Deus Decorus Est

Economic Freedom and Power

2008-06-18T22:31:00.003-04:00

I don't think people understand how closely political economics is tied to freedom.

When taxes are raised and government is allowed to expand, individual Americans effectively cede a portion of their liberty. In certain situations, this is vital and unavoidable. A good example is our nationalized police force; no one wants public order to be maintained solely by private corporations.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that government constantly abuses and increases its power when given the chance. This trend is painfully obvious in the United States, where the national government now controls a great many things it was never originally intended to control.

In the past hundred years, the ideologies of socialism, communism, and fascism have advocated governmental dominion over the economy. Modern power does not exist in military might, but in economic strength; therefore, socialist, communist, and fascist governments who controlled their nations' economies have almost always been totalitarian. The great atrocities of modern times have been perpetrated by governments such as these. There are too many examples to list.

Conversely, in a true capitalist society, private individuals would have more power than they have ever had. (Note that an economy controlled by corporate conglomerates and monopolies is not at all capitalistic. It is oligarchic.) In a capitalist society, government cannot control the people; it can only defend and protect them. Power is diffused, rather than concentrated; it truly belongs to individuals. A capitalist society is not only stronger, but freer.

Americans are (understandably) wary of "Big Brother" when it comes to wiretaps and surveillance, but the much more real peril to our freedom lies in Uncle Sam's increasing control over the economy. We prostitute our economic power and freedom for governmental promises of comfort and welfare. The promises are rarely kept, and the power is rarely returned to the people. Does our government deserve the increasing power with which we are entrusting it?

Recently, Democrats in Congress advocated nationalizing the oil industry. (It'd be funny if it weren't true. And what does Maxine Waters, a former teacher, know about the economy?) Apparently, they haven't heard of Hugo Chávez.

Barack Obama, of course, is no different (and neither is McCain, essentially). According to the Wall Street Journal, "Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. 'Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers,' he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. He spoke aboard his campaign bus, where a big-screen TV was tuned to the final holes of the U.S. Open golf tournament." (For the record, a strong government hand is not needed to "assure that wealth is distributed more equally." I think there are much better ways to do that.)

Consider this: any power given to the government is not only given to the "good" politicians, but also to the "bad" ones. Liberals, do you really want men like George Bush to run the economy? Conservatives, do you really want the Bill Clintons of the world in control of your economy? Wouldn't it make more sense to let the people control the economy?

Only 47% of Americans oppose nationalizing the oil industry. In my opinion, that Democrats (and some Republicans) would even suggest policies such as these under the guise of capitalism is completely duplicitous.

America, meet Socialism.

Sartre on God

2008-06-17T12:14:00.005-04:00

Interesting quote from Sartre (of all people):

"I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."

Obviously, he didn't convert on his deathbed or anything...but still, for him to say this is kind of a big deal.

Objectivity

2008-06-16T15:31:00.003-04:00

In a recent discussion about apologetics with a (non-Christian) friend of mine, I referenced a few Christian books written about the history of Christianity. His response to me was that the authors were irreparably biased, because they were themselves Christian.

My friend does have a point; Christian writers will display a bias toward Christianity.

But is that not also true of atheists, or deists, or Muslims, or Hindus, or...anyone? Capitalists, communists, Republicans, Democrats? Who isn't biased? No one. Can anyone find books written in support of certain positions whose authors do not themselves support those positions?

Of course, the solution is not to discard all human knowledge as ideologically tainted, but to seek the truth honestly and from multiple sources.

The problem, however, is not that my friend sought to discard all human knowledge, but that he saw only "religious" knowledge as tainted. In other words, those opposed to Christianity could be objective, but those supporting it could not.

This seems absurd to me.

First of all, everyone is "religious," in the sense that everyone has beliefs about metaphysics. Atheism and agnosticism are each religions of their own. Or, if you prefer to construe "religion" as meaning "traditional ritualized belief systems," I could say that everyone has a belief system of some sort.

The objection is raised (and, in a way, should be raised) that those religious people who choose to defend and write about Christianity are extremely passionate, emotionally invested, and (therefore) invariably biased. The implicit assumption is that atheists and other non-religious people are "rational" and "free-thinking" - objective.

Of course, this ignores the fact that men have hated religion as much as they have loved it. Just as not all religious people are fervently religious, not all non-religious people are God-hating maniacs - but many of the leading atheists sure seem to be.

Sam Harris, one of the most famous modern critics of religion, said, "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." Does that sound objective to anyone? Richard Dawkins' recent bestseller was entitled The God Delusion, implying that the vast majority of the world's population (along with a long list of some of the modern world's greatest thinkers and people such as Aristotle) was deluded in its religious thinking.

Does this sound reasonable or objective? To me, it does not. As Voltaire said, "Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde." (Look it up! And yes, it cuts both ways.) I would argue that Dawkins and Harris are just as emotionally invested in their positions as any Christian I know; in fact, it is probably just as impossible for them to remain objective as it would be for me.

(Criticism of Dawkins, Harris, and other prominent atheists do not come only from their philosophical opponents. Michael Ruse, a philosopher at Florida State University, said, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." Scott Atran, in response to a presentation Harris made, used similar words: "It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist.")

Of course, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins do not speak for the mass of non-religious people, and they could just as easily point to inflammatory comments made by theists. The problem is that Christianity has a moderate voice, but anti-Christianity seems to have none (or a very quiet one.)

Finally, we must distinguish between authors and the arguments they make. A child who says he cannot breathe underwater is just as correct in his assessment as the biologist who makes the same claim; in other words, the validity of a certain claim (such as "I cannot breathe underwater" or "God exists") is independent of the person making the claim. We can disagree with conclusions, but we cannot dismiss conclusions merely because we disagree with those who make them.

In the end, Harris' and Dawkins' belligerence does them and their arguments disservice.

Scalia's Dissent

2008-06-14T11:18:00.000-04:00

I like it.

Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments

2008-06-08T23:11:00.005-04:00

When I wrote this, I didn't realize that Leibniz had already thought of it.

I also didn't realize that Alexander Pruss had written about and basically blown me out of the water.

This is what he has to say.

When Gas Prices Get Too High...

2008-06-04T12:00:00.002-04:00

...This happens.

Hat tip to the Fool for this one.

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

2008-05-30T15:30:00.004-04:00

A friend showed me this article yesterday, and I was basically stunned.

Whether or not this guy's theory is true (the LHC will hopefully be able to test it), it demonstrates a few very interesting things (and I'm not even talking about the "surfer dude" angle).

First off, it's extremely elegant - or, in its author's words, "exceptionally simple." (That might be a bit of an overstatement, unless you're conversant in Lie algebras. But the title of the theory is actually a pun, because E₈ is technically a "simple" and "exceptional" Lie group.)

In fact, elegance is the main thing it has going for it; even though some people criticize its scientific merits, a lot of people seem enamored with its beauty. One professor said, "Some incredibly beautiful stuff falls out of Lisi's theory, I think that this must be more than coincidence and he really is touching on something profound." Doesn't it sound like he's talking about a work of art instead of a scientific theory?

Paul Dirac (an atheist) said, "God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world." What he meant was that he thought the fundamental physical and mathematical laws governing our reality were rational, simple, and elegant - beautiful.

I've often noticed this mystical (and even religious) devotion scientists and mathematicians have to their respective fields, and how they expect logical and elegant solutions to their problems. They expect the Theory of Everything to make sense, and even to be mathematically perfect. Notice what Lisi says about his theory: "This is an all-or-nothing kind of theory - it's either going to be exactly right, or spectacularly wrong. I'm the first to admit this is a long shot. But it ain't over till the LHC sings."

Why is it "all-or-nothing"? Because if it's off, just by a little, even if it explains gravity, it loses its symmetry. It loses its elegance. It ceases to be beautiful - and as Dirac noted, only beautiful mathematics were used in the creation of the world.

I wonder if he ever asked why this is the case...

Exploding Pigs

2008-05-29T11:38:00.006-04:00

Because nothing says environmental responsibility like exploding pigs...

And yes, my friend was able to get a negative life span. Which is amazing for a variety of reasons.

And yes, the TV network producing the Flash game is state-sponsored.

And yes, the game violates the network's own code of practice.

And yes, some people are angry.

And yes...I should stop starting my sentences with "And yes."

And We're Not Even in a Recession Yet...

2008-05-28T09:39:00.002-04:00

The problem here is that this media coverage negatively affects consumer confidence...which negatively affects the economy.

The Myth of the Anthropomorphic God

2008-05-27T11:29:00.006-04:00

The Baron of Montesquieu wrote, "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides." The aphorism implicitly reverses classical theology: We are the creators, and we made God in our image. It also approaches the psychology of religion tangentially. Historical gods and religions are exactly what we would expect from superstitious homo sapiens.

(While I accept Montesquieu's statement as true, the converse statement is also true: If there were a three-sided god, he would create triangles. God is not anthropomorphic; humans are theomorphic.)

When it comes to orthodox Christianity, the accusation of anthropomorphism is simplistic at best. God is Love, God is Light, God is Spirit (cf. 1 John 4:8, 1 John 1:5, John 4:24). (Although these scriptures do not address the issue directly, but they are exemplary of broader Christian thought on the subject.) Despite artistic depictions to the contrary, and despite the human nature Jesus undertook on Earth, the Godhead itself was generally thought of as existing beyond nature, and thus beyond human characteristics. (Interestingly, this article suggests that ancient rabbis did conceive of God as anthropomorphic. Some Latter-Day Saint scriptures also hint at God's corporeality.)

But I don't think the anthropomorphic criticism is truly criticizing the idea of a corporeal God. I think the true, underlying problem people have is with the idea of a personal God. Their reservations are largely removed when they consider abstract entities, higher orders, and life forces.

I haven't really thought out the philosophical implications of a personal (as opposed to an impersonal) creator, but I do know that this aspect of God - personality - is the one which leads to such emotional reactions and thinking on both sides.

Of course, I still haven't found a very plausible explanation for the development of consciousness as we know it today.

Range Voting

2008-05-26T17:48:00.002-04:00

Anyone have a reason this shouldn't be how we vote?

Oh Wait, They All Lie!

2008-05-24T18:19:00.002-04:00

Obama lies, McCain lies, and Hillary lies. Is anyone surprised?

The Beginning of the Canon?

2008-05-22T11:17:00.007-04:00

A lot of people, both Christians and non-Christians, share the misconception that the biblical canon was not developed until hundreds of years after Jesus died. (The more cynical among these think it was a power ploy to stamp out opposing books and doctrines.) Regardless of when the canon was formalized, the idea that certain post-Christ writings were considered sacred can be traced to the New Testament itself:

And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16, NET)

This does not answer the question of which writings of Paul (and which other works) are canonical. However, it demonstrates that the apostles (and by extension, most if not all earliest Christians) had a clear conception of "the Scriptures," a compilation of writings that included apostolic texts.

Ahh!

2008-05-21T23:59:00.003-04:00

This scares me.

We're neutering ourselves.

Rice Christians

2008-05-21T10:29:00.002-04:00

Here's a very powerful essay. As dc Talk said, "The greatest source of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but deny Him by their lifestyles. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Bad Religion?

2008-05-16T07:59:00.003-04:00

There is a common misconception that religion is not merely one cause of society's ills, but the main cause, a relic of a bloodier past that is bloodying up the present as well. With visceral pleasure, people list the Crusades, the Inquisition, and (most obviously) today's Islamic terrorists as examples of the evils of religion. The implication, as always, is that (organized) religion is a man-made tool used to perpetrate violence.

The insipidity of this argument is rather startling.

First of all, there is no entity named "Religion" for us to scapegoat. Different religions and different branches of religions, in different places and times, operate quite independently of each other, and to blame each individual denomination for the sins of completely different people and belief systems is ridiculous. Examples of Christian violence, for example, do not detract from the claims of Islam, and vice versa.

More importantly, examples of Christian violence do not detract from the claims of Christianity. It would literally be impossible to justify either the Crusades or the Inquisition from the New Testament. The first Christians were some of the first pacifists, at a time when Roman society was extremely militarized. Origen, one of the leaders of the early Christian church, wrote, "Nowhere does He teach that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, however wicked. For He deemed the killing of any individual to be against His laws, which were divine in origin. If Christians had owed their origins to a rebellion, they would not have adopted laws of so exceedingly a mild character... [These laws] do not even allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when they are called to be slaughtered as sheep [emphasis added]."

But weren't the Crusaders religious zealots? A lot of them were. They were also human, greedy, belligerent, and stupid. They were severely, severely misguided. The fact that certain people use religion as a tool does not mean that religion is only a tool. People will misuse and abuse anything they can.

(And please, please, let's not pretend that the Crusaders would have been happy, peace-loving flower children if it weren't for Christianity. The Crusaders would have been pillaging, raping barbarians if it weren't for Christianity - and a lot of them were pillaging, raping barbarians in spite of Christianity.)

If we were to dismiss religion because of the actions of the worst religious people, we would also have to dismiss every other good thing. The main perpetrator of large-scale war, after all, is not religion, but technology. Science led to nuclear bombs; should we throw out all of science? No! Do we blame all Muslims for Osama bin Laden? No! Do we blame Martin Luther King, Jr. for the Black Panthers? No! Then why, why in the world do we continue to castigate any and all conceptions of God because of what some asinine Europeans did centuries ago? The vast majority of the world's population is religious; is it really surprising that they're not all picture-perfect people?

If all that weren't enough, there is one final, fatal flaw in this argument: Anti-religionists in the past two hundred years have killed millions more people than all the religious throughout history ever did.

Castro. Stalin. Lenin. Trotsky. Mao. Robespierre. Milošević. Combined, they slaughtered millions of people. Is it a coincidence that all these men were either atheists or anti-religionists? Is it a coincidence that Karl Marx, the main influence on many of them, called religion "the opiate of the masses"? Is it a coincidence that Stalin effectively banned Christianity in the Soviet Union while he ruled, or that China still does not allow Christians their religious freedom? Is it a coincidence that the main German opposition to Hitler came from Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the members of die Weiße Rose? Is it a coincidence that Gandhi's major influence was Tolstoy, whose pacifist writings were inspired by his devout Christianity?

In a word: No.

The Myth of Freethought

2008-05-12T18:50:00.009-04:00

(Just remember: The problem isn't thinking for yourself, but thinking that your thoughts are somehow special or better than everyone else's.)

I recently saw an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit that greatly amused me. The episode's name was "Authority," and it focused largely on a sound engineer who was campaigning against conformity and submission to authority under the slogan "No Sheep!". During the episode, he holds a rally in Manhattan that (predictably) attracts a huge crowd. The entire mass of people, goaded on by his exhortations, begins to chant, "No more sheep! No more sheep!" The irony of the situation is completely lost upon them.

Oftentimes, people operating under the guise of individualism, uniqueness, and anti-authoritarianism are the most unoriginal people you will meet. By striving to reject society's standards, they define themselves by society's standards. They tend to cluster around people who think the same way - just like everyone else does.

This phenomenon would be relatively harmless if it restricted itself to bad art, fashion, and music. (All three are prime media through which people distinguish themselves in the most superficial form possible.)

However, recently, this counter-cultural sentiment has gained such popularity that it has itself become the culture. Modern Western culture might be more individualistic than any other culture in history. (The roots of this cultural trend lie in the Enlightenment, during which intellectuals proposed a new chief principle of morality and politics: individual freedom.) We say things like "Be yourself!" or "Find the real you!", quoting Thoreau and other "freethinkers" (yes, pot-smoking transcendentalists count) in an absurdly shallow attempt to find meaning in life. I am reminded of Margaret Mead's quip, "Always remember you're unique...just like everybody else." The vast majority of today's self-styled individualists or non-conformists are deceiving themselves.

Of course, any exaggeration assertion of self-empowerment and individualism comes at the expense of traditional culture, thought, and morality. Individualism has penetrated past its inchoate aesthetic manifestations to worldviews and philosophies; postmodernism, deconstructionism, and other systems of thought all spring from its same tainted fountainhead.

The influence is most apparent in what is called "freethought," the proponents of which we call "freethinkers." The implicit assumption is that freethinkers have liberated themselves from the shackles of convention and tradition which so encumber the rest of us poor saps. (This is evidence, in my opinion, that religion's modern-day trials can be much better ascribed to a rejection of collectivism than anything else.)

People are wary and weary of organized religion, of being told what to do or what to think. (Of course, blindly submitting to authority - groupthink - is never a good thing, and religion, like any good thing, can be manipulated by individuals to their own gain.) Today, "religious" is a dirty word; "spiritual" is much better. When Nietzsche said God was dead, he really meant God was old-fashioned.

(Incidentally, the idea that organized religion is not personal may be selectively true, but it is by no means universally true. For true practitioners, I would think religion is an intensely personal experience.)

But the label "freethinker" is a complete misnomer. Freethinkers are generally just as influenced by their individualistic society as the pious are by their religious upbringing. Neither group can claim any greater objectivity, rationality, or "freedom of thought"; neither worldview is unique in any way.

The decision to adopt a particular religion can be just as personal and independent as the decision to be a "freethinker." There have been "freethinkers" for millennia, and most of them have thought along very similar lines. "Freethought" is just a new word for pride.

By all means, be fair and honest in intellectual pursuits - but don't pretend that your thoughts are better than other people's thoughts, or that new thoughts are better than old thoughts. (Chances are, the "new" thought has already been proposed and discussed centuries ago.) Rejecting, not acccepting, those assumptions is the true sign of intellectual freedom.

Russell's Teapot

2008-05-08T19:19:00.005-04:00

So Bertrand Russell is a smart guy, but I really think this argument is a bit silly:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

The reasoning is deceptively simple...but there's a major omission in Russell's logic.

Let me put it in layman's terms: The existence of a universe demands a frickin' explanation.

Why does that matter? Atheism, scientism, physicalism, and their other variants are at a complete loss (in my opinion) to explain the universe's existence. As Martin Rees, a renowned physicist (and agnostic), said, "The preeminent mystery is why anything exists at all. What breathes life into the equations of physics, and actualized them in a real cosmos? Such questions lie beyond science..." It is entirely more reasonable to believe a teapot created the universe than to believe the universe created itself. Furthermore, I can think of no candidate more apt for creating the universe than a timeless, omnipotent being.

Unfortunately, Russell's unavailable for comments.

Jürgen Habermas on Christianity

2008-05-01T12:07:00.002-04:00

What Jürgen Habermas, renowned atheist and sociopolitical theorist, has to say about Christianity's cultural legacy:

"Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."

I personally think our continual secularization of the public sphere and repudiation of Judæo-Christian values will eventually disintegrate our society.

Weekly Review: April 29

2008-05-01T09:01:00.001-04:00

Only in Brazil

2008-04-30T12:02:00.001-04:00

My question is how he couldn't tell...

Global...Cooling?

2008-04-23T21:53:00.001-04:00

If this is at all true...God has a sense of humor.

Weekly Review: April 22

2008-04-23T21:52:00.002-04:00

Weekly Review: April 15

2008-04-15T18:17:00.000-04:00