpt!
Published: August 8, 2008 3:38 PM
Keith: "Yes, religion has always been about liberty."
No, I'll be the first to admit it has not. But beginning with the 16th century in Europe it was. The history is pretty clear.
Florida Economist: "Evangelism has prospered in America because of short attention spans, mixed with modified behavior based on consumerism, shaken in a depressive jar and left in a cold crowded room called religion until it is chilled and ready to drink."
You're clearly confused and have evangelicalism mixed up with atheism. American evangelicals believe it God and the Bible because they are true and evangelicals care about the truth.
Published: August 8, 2008 5:00 PM
Quote from fundamentalist: "American evangelicals believe it God and the Bible because they are true and evangelicals care about the truth."
You got some proof to back up this claim? Did God write the Bible himself? What language did he write it in? Did he use fire to write it, like in the Ten Commandments, or something else?
By definition religion is based on faith and cannot be proven, yet you make this outlandish claim. Please save us your long drawn out arguments that god is a philosophical requirement for ethics, because it only highlights the fact that its all made up in the minds of men. If you have real proof, then show it, but save the sermon for people gullible or insecure enough to believe it (like other socialists).
Published: August 8, 2008 7:43 PM
Keith: "You got some proof to back up this claim? Did God write the Bible himself? What language did he write it in? Did he use fire to write it, like in the Ten Commandments, or something else?"
There is plenty of evidence, entire libraries, if you care to examine any of it. Your questions indicate that you have so little interest in the subject that you haven't even bothered to look at an article in Wikipedia on the subject.
Keith: "By definition religion is based on faith and cannot be proven..."
That is a definition that atheists invented, not Christians. Christianity has always been based on reason and evidence. You're clearly as ignorant of atheism as you are of Christianity, so you might want to check out "Twilight of Atheism" by Alister McGrath so we can have an intelligent discussion.
Published: August 8, 2008 9:18 PM
religion,connot b disproven with evidence.some science can and has.the flat earth,the earth being the center of the universe,and evolution just to name a few.
Published: August 9, 2008 1:16 AM
roy: "religion,connot b disproven with evidence."
Like economics, the epistemology of natural sciences doesn't apply to religion. You can prove/disprove many religious ideas with a priori reasoning. The easiest is the existence of God.
Published: August 9, 2008 7:40 AM
Quote from fundamentalist: "Christianity has always been based on reason and evidence."
And we wonder why socialism survives. At least socialists can point to real life evidence supporting their claims (e.g., beehives, ant hills, etc.).
Quote from fundamentalist: "You're clearly as ignorant of atheism as you are of Christianity, ..."
A classic Christian fallacy. How can anybody be ignorant of atheism? So you're saying that I'm ignorant of not-Christianity, and not-Islam, and not-paganism, etc.?
Maybe you could produce some of this evidence of god for we ignorant.
Published: August 9, 2008 1:44 PM
Keith: "Maybe you could produce some of this evidence of god for we ignorant."
Educated atheists already know the following, they just choose to ignore it:
1) Christianity has always asserted that the existence of the universe is evidence for God. Of course, atheistic evolutionists disagree, but they don't have an answer for a few problems:
a. The Big Bang postulates that the universe popped into existence from nothing. That is totally contrary to all science. No one has ever witnessed anything come into existence out of nothing and it violates all known physics. No one has produced matter from non-matter.
b. The Big Bang says that energy cooled and condensed into matter. That also violates known physics. We can easily turn matter into energy, but capturing that energy and turning it into matter is impossible. Theoretically, scientists have searched for 40 years for the Higgs boson which would make the conversion of energy into matter possible, but have failed so far.
c. Evolution says living organisms came from non-living matter, but that violates every known principle of biology. No one has ever managed to witness such an event or reproduce it in a lab.
d. You may have heard of the gaps in the fossil record. They're huge and haven't gone away. Evolutionists have provided only excuses, no evidence.
I could go on for pages but you get the drift. In fact, whole libraries have been written on the scientific impossibility of the universe and life coming into existence through natural processes.
2) On the philosophical side, atheists ignore the vital implications of cause and effect: effects cannot be greater than their cause. This principle makes life rational. No reasonable person would expect a fire cracker to be able to destroy a skyscraper. But atheists do something similar, because mankind has personality, including things like self-awareness, love, morality, reason, free will and all of the traits that make us different from animals. They are evidence of a personal God whom we resemble in some ways.
Atheists have chosen two paths for getting over this obstacle of personality. Some deny that personality exists and claim it's an illusion. But they become hypocrites by living as if personality is real. Others claim that they came about through evolution. But the natural processes of evolution have no mechanism to bring these into existence. If biological evolution were true, then we should be like animals and not have personality.
The evidence that the universe and mankind could not have come into existence via naturally occurring processes indicates that a super-natural process, that is, a process beyond the realm of the laws of nature, was responsible. Christianity provides that answer and it is logical and reasonable. Christianity is the only religion or philosophy that people can live with and not be hypocrites. All other philosophies/religions require mankind to believe one thing but act as if it were not true.
Published: August 9, 2008 9:11 PM
To the above,
I cannot speak for all atheists, but as for myself it is clear that the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. A guess. The more humble of us atheists admit that we just don't know how the universe got started, but as time goes on through trial and error, as well as simple discoveries, humanity is making progress in understanding the world around us.
Obviously, a true scientist is not a doctrinaire. For something to be a scientific law it must constant at all times, varying only with relation to other laws. Thus science's purpose thus far has been to find holes in the existing laws, rewriting them to fit the new discovery. Now just because scientific law is overthrown constantly, does not mean that the universe is changing, but that we understand how it operates more. Man's capacity for knowledge is so limited. We still have much to learn about our own planet most likely, and just when we think we do there is always a new discovery. The wise man admits that he knows next to nothing, but he is always willing to learn.
The point being, just because there are holes in the fossil record does not indicate the falsehood of theories such as evolution, naturally the theory may have errors, and most likely will need many more corrections as evidence is gathered but none of this gives me any room to think there are metaphysical Gods operating. You can have God as a placeholder if you want until more information is available, which is what many scientists had up until a 100 years or so. I am open to talk of God when proof is given. There exists none.
So yes, there are holes in science... If we knew everything we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, to nitpick at these 'holes' and say this gives evidence for metaphysics is completely irrational. Scientists admit they know nothing, but they are (cannot speak for all of them of course) at least making efforts to understand the unknown. Theists do not make an attempt, and when not pumping out self imposed mandates they are yapping about "The Lord works in mysterious ways, and we do not know with our limited capacity how he did these things". Sure they admit the limited capacity for knowledge, but they just assume everything will fall in line with their established beliefs, and when they don't... Well, the science must be WRONG! That is the exact opposite of what a real seeker of truth should do, when an unexpected variable occurs in what was thought to be invariable, it is time for retesting and reformation - Not claiming scoffing at the news.
Published: August 10, 2008 3:22 AM
Quote from fundamentalist: "Educated atheists already know the following, they just choose to ignore it: ..."
More fallacies. Just because something isn't totally explained by science (now), doesn't mean this is proof of god. If you make such an assertion when you know this is a fallacy, it only makes you a knowing fraud.
The gaps in Big Bang Theory, Evolution and the fossil record are the best you got? Superstring and M Theory may have already closed some of the gaps in the Big Bang Theory. Evolution has never been a theory of how life started, only a theory of how life evolved. There are other theories of how life began. And gaps in the fossil record, that's just childish. If you happened on the burned remains of a library and only found 10 disjointed volumes of the encyclopedia, would you assume that god was responsible for the missing volumes?
As for the philosophy, its more of the same. You can't accept a spontaneously occurring order, so it must be god.
On a separate note, I'd like to say I'm always reluctant to get into these discussions with anybody. I think it makes little difference whether the theology is religious or socialist, logic and reason have very little effect on beliefs that are emotional. But when such a wild assertion is made (i.e., "God and the Bible are true") without any supporting evidence, I think it cheapens the whole discussion.
As far as I'm concerned, fundamentalist can believe whatever he wants. He can even teach it to his children or other people's children, if their parents want him to. And if the government is going to subsidize education, then his brand of education should be as subsidized as anybody else's (based on the choosing of the parents). Just don't expect me to accept wild claims of the supernatural without expecting equally wild amounts of evidence.
And finally, sorry for being so verbose.
Published: August 10, 2008 10:52 AM
Telpeurion: “…just because there are holes in the fossil record does not indicate the falsehood of theories such as evolution…”
Then what does indicate the falsehood of evolution? What evidence would you need in order to decide that the theory of evolution doesn’t fit reality? Scientists have made no progress toward finding evidence for evolution in over a century. The situation was so bad that it persuaded Gould to offer his punctated equilibrium theory back in the 1970's. So how long are you willing to wait?
Scientists adopted the theory of evolution long before any evidence beyond Darwin's book was put forward. One could be forgiven for thinking they had an agenda to do away with the idea of God before they started. Today, the theory is stuck where it was in the 1920's with almost no progress. A real scientist would have given up on a theory with so little evidence for it a long time ago.
Telpeurion: “…to nitpick at these 'holes' and say this gives evidence for metaphysics is completely irrational.”
It’s not exactly nitpicking. They’re the reason the Gould offered his theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Telpeurion: “Theists do not make an attempt…”
How do you know? I can name dozens of theists who are scientists working to understand how the universe actually works.
Telpeurion: “That is the exact opposite of what a real seeker of truth should do…”
The only way to find the truth is to care most about the truth and not care about the consequences. A real seeker of truth would have abandoned the theory of evolution long ago because it contradicts the clear evidence.
In addition to what you would consider evidence against evolution, what would you consider evidence for God?
Keith: “Just because something isn't totally explained by science (now), doesn't mean this is proof of god.”
So what evidence for God would persuade you?
Keith: “If you make such an assertion when you know this is a fallacy…”
I thought I knew all of the logical fallacies. What is this one called?
Keith: “Superstring and M Theory may have already closed some of the gaps in the Big Bang Theory.”
You clearly are ignorant of superstring and M theory. They don’t close any gaps and are not evidence of anything; they’re pure speculation.
Keith: “Evolution has never been a theory of how life started, only a theory of how life evolved.”
Your clearly are ignorant of the theory of evolution, too. Go back and read Darwin’s books. He claimed it was a theory of how life began. Richard Dawkins also claims it as such. You should see Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” in which he interviews Dawkins about the origins of life. Dawkins says that maybe life on earth came from another planet. He’s willing to accept any argument, no matter how stupid, as long as he doesn’t have to admit God exists.
Keith: “If you happened on the burned remains of a library and only found 10 disjointed volumes of the encyclopedia, would you assume that god was responsible for the missing volumes?”
Of course not. Because I have clear evidence that man can and has written encyclopedias. I would assume a human had written them. But you bring up an important point: we can recognize organization that happens brought about by natural principles, such as that of a snow flake or a crystal. And we can recognize organization caused by humans, such as encyclopedias. We know that natural processes could not have created the human genome because the coding is more complex than the most complex computer program. No one would be so stupid as to claim that a computer program just accidentally fell together; we know that intelligent humans have to write them. But atheists find something far more complex than any computer code and claim that it just happened by accident. How rational is that?
The evidence than man evolved from lower animals is nearly non-existent. If you don’t believe me, check out the book “Bone of Contention” by Roger Lewin (who is an evolutionist, btw).
The evidence for God is much more extensive than I could put into a blog post. For example, Dr. J.C. Sanford, a professor of genetics at Cornell University, has written a book called “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” in which he proves the scientific impossibility of natural selection of changing organisms for the better. Even the head of the human genome project, Dr. Francis Collins, is a devout Christian. But much less evidence than what I have presented has persuaded much more intelligent men to accept the reality of God. On the other hand, some people will never accept that fact no matter how much evidence you provide. As I wrote before, to know the truth about any subject you have to put yourself in a state of mind in which you care only about the truth and not about the consequences. Those who can achieve that attitude usually become Christians.
Published: August 10, 2008 1:58 PM
To quote fundamentalist: 'Christianity is the only religion or philosophy that people can live with and not be hypocrites.'
First of all unless a person has been of these other faiths - I mean deeply devoted and sincerely immersed - it is impossible to make such a statement. How is that different than saying an erroneous economic statement like: valuation is objective not subjective?
Second, the Christian Faith is not the same as Christianity. The priestocracy of Christianity is hypocritical by definition since it is based on ego-driven interpretation.
A true statement would be to say that human action in accordance with the Christian Faith, inspired by the love of Christ and thoughtful meditation on the Word of God is not hypocritical even if it is slightly incorrect because it is sincere and peaceful and respectful of others.
Published: August 10, 2008 9:46 PM
You can be an Evolutionist and a Christian, but only if the first Chapter of Genesis is considered as symbolic. The days can be ages, with all the details being condensed because they are not important to our spiritual knowledge. Humans seem to have been created before Adam, and these humans are allowed to spread across the Earth and eat fruit, "And the Lord God saw that it was very good." These humans would be ordinary humans.
Then a new line of humans is created, with Adam and Eve. When Adam is expelled from Eden, he can eat of any tree, but God does not see that this is very good.When Cain is exiled, he married into non-Adamite lines. The Flood then only wipes out most of the Adamites, except Noah. (This could be the same as the Great Flood that swept through Sumeria, leaving mud behind as evidence.) The Semitic races then come from Noah's sons. Bible and science reconciled! As for sin and death, Adam did not invent them. As a student of the Kabbalah, reincarnation is kosher, and the commandments, when applied, will help us all to escape entrapment.
Published: August 10, 2008 10:46 PM
To be precise, if you interpret the bible literally, yo only get as far as Genesis I verse 3 "And the Lord said", before you arrive at the first inconsistency. However, for most evangelists, who concentrate of the New Testament, this is not important - Jesus Christ spoke in parables. You don't have to believe there was an actual prodigal son, or an actual good samaritan to get the meaning. So Genesis can be interpreted as a parable.
Published: August 11, 2008 12:15 AM
Fundamentalist said:
'Your clearly are ignorant of the theory of evolution, too. Go back and read Darwin’s books. He claimed it was a theory of how life began.
Response: Id like to see the ( direct) reference for this, because it is simply not true - I can only imagine you got it second-hand from the Discovery Institute, who have become pastmasters at misrepresenting science for religiocultural purposes.
the fact is that Darwin's theory of natural selection PRESUPPOSES the prior origin of life, whose explanation lies outside the theory. It merely describes changes wrought on populations down subsequent generations, through natural selection in the face of a changing environment. It is a ( very powerful and empirically-robust ) explanation of the VARIETY of life forms we see around us, and has yet to be credibly refuted scientifically ( a couple of pages of ancient middle-Eastern mythology does not constitute scientific refutation).
At no stage did Darwin ever claim to have explained the origin of life itself. Indeed, while hypotheses currently abound, any one of which might well be on the mark, none has yet been shown to be robust enough to constitute a definitive theory of life's origin. The jury's still out at that level, but what happened after the first living thing emered is pretty well nailed down, to a staggering level of detail and near-certainty. Denial of this is simply wilful ignorance.
My apologies for taking this thread off-topic, but I can't bear to see this sort of unfounded propaganda being disseminated with such conviction - reminds me of marxist dogmatism.
Published: August 11, 2008 4:27 AM
Bruce: “A true statement would be to say that human action in accordance with the Christian Faith, inspired by the love of Christ and thoughtful meditation on the Word of God is not hypocritical even if it is slightly incorrect because it is sincere and peaceful and respectful of others.”
I think you misunderstood me. I didn’t mean to say that all Christians are good people. But even when Christians aren’t good, they’re still being consistent with Christian doctrine because it tells us that we can’t be perfect and that we will stumble a lot. Maybe I should have used “inconsistent” instead of “hypocrite.” People who don’t subscribe to Christianity are inconsistent because they say they believe one thing but live as if they believe something else. For example, atheism denies personality (free will, love, morals, meaning, self-awareness, etc.) but all atheists live as if that weren’t true.
Nick and Walt: “You can be an Evolutionist and a Christian, but only if the first Chapter of Genesis is considered as symbolic.”
I didn’t mean to imply that you have to be a strict six-day creationist to be a Christian. Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, is a devout Christian and a believer in God-directed evolution. I don’t follow that position because I think the scientific evidence is against the theory. Science does not support evolution. Scientists do. Science is a method for discovering the truth. Many scientists are creationists and their number is growing. The debate is not between science and religion, but between good science and sloppy science. Good science shows the impossibility of evolution on many levels, but particularly at the genetic level. Evolution had some credibility until we discovered genes, but genetics does more damage to the theory than anything.
David: “Id like to see the ( direct) reference for this, because it is simply not true…”
Yes, it is true. I don’t have a page reference right now because it has been a while since I read the book. Can you show me one evolutionary scientist who denies that life came about by natural processes? All evolutionary scientists since Darwin have believed it, althought they admit they don’t know the exact mechanism they have a lot of guesses.
If life didn’t appear as a result of natural processes, then how did it happen? That leaves only the super-natural. Saying that science will eventually figure it out demonstrates an irrational faith in scientists.
Published: August 11, 2008 8:39 AM
Quote from fundamentalist: "So what evidence for God would persuade you?"
I don't know, maybe have God appear for me, or have a miracle happen before my eyes. You know something godly and supernatural.
Quote from Fundamentalist: "You clearly are ignorant of superstring and M theory. They don’t close any gaps and are not evidence of anything; they’re pure speculation."
All scientific theories start as speculation. Then evidence is required to support it. Unlike religion which only requires belief without evidence.
Quote from fundamentalist: "But atheists find something far more complex than any computer code and claim that it just happened by accident. How rational is that?"
You can use the word accident. Perhaps spontaneous is a better word. Of course finding something complex that can't be immediately explained and dropping to your knees to praise some supernatural entity that is purely a product of your own mind is far more rational.
As I said earlier, arguing with socialists, especially the religious versions, is usually a waste of time. Logic and reason cannot compete with feelings and belief in a closed mind.
Published: August 11, 2008 8:56 AM
Keith: "I don't know, maybe have God appear for me, or have a miracle happen before my eyes. You know something godly and supernatural."
That's what you have in the creation of the universe and mankind, yet you deny it.
Keith: "Logic and reason cannot compete with feelings and belief in a closed mind."
I agree completely. And I think most people will recognize that you have offered no evidence to support your position or any evidence to disprove mine. You have done nothing but name calling, which shows that you are operating on pure emotion with a closed mind.
Published: August 11, 2008 10:49 AM
Keith: "I don't know, maybe have God appear for me, or have a miracle happen before my eyes. You know something godly and supernatural."
I should have added "scientific" evidence to my question. What scientific evidence for God would you accept? If God appeared to you personally, or performed a miracle before your eyes, that would not be scientific evidence because no one else could experience it or replicate it. It would be very easy for others to deny that anything out of the ordinary had happened.
You might think that a personal miracle would convince you of God's existence, but I doubt it. I doubt that you accept the miracles in the New Testament as actual historical events. You doubt the miracles that others experienced just as others would doubt any miracle that you experienced. Even if you experienced a miracle, it would be too easy for you to rationalize away, since you don't believe in God. In other words, you are saying that you would accept no evidence of God whatsoever under any circumstances.
Published: August 11, 2008 12:59 PM
Dear Fundamentalist,
You missed one of my main points when you replied: 'People who don’t subscribe to Christianity are inconsistent because they say they believe one thing but live as if they believe something else.'
There is a significant difference between Christianity and the Christian Faith. Christianity is the fruit of priestocracy and so it cannot be anything but inconsistent because it, in turn, is the fruit of ego-driven interpretation.
I would feel much more at ease with your generalization about 'inconsistencies' among the followers of the Christian Faith with regards 'they’re still being consistent with Christian doctrine because it tells us that we can’t be perfect and that we will stumble a lot' if you did not grant immunity to the ego-driven interpreters by using the apellation 'Christianity' instead of 'Christian Faith.'
Do you not wonder about the analogy between forcing objectivism upon subjective humans and forcing your conviction of the supremacy of the Christian Faith upon the other faiths that people have who come from different cultural origins?
Published: August 11, 2008 3:09 PM
Bruce: "There is a significant difference between Christianity and the Christian Faith."
I agree completely. But I don't understand what you mean by "Do you not wonder about the analogy between forcing objectivism upon subjective humans and forcing your conviction of the supremacy of the Christian Faith upon the other faiths that people have who come from different cultural origins?"
Published: August 11, 2008 4:25 PM
Quote from fundamentalist: "That's what you have in the creation of the universe and mankind, yet you deny it."
Just another empty and unproven claim.
Quote from fundamentalist: "If God appeared to you personally, or performed a miracle before your eyes, that would not be scientific evidence because no one else could experience it or replicate it. It would be very easy for others to deny that anything out of the ordinary had happened."
Maybe the all powerful god could coordinate his demonstration for a bigger audience. It shouldn't be to difficult for somebody all powerful, all knowing and all present. Yet the best he can do is send somebody like you. Not very impressive.
Published: August 11, 2008 4:38 PM
Dear Fundamentalist,
You said 'I agree completely. But I don't understand what you mean by . . . ' What I mean is: Economics and religion are both subjective and they are both afflicted by the ego-driven.
The analogy ( I apologize for its lack of clarity.) has to do with methodology. Empiricists seek an objective valuation as if value can exist independent of humans. Subjectivists recognize that values are subjective because humans are subjective.
In like manner denying the subjective nature of humans as they experience their religious and cultural influences by restricting the value of human subjectivity is much similar to imposing an incorrect methodology on the science of economics. Whose mind are you able to occupy and whose shoes are you able to walk in perfectly to be able to speak for them as to 'what is truth' when almost all of the time the belief is in one God, with cultures and traditions and languages and dogmas making it appear that that one God is a different one. There is only one so it could not be a different one!
Subjectivism is extremely powerful and exceedingly important. It protects and preserves economics and religion from errors, errors that can be traced back to the ego-driven: interventionists in economics; interpreters in religion.
Published: August 11, 2008 7:14 PM
Bruce: "Subjectivism is extremely powerful and exceedingly important. It protects and preserves economics and religion from errors, errors that can be traced back to the ego-driven: interventionists in economics; interpreters in religion."
I understand. But I think you make the wrong analogy with economics. Subjectivism in economics means goods don't have intrinsic value, for example based on the amount of labor used to make them. It doesn't deny that objective truth exists in economics.
With religion, you use subjectivism as the post-modernists do, meaning that there is no truth, only opinions. If post-modernism were true, I could argue that if all religions are subjective (none have a claim to objective truth), then the idea of god is just a matter of opinion, too. And if no religion is true, then all we can know about God is that he exists, nothing more.
I don't agree with post-modernism that all religions are just misinterpretations of God and equally wrong, or that they are all equally true. Radical differences in doctrine separate the major religions. In Islam, Allah determines every action and thought we make. He is the source of good and evil and it's only an illusion that people have free will. Nevertheless, most muslims act as if they have free will. Historically and doctrinally, it contradicts everything Christianity teaches.
In Hinduism/Buddhism, the universe is nothing but a dream of the supreme being; it doesn't really exist. This denies the possibility of meaning and morality. But most Hindus/Buddhists live as if it doesn't.
Christianity is radically different. It claims that God created the universe to be good, without any evil, so we can honestly say that God is good. Mankind rebelled and ruined that goodness. As partial judgment, God stepped back and let mankind have its way. Mankind, not God, is the source of evil. Good and evil are real and important truths, not illusions as in Islam and Hinduism/Buddhism.
With Christianity, mankind can fight evil and know we are not fighting God, as in Islam, or an illusion as in Hinduism. We don't have to deny our personality (reason, love, morality, meaning, etc.) that makes us superior to animals as atheism tries to force us to do. And we don't have to agree that opposites can be true, such as that Jesus is God (Christianity) and is not God (Islam) at the same time, as post-modernism insists.
Because the God of Christianity is a rational God and not capricious like the gods of Islam and Hinduism/Buddhism, man can use his natural endowment of reason to discover things about God and about the physical world. Christianity has always placed reason at the center of its epistemology, contrary to what ignorant atheists claim. That is why Christianity, and not Islam or one of the Eastern religions, gave birth to modern science. And that is why Christianity gave birth to our modern liberty.
Published: August 11, 2008 7:51 PM
Dear Fundamentalist,
Subjectivism simply recognizes that each human is unique and 'sovereign' which translates by action into valuation.
Labeling is one way of objectifying, which apparently accomplishes your goal of removing subjectivism from the realm of religion. That makes it possible to then misinterpret the fundamental oneness of the religions. I can guarantee to you that I am not a 'post-modernist' or any other label that accomplishes your goal of objectifying something that is subjective.
Published: August 11, 2008 9:20 PM
The reason why only in the USA the church is so strong and it is declining in other european nations, is I think due to the fact that the USgov has an empire to maintain. They need soldiers to kill in their foreign wars, which requires a lot of mythology to make them go. Religion is a strong base of mythology. If you have to obey god in the sky, why not the president in washington? They are both very powerful beings for which there is no basis in reality. They both claim non believers have to be killed in their holy books and books of law.Like the priest has a private line with god to convey to you that you need to give the priest money, the president has a private line to the 'common good' and they tell him in his dreams to give hum money.
religion and state are tight to the hip.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=wylXssulQIQ
Published: August 12, 2008 2:20 AM
The reason why only in the USA the church is so strong and it is declining in other european nations, is I think due to the fact that the USgov has an empire to maintain. They need soldiers to kill in their foreign wars, which requires a lot of mythology to make them go. Religion is a strong base of mythology. If you have to obey god in the sky, why not the president in washington? They are both very powerful beings for which there is no basis in reality. They both claim non believers have to be killed in their holy books and books of law.Like the priest has a private line with god to convey to you that you need to give the priest money, the president has a private line to the 'common good' and they tell him in his dreams to give hum money.
religion and state are tight to the hip.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=wylXssulQIQ
Published: August 12, 2008 2:20 AM
The reason why only in the USA the church is so strong and it is declining in other european nations, is I think due to the fact that the USgov has an empire to maintain. They need soldiers to kill in their foreign wars, which requires a lot of mythology to make them go. Religion is a strong base of mythology. If you have to obey god in the sky, why not the president in washington? They are both very powerful beings for which there is no basis in reality. They both claim non believers have to be killed in their holy books and books of law.Like the priest has a private line with god to convey to you that you need to give the priest money, the president has a private line to the 'common good' and they tell him in his dreams to give hum money.
religion and state are tight to the hip.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=wylXssulQIQ
Published: August 12, 2008 2:22 AM
sorry for the 3x, does not seem I'm able to delete the duplicates
Published: August 12, 2008 2:25 AM
The beauty of subjectivism is that it allows people of differnt religions to be respectful of one another and to be in unity.
Who benefits from religious disunity? The atheists.
Those who believe in God, fear and love God, try their best to serve God and their fellow human beings, are good for civilization. Their ethics are those that come from a divine source.
The atheists devise their own ethics. It is not much different in principle than the underlying motivation behind interventionism - fallible and finite human dictates imposed on a inherently divine and infinite reality.
Atheists will ultimately have to flee from subjectivism because they lose the right to control.
Published: August 12, 2008 9:33 AM
I'm an atheist, but I am not a subjectivist. Do I fit into your views?
Published: August 12, 2008 2:11 PM
Dear pcrs,
You asked: 'Fit into your views?' I assume that you visit the Mises sight to learn, not to argue. If you visit to learn it must be because you are interested in classical liberalism to some extent. Subjectivism is a hallmark of classical liberalism.
Now you can answer your own question. If you are 'not a subjectivist' and are not interested in learning why subjectivism is the hallmark of classical liberalism then you will have a difficult time doing anything other than arguing. Again, now you can answer your own question.
Published: August 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Dear Bruce,
Are learning and arguing contradictory? I am interested in learning something on economics and freedom. I fail to see how this has to be subjective.
I like to order my thoughts by the objective standard of the scientific method.
I did not think mises.org was exclusively for classical liberals.
Published: August 12, 2008 4:03 PM
Dear pcrs,
Please do not regard my comments to you as representing anyone other than me. I am not speaking on behalf of the Mises Institute, rather I am simply sharing with you some wisdom.
I do not subscribe to any kind of coercion so of course you can pursue whatever you want however you want.
I wish you well in your search and suggest that someday, maybe, you explore subjectivism.
Published: August 12, 2008 5:21 PM