I have the impression (perhaps mistaken) that there is a much larger than average proportion of libertarians who are atheists. I am aware of the existence of some of the Christian anarchists and the like, but I get the sense that the religious here (though there are arguments to be made that atheism is its own religion) are a distinct minority. I am a religious fellow myself (though no Christian) and consider atheism to be silly. The statement "there is no God" unsupportable, so far as I can tell.
My first instinct in regards to this issue (no doubt this will be rather hotly contested by some) is that the authoritarian character of traditional religions predisposes many of the freedom-minded to steer away, and alas, as with most atheists, people who dislike Judeo-Christian paradigms assume they can discard theism as a whole. Not very creative, but people who like to think of themselves as "rational" don't need much encouragement to deny the transcendent.
As for a bit of background, I was an enthusiastic investigator into the Intelligent Design movement for awhile, and still find many of the arguments compelling although I have grown weary of the movement itself.
Instead you of asking me, "why you are atheist?", I'll ask you, "why are you religious?".
I have views different from most atheists; still, the idea of a supreme being which desires human worship makes little sense to me.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
What does it matter how many of a certain group there are? We are not interested in quantity, but quality.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Rothbard said about this that most intellectuals are atheists and most libertarians are intellectuals.
JCFolsom:My first instinct in regards to this issue (no doubt this will be rather hotly contested by some) is that the authoritarian character of traditional religions predisposes many of the freedom-minded to steer away, and alas, as with most atheists, people who dislike Judeo-Christian paradigms assume they can discard theism as a whole. Not very creative, but people who like to think of themselves as "rational" don't need much encouragement to deny the transcendent.
Well, If you're trying to avoid rational, respectful discussion and get straight to name calling and mud slinging, chalking up the opposing belief to a childish reactionary fallacy is a good way to start.
I too have grown weary of the ID movement.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Ego:Instead you of asking me, "why you are atheist?", I'll ask you, "why are you religious?". I have views different from most atheists; still, the idea of a supreme being which desires human worship makes little sense to me.
Well, I never said anything about worship. My understanding is that atheists disbelieve in the existence of God. The worthiness or desire for worship that God has is a separate issue. There have been dystheist belief systems, after all. I guess my issue is, what makes you make the jump from agnosticism to atheism?
For my part, in my education as a biologist and my rather more valuable independent study of general science, I find Paley's watchmaker argument to be compelling (and Hume's refutation not). Only in life do we have such complex machines (.) that supposedly arose through unconscious processes, and the fact is, we've never actually seen the origination of biological order. It is an assumption that it happened so. When Darwin made his theory, cells were still thought to be mostly formless blobs of goo. We now know that, from the molecular level up, living bodies are series of orders of tremendously complex machines. The only time we ever see such orders arise is when a conscious agent creates them.
It seems to be my understanding that religion discredits libertarianism because to worship God you have to believe you have no free will, that you came into existance by some master plan.
I disagree with most atheists in that I recognize that consciousness cannot come from the brain; the brain is simply a computer!
If we are to believe that the consciousness comes from the brain, why doesn't a calculator have a limited form of consciousness? Why not a bolt of lightening? Why not a rock?
Friedreich:It seems to be my understanding that religion discredits libertarianism because to worship God you have to believe you have no free will, that you came into existance by some master plan.
Interesting. Most religionists would say that atheism (or, rather, materialism which I admit I probably should have used from the start) is what precludes free will. If all we are is a series of electrochemical reactions in a fairly complicated web of organic goo, free will is illusiory. In such a context, we see that all we are is an ultimately deterministic, albeit difficult to predict, series of causes and effects, inputs and outputs. All the material world is determined by cause and effect. We could not choose the brain we were born with, nor our first experiences. These shaped us further, and we reacted as our initial state led us. No variation from this series of causes and effects is possible, if we are material only.
On the other hand, if we have an element, a self, that transcends the material, we need not necessarily be bound by cause and effect. I admit that free will is a fairly sticky subject, but I think you will find that it is atheist authors, rather than theist ones, who most often argue against it. Calvinists were determinists, sure, but I'm hardly advocating that rather grim view.
Stranger:What does it matter how many of a certain group there are? We are not interested in quantity, but quality.
I'm more curious than anything. Plus, I like a bit of lively discussion. Here be a topic, admittedly tangential to this forum, for which semantics and fine points need not be the only thing debated. We're all so close politically here, but it is interesting to see the different trains of thought people rode to get here. It may provide valuable insights, and in any case, having rational arguments (admitting again that I stirred the pot with a bit of confrontational spice) can be a harm to no one, methinks. Especially ones we're less used to.
Roderick Long has an interested article speculating about religious influences on political structures.
JCFolsom:For my part, in my education as a biologist and my rather more valuable independent study of general science, I find Paley's watchmaker argument to be compelling (and Hume's refutation not). Only in life do we have such complex machines (.) that supposedly arose through unconscious processes, and the fact is, we've never actually seen the origination of biological order. It is an assumption that it happened so. When Darwin made his theory, cells were still thought to be mostly formless blobs of goo. We now know that, from the molecular level up, living bodies are series of orders of tremendously complex machines. The only time we ever see such orders arise is when a conscious agent creates them.
That last sentence simply isn't true. Theories of spontaneous order and social evolution actually predate Darwin's theory of evolution. Check out Scottish Enlightenment and classical liberal thinkers like Adam Ferguson. A modern libertarian example is F.A. Hayek. Theories of spontaneous order and evolution (social and biological) help to override the human tendency to ascribe anything we don't understand to conscious design.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan PlaucheDoctoral CandidatePolitical ScienceLouisiana State University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: JCFolsom:The only time we ever see such orders arise is when a conscious agent creates them. That last sentence simply isn't true. Theories of spontaneous order and social evolution actually predate Darwin's theory of evolution. Check out Scottish Enlightenment and classical liberal thinkers like Adam Ferguson. A modern libertarian example is F.A. Hayek. Theories of spontaneous order and evolution (social and biological) help to override the human tendency to ascribe anything we don't understand to conscious design.
JCFolsom:The only time we ever see such orders arise is when a conscious agent creates them.
I'm not asking for theory, I'm asking for an example. Show me one instance of a complex and ordered machine (I don't want to wrestle too much with semantics here, I think you know what I mean) that was either not designed by humans or that we observed come about naturally. My point is that we can theorize all day, but we have never seen a case of abiogenesis, and we have no real reason to think it's even possible.
To clarify, for anyone who doesn't know, Paley's argument, paraphrased is this:
If you are walking along the beach and you stub your toe on a watch, you can be sure (and you indeed would be, if you weren't mad), that someone made that watch on purpose. A mind was behind it. This is even without a maker's mark or any sign of the maker around. You know it, because things like watches just don't occur naturally.
The most elaborate watch ever made, however, is a trifling simplicity compared to the complexity of even the least cell. What makes you think, then, that if the watch could not arise spontaneously, that life could?
JCFolsom: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: JCFolsom:The only time we ever see such orders arise is when a conscious agent creates them. That last sentence simply isn't true. Theories of spontaneous order and social evolution actually predate Darwin's theory of evolution. Check out Scottish Enlightenment and classical liberal thinkers like Adam Ferguson. A modern libertarian example is F.A. Hayek. Theories of spontaneous order and evolution (social and biological) help to override the human tendency to ascribe anything we don't understand to conscious design. I'm not asking for theory, I'm asking for an example. Show me one instance of a complex and ordered machine (I don't want to wrestle too much with semantics here, I think you know what I mean) that was either not designed by humans or that we observed come about naturally. My point is that we can theorize all day, but we have never seen a case of abiogenesis, and we have no real reason to think it's even possible. To clarify, for anyone who doesn't know, Paley's argument, paraphrased is this: If you are walking along the beach and you stub your toe on a watch, you can be sure (and you indeed would be, if you weren't mad), that someone made that watch on purpose. A mind was behind it. This is even without a maker's mark or any sign of the maker around. You know it, because things like watches just don't occur naturally. The most elaborate watch ever made, however, is a trifling simplicity compared to the complexity of even the least cell. What makes you think, then, that if the watch could not arise spontaneously, that life could?
I fail to see how you expect to have a rational discussion if you exclude theory from consideration. As for examples, evolutionary biologists will point to various lifeforms and their parts (like the eyeball) as complex and ordered machines for which we have sound scientific reasons to believe that they came about spontaneously through evolution and were not designed or created by any conscious being. Social scientists will point to markets, law, culture in general as complex spontaneous orders that, to paraphrase Hayek, are the result of human action but not of human design.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:I fail to see how you expect to have a rational discussion if you exclude theory from consideration. As for examples, evolutionary biologists will point to various lifeforms and their parts (like the eyeball) as complex and ordered machines for which we have sound scientific reasons to believe that they came about spontaneously through evolution and were not designed or created by any conscious being. Social scientists will point to markets, law, culture in general as complex spontaneous orders that, to paraphrase Hayek, are the result of human action but not of human design.
Mayhap not human design, but certainly human designs. The overall structures are made by individual, conscious, rational decisions. Hayek may point to such structures as markets and law, but I would tend to argue that such things are fundamentally different categories of structures than hands or automobiles. As for the just-so stories of the Darwinists, there are no such sound scientific reasons. We have really barely scratched the surface as to how biological information is stored and processed. Just a few years (and a good bit of wishful thinking) ago, Darwinists still proposed that DNA contained vast "junk" regions, which it has since been found are important for regulation and in some cases are better-conserved than functional genes.
I've seen at least the popularly-distributed explanations of the eye. It started as a mere light-sensitive spot (how it even got there is a mystery), then slowly curved in and eventually added such things as fluid-filled cavities and a lens. But it's not really the eye that has to change, but the information that goes into it. And we haven't the foggiest how that is determined, really. Sure, we can put an eye on a fly's leg (through a conscious, intelligent intervention) but we are only changing the instruction of where to grow it. We still don't know where the instructions of HOW to grow it are. Indeed, much of the science now suggests that many aspects of body plan are not carried by heritable molecules at all, but chemical cues on various surfaces of the germ cells.
The more we learn, the less we know, and it is merely hubris that allows Darwinists to claim they can prove so much as they do. Until such a time as their understanding is more than illusory, the burden of proof is upon THEM, for it is their position that defies the common sense that a watch requires a watchmaker.
I am no Biblical creationist here; I believe life has changed and evolved over vast periods of time (though, perhaps not so gradually as once thought), just not without some planning and design. I am what is termed a theistic evolutionist.