@ "Interested"

Well said. I rarely come across a commentator as well spoken as yourself. I pretty much stumble over my own words on this blog so cheers!

The surface problems of theism vs. science seem to be a moral one, but hack away at it, and we see that it is quite clearly founded on the basic epistemological problems raised by the skeptic. In other words, how do we KNOW that we know? How do you KNOW, for example, that the computer screen in which you happen to be reading this blog is in fact a separate object from your mind? William James claimed that the very belief in an objective reality was just as unfounded as the belief in a deity (can you logically rule out that you are not in the Matrix, or a brain in a vat??), and thus science is founded on a "faith" position. On that argument we might as well rule out using empirical evidence of any kind… (because it would be based on an objective reality)

All that being said, what will intrigue you is that the solution only presents itself by turning the epistemological problem into a moral one. The theist preaches to his fellow believers NOT to question the beliefs taught by their faith, which are generally about a reality, and generally arrived at by irrational means. Meanwhile, the scientist preaches "question everything! Mystery and doubt are the source of all scientific exploration and discovery in life. It is a moral imperative in attaining knowledge!"

Which is the more virtuous method of approaching life, the universe, and everything (thank you Douglas Adams)? The answer? Why, the one that is morally correct of course! Granted, we cannot know for sure that there is an objective reality of any kind. We nevertheless BOTH assume belief in a reality as a sort of axiom in which to interact with other social beings and make our lives have purpose (if only a subjective purpose). Both so-called "faiths" (science and theism) can at least BEGIN with this much. So be it! We can't help BUT assume as much, because our minds demand it. Here's the catch: once we grant this axiom as a foundation (that we exist within a reality), we need a process that genuinely and honestly attempts to approach the TRUTH that stems from that axiom (an objective reality that provides objective evidence for observable phenomenon – "Truth" is what connects us to the real, and we use that connection-called knowledge-to learn and progress and become more functional.. but I ramble).

IF we grant the axiom that an objective reality exists (which both theists and scientists generally do - at least for functional purposes) THEN we have a responsibility to everyone around us (whose existence we grant upon that axiom) to acquire knowledge CAREFULLY and not carelessly - so as not to harm one another. Not only that, but once the axiom is assumed, many other similar arguments follow. For example, if we care about anything, we care about knowing the truth of things. We care about the truth and wisdom of political decisions, relationships, whether or not we possess the knowledge to create the perfect cup of coffee. Does this girl like me? Does that guy like me? Did I do well on the exam? These questions all possess truth values that we desperately want to know. We shouldn't jump at some whimsical conclusion we desire to be true and claim "it just IS true!" That's ridiculous, and morally wrong, and thus not virtuous. What the theist is doing is refusing to explore the argument at all, because they simply don't want to be persuaded otherwise. They want it to be true, or they're afraid it might be truth, and therefore they go on believing it IS true. Hell, I wish I could use the force, but you don't see me wearing garbs and waving a lightsaber around (unless it's Halloween or something). But more to the point, religion is based on treating people as the slaves of a mythical being. Within the Abrahamic religions especially, we humans are simply a means to the ends of a selfish God. By believing in this without tangible evidence (evidence that is extraordinary, justifying an extraordinary claim...), you are acting amoral in that you abandon all responsibility that comes with believing in the first axiom - that there IS an objective reality you reside within, and there are other people who live in it with you. Not only that, but you are abandoning your very dignity by giving up your autonomy.... but that's another argument for another day.

Phaedrus out!

Someone was talking to me today about how she's taking a class that preaches a very liberal stance on religion. It teaches that religion (for the most part) has positive influences on many people's lives, making them more stable and happy. My response was naturally skeptical, and so was hers. There are in fact tons of historical and contemporary data that would say otherwise.

Many of my readers have probably figured out that, not only am I an atheist, I am also anti-religion. I believe in "freedom of religion" because I believe in "individual liberty" which demands certain negative rights, but I am convinced that religion does more harm than good, and that's what I mean by "anti-religion." Religion creates a sort of societal stagnation. It turns people against each other, and prevents the kind of maturity that would otherwise produce the kind of individual autonomy that is the very source of human dignity – a dignity which grounds all human rights stemming from self-ownership. Above all, religion obscures reality from the people who follow it.

That being said, let's consider that religion did make people happy. What is more virtuous? Being "happy" in a delusion, or being potentially unhappy with the truth? On this question I borrow from Aristotle to an extent. A virtuous life is one that seeks to achieve the good. The good is not happiness however. Happiness is fleeting and temporary, it can be taken away from you the instant after you attain it. The "good" is something tangible, something permanent. The "good" is truth, knowledge, and the wisdom to utilize it. The false happiness gained from any delusion is nothing but a practice in hedonism. There is nothing good about living in a happiness caused by false beliefs arrived at by tradition, authority, or wishful thinking. Going through life "imprisoned by the prejudices derived from "common sense," and from convictions which have grown up in [your] mind without the cooperation or consent of [your] deliberate reason" is not a virtue (Russell). Operating under the unquestionable authority of a church, clergy, or dogma, takes away from your autonomy as a human being. It takes away your very dignity. That's why I'm against religion. I won't protest your right to practice it, but I will certainly criticize it openly as morally wrong in every sense of the word, and condemn it as the opposite of what I like to call "reality."

Think of this way: If you knew someone who believed in unicorns and fairies, and taught their children to believe the same while also demanding they follow the fantastic teachings of fairies and unicorns unquestionably (via some holy book, etc.), you would all have something to say about that, even if it made those people happy. They would be living a lie, and one that might be very harmful. They would not be living a good life because they would be unable to see the truth, rationalizing all of reality to fit their belief in fairies and unicorns and all of their dogmatic teachings. Sound familiar? How many people don't believe in dinosaurs (that fossils are simply a "test" of faith), or that the earth is only about 6000 years old, or that evolution is just a crazy scientific theory (instead of a confirmed theory that constantly aids in solving archeological and biological problems)? How many people can't seem to accept "climate change" as a scientific fact? They can't accept these things because it threatens their belief in intelligent design, or what it says in their 2000 year old book. All of these examples demonstrate how harmful and disastrous religion can be, but none of these examples could be more powerful than the history of war between religions, and the most violent wars were between different sects of the same faith (Protestants versus Catholics, Islam versus Islam, etc.) I'll leave you guys with that.

Phaedrus Out

The libertarian response is this: "deregulate and privatize everything and there won't be so many poor people." Why does this make sense? Well let's say you have a poor man, but he happens to have a beat up old sedan. Now what's to stop this guy from simply giving people taxi rides and making a little money? Answer: he needs a license. Let's say you have a lady with a beat up house, but a well kept yard… What prevents her from opening up a tidy, inexpensive daycare to make some much needed income? Answer: she needs a permit! The argument rests in the idea that almost every person on earth has a marketable value or skill for which they can find a way to survive in the market, and the government is preventing market entry for those who need it most (or at least making it incredibly difficult for the poor people).

What's so interesting about the libertarian philosophy is that logically its air tight, and it's also very appealing to people on an individual level. It's appealing because the liberty of the individual is the chief political good for the libertarian, and all other arguments rest on this assumption. Libertarianism also paints a very optimistic picture of humanity, one that is simple and quite bluntly - wishful thinking. The idea that we'd all chip in, and everyone would survive in a completely privatized world is ridiculous. Basically their stance is that the only appropriate role of government is to protect your negative freedom from other predatory individuals. "Negative freedom" is a negative right ("negative" refers to the logical sense, not the ethical sense). Negative rights are those rights that can be satisfied if everyone respects a duty of noninterference and forbearance as respect for other people's rights. For example, the right to life only requires that you do not kill others. The right to property simply requires that you do not steal. The right to free speech requires that you do not sensor me. In other words, you are free to do what does not violate other people's negative rights (life, liberty, property). And thus we come upon the free market mantra which states: free and voluntary market exchanges provide unanimity without conformity. Government interference leaves us with involuntary conformity without unanimity. Basically in a market exchange that's private and non-regulated, both parties are (at the time) in agreement, and basically happy… With government you get taxed involuntarily, coerced to conform to code, regulation, or restrictions by law, and basically you feel screwed.

Where is the flaw in this argument? Why isn't everyone jumping on board? Why am I still a liberal who wants universal healthcare instead of supporting the conservatives and libertarians? There are many flaws, but the first is in the assumption that "the liberty of the individual (in the negative sense) is the chief political good." Why does this right have to be on the highest tier? Why isn't education, health, or security? These are just a few examples. The other flaw is that all individual rights stem from the libertarian belief of "self-ownership." We all own ourselves and are autonomous (we are individuals capable of giving ourselves our own purpose and rules). Sounds reasonable and even compelling. The problem is, how and when do we attain this autonomy... this "self-ownership"? Certainly not when we are born right? We need parenting and eduction. We need medical attention, because in our youth we cannot fend for ourselves without the proper knowhow. And therefore, we come to other problems in which the libertarian axioms entail that if we are to attain self-ownership, or some kind of individual autonomy where we are responsible actors, we must receive education and medical care to a point in which we are capable of reason, judgment, and giving ourselves our own rules (and be capable of receiving an income to afford good healthcare). Thus, in a society we need to provide public education, public healthcare, and fair access to opportunity. There has to be at least some "fair access to opportunity" rights, and that is what the egalitarian liberals like myself are talking about when we mention "positive rights." Rights that require all citizens to participate in order to provide fair access to opportunity. A right to vote, and fair access to political power, requires we pay taxes to regulate a voting booths and a supreme court to maintain voting laws. Individual autonomy requires education that aids individuals in achieving good reason and judgment, which entails fair access to education. Fair access to education requires we have a public educational system. Inequality is FINE, as long as it is preceded by fair access to opportunity. Just because we all have fair access to education doe not mean we will all decide to gun it to Harvard. That's fine, as long as we all have the opportunity to achieve entrance into an ivy league school. Fair access to political power doesn't mean we'll all aspire to be senators, but in a democracy two people with equal talents, experience, and education ought to be able to run for senator regardless of your financial power or ethnic background. You can all see my point. (For more information on this, please pick up a copy of Libertarianism: for and against by Duncan and Machan. It gives persuasive arguments in both directions.)

Now, I'm not suggesting we should give up our freedom entirely, but I think there are other political goods for which we ought to allow some sacrifice. I'm perfectly willing to have certain limits on my freedom for a little security. I pay taxes so others can receive an education which I believe aids in social growth, and aids in giving citizens their autonomy - the very source of human dignity that constitutes human rights. I am also willing to pay taxes so that other people (myself included) can have - not only a right to life - but a good and healthy life. I want to live in a society where we are educated, healthy, secure, and YES free. But freedom doesn't mean "free to do everything." If we follow libertarianism to its logical absurdity, people would be free to sell any and all kinds of drugs, sell babies, prostitute, pollute the world - and all so long as there is profit and no violation of negative rights. Now I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but… I think selling drugs to kids, or passing on diseases, or selling children in a free market without any kind of regulation, or rule of law, is a little ridiculous and morally irresponsible. We live in a civilization where we agree (for the most part) in a social contract (the U.S. and its constitutional representative democracy). What separates a civilized society from the "state of nature," lived by wolves or hyenas - a survival of the fittest, is that we sacrifice complete freedom for security, education, community, health, and protection of rights within a justice system. We understand that other people's rights limit our own rights, and we rightfully accept that compromise.

I'll end this by admitting that there are some good points being made by libertarians. The government does make market entry difficult for even the most minor things. We need to continue working on that. Anyway, I leave this article for debate.

Phaedrus, out!

I'm back. School is in session, and I'm feeling the debates big time! Today let's talk about universal healthcare and the most general conservative argument against it - which stems from the libertarian argument of free market capitalism (which stems from placing individual liberty and property rights above the idea of a citizen's right to life).

There is a lot of faith in the libertarian idea that if we deregulate an area of the market that's having problems, then a healthy competition will magically spring up and provide a sufficient degree of choice that will accommodate all or most of the individual citizens in need. It's a pretty idea, and I wish it worked that way. The problem is that the "invisible hand" moves very slowly in certain areas of the market, and the "healthy competition" we need in certain sectors of the economy either never happen, or it takes years to build. For example, it might be true that if we completely deregulated the healthcare industry, we would eventually see a vast market spring to life that provides competitive pricing and competitive quality of service. But this is a hypothetical, and realistically, would almost certainly take time IF it happened this way. The problem with this hypothetical concept is that it is easily countered by another hypothetical: we deregulate the healthcare industry and nothing happens; or perhaps several monopolies arise that buy out any new competition; OR no competition springs to life until five to ten years down the road…. Unfortunately, sometimes a civilization cannot wait for hypotheticals. Nor can it wait five or ten years for the market to become effective and fair. Therefore the state has a responsibility to step in and take action in order to protect its citizens. Citizens who pay into a social contract they believe in, that of the United States (taxes, obeying laws, voting, etc.) where we live under the agreement that our rights will be protected (the right to life being one of those, even if the state can only provide basic healthcare). Realistically we need healthcare NOW. Families are in financial and physical turmoil, and the state is the only engine that can provide a decisive and realistic option because it's backed and funded by the citizens themselves, and that means we can move this market within months after we pass legislation.

Now I have no idea how any of these bills will actually work after one of them gets passed and the public administrations begins to interpret the bill and put it into action (See side-by-side comparisons of the major proposals here: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm). All I know is, I pay for the crappy insurance I have on a government loan, and the only reason I happen to have THAT insurance is because I'm required to have it by law to attend college. The insurance is so bad that I can't really afford any of the medication they prescribe if it's something more extravagant than Motrin. So while I don't pretend to understand how universal healthcare reform would work, I would like to see some changes to the system. I work and go to school full time, and I don't understand why it's so difficult for me to have good dental and healthcare when 90% of my paycheck goes to taxes. I don't know of any bill at the moment that would support illegal immigrants to have healthcare, but I do know that under the current laws, hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment to any human in desperate need of medical attention (which I think is right, especially when we believe in things like a right to life – which we use to justify intervention on foreign nations like Kuwait, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). The problem is that there are a vast majority of hard working U.S. citizens with families that can't afford basic medical checkups, and this fact ought to trump the unfortunate problem of a few free riders. Sure, if we adopt a healthcare system that offers government healthcare in competition with corporate healthcare, we are going to see some free riders who don't really disserve to be a part of the social contract we all agreed to, but you see that with every good policy in every nation that strives to protect individual rights.

(this is a response to a personal email (names omitted), and I just thought it would be a good blog post.)

I've listened to his show.  My problem with it?  There are actually some real convincing argument's to be made for the republican party and conservative ideals, and unfortunately, Rush never uses them.  His show thrives on being provocative and offensive for the sake of ratings – which would be fine, but he claims his show is a credible source for political analysis!  Most of his tirades are either straw-man fallacies or ad hominem arguments that single out radical liberals and republicans who disagree with him.  He purposely uses misrepresented editing and isolated cases of radical acts to make broad and sweeping generalizations for the whole party.  His research has been shown countless times to be lacking any credibility other than his own biased opinion by political fact-checking websites (and YES, they also hold democrats responsible – most of them focus on the Obama administration).  He takes liberal sound bites from conservative and liberal blogs, widely circulated – but unverified- chain emails, and he purposely misrepresents both political platforms.  The Limbaugh challenge?  Yeah, I've taken it, along with many others who can only stand so much absurd reasoning.   His message works on instigating fear and anger in all who listen while blaming single mothers, "liberal agenda", non-believers, labor unions, people on unemployment, and all who disagree with him.   He blames everything on everyone that he personally disagrees with, and gives no valid arguments.  Meanwhile, he doesn't want to talk about his own failings, his drug addictions, his many marriages followed by divorce, or how he's just plain wrong on even conservative issues.  His real message is that he doesn't want a democracy; he wants an oligarchy consisting of rich, right-wing politicians, who base policy on the ideals of what he ironically deems "a Christian nation."   Unfortunately we're NOT a Christian nation.  The words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance didn't exist until 1952, and was put there by a (gasp!) Catholic fraternity (not to mention the P of A isn't a legal document).  Not once does it mention god in the constitution, and has he even read the first amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion)??   

Well, that's the end of my rant on why Rush has the criticism coming to him from BOTH parties.  (See that article I sent you: http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279).

If we care about anything, we care about the truth.  I'll leave you with some words the founding fathers had to say about religion that illustrate why this idea of a "Christian nation" Rush keeps advocating is a myth:

 There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.

• George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
  

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.

• George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792           
  

  ...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.

• George Washington, to -United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
  

I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.  They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.  Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned.  What has been the effect of this coercion?  To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves.  [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

• Thomas Jefferson
  

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

• Thomas Paine
  

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

• James Madison
  

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

• James Madison
  

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

• John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
  

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

• John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson  
  

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

• (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)
  

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."

• Patrick Henry (Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776.)