Christians and Libertarianism
As a believer, I was basically "reared" in a very conservative
denomination where pretty much everything you did that resulted in
any kind of pleasure was sin. It was an unreflective Church
that did not really think through many issues. I went to
seminary and began learning. I used my critical thinking
faculties and developed them as well as taking some undergrad
philosophy classes. All the Christians I know subscribe to
the conservative mantra. They want to restrict gays, drug
use, drinking, abortion (sorry, I agree with that one), etc, and
they normally listen to the voices of organizations like Focus on
the Family. They would love to see the conservative "daddy
state" where everyone's behavior is controlled. They are
often vigourously involved in politics and love using the power of
the state to acheive their ends. I don't think its because
they hate freedom, rather I think it is that they have been
brainwashed for too long and don't understand what liberty and
self-ownership are.
The problem is that Christianity really isn't about forcing your morality onto other people, though many Christians engage in this behavior (e.g. Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.). I've also heard Christianity mischaracterized and ridiculed by different libertarians which I think is wrong. Libertarian atheists often treat Christianity and Christian theology way different than they would treat opposing political philosophies. They tear down the straw man version of Christianity rather than what orthodox theologians teach, contemporary theologians like Berkhof, Grudem, James White, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Cornelius Van Til, etc. As believers, we are not to FORCE anyone to believe, rather we simply share the Gospel. Sharing the Christian Gospel is no different than advocating for libertarianism if you think about it. I believe Christians using the power of the state to enforce morality are wrong. The Scriptures do not call us to do that. What we are called to do is spelled out in Matthew 28:18-20 and it has nothing to do with using state power to enforce a morality.
As a Christian libertarian, I stand for a person's right to be gay and get married or serve openly in the army. I stand for people being able to consume whatever drug they choose, and for people being able to use their own property how they choose. Do I have a moral disagreement with certain things...yes...but then I am called to share the Gospel and that person is free to accept or reject it. I'm not to judge them. I am not called to utilize aggression or the state to modify behavior. More Christians need to be educated on what libertarians believe and what the goals of truly free society really are. More libertarian atheists need to rethink some of their criticisms as well, stop attacking ignorant fundamentalists (I disagree with them too!) and using that as a model of Christianity. I think that a truly free society is something that both Christians and atheists can work towards together because religion has no place in a discussion of politics.
The problem is that Christianity really isn't about forcing your morality onto other people, though many Christians engage in this behavior (e.g. Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.). I've also heard Christianity mischaracterized and ridiculed by different libertarians which I think is wrong. Libertarian atheists often treat Christianity and Christian theology way different than they would treat opposing political philosophies. They tear down the straw man version of Christianity rather than what orthodox theologians teach, contemporary theologians like Berkhof, Grudem, James White, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Cornelius Van Til, etc. As believers, we are not to FORCE anyone to believe, rather we simply share the Gospel. Sharing the Christian Gospel is no different than advocating for libertarianism if you think about it. I believe Christians using the power of the state to enforce morality are wrong. The Scriptures do not call us to do that. What we are called to do is spelled out in Matthew 28:18-20 and it has nothing to do with using state power to enforce a morality.
As a Christian libertarian, I stand for a person's right to be gay and get married or serve openly in the army. I stand for people being able to consume whatever drug they choose, and for people being able to use their own property how they choose. Do I have a moral disagreement with certain things...yes...but then I am called to share the Gospel and that person is free to accept or reject it. I'm not to judge them. I am not called to utilize aggression or the state to modify behavior. More Christians need to be educated on what libertarians believe and what the goals of truly free society really are. More libertarian atheists need to rethink some of their criticisms as well, stop attacking ignorant fundamentalists (I disagree with them too!) and using that as a model of Christianity. I think that a truly free society is something that both Christians and atheists can work towards together because religion has no place in a discussion of politics.
14 Comments
"The American philosophical tradition somehow managed to reconcile these seeming dualities. On the one hand, Calvinism taught that the self was bad, that man was depraved by nature and saved only by the grace of God. On the other hand, transcendentalism taught that the self was good, that man was equipped with creative faculties that could divine the presence of God in the world. The Calvinist distrusted impulses and urges as sprung from an inner evil. The transcendentalist trusted impulses and urges as moral intuition preceding society's baseless judgments and prevailing conventions."
A basic epistemological question for those who subscribe to religion, be it Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, is this: "How does one determine truth from falsehood?" Those who wrote scripture, as numerous theologians have noted, were fallible human beings, not gods. If we desire to reason from first principles, then we need to beware the fallacy of assuming the conclusion ("God exists, therefore scripture is the inspired word of God"). Humans can of course determine truth from falsehood through the method or process of noncontradictory identification, i.e., logic. This entails defining one's terms and clarifying to what in reality those terms refer. Yet tragically, logic is typically not utilized in the realm of religious tenets, and I suspect that this is because logic is antithetical to mysticism, or supernaturalism, i.e., dogmatic or arbitrary claims.
Another issue that's prominent in various religions is the doctrine of sacrifice, of both self and others. In Christianity, it's claimed that God sacrificed his very own son (or the supposed incarnation of God deliberately sacrificed himself). Such a doctrine is of course age-old, but that doesn't make it logical or any less costly for individuals. Ayn Rand defined sacrifice as the surrender of a higher value for a lessor value (or even non-value), which is clearly a losing proposition. She described the human (reasoning) mind as each person's highest value, because without the ability to reason and use logic to clarify things, we can't determine what's valid and invalid.
A world of complete liberty is one in which individuals no longer sacrifice themselves to falsehoods, which includes the demands of "authorities" who believe they know what's best for us. Now, I have friends who are Christian anarchists, so I know that it's possible to separate religion from politics. However, in order to meet our needs for clarity and consistency, religious notions of sacrifice, for example, beg some serious questions too. This page has some provocative quotes worth pondering, such as the last two: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith.html
I'd be interested to get your take on all this, since you've been on a quest to liberate yourself from harmful mythologies in our culture.
Thank you for your comments and questions. First, I don't think that Emerson understood Calvinism's doctrine of Total Depravity. That doctrine doesn't teach that the "self is bad" per se or that man is as bad or depraved as he could possibly be. The doctrine of Total Depravity simply teaches that sin has affected man's entire being: his will, emotions, reason (called the noetic effects of sin). If you are interested in reading any further on this I would recommend works by James White (The Potters Freedom, Debating Calvinism) or R.C. Sproul (What is Reformed Theology). Sproul's work is a great introduction. Also, orthodox religion may appear authoritarian or that it places demands on people, but that is not necessarily the case. We don't go out and force people to become believers...we can't. People become believers on their own and once they do that, they should, as evidence of their faith start to exhibit certain behaviors. In fact, if people truly are saved, they will exhibit those behaviors voluntarily without any external authority. To put this in libertarian terms, people choose, without coercion, to join certain denominations. Certain denominations do set up additional rules and restrictions (that may or may not necessarily be biblical), so if one chooses to join that denomination they are to abide by the rules. Take me, I left my denomination because I disagreed with their theological positions on a few issues. I studied, came to my own conclusions, and no longer agreed with their statement of faith, so I left. Yes, there are Christians who do want to use the power of the state to enforce certain moralities...that is not biblical and we are not called to do that, but some people do.
To answer your epistemological question, I determine truth from falsehood the same way you do. I use reason and logic, but I also have the revealed Word of God who created the universe. Yes, the people who wrote the Bible were fallible human beings, however, an omnipotent God will surely have no problems guiding them to write His infallible and inerrant Word through his Holy Spirit. The argument regarding Scripture and God existing is not viciously circular as apologist and theologian John Frame notes. Scripture, for the Christian, is an ultimate authority....we can go no higher, so we have no choice but to use Scripture as one of the evidences for the existence of God. You also have an ultimate authority even if it is your own reason. If I ask how you know you're reason is your ultimate authority, you would have to say your reason, as an example, so you would have to engage in a bit of circular argumentation yourself. You also said that "logic is typically not utilized in the realm of religious tenets". I find that strange considering the works of William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, James White, John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, R.C. Sproul, Alvin Plantinga ( read Plantinga's Warrant Trilogy)....here is a link you may want to look at: www.reasonablefaith.org. A couple of books to read would be Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland as well as Craig's debate section with Atheists. The Greg Bahnsen vs. Eddie Tabash debate is good, Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein is a classic.
Christ's sacrifice on behalf of sinners was of infinite value. Yes, the doctrine is age-old, but that also doesn't necessarily make it false and I think the evidence for it is more plausible. Our soul is a human being's highest value. Our ability to reason and use logic comes from God, it is a reflection of his own nature and so, yes, there is a high value on those abilities. The laws of logic are a reflection of God's nature. I would recommend the works of Dr. Gary Habermas and his website www.garyhabermas.org for the evidence of Christ and His death and resurrection.
I agree, people should not sacrifice themselves to falsehoods, which is why I love talking to people about both Jesus Christ and Libertarianism because both are absolutely true :-D. However, I will not use the power of the state to enforce my views of morality..I will share the gospel and let people choose. Christianity is not "authorities who believe they know what is best for us".... Christianity is about an individual's personal relationship his/her Creator...is their an objective definition though of a Christian that people need to be taught about and discipled by Pastors, Professors, Theologians...sure, people need to understand their faith, be able to evaluate themselves with regard to their faith, and to be able to properly defend it as Scripture calls us to do.
I'm still not completely sold on anarchy as of yet, but very, very close...though the other day Nick Coons did a little thought experiment on me and says that I am...LOL.
Hope I've answered your questions and given you some insight into how I think on these issues. My liberation comes from my ability to separate my personal religious beliefs from my political philosophy and how the state (or lack of a state) should function in people's lives. I am biblically opposed to gay marriage (the issue that actually pushed me to libertarianism), but I also think it is immoral for the state to restrict a homosexual from marrying a person of their choosing. That is a private contract between two people and I do not support the initiation of force to stop it, though I am personally opposed to it.
So, I'd like to address the main problem with religion that wasn't mentioned in your reply: Adults may be able to choose differently, Chad, but children are definitely coerced and prodded to adopt certain denominations. I really feel distraught by the experiences you must have had in a strict Calvinist family, because so many fundamental needs of yours went unmet. Demands for obedience to arbitrary parental authority is the root of domination institutions and thus most human problems, as I've covered in numerous podcasts. Oftentimes, children are given no choice in the matter, and they are threatened with punishment (both in this life and in the alleged afterlife) or punished outright for any noncompliance. Children's minds are essentially imposed on by adults in ways that really do damage to their sense of reality, their ability to distinguish truth from falsehood. So, it's no surprise that we end up living in a world dominated by mysticism, statism, and collectivism.
As philosopher Stefan Molyneux has noted (particularly in his book On Truth: The Tyranny Of Illusion), children are given "invisible apples" to take bites out of, wherein either they must deny the evidence of their own senses, contradict their rational faculty, and adopt religious beliefs, or they must face the disappointment and even wrath of parents when they disagree and refuse to "go along to get along." Children's needs for respect, choice, autonomy, understanding, clarity, as well as love (sans withdrawal techniques) are typically not met in religious families (the same could be said in statist families, which is yet another form of religion).
Since all philosophical disagreements are ultimately epistemological disagreements having to do with the efficacy of reason, we need to closely examine our childhood experiences that have tended to shape our epistemological views. Again, the question of how does one determine truth from falsehood arises. The "Word of God" is not a phrase that makes logical sense to anyone who holds reason as an absolute, because "God" is an invalid concept without a specific definition in accordance with the facts of reality (there is nothing in reality to which "God" refers, arguments for pantheism aside); rather, it's based on the invalid concepts of omniscience, omnipotence, and infallibility, all fanciful and sometimes highly wished-for aspects of consciousness. Scripture is again something that fallible humans devised ages ago to perhaps answer certain questions about themselves, others, and reality. Yet as a primitive form of philosophy, it falls way short in outlining an objective view of human nature and the cosmos.
In my first book I wrote a section dealing with metaphysical views in terms of beliefs in "the afterlife" ( http://www.logicallearning.net/libanissueofmort.html ), and of course I used the "authority" of reason via logic--the process of noncontradictory identification--to clarify concepts. Reason is the method or process by which we identify and integrate perceptual information, and logic is how we meet our need for clarity, separating fact from fiction, real from imaginary. This can't be disputed without using reason, of course, which would be the fallacy of self-exclusion, or stolen-concept ( http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept,_fallacy_of.html ). We are not "sinners," Chad, and sacrifice can never be a value, at least by the Objectivist definition. Now I know that's not what you believe at present, and I realize that it challenges a lot of what you've learned from various religious scholars. I'm guessing that you want to be understood in a way that pays respect for all that you've studied, and I do understand the explanations you're relying on. From your studies of libertarianism, I also know that you have a need to understand ideas with clarity, so that yourself and others can live in a more harmonious and fair world. To achieve this, it's key to realize that there is no higher authority than your own mind to distinguish fact from fiction, and even to just say "I don't know." Even if you defer to the opinions of others, you still make use of your own rational faculty to determine that such deference is warranted.
When I first read John Galt's speech nearly two decades ago in Ayn Rand's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, I found this statement to be most enlightening and helpful (among many others, of course):
"Do not say that you’re afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error."
Hockshops of authority exist in the domination institutions of our culture, and in every family that's still steeped in conditional parenting and notions of rewards and punishments. They seek to have us sacrifice our minds on the alters of Atilla (arbitary and unjust power) and the Witch Doctor (illogical and mystical ideas), to surrender our rational faculty to things like the Constitution and Gospels. As children, we all knew better. And it's up to us as adults to respect the needs of children, so that we end up living in a dramatically different culture, one in which individuals become passionate advocates of getting their needs met in healthy ways and making life more wonderful for each other.
"The main question in dispute between Christians and their opponents comes out most clearly when the subject of knowledge is discussed." (Van Til, Survey of Christian Epistemology).
""As philosopher Stefan Molyneux has noted (particularly in his book On Truth: The Tyranny Of Illusion), children are given "invisible apples" to take bites out of, wherein either they must deny the evidence of their own senses, contradict their rational faculty, and adopt religious beliefs,""
But that assumes that God, the supernatural, etc. do not exist which, to date, has not been proven :-). The laws of logic do not exist in reality...they are abstract concepts, so is to believe in them to "deny the evidence of their own senses" since we cannot perceive the laws of logic with our senses? You are very correct about me...I need to understand ideas with clarity...that's another reason I had to leave my Church...I pushed others to examine things and to question things..to have discussions like this in order to really ground their beliefs and be able to "give a defense for the hope that is in them". I"m not surrendering my rational faculty to the Gospels....I have examined the evidence, listened to debates, read and listened to people like Bart Ehrman...read some material on textual criticism...and concluded that the Gospels are a reliable source, that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Now, I do not feel as though it is to be thrust on to people....but, will I raise my daughter commensurate with my beliefs?...yes, of course....but, will it eventually be her choice as to what she does with that information...sure....Nobody can force another person to be a believer..not even a parent to their child.
I also disagree with your statement that our own mind is the highest authority to distinguish fact from fiction...but that is because we are working off two very different epistemologies and sets of presuppositions...LOL.
You may be interested in this debate between Bahnsen and Stein:
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/apol_bahnsen_stein_debate_transcript.pdf
I am definitely going to have to get your book The Psychology of Liberty...very interested to read that. I am also interested in your comment that we surrender our rational faculties to things like the Constitution (I would like to hear more about how we do that!)...now THERE is a possibility where I will change my thinking possibly...LOL. Again, the need to understand ideas with clarity is probably why I had to leave my Church..I challenged too much...LOL. I suppose that is why I have enjoyed examining my political philosophy and beliefs. I had always had a high interest in it...minored in Poli Sci in college and stayed nominally current with things. However, I never asked why I believed what I did with respect to my political philosophy...probably believed it because it was "what I had been told"...I knew the "talking points"..but I wanted more. I have alot of Republican and Democrat friends on FB and have been commenting on their posts and debating a little to see where maybe my thinking is muddied or where my arguments are illogical or inconsistent. Of course, Nick Coons has been a great help and we discuss things.
You said that you became a Christian based your examination of the evidence associated with the gospels, yet you disagree that your own mind is the highest authority to distinguish fact from fiction. So you've used the authority of your mind to conclude that your mind is not an authority? I feel pretty confused about this and worried that kids might feel pretty confused about these things when they are learning to make sense of the world.
I was wondering if you might share that feeling of worry when you think about these things?
You wrote: "But that assumes that God, the supernatural, etc. do not exist which, to date, has not been proven :-). The laws of logic do not exist in reality...they are abstract concepts, so is to believe in them to "deny the evidence of their own senses" since we cannot perceive the laws of logic with our senses?"
To prove or disprove something entails a context of definite knowledge. Arbitrary postulates such as "God" by definition have no basis in reality (incidentally, this is why religious believers claim such (invalid) concepts to be ineffable and a matter of faith). Again, we're in the realm of taking blind bites out of invisible apples, which is a pretty costly way to get our need for meaning met.
To your query about our senses, they--and their organization into percepts--are indeed aspects of reality, our mental reality, which is part of our reasoning process. Objectivity entails relating percepts and concepts to their referents in reality (both inner and outer). Logic is key to integrating such concepts in a noncontradictory manner. Here are more thorough explanations:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sensations.html
Thus, our senses are an integral part of our perceptual and conceptual system. Being the foundation of knowledge acquisition, they are not divorced from reality; in fact, they are what we use to ensure objective understanding of ourselves, others and nature. Unfortunately, throughout history philosophers have undercut their own means of distinguishing truth from falsehood, by engaging in all sorts of contradictory epistemological notions (such as the rationalism/empiricism dichotomy).
As I wrote in The Psychology Of Liberty in the section on volition:
"Incidentally, only a conceptual organism is able to doubt its method of perception--and further think that it drew a correct conclusion. Only a person can claim to correctly perceive an allegedly flawed perceptual mechanism and go on to devise the idea of unreliable senses. Doubting one's senses goes hand in hand with repudiating one's method of functioning, which results in repudiating reality. This was a practice during a long period of history known as the Dark Ages. Ironically, many who doubted their perceptions of reality adamantly claimed to know of another reality--one that could not be perceived. They claimed to know of a reality that was ineffable and beyond the senses (heaven or hell). How they 'knew' this was always beyond inquiry."
The following excerpts from Objectivism are instructive:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/truth.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contradictions.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html
I hope you keep investigating this stuff, Chad, because I suspect you'll eventually find it to be a quite life-enriching way to get your needs for clarity and meaning and connection with others met. :)
I sure hope you follow up on those links, Chad, and everyone else reading, unless you are already familiar with the concepts. I find it helps to click and try to use one's own senses to see if Wes has sent good link info (so far so good).
Chad, I recommend you look into the Trivium, it is an epistemology that I found helped me with my compassionate communication. Some links:
https://www.tragedyandhope.com/trivium/
https://www.tragedyandhope.com/trivium/trivium-vs-other-methodologies/
I also entreat you, Chad, please keep up this thread with Wes, many of us would love to see you respond to his last post. :)
My primary dismay arises from the knowledge of how children's minds and self-worth are treated by religion, coupled with how their resultant feelings of fear and pain and confusion are dealt with--or not dealt with. Of course, dogma is pitched as necessary and wonderfully beneficial, because that's how kids are best entreated to distrust their own perceptions and to sacrifice their minds to some purported higher "authority." This "authority" supposedly "knows" better--and who could "know" better than an idea so fanciful as to be ineffable and allegedly beyond logical inquiry?
If we strip dogma down to its bare essentials, using the tool of logic, it's not at all a pretty picture for conceptual beings--for beings whose tool for survival is their own rational faculty. Arbitrary postulates that are believed to be true cannot actually assist in human flourishing; they actually undermine it, even though they are claimed to be indispensable for it. Again, we're back to taking bites out of invisible apples, as Stefan puts it. Incidentally, I was incorrect about the source of this parable: it's from an early podcast he did, which he placed in his book Real Time Relationships: The Logic Of Love.
While Stefan sometimes communicates in ways that pass moral judgment (which we've all been trained from an early age to do, from our highly religious/domination culture), one can also see the vital needs being expressed: the need for clarity, the need for understanding, the need for authenticity, and the needs for respect, consideration, and empathy especially for children. We all have within us the child we once were, who wants to be loved in a way that honors self-worth, to live freely, with wonder, and without being enslaved, physically and psychologically. Here's a list of resources I've compiled to help with this process of inner connection and understanding:
http://happinesscounseling.com/happiness-resources/
And here is Stefan's discussion of the nature of that shiny and delicious invisible apple:
How To Control a Human Soul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxYJOBaXQww
http://freedomain.wetpaint.com/page/70.+How+to+control+a+human+soul
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3
A couple more insightful shows by Stefan:
FDR1728 Frankly Faithless: An Interview with the Thinking Atheist - The son of two prominent theologians, and a former star of Christian radio, talks about the social, professional, and moral challenges of losing God, and finding himself...
http://youtu.be/dVXjIVF5NLs
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1728_thinking_atheist_interview_19_aug_2010.mp3
God, Family, Bible
http://readfdr.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/1036/
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1036_God_Family_Bible.mp3
Wes mentioned arbitary postulates in the last post, God being one. I realize that often people approach epistemology as if certainty was attainable, and obviously epistemological certainty with respect to the existence of God is not attainable or we wouldn't be debating. But, I would then assert, that Wes would be in the same epistemological boat with whatever he believes in?
Also, the word faith was used in a weird way. Faith is not a means of knowing or a special faculty that Christians have. Faith is a response that indicates confidence or belief or trust in a person (i.e. the historical Jesus of Nazareth). Faith is not an ALTERNATIVE to reason which I think, maybe, is being suggested throughout these posts?
By the way, at this point (4 months later) I don't necessarily consider myself a Christian, a saved believer, anymore, due to certain actions of my own, to some personal tragedies in my life and my response to them and to God. However, I do believe in the existence of God, the inerrancy of Scripture, that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be, the Messiah---- I'm just not sure how it all applies to me right now.
Regarding arbitrary postulates, this link offers a more thorough explanation:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html
Given this, I never considered this to be a debate about the actual existence of arbitrary postulates (e.g., "God"). There is only truth based on the facts of reality, and we can be absolutely certain that the human mind is capable of grasping it.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/certainty.html
A belief may or may not be based on the facts of reality. This is why it's crucial to make sure there's something in reality to which one's belief refers. In the case of supernaturalism, such beliefs directly undermine a conceptual being's capacity for being objective.
As to faith, well, since it's defined as belief in something without proof or evidence, it's antithetical to reason. There is no middle epistemological ground here, even though Aquinas tried to offer it.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith.html
Hope and confidence are very valuable things for us humans, and the more they're based in reality, the greater our chances of success.
Best wishes!
Click here to sign up now.