Is there such a thing called "Austrian Economics"?

JonBostwick:

Not really. Natural selection results in a decrease in the genetic diversity of a species. So while it can explain how a species changes, it does not explain how complex organism have descended from less complex ones. Thus the need for Neo-Darwinism to include Variation.

I don't understand. Variation is the basis of evolution. There could be no natural selection or artificial selection without it. 

 

10Brandonr:

...but, I think your forgetting that religion is not just any moral philosophy that encourages or practices coercion. If you're saying that any belief that justifies coercion to be evil than you're totally rational, but if you're implying that religion (def: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.) in general is, in the libertarian sense, evil, then I think you're dead wrong.

 

I'm not arguing that religion in itself is evil, what I am arguing is that religion has a good chance of leading to evil, in the sense that it leads to a hierarchy that can create obedience in others, although religion is not the only thing that leads to this. I suppose instead of religion it could be said as: any hierarchical institution that enforces unquestioning obedience. Although many people today who are religious aren't necessarily this way, I think more strictly governed sects or those that seem to enforce ignorance, as does much of the evangelical movement can be. However, there are religions that don't fit this mold such as the Quakers and some strains of Catholicism. I think the main criteria that can be used in distinguishing these groups is the amount of reason that is seen in the religion. For example, Thomistic Catholicism. This leads back to the point that all irrational beliefs can more easily become harmful.

 

For example, Thomistic Catholicism.

Thomistic catholicism is one of the 'good' strains of revealed religion ?

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/aquinas.htm

"I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

Heartless Voluntaryist:

 

I'm not arguing that religion in itself is evil, what I am arguing is that religion has a good chance of leading to evil, in the sense that it leads to a hierarchy that can create obedience in others, although religion is not the only thing that leads to this. I suppose instead of religion it could be said as: any hierarchical institution that enforces unquestioning obedience. Although many people today who are religious aren't necessarily this way, I think more strictly governed sects or those that seem to enforce ignorance, as does much of the evangelical movement can be. However, there are religions that don't fit this mold such as the Quakers and some strains of Catholicism. I think the main criteria that can be used in distinguishing these groups is the amount of reason that is seen in the religion. For example, Thomistic Catholicism. This leads back to the point that all irrational beliefs can more easily become harmful.

 

Well, that makes perfect sense then. It's similar to drugs and alcohol. Most libertarians understand that they can lead to harm in irresponsible instances, but none can logically support prohibition of those substances, because it's impossible to prohibit the substances and prohibition creates more irresponsibilities. Religion, too, may lead to harm in irresponsible instances, but militant atheism is probably just as likely to lead to harm. You don't have to believe in religion, but "hating" religion because its "evil", just doesn't make sense. 

Juan:

For example, Thomistic Catholicism.

Thomistic catholicism is one of the 'good' strains of revealed religion ?

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/aquinas.htm

"I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

I think movements tend to cherry pick from the beliefs of their founders. Maybe I shouldn't have said Thomistic Catholicism, but I think there is a strain of Catholicism that encourages reason, and the movement that came after Thomas Aquinas was a part of that even if he did hold beliefs that were extremist and irrational.

If religion/theism can easily lead to evil deeds, it can just as easily be said to lead to good deeds.

Case in point:  the numerous libertarian movements and societies that have sprung out of religious movements (Quakers, Tolstoyists/Christian anarchists, etc.).  You will find that these movements grounded their libertarian beliefs in their spiritual beliefs.

The fact that it has lead to what libertarian minded people consider "good" implies to me that it isn't inherently authoritarian or "evil."

All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do.  In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.  Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.  In the name of God, stop a moment, cease your work, look around you. ---Leo Tolstoy