An invitation to have the "Mises" blog featured on The Christian Science Monitor
What an amazing fan letter:
Dear Mr. French,
First of all, we have to tell you that your "Mises" blog is fantastic. The breadth of subject matter, the depth of scholarship, and the overarching wit and sense of humor distinguish it from virtually every other blog in its space. We know that's not news to you, but it's always nice to hear it from someone else. As a matter of fact, we were stunned that it was not chosen to be among the Wall Street Journal's Top 25 Economics Blogs. (They certainly weren't paying attention to your Alexa U.S. traffic rank of 4,854!)
We have spent months researching economy blogs and "Mises" stands out for posts that are intelligent and educational without being pedantic. And even though you are coming from a very distinct point of view, you don't beat readers over the head with it. You address timely topics and explain in them in layman's English (mostly).
We are also impressed that your writers do their own writing and thinking in stark contrast to so many economics "bloggers" who merely cut and paste the work of others, making only the minimal creative effort of putting a headline and single-sentence comment on it.
Your range of topics is mind-bogglingly broad, from economic policy and healthcare reform to WWI, pornography, intellectual property, music piracy, advertising, public education, labor unions, nuclear energy, mobile phones, and on and on. The selection of topics virtually guarantees readers will find something compelling, informative and, often, entertaining every day.
Your headlines are real gems as well. Some of our favorites:
"Global temperature Changes Caused by Postage Stamp Increase"
"What's Wrong with Advertising on the Moon?"
"Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid"
"How Mao Dealt With Green Shoots"
"Keep Your Self-Righteous Fingers Off My Processed Food"
"If We Don't Recover, It's Your Fault"
"Green Baptists Preach Salvation by Breaking Car Windows"
Your writing style is approachable and often conversational, inviting the reader in for a chat as opposed to a lecture. Your writers craft many memorable lines but here are some of our favorites:
"So there we go, the typical NYT theory that we are all as stupid as Pavlovian dogs, but governments are as smart as Pavlov."
"Moore is a rather simple guy. He is likable. He sees the world as good guys (people with no money) and bad guys (people with money)."
"'Goddess of the Market' by Jennifer Burns just arrived. I ripped open the package and got stuck reading and reading and reading. The emails, phonecalls, and IMs just had to wait."
"So when you look up at the night sky, instead of seeing the same old "Man in the Moon" face, you could see the Nike swoosh or the McDonald's arches. And what's wrong with that?"
We very much enjoy your blog and would like to give you more exposure here in the United States and around the world.
We are John Wilpers, global blog coordinator, and Laurent Belsie, Money editor, for The Christian Science Monitor, an award-winning international news organization that covers news and feature stories from every corner of the globe. The Monitor has won hundreds of journalism honors including seven Pulitzer Prizes and more than a dozen Overseas Press Club Awards
Earlier this year, the 100-year-old Monitor became the first nationally circulated newspaper to replace its daily print edition with its website plus a weekly print and daily e-mail edition. Nearly 2 million readers visit the Monitor's website every month and that number is growing significantly.
To keep the momentum going, we are expanding. We are looking for enlightening, informative posts from bloggers writing about the economy. And we were pleased and excited to find the "Mises Economics Blog."
We would like to extend an invitation to you for your blog to appear on the Money page of csmonitor.com as part of a family of high-quality blogs we are assembling there. We would be co-hosting your blog, running it on our site in parallel with your own, although we would link back to you for all comments and interactivity.
What we offer here is more impact and visibility through a larger audience that wants to understand what's going on, craves a global context, and tends to be very rich in C-level executives and people with graduate educations. We hope further for a multiplier effect by aggregating a number of high-quality economy blogs that will draw more readers for each other.
We'd like to discuss a possible partnership.
Sincerely,
John Wilpers, Global Blog Coordinator
Laurent Belsie, Money Editor
The Christian Science Monitor
210 Massachusetts Avenue
Boston MA 02115
Comments (75)
Brad
Awesome.
Published: October 26, 2009 11:06 AM
Abhilash Nambiar
Could be the beginning of a beautiful mutually beneficial partnership. I hope things work out well.
Published: October 26, 2009 12:53 PM
Slim934
Holy something of something! A nod from a relatively mainstream outlet.
I'm gonna need to get my hard hat. I believe the sky might start falling next.
Published: October 26, 2009 12:58 PM
AJ Witoslawski
This is great news. I'll be visiting csmonitor.com in the future if this is true.
Published: October 26, 2009 1:11 PM
Jack
Do it!!
Published: October 26, 2009 1:24 PM
Mark
Sounds like a great opportunity to reach more people.
Published: October 26, 2009 1:48 PM
J Cortez
Excellent news. I hope to hear about more partnerships in the future.
Published: October 26, 2009 2:04 PM
Mike
Excellent! Just don't let there ever be strings attached, now or in the future.
Published: October 26, 2009 2:38 PM
Mike
(strings that could compromise content over here, anyway)
Published: October 26, 2009 2:40 PM
8
A quality news outlet. And now you're only one degree of separation from Drudge.
Published: October 26, 2009 2:50 PM
Staring at Wheat
This is great!
Published: October 26, 2009 4:21 PM
Shed Plant
Great compliments and well done :).
Published: October 26, 2009 5:55 PM
Bala
Mike,
" Excellent! Just don't let there ever be strings attached, now or in the future. "
Hmmmm..... Christian Science Monitor.... I wonder what the name means and how one makes the words "Christian" and "Science" compatible. It's nothing to do with Christianity in particular. So, you could rephrase my question as 'How does one make the words "faith" and "science" compatible when science is the antithesis of faith?".
Taking that point further, how can one not expect strings to be attached at a future date when the offer comes from someone who believes that "faith" and "science" can be made compatible? Beats me!
So, I think it is time to wish you and mises.org "All the best". When your hopes are dashed and the strings make their presence known, just remember I told you so.
Published: October 26, 2009 10:07 PM
Geoff
Looks like I'll have to start reading the CSM again if they're going to be this intelligent!
Published: October 26, 2009 10:14 PM
Steven
I'm sure many Mises readers will be visiting csmonitor. How about a hyperlink in the article to confirm the levels of traffic that a link from Mises.org can bring...
Published: October 26, 2009 10:17 PM
D
@Bala
C'mon, dont you think that shtick is a little old by now?
Great job mises.org:)
Published: October 27, 2009 2:44 AM
Bala
D,
You asked
" C'mon, dont you think that shtick is a little old by now? "
My answer is - No.
In any case, it will help if you explain why being "a little old" disqualifies my warning.
As I see it, faith and liberty are incompatible. If you are seeing those who live on faith as your allies in the fight for Liberty, you are courting disaster. I would still appreciate arguments against my position, if you would like to present them.
Published: October 27, 2009 3:21 AM
Connan
@ Bala:
Faith and science are not incompatible. Until science can explain everything, there is room for faith.
When (if) science can explain everything, there will probably still be room for faith. I have faith that Austrian economics is the right way to go, others have faith that Keynesianism is the right way. Praxeologically, it can be demonstrated that Austrianism is the right way, but it can't be proved empirically - which would be the scientific way.
Besides, if there is no room for faith in science, then I have to ask you why the laws of thermodynamics are laws?
Published: October 27, 2009 6:58 AM
Mr Eko
Bala,
Science can only take us so far. The only completely logical position is that of the agnostic, however most seem unsatisfied with this, and will take a leap of faith. Even if you are an athiest, you have done so.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:07 AM
mpolzkill
D:
"C'mon, dont you think that shtick is a little old by now?"
More like an obsessive bigotry and sick desire for purity than a shtick. It comes off as shtick though; and yes, it is getting very, very tired.
How asinine. By all means, tell the Christian Scientists to take a hike, and while we're at it let's preface all discussion on liberty with atheist harangues against the billions of religious people of the world.
In this case, the Monitor doesn't even have any proselytizing content in it, and why should they have any less claim on the word "science" than Randians have on the word "objective"? (Haha, this guy belongs to the church of Ayn, if you don't know)
Published: October 27, 2009 8:46 AM
Bala
Eko,
" Science can only take us so far. "
And where Science has not taken us till now, Faith explains it, right? Or is it that there are things that Science can never help us understand and which only Faith can? And has!!!
Your's is as presumptuous a statement as one can make. You are now attempting to draw the limits of the human mind. You are also making tall claims on the abilities of Faith. I hope your error is obvious now.
Connan,
" Faith and science are not incompatible. Until science can explain everything, there is room for faith. "
Faith requires the acceptance specific ideas without validation. The moment validation is demanded or provided, it is no more faith. Science, on the other hand, progresses through postulation of hypothesis that then need to be validated with reference to the real world we live in. Science does not accept unproven hypothesis except as possibilities.
Science is not an attempt to explain everything. That is something only theists attempt. Science is far more humble. Therefore, to put the burden of "explaining everything" on science is very unfair and betrays a total lack of understanding of Science and its methods.
" while we're at it let's preface all discussion on liberty with atheist harangues against the billions of religious people of the world. "
Wherever did I say this? I just said faith and science are incompatible. It is your bigotry that is showing when you presume that every atheist has to necessarily be nasty towards every believer.
" why should they have any less claim on the word "science" "
I never spoke of a claim but only of an inherent contradiction in the very name of the CSM.
" Haha, this guy belongs to the church of Ayn, if you don't know "
So, when you are lost for arguments, you try to deflect the argument by labelling and attempting to smear the other person. Good approach.
Incidentally, I have never made a secret of the fact that I am an Objectivist. I wonder how that disqualifies me or my argument.
Published: October 27, 2009 9:06 AM
Bala
D,
Sorry... I didn't notice that it is my good friend addressing me. I was wondering that the smearing tactic looked familiar.
Published: October 27, 2009 9:10 AM
mpolzkill
Suggesting that Christians can't or shouldn't use the word "science" in anything that they do because they are by their very natures unscientific (or something) = non-smear.
Laughing that a bigot claims the word "objective" for himself = smear.
No reason to take the "argument" any further out of the gutter than where it started. This is one of his very weakest, most strained attempts to drag a blog over to his hobbyhorse yet.
Published: October 27, 2009 9:24 AM
Mike
Whoa, slow down everyone. Some of the commenters here have taken what I said (not to let there ever be strings) and run out of bounds with it.
You're all missing a simple point: If you genuinely don't want there to be strings attached, then there will be no strings attached.
Even a "hidden string", in order to materialize, must ultimately be reducible to some form of ultimatium. So if you ever are faced with "change/post/don't-post this or we will remove/demote your link", just say "See ya."
The increased exposure is indeed excellent. Every opportunity to spread the message should be taken, and this is no exception. But then if, later on, this opportunity comes to an end, then it does. C'est la vie.
This is not hard when you speak and act with integrity. There is absolutely no reason for a person with integrity to be paranoid of "hidden strings". For if they are hidden, they are not yet influencing your content, and if they are influencing your content, they are no longer hidden.
Actually any sort of "paranoia", psychologically speaking, usually indicates a lack of integrity (a.k.a. neurosis).
Published: October 27, 2009 9:41 AM
Bala
mpolzkill,
You are truly pushing the limits of stupidity with your posts.
" Suggesting that Christians can't or shouldn't use the word "science" in anything that they do because they are by their very natures unscientific "
"Christian" in "Christian Science Monitor" does not refer to a certain number of specific or a countable number of Christians. That is your (as usual) idiotic interpretation. The "Christian" in that title refers to the concept of the Christian Faith in general. As usual, you are too dumb to understand it and instead choose to start drawing conclusions from statements I never made and then attributing them to me.
If you use your brains for a change (instead of your loudmouth), you will realise that I am saying that Christian Faith and Science are incompatible.
Published: October 27, 2009 10:04 AM
Bala
Mike,
I was just suggesting that it is not possible for support from the Christian Science Monitor to come without strings. You are (of course) however free to disregard my warning.
Published: October 27, 2009 10:07 AM
TokyoTom
Doug, It`s great to get such an invitation; thanks for sharing it with us.
Is there any good reason not to say yes?
Tom
Published: October 27, 2009 10:15 AM
Mr Eko
Bala,
Objectivist? OK, now I get why my statement is so presumptuous to you. Some of us regard the circular philosophy of "what exists simply exists" to be incomplete. Are you not essentially putting your faith in the universe's mattter/energy (that it always existed - forget about its origins)? How do you reconcile that "faith" with the fact that a continually expanding universe indicates a beginning point?
I'm really not trying to draw a caricature of your views here; I will honestly be interested to hear your reply.
Mike,
Understood and agreed.
Published: October 27, 2009 10:19 AM
Bala
Bala,
And I am saying that disregarding your "warning" is the best course of action.
When and if these strings manifest, Mises should refuse to accede, even if this means termination of the relationship. Whether there are currently "hidden strings" or not does not change the fact that we are getting free "uptime" and extra readership for the duration of the relationship.
If we give in to your paranoia about "hidden strings", we are sacrificing a wondrous opportunity to get our message out. The only thing we would get in return is a spurious "security against hidden strings", which is just silly, especially when integrity automatically implies such security (and if the guys running the show here do not have integrity then it means all the content here is concocted BS driven by neurotic motivations anyway, so who cares what happens to it?)
In short, to fear becoming "attached" to csmonitor is just plain irrational.
Published: October 27, 2009 10:25 AM
mpolzkill
Temper, temper, Randroid. Just trying to make your ridiculous insinuations, obsessions and paranoia more clear. See, knowing you were a Randroid was all Mr. Eko needed to know. Of course those of your cult should be dismissed at the first opportunity in any such matters.
I understand what Christian Scientists are, I'm taking it out further and you do as well when you say:
"Christian Faith and Science are incompatible."
So *any* group of Christians shouldn't use the word science in their organization, right?
Published: October 27, 2009 10:39 AM
Bala
Mr Eko,
" Some of us regard the circular philosophy of "what exists simply exists" to be incomplete "
To understand the statement "Existence exists", one needs to understand the idea of "axiomatic concepts". These are self-evident aspects of reality that cannot be proven but only perceived. The beauty of the concept is that even an attempt to disprove their axiomatic nature has to implicitly acknowledge their validity.
" Are you not essentially putting your faith in the universe's mattter/energy (that it always existed - forget about its origins)? "
You are now committing the classic error of confusing the concepts of "existence" as in "that which exists" and a particular form of existence - that which exists at the moment when you are (or I am) observing it.
The statement "Existence exists" only means that I will always recognise that it does and not fool myself into believing that it does not. It does not mean a claim that the existence that I see now has always existed and will always do in the form in which I see it now. It does not also preclude my asking questions like "How did it come to this particular form of existence?", "What form did this existence take at some point in time prior to now?" or "What forces transformed one form of existence into the one that exists today?". If I don't even recognise the statement "Existence exists", then how am I in a position to talk of an existence that exists at this moment or at some other in the past?
" How do you reconcile that "faith" with the fact that a continually expanding universe indicates a beginning point? "
Using Science. I will start studying the existence, using the data so obtained to make hypotheses and then look for further data that validates or invalidates them. In case any of my hypotheses stands invalidated, I will study the data to make fresh hypothesis which I test further. The process continues till I have a satisfactory explanation that explains the greatest number of observable characteristics of the form of the existence of today. Note that in this, the form the existence takes today (which is all I can really perceive) is the standard against which my hypotheses are evaluated.
Published: October 27, 2009 10:51 AM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" So *any* group of Christians shouldn't use the word science in their organization, right? "
There you go again with your nonstop nonsense. A group of Christians would be a certain number of specific individuals - human beings at that - and not the Christian Faith. I wonder what will make you see the inherent and obvious stupidity in your statements.
A person may subscribe to the Christian Faith and still be rational in various other activities of his. It is indeed a wonder that someone can be so dumb as to not see this obvious fact. After reading your posts, I have stopped finding it wondrous.
Published: October 27, 2009 10:56 AM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" Temper, temper, Randroid. "
Not temper. That's just how you (demonstrably) deserve to be spoken to. I normally reserve polite language for decent human beings even when they disagree with me and criticise me strongly. You deserve nothing better than what I have given you.
Published: October 27, 2009 11:00 AM
Bala
Mike,
" In short, to fear becoming "attached" to csmonitor is just plain irrational. "
I repeat. I was just cautioning that you should not be surprised to see the strings at a later date. As long as you are clear that mises.org should pull out when that becomes obvious (as you have stated), I agree with you. Caution, especially that which is based on an understanding of deep differences at a very fundamental level, should not be mistaken for paranoia.
(I presume that putting my name at the head was an unconscious error :) )
Published: October 27, 2009 11:06 AM
Mike
Yes, that was an error - I indeed wrote the post you replied to.
Published: October 27, 2009 11:14 AM
Mr Eko
Bala,
It still seems to me that you're sealing yourself off by definintion and refusing to engage. Could you please point me to a Randian critique of Kantian philosophy?
Thanks.
Published: October 27, 2009 11:26 AM
mpolzkill
What's funny is that you think anyone could be that dumb and still be able to type. (I know I shouldn't kid a Randroid, how many of them have a sense of humor?) How could someone as stupid as you claim him to be school you in debate over and over, forcing you to reverse yourself innumerable times? Of course, I stopped giving it much effort some time ago when I got bored.
OK, really slowly for you, you overly-literal crusader: Of course I know these facts, I was referring to your insinuations, and I made that clear by the word *suggest*. How can you be so dumb, or more likely dishonest? OK, according to you (this is a question again, oh slow one): Any group of specific individuals who are Christians and form an organization that uses the words "Christian" and "science", you would find this risible because "Christian Faith and Science are incompatible", correct? According to you, they must completely divorce these two philosophies that you allow they are capable of both holding. Yes, I agree my analogy was a poor one (it was always a small joke, which you characteristically have flipped out over). They can be Christians *and* scientists whereas your bigotry is inseparable from your philosophy.
Furthermore, you *insinuate* these Christians are not to be trusted because of their frightening strings. Your desperate attack on Christians is so laughable I am merely pointing at it to laugh. Get over yourself, Randroid. You drop idiotic, paranoid rants and you expect a dissertation in return instead of some casual mockery? Hahaha.
Published: October 27, 2009 11:31 AM
Mike
Religion doesn't mean a person has completely shut themselves off from reason. In a modern techo-industrial society you pretty much have to compartmentalize the irrational bits of your psyche.
A person being religious just means they have shut and locked some doors, leaving critical thinking on the doorstep. But I've found I can actually have pretty constructive conversations with religious people as long as they don't decide the topic is threatening their faith, at which point they clam up or start babbling nonsensically (if you are observant you will notice a complete change in their argumentation style if and when this happens; this difference is actually quite striking when the person in question is otherwise intelligent).
Religious people can usually do logic; they just choose not to with certain subjects.
Published: October 27, 2009 12:18 PM
Bala
Mr. Eko,
" It still seems to me that you're sealing yourself off by definintion and refusing to engage. "
I find this comment strange and perplexing. Firstly, you seem to be saying that I am giving very precise definitions of the terms that I am using. That is, incidentally, my objective. I prefer that when I speak, I use words clearly, with a full understanding of their respective definitions. In my understanding, every word has a specific definition and sticking to that is necessary for a proper discussion. A "discussion" with shifting definitions can turn into an exercise in incoherent rambling while one where the 2 parties share different definitions which they refuse to specify can turn into a "Tower of Babel"-type discussion.
Secondly, I am quite taken aback to hear that making clear definitions implies "refusal to engage". Your statement forces me to conclude that you are unwilling to engage in a discussion unless I am prepared to have shifting definitions. I hope you do not mean that and that this is an unwitting error.
" Could you please point me to a Randian critique of Kantian philosophy? "
2 points.
1. I fail to see how this is relevant to the point we are discussing. So, please make the relevance clear so that I may respond suitably.
2. I have not read Kant except a couple of extracts in a couple of places. It is a different matter that these extracts (intended to use Kant to teach Business Ethics at India's top B-School) don't inspire me to read more of Kant. Rather, it confirms the impression Rand gave me about his "philosophy".
Published: October 27, 2009 5:13 PM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" Furthermore, you *insinuate* these Christians are not to be trusted because of their frightening strings. Your desperate attack on Christians is so laughable I am merely pointing at it to laugh. "
Here you go again trying to separate a convenient extract and making the absolute fool (that you really are) of yourself.
I said (fairly explicitly) that I do not say this specifically for Christians but for people carrying any faith. I just said Faith and Science are irreconcilable. You, I guess are just too dumb to understand this and wish to portray me as a "Christian hater" and hence a bigot. Hey jackass. I am just saying human beings should not live by faith because that is neither in their rational, long-range self-interest nor in consonance with their nature as rational animals with a volitional consciousness. But then, once again, this is too heady for you.
" Furthermore, you *insinuate* these Christians are not to be trusted because of their frightening strings. "
Your confusion seems never ending. I am saying that an organisation by the name "Christian Science Monitor" should not be dealt with with over-inflated expectations because they are riddled with contradictions and may change their stance when suitably, even if accidentally, irritated with you and your statements.
Given how dumb you are, let me state that my statement would have been the same if it had been "Islamic Science Monitor" or "Hindu Science Monitor".
Published: October 27, 2009 5:25 PM
Bala
Mike,
" Religion doesn't mean a person has completely shut themselves off from reason. "
Not completely, but as much as is required as to accept as truth, those propositions of the religion that are yet unproven and are not self-evident in the real world. It is also required to accept the word of God (or the head of the religion) as moral principles, especially when such "principles" are against a person's rational, long-range self-interest.
Published: October 27, 2009 5:39 PM
Anonymous Coward
Hmmmm..... Christian Science Monitor.... I wonder what the name means and how one makes the words "Christian" and "Science" compatible.
Hmm...I read it as a compound noun, "Christian Science", as in those religious nuts who refuse treatment for their cancer-ridden kids because they believe praying for a miracle works and modern medicine is an affront to God or something. Nothing to do with science, and only tangentially related to Christianity. If the "Christian Science Monitor" are not "Christian Scientists", it's a very badly-chosen name.
Published: October 27, 2009 6:08 PM
mpolzkill
Bizarre, the flights of fancy you are taking, Randroid. I never meant to make Christians specific, it was never the issue; it just happened to be the word at issue here. Fine: "Your desperate attack on main stream religions is so laughable I am merely pointing at it to laugh." It is especially funny coming in the form of a paranoid rant from someone who belongs to a quasi-religious cult. But then this is standard; got to take it to the competition.
Thanks at any rate for your concern for the Institute; but Hindus, Muslims and Christians may leave each other alone, and many of them do. Randroids however, as you have made clear before, are not libertarians. You have made it plain that your group wishes to take over the world to enforce IP, for one thing (or not take over the world, just convert everyone to your loopy half-baked religion). Also, your childish philosophy of extreme selfishness is of no use to any sane person let alone libertarians. I'll give the LvMI my useless two bits as well:
***Watch out for Randians, LvMI. They have very "deep differences" with the philosophy of liberty at a "very fundamental level" and are an unsavory bunch to be associated with, to boot.***
There, now I can be ignored by them too, haha.
Published: October 27, 2009 6:37 PM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" Also, your childish philosophy of extreme selfishness is of no use to any sane person let alone libertarians. "
This coming from an insane person who does not even understand what he is taking of is all the more interesting.
Published: October 27, 2009 7:50 PM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" Thanks at any rate for your concern for the Institute; but Hindus, Muslims and Christians may leave each other alone, and many of them do. "
And how about the many who don't? They don't exist in your world, do they? Or do you just blank them out and live in your own fairy tale world where people of all religions have always lived in peace with each other and where the spirit of peace and universal brotherhood preached by all religions is so pervasive that the milk of human kindness flowis all over and where even if the milk didn't flow and people were at each others' necks screaming God's (their respective God's) name, I guess it is not because of some inherent flaw in the religions themselves but because of the frailties of the specific errant human beings, right?
Dumb schmuck. Get back in your rabbit hole before the real world blows up in your face.
Published: October 27, 2009 7:58 PM
mpolzkill
I'm rubber and you're glue, eh?
Of course I know what I'm taking about, I barely pay any attention to you and you never speak clearly so I'll concede it might take a little while to get that clear. I had one simple joke: "haha a cult member warning the LvMI about other religious folks".
You never answered me. What does it say about you that someone you call an idiot has forced you time and again to reverse or amend your misinformed comments? (allusion alert, I know you have extreme difficluty with any left turns) One of the most embarrasing things about being a Colorado Avalance fan is how many other fans took on the mantra, "Red Wings Suck", when they beat our boys about 80% of the time. Amusing to see someone else take on this sad practice.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:06 PM
fundamentalist
Mike: " I've found I can actually have pretty constructive conversations with religious people as long as they don't decide the topic is threatening their faith, at which point they clam up or start babbling nonsensically..."
Yes, that is true of a lot of Christians who haven't taken the time to think through why the believe. But I have found the same thing to be true of atheists and agnostics. Few of them have thought through their faith, either, and when confronted with reason, they just start insulting you. Real thinking is hard and most people just refuse to do it.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:19 PM
Bala
mpolzkill,
That I changed my position after a couple of our previous discussions - please note that it is a couple and not all, for I still think you wrote absolute rot on the "man is his brother's keeper" argument and on everything related to Objectivism - does not mean that you are intelligent. It only means that I am ready to learn from anyone. So cut the self-praise out and face the reality.
That reality is that your take on religion on the one hand and Objectivism on the other is as hare-brained as it gets. You are evading the reality of all the horrors that religions have wrought on Earth in the last 2000-3000 years. When I see a person evading a reality as obvious as this, I see no way but to judge him an idiot.
Once again.... rush back into your rabbit hole. The real world is too hot for you to handle.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:20 PM
mpolzkill
?
Some people of the major religions abide by the law, others don't, so anyone who looks elsewhere for the reasons is some kind of nut? OK. If only they were brought to light of Ayn Rand and realized that they were perfectable. Harharhar.
Thank you, you have now really come out in the open with your irrational hatred. You demonstrating it was all I wanted here. Such a puny, withered soul. So many of you. Oh well, goodbye.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:21 PM
Bala
fundamentalist,
" Few of them have thought through their faith "
I think you are wrong to call atheism a "faith". It is a lack of faith that defines an atheist.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:23 PM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" Thank you, you have now really come out in the open with your irrational hatred. "
I have never concealed my "hatred" for evil. As I see it, faith as propagated by mainstream religion is inherently evil. A sensible man does not make deals with evil. He keeps it as far away from him as possible.
That does not mean the people who follow these religions are necessarily evil. Part of the reason is that few ever follow them down to the last letter. When faced with choices that they can understand, they mostly act like the rational human beings they were meant by nature to be. That, however, is too complex for a pea-brain like you to understand.
And did you ever wonder why people do not follow their religions to the last letter? Ha Ha Ha!!! Welcome to reality again, pea-brain. That's because if they followed the diktats of their religions, they would be dead, not alive.
But then who am I to stop you from evading all this. For the third time, get back into your rabbit hole at the double.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:32 PM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" Some people of the major religions abide by the law, others don't, so anyone who looks elsewhere for the reasons is some kind of nut? "
No. But someone who refuses to connect the dots even when the connection is obvious sure is an idiot. Try giving an explanation for why people of different religions have been at each others' throats and killng each other by the millions all through history. Out here where I live, that still happens. People call them communal riots or religious pogroms.
To know more, you need to step out of wonderland.
Published: October 27, 2009 8:42 PM
Ryan
Uhhh. Hell to the yes!
Published: October 28, 2009 12:38 AM
Mr Eko
Bala,
My last post was somewhat inarticulate, sorry about that! What I meant to say that your definitions result in neatly categorizing any substantive challenges to your belief as logical fallacies. Therefore you do not need to engage in any substantive debate.
We're already in a Tower of Babel situation here, as you've sidestepped all of my inquiries. You're simply feeding my prejudice that objectivism does not stem from any sort of intellectual curiousity, but rather a complete lack of it.
"Could you please point me to a Randian critique of Kantian philosophy?"
This is not a trick question, and I cannot think of a more straightforward way to pose it. I'm interested to know more about Rand's impression of Kant. Links to any articles, essays, etc would be appreciated. Hopefully no book recommendations, as I already have too many on my plate currently.
Thanks.
Published: October 28, 2009 8:09 AM
mpolzkill
Mr. Eko said: "This is not a trick question"
Haha, there is no other kind of question once it enters the funhouse of this character's mind, believe me.
"Tower of Babel"
Excellent: I believe this is the key metaphor to understanding the modern world.
Published: October 28, 2009 8:43 AM
Erik B
I agree that no strings should be attached. The devil is in the details of course!
I believe the goal of the Mises Institute is to "Advance Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School." Seeking out a wider audience advances that goal.
My take on the CSM is they typically allow and encourage freedom of ideas. For this reason, I believe they will allow writers here to express their opinions openly.
On the surface, I'd say this is a great opportunity to expose the ideas expressed by those who contribute to this blog to a worldwide audience. Congratulations Misis.org!
Published: October 28, 2009 10:43 AM
Bala
Mr. Eko,
You said,
" What I meant to say that your definitions result in neatly categorizing any substantive challenges to your belief as logical fallacies. "
There are two possibilities.
1. My definitions are wrong - In that case, you could explain why they are and I shall stand corrected.
2. My definitions are right - In that case, you probably need to shed your inhibitions and start understanding the implications of accepting the definitions I have presented.
It is incorrect on your part to say that I have sidestepped your questions because I have indeed addressed the most important one of them - the definition of my most fundamental axiom. Once the axioms are clear, the rest is only a matter of logic.
And indeed, Objectivism does not stem from "intellectual curiosity" but out of a desire to give man, the rational animal with a volitional consciousness, a means of answering the 3 most important questions that only philosophy can answer - "Where am I?", "How do I know it?" and "What should I do?". Finding the right answers means, for man, the difference between life and death. Such serious matters ought not to be addressed out of mere "curiosity".
Finally, sorry about reading too much into your question. I guess it may have been uncalled for defensiveness. If you really wish to understand the Randian critique of Kantianism or other "popular" philosophies, these are scattered across a few of Rand's non-fiction books. You could try the following. They are all compilations of essays on various relevant topics.
1. The Virtue of Selfishness
2. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
3. Philosophy - Who needs it
These 3 should suffice for all practical purposes. I don't, however, think I can condense them into a brief note out here and assume that you really wish to understand what Rand said.
Published: October 28, 2009 12:09 PM
Elastigirl
Bala and mpolzkill: What are the odds of you taking your ridiculous rants against each other off line so that I can read other people's comments easily and not have to sort through your pissing contest?
Published: October 28, 2009 2:16 PM
mpolzkill
Oh it really not so hard to do, "Elastigirl". Each comment is in a box. When you see our names at the head, don't read the contents therein.
At any rate and anyway, there's not much here. You'll notice on any forum that has anything remotely to do with religion, public atheists will quickly take up their tired crusade. If you'll look, I wasn't the one to drag the conversation exclusively to religion and I wasn't the first to follow where it was being dragged.
Also, there is a very good chance your wish would be fufilled, if those who wish to attack me would only follow my link they can rant to their hearts' content.
Lastly, of course it is ridiculous to try to explain a joke to a Randroid, but please do tell me what else I said that was ridiculous. And do it on my page if you like, or whatever.
Published: October 28, 2009 2:36 PM
Mr Eko
Well, I'm about ready to wrap it up too. Although I did find mpolzkill & Bala's dialogue to be amusing.
Bala, give me a substantive answer to my initial query (the current matter/energy in the universe and its origins) or I am terminating this dialogue. The same laws of thermodynamics and physics existed then, so it's not that difficult.
And thank you for the recommendations. I'm always interested in hearing the counter-arguments to what I believe to be true. Intellectual curiousity, I suppose.
Published: October 28, 2009 2:49 PM
Bala
Mr. Eko,
Firstly, I do not know enough about the science of the study of the universe. Whatever I say is based on the most casual of readings. Still, since you insist that I reply, here are my two bits of "wisdom".
You said
" How do you reconcile that "faith" with the fact that a continually expanding universe indicates a beginning point? "
I do not need to reconcile anything because my position does not contradict this statement of yours. As I stated earlier, the statement "Existence exists" does not mean that what exists at this moment is what existed all along. It could have been in a different configuration at some point in the past and could be in yet another at some point in the future.
If the data available shows that the universe is expanding, it is indeed probable that at some point in time, all the matter that now constitutes the universe might have been concentrated in a small region of space or might have even existed in a form different from matter. However, I would hesitate to call that the "beginning", the way you are doing. The reasons are what I have cited above. In effect, I am disagreeing with your use of the word "beginning".
As for the laws of Thermodynamics, these are the "laws" that form the "axioms" of a scientist studying the form of energy we call heat and how it influences the behaviour of matter. These are the "laws" by which the scientist tries to predict and study outcomes. These laws also define the limits of the science and the scientist. The "law" in itself is a hypothesis that happens - note the use of the word "happens" - to explain observations on the effects of heat on matter, especially gaseous matter.
Published: October 29, 2009 1:23 AM
Mr Eko
Bala, your reply is quite good for someone who claims only some casual reading.
Beginning is a loose term; that's a fair point. Observing our expanding universe, and extrapolating backwards in time, we eventually reach a point where the matter becomes so condensed that all the fundamental forces converge. I consider the beginning to be at this instant - as far as science can take us. Anything before that is speculative. Rapidly diverging matter points to some sort of "Big Bang" type event before then - I am comfortable speculating this.
But where did the matter originate from? No one can answer this, and therefore no one can determine another one's speculation to be wrong. It's conceivable that an entity outside of this universe created/caused it, as we have not observed matter/energy being created in this universe (first law of thermodynamics). It's conceivable that the matter always existed (it's eternal). It's conceivable that the matter existed in a different form, as you said. It's conceivable that science will be able to explain it some time in the future. Some don't see any reason to pick an option (agnostic). Some do pick (athiests and the religious). Note that I am defining athiests as those who definitively state that a deity does not exist.
Another important point you mention is that it really is misleading to use the term "laws", and I am in complete agreement with your last paragraph regarding the limits of science. So yes, faith got me to the alternative that I chose, based on which one I personally found to be the most logical (I'm lazy and wanted to take the shortest leap of faith).
Published: October 29, 2009 8:50 AM
Bala
Mr. Eko,
You said
" Note that I am defining athiests as those who definitively state that a deity does not exist. "
While you do so, you are making a few implicit assumptions. You are acknowledging the axiomatic nature of the concept of "Existence" when you talk of the "existence of a deity". The "Deity" as you speak of, is therefore necessarily a part of Existence.
The important point here is the next important axiom - that of Identity. What is the identity of the "existent" that you call the Deity? What aspects of its identity give it the ability to create existence out of non-existence? You need to define these clearly. That in itself will show the metaphysical impossibility of a deity.
Further, the previous paagraph shows that you have assumed that the deity created existence. But in this very statement lies the contradiction in the concept of the deity. As I had identified above, the deity is a part of existence. How then could the deity predate existence and then create it? Did the deity then create himself into existence out of non-existence?
This is a sample of the reasons for which atheists like me reject the concept of a deity
Published: October 29, 2009 10:15 AM
Bala
Mr. Eko,
Just continuing on my last post. You have also misinterpreted my statement on "the limits of science".
If you look a little closely at the last paragraph where I have mentioned it, I said
' These laws also define the limits of the science and the scientist. '
Please note that I by using the specific identifier "the" I am referring to the particular science of Thermodynamics. My statement is therefore to be interpreted as identifying the limits on the science of Thermodynamics (and of the scientist who studies Thermodynamics) and not on science per se.
In fact, it is the outer limits of Thermodynamics that indicate the starting point of other sciences that seek to explain the nature of Energy, Matter, their origins and the relationship between them. My ignorance of the specific science(s) prevents me from identifying it (them) specifically, but that's how I see it working.
Where the limits of all science as it exists today are reached, it only heralds the potential future development of newer areas of science that explain that which current science cannot. A cursory glance at the history of science shows that this precisely has been the case.
Thus, it would be highly erroneous to jump from my statement on the limits of science to postulate the existence of a deity who supposedly created all existence.
Published: October 29, 2009 10:58 AM
iawai
The CSM is a well-written, and often intellectually independent of any specific church's dogma or influence of state or other powers. I am pleased that Mises.org has been recognized by such a great publisher, who conversely recognizes the potential for Mises.org to generate traffic, which is probably the best consequence of this news.
On "Christian scientists": I don't accept the "Big Bang", oh wait "Inflation", oh wait "Dark Energy" standard theory of cosmology. I don't have faith that the available evidence indicates that that is the correct solution, but I may be wrong.
I believe that the best and most simple solution involves shockwaves (and thus irreversible in general), leaving some areas of the universe that are in our "past" out of reach of direct measurement, thus leaving great questions of the past state of the universe up to issues of faith.
I am also an atheist, I have faith that there is no supernatural god - but that doesn't mean I think that we know everything that the natural word does yet. I admire and respect those who have faith that there was divine inspiration in some great teachers or in the creation of our wonderfully bountiful (yet dangerously scarce) natural environment, and also accept that they might just be right - but I don't have that proof yet, so my faith remains atheistic.
Just wanted to give a more nuanced POV on the discussion here. Normally I'd just ignore such a debate in the comments to a blog, but here I expected a higher level of debate, leaving ethical judgments unused.
Published: October 29, 2009 11:38 AM
Mr Eko
Bala,
Go over to lewrockwell.com - there is an article about Ayn Rand today. I had to chuckle over the irony of its timing. When I saw it as I thought of you.
"Where the limits of all science as it exists today are reached, it only heralds the potential future development of newer areas of science that explain that which current science cannot."
You have great "faith" in future scientific discoveries that will figure everything out? This is the exact opposite of the scientific method that you hold sacrosanct. Hitchens used to use this line in debates, but has since given it up, and now is resigned to simply taking it on the chin in this area and getting it over with.
"What is the identity of the "existent" that you call the Deity?"
Trying to break your circular logic here - I do not know, since such a diety would have existed outside of our universe, therefore no aspects of its identity can be defined. And, you're applying a higher standard to the diety's origins that you are to matter's origins.
Published: October 29, 2009 12:41 PM
Bala
Mr. Eko,
I did go through the article you referred to. I found it a fairly badly written article riddled with errors. However, since I think our discussion is not about that, at least on this discussion, I am right now refraining from pointing out the many obvious errors made by Lew.
Coming to your specific comment
" You have great "faith" in future scientific discoveries that will figure everything out? "
You are right. I need to make a correction in my earlier statement.
Where the limits of all science as it exists today are reached, it only indicates that further attempts to explain the inexplicable will need science to expand its frontiers. Men will need to come up with better ideas than their predecessors. If and when they can, science advances.
Hope this statement avoids the display of "faith" or what I prefer to call confidence in science. I agree that my statement hinted at the omnipotence of science and the human mind. Hence the correction.
Coming now to your attempt to break my "circular logic", your error lies in the statement "our universe". The term is self-contradictory. Once you use the word "universe", there is no "your universe", "my universe" and "the other universe". At the most, one can talk of "the universe as perceived and understood by us".
Secondly, it does not matter therefore in which universe the deity existed at the time of creating existence. What matters is that it needs to exist to create existence but the fact that it exists makes it a part of the very existence you (theists in general) are claiming it created and predates. In short, the concept "deity" is self-contradictory if one accepts the axiom "Existence exists". You are guilty of using the method of the "stolen concept". To prove the possibility of your deity, you are smuggling in the very concept of existence that you are trying to deny axiomatic status to. That is only more confirmation that "Existence" is a true axiom. As Rand said, the axiomatic nature of a concept becomes most apparent when you need to accept it and use it in order to try to disprove it.
Published: October 29, 2009 2:46 PM
Michael A. Clem
I am also an atheist, I have faith that there is no supernatural god.
I, also, am an atheist. But I don't have faith that there is no supernatural deity. Instead, I simply have no sufficient reason for believing that such a supernatural being exists. Atheism doesn't require faith.
Published: October 29, 2009 3:03 PM
Mr Eko
Bala,
You have to admit that the part about Rand and debating was humorous. I'm in the same situation the author described now, where you're funneling my arguments into your logical fallacy wastebasket! Anyways, please don't run back to your foxhole yet.
So, if you're sticking to science as known today, we're back at the point where gravity separates from the electro-nuclear forces, a very small fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and we have Einsteinian (is that the correct adjective?) physics as we know it. This is as far back as we can go, and you're content with that? No curiousity as to what caused it? You want to call it quits, and simply state that existence exists? This would be fine if we had a steady-state universe, but we have a universe that collapses back into a singularity in the past that defies science. Nevertheless, you can still believe in eternal matter (no beginning and no end) and I have no way to prove you wrong.
I do remain curious as to how you can declare me wrong.
Point well taken regarding the universe as perceived and understood by us. Good definition. But this hints that there could be more (the Kantian philosophy that you abhor).
Finally, nothing was smuggled in. I am referring to existence outside of this universe (independent of existence within this universe).
Published: October 30, 2009 8:47 AM
mpolzkill
Bala, speaking of his impression of some novelist's impression of Kant:
"Rather, it confirms the impression Rand gave me about his "philosophy".
Dig the sarcastic quotation marks!
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Eko:
"You have to admit that the part about Rand and debating was humorous."
It *is* hard for we with a fuller range of human attributes to understand the ways of these sad cultists, Mr. Eko. Even more irony (you may have already seen it) and humor:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
Delightful. Speaking of impressions, I had never read the play, and I guess this falls under "confirmation bias", but it is everything I had ever imagined her and her lackeys to be (like Bala and Rand regarding Kant, I have never read the "novelist"). Didn't know about her charming husband/gigolo though. I have great affection for gigolos, especially this one. Please do read it if you haven't, I think that you will enjoy it.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:07 AM
Bala
Mr. Eko,
" This is as far back as we can go, and you're content with that? No curiousity as to what caused it? "
Who said the curiosity does not exist? I said and still say that studying that is the task of Science. It is not mine because I am not equipped with the knowledge and understanding required. However, if instead of studying, one starts a guessing game of wild bets, I am not sure that would constitute a genuine attempt at trying to understand the universe better.
Further, your question "What caused it?" is an improper one because you are implicitly assuming that there was a cause for existence per se. There can only be causes for how existence was transformed from one previous configuration to another. To assume that existence was caused, you will have to go all the way to non-existence and then claim that existence was born out of non existence. That i something that one would call the "Reification of the Zero". I can understand defining non-existence as the absence of non-existence but not the reverse. It sounds pretty weird to me.
" I do remain curious as to how you can declare me wrong. "
I thought I was pretty explicit about that. The word "universe" includes all existence. To then separate it as "this universe" and "that universe" is fallacious and contradicts the meaning of the word "universe". I refuse to admit such obvious contradictions that make a mockery of the very concept of definitions.
The concept that you smuggled was the concept of "existence". When you implied you see that existence was created by a deity, you were forced to say that the deity existed before it created existence. But logically, you cannot talk of existence before existence is created. Thus, you have smuggled the concept of existence into non-existence to justify the existence (oops!!) of your deity prior to existence. I know this sounds confusing, but the confusion is a result of your fundamentally flawed position.
I think I am wrapping up my point because you are either failing or refusing to read what I have said and forcing me to repeat it many times over. Good luck until next time on another discussion.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:26 AM
Mr Eko
mpolzkill,
I saw the headline on lewrockwell.com today but didn't read it, but I will be sure to now! I'm sure Bala will find it riddled with errors.
Thanks.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:27 AM
Bala
mpolzkill,
" It *is* hard for we with a fuller range of human attributes "
Assumptions! Assumptions!! Hope things in Wonderland are fine.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:29 AM
Mr Eko
OK Bala, it's been fun sparring with you.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:40 AM
mpolzkill
Bala, do you know what an assumption is? The subject was humor. I have talked with you and read your stuff for many, many hours. I have not once seen you yourself employ any humor or seem to be able to grasp when it is being used by *anyone* else.
Now, that's just one common human trait that at the very least you are most certainly below the norm in posessing (although that all could be a cultural gulf you have with every single person here, I'll admit). You also have no concept of religious feelings. I could go on and on. I should track down the mortifying things you've said about your flesh brother to perfect strangers. How much evidence do I need before what is clear to me is no longer an assumption?
(And again, if you wish to find out more about "wonderland" or heap abuse and don't want to make "Elastigirl" angry, drop it on my page.)
Published: October 30, 2009 9:42 AM