Libertarians and Atheism

Brainpolice:

I don't see how it logically follows that order needs a single designer or planner. Why can't the universe be like a free market, with no real central plan? Why does human interpersonal relations not require a designer, but our existential character does? But in either case, even if we accept your assumption that the universe needed a designer, this does nothing to address the paradox of where that designer comes from. The laws of logic would require that the designer had a designer too, and once again this leads to an infinite regress. The only way to resolve the paradox is to question its assumptions or to essentially remove the question from the criteria of logic altogether at some point. Logic does not allow paradoxes to objectively exist because logic is a method for weeding out contradictions. If something contains contradictions, logic resolves it. So long as the formal concept of a god contains inconsistancies, it must be considered illogical to that extent. And things that are illogical don't exist in any objective sense.

Show me where causality is a necessary feature of logic. One more time, causality is established by repeated observation, not pure logic. We have not perceived the creation of consciousness, so we can draw no conclusions about it. We have only observed the creation of physical objects, so we can only make conclusions (causation) about physical objects.

Human interpersonal relations do require designers. At least two, in fact: the people interacting. Overall markets and societies, after all, are really just the sum of conscious, planned interactions.

JCFolsom:

Brainpolice:

I love how those argueing for a god tend to remove every single piece of criteria for logic and evidence one by one as a way to "prove" it.

 

By the way, I love how atheists cling to the same tired deflections (infinite regression) to try to explain away the necessity of a designer, without ever actually demonstrating or even suggesting a method whereby the order of the universe could have come about.

A watch, really, is too complicated to effectively make the point. If you come to the beach and see three pieces of driftwood and a piece of seaweed, there is of course nothing special there. If the drifwood is arranged so it stands as a little pyramid, held together at the top with a loose wrap of seaweed, you can be virtually certain a person was involved. Why? Because nature does not do that sort of thing on its own, putting things in higher-energy, higher-order states than is necessary. Nature's tendency is to decay order, not create it.

Well, many atheists probably take a humble or agnostic approach to such a metaphysical question as how the universe came about and therefore they don't claim to know the answer. Others might points you to theories of spontaneous order for a possible alternative to the fatalistic universe premise. Still yet others may be extreme causal determinists yet still reject the notion that it is a deity that had to have been the "first cause". But in either case, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. In this particular case, that would be those claiming the mantle of the need-for-a-central-planner premise. From my perspective, there is no need to try to answer the question because the question (at least how it is often phrased) assumes what it's trying to prove, I.E. that the universe was caused at a single point or agent. And then you proceed to ask me to provide a singular causal agent.

I don't understand the statement that nature's tendency is to decay order, not create it. Doesn't nature create order all the damn time? Is not all order "natural" in a sense? Is not everything "natural" in a sense? And while nature indeed does involve entropy, entropy is not a lack of order but a part of nature's broader order. Nature's order is a dynamic process. I think that's what scares people about it, I.E. it's not static.

Libertas est Veritas:

We don't have free will in a fundamental sense, only a perception of free will. Everything I've read about physics and quantum mechanics points to predictability. Even the more erratic elements of quantum mechanics are ultimately predictable, if my understanding is correct. This makes us sophisticated reactive information processors in a universal chain reaction.

But this is such a fine point that it is essentially useless. Even if it is true, it is merely a philosophical realization with no actual application.

This is only true if you take consciousness to be an ultimately physical phenomenon, which has never been established and indeed, the weight of evidence is against. As I have said elsewhere, causation is only applicable to the physical, which is indeed entirely deterministic and/or random.

You are correct, however, in saying that there is no place for free will in the materialist conception of the universe.

Libertas est Veritas:

We don't have free will in a fundamental sense, only a perception of free will. Everything I've read about physics and quantum mechanics points to predictability.

JCFolsom:

Brainpolice:

I don't see how it logically follows that order needs a single designer or planner. Why can't the universe be like a free market, with no real central plan? Why does human interpersonal relations not require a designer, but our existential character does? But in either case, even if we accept your assumption that the universe needed a designer, this does nothing to address the paradox of where that designer comes from. The laws of logic would require that the designer had a designer too, and once again this leads to an infinite regress. The only way to resolve the paradox is to question its assumptions or to essentially remove the question from the criteria of logic altogether at some point. Logic does not allow paradoxes to objectively exist because logic is a method for weeding out contradictions. If something contains contradictions, logic resolves it. So long as the formal concept of a god contains inconsistancies, it must be considered illogical to that extent. And things that are illogical don't exist in any objective sense.

 

Show me where causality is a necessary feature of logic. One more time, causality is established by repeated observation, not pure logic. We have not perceived the creation of consciousness, so we can draw no conclusions about it. We have only observed the creation of physical objects, so we can only make conclusions (causation) about physical objects.

Human interpersonal relations do require designers. At least two, in fact: the people interacting. Overall markets and societies, after all, are really just the sum of conscious, planned interactions.

The point is that there is no real singular cause or central plan necessary for society-wide developements to take place. Methodological individualism supports this view. The broader whole is the sum of a plethora of different causal factors, and its "order" is not the design of a single person or even every single person within it. A significant part of its "order" was in fact not intended at all. That's precisely the beauty of it. People didn't just intentionally get together and say "let's form society". No society is entirely "designed" and neither is any society truly static. Rather, society naturally formed and evolved as a result of a wide variety of different interpersonal relations, much of which wasn't really intended by anyone at all. It truly has no permanent form or order to it because people's behavior and circumstances are constantly changing. This is a hard concept for many people to grasp.

Brainpolice:

The point is that there is no real singular cause or central plan necessary for society-wide developements to take place. Methodological individualism supports this view. The broader whole is the sum of a plethora of different causal factors, and its "order" is not the design of a single person or even every single person within it. A significant part of its "order" was in fact not intended at all. That's precisely the beauty of it. People didn't just intentionally get together and say "let's form society". No society is entirely "designed" and neither is any society truly static. Rather, society naturally formed and evolved as a result of a wide variety of different interpersonal relations, much of which wasn't really intended by anyone at all. It truly has no permanent form or order to it because people's behavior and circumstances are constantly changing. This is a hard concept for many people to grasp.

The view of society as an entity is merely illusiory. Society is only, and nothing more, than the sum of the individual interactions seen as part of that society. People may behave in a somewhat uniform fashion because of a culture they learned as individuals from other individuals, but that makes their behavior no less individually chosen. Just as THE government or THE corporation are just convenient, collectivist fictions, so is THE society. It is just shorthand for the sum of conscious individual interactions.

It is just shorthand for the sum of conscious individual interactions.

I think that's his point.

Ego:

It is just shorthand for the sum of conscious individual interactions.

I think that's his point.

It is my point, except I'm approaching it from a different angle than him. I'm saying that the implication of this is that society as a whole is not "planned" or "designed" in any strict sense, and in fact it would ultimately be impossible to do so even if one tried to. I don't see how he implied a collectivist view of society from what I'm saying at all, since I'm merely drawing what I consider to be the obvious conclusions of methodological individualism. No society has a singular design or is the result of one, and all attempts to impose one will fail in the long-term because of the spontaneous and dynamic nature of people's decisions.

Yeah, I was pointing out that his last idea is inconsistent with what he was saying earlier; he's not applying the same standard to "society" that he does to "the universe".

I'm stepping out, though!

Ego:

I think that's his point.

Well, then, color me confused. Because society would not exist without conscious interactions, even if society as a whole is unplanned. Two opposing gods who each had a hand in designing the world might not coordinate, but the world would a sum of conscious choices just the same. That seems to me what the analogy of society supports, not atheism. If that is your best example, you should be a Zurvanite Zoroastrian or some such.

Ego:

Yeah, I was pointing out that his last idea is inconsistent what he was saying earlier; he's not applying the same standard to "society" that he does to "the universe".

I'm stepping out, though!

That's precisely part of what I've been driving at.

Why doesn't the notion of methodological individualism and spontaneous order apply to metaphysics or the universe as well as earthly interpersonal relations among human beings? In short, how can religious libertarians reject the claimed need for human central planning of economies or societies while simultanously proposing the need for god as central planner of the universe and human affairs?

And there are other related questions. If the state is not necessary for human beings to act morally, why would one posit that a diety is? If polycentric and/or spontaneous orders result from human interaction in the absence of a singular cause, why can't the same be true of the universe and in the metaphysical realm? It seems to me that the formal concept of a god has all of the traits and involves all of the assumed premises of the state. Why does god have the status of a metaphysical monopolist on causality?

And is there not an inherent contradiction between religious fatalism and the concept of free will or individual autonomy? Does it not reduce us to the sock-puppets of god no less than secular versions of hard determinism reduce us to the sock-puppets of nature? I don't think that materialism or atheism necessarily naturally leads to a hard determinist position, and I can easily see how many if not most religious metaphysical concepts are fatalistic (and therefore incompatible with freedom).

JCFolsom:

Your argument is not for atheism but for a large pantheon in polytheism, even an animism.

The argument/analogy was meant to illustrate the lack of need of a central planner, aka God, in response to your statement regarding the need for a central designer.  No central designer is necessary.

Furthermore, defering that an arguement is for polytheism, animisim, or Zurvanite Zoroastrian, does not prove your arguement that a God exists.

Another issue to think about is causality. A creator is a hypothesis that an entity exists outside the natural world, making the claim unverifiable. How can you verify something that exists outside the natural world?  The only way to verify is if this creator openly displays himself. ID arguments are not open display of evidence. There is plenty of non-intelligent design, such as useless limbs and organs. Why do we have an appendix and wisdom teeth?  This are faulty designs.  What about cruel design like smallpox, malaria, and other nasty diseases? Is this designer not benevolent?

The universe is an indifferent place and quite violent at times. Why does this designer allow for extinction, such as the dinosaurs? Why did this designer wait 10-15 billions to create intelligent life as we know it?  Why is the universe mostly devoid of life? Why not just create a utopia in 6 days, like in Genesis?  Did this designer not choose to create an utopia or was this designer limited in power?

ID says nothing about the designer; whether the designer still exists or ceased to exist after he created the universe. Does this designer still exist? If so, how does he interact with the universe?

To answer the OP question about libertarians and atheists, I do believe that there is a correlation between libertarian/anarchism ideologies and skepticism.  I think it is a logical deduction since libertains and anarchists are skeptical of false claims made by statist.  To verify my opinion, one would need to conduct a sample.

The truth is that god is unobservable, undefinable, and untestable.  Yes, I am an atheist.  I lack a belief in god based on unverifiable evidence.  Will my belief change with verifiable evidence?  Yes.

A friend of mine within market anarchist circles, Xomniverse, made a concise and brilliant blog post related to this not long ago.

What do socialism and intelligent design have in common?

ViennaSausage:

The argument/analogy was meant to illustrate the lack of need of a central planner, aka God, in response to your statement regarding the need for a central designer. No central designer is necessary.