religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[Advocate]

The rational and the anti-rational are always incompatible, regardless of what they're about. They literally pull in opposite directions..

Government must be both efficient and unobtrusive to be legitimate. A legitimate government, or society, must value every individual's best interests, not special interests, not even the majority. Reciprocity is the foundation of civilization. Because the kernel of libertarianism is always efficiency and/or unobtrusiveness, and civilization is universally beneficial, it is inherently rational.

The kernel of all versions of religion is dogma, an instance of faith. Faith is belief without appeal to evidence, the polar opposite of knowledge, and is therefore inherently irrational.

[henry quirk]

Deism & natural rights libertarianism get along just fine.

[Consul]

The rational and the anti-rational are always incompatible, regardless of what they're about. They literally pull in opposite directions..

Government must be both efficient and unobtrusive to be legitimate. A legitimate government, or society, must value every individual's best interests, not special interests, not even the majority. Reciprocity is the foundation of civilization. Because the kernel of libertarianism is always efficiency and/or unobtrusiveness, and civilization is universally beneficial, it is inherently rational.

The kernel of all versions of religion is dogma, an instance of faith. Faith is belief without appeal to evidence, the polar opposite of knowledge, and is therefore inherently irrational.

Libertarians value religious freedom and reject state religion, but they needn't be anti-religious—and right-libertarians (conservative libertarians) such as Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe actually aren't. They even have actively sought cooperation with the religious right.

William Craig has written a book titled Reasonable Faith. Most theistic philosophers and theologians reject the view that religious faith is blind faith, and that "rational theism" is a contradiction in terms. For there is a distinction between faith-based revealed religion and reason-based natural religion. So the rationalist stance of libertarianism (and liberalism in general) isn't incompatible in principle with theism (or deism).

"In contemporary philosophy…both “natural religion” and “natural theology” typically refer to the project of using all of the cognitive faculties that are “natural” to human beings—reason, sense-perception, introspection—to investigate religious or theological matters. Natural religion or theology, on the present understanding, is not limited to empirical inquiry into nature, and it is not wedded to a pantheistic result. It does, however, avoid appeals to special non-natural faculties (ESP, telepathy, mystical experience) or supernatural sources of information (sacred texts, revealed theology, creedal authorities, direct supernatural communication). In general, natural religion or theology (hereafter “natural theology”) aims to adhere to the same standards of rational investigation as other philosophical and scientific enterprises, and is subject to the same methods of evaluation and critique. Natural theology is typically contrasted with “revealed theology”, where the latter explicitly appeals to special revelations such as miracles, scriptures, and divinely-superintended commentaries and creedal formulations. Philosophers and religious thinkers across almost every epoch and tradition (Near Eastern, African, Asian, and European) have engaged the project of natural theology, either as proponents or critics."

Natural Theology and Natural Religion: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/
——————
"Is libertarianism atheistic? Libertarianism has no conceptual connection to atheism or theism. Libertarianism is compatible with a belief in divinity, but it does not rest upon, require, or imply any such belief. Libertarianism has little more to say about religion than it has to say about chemistry. That said, there is evidence that libertarians tend to reject supernatural beliefs. Liberty Magazine, a small libertarian magazine, polls its readers every 10 years. The 2008 survey indicated that only 36.5% of its readers believed in a god. In contrast, Gallup polls regularly find that over 90% of Democrats, Republicans, and independents believe in a god. Reason, a more popular libertarian magazine, is avowedly atheistic. Its motto is “free minds and free markets.” If libertarians are disproportionately atheistic, there is no clear reason why. One possibility is that libertarians tend to be more philosophical than others—they are more likely than conservatives or the Left to engage with philosophy or think like philosophers. Philosophers, in turn, strongly tend to be atheists. (A recent poll showed that only about 3 in 20 academic philosophers believe in a god.)"

(Brennan, Jason. Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press 2012. pp. 50-1)

[Iwannaplato]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/107/3213 ... in-russia/

[Iwannaplato]

The rational and the anti-rational are always incompatible, regardless of what they're about. They literally pull in opposite directions..

Government must be both efficient and unobtrusive to be legitimate.

The is a combination of non-rational desires and preferences and, I assume, rational thinking based on these values. While not a mixture of the anti-rational and the rational, it's a mix of the non-rational and the rational.

A legitimate government, or society, must value every individual's best interests, not special interests, not even the majority.

Same as the above.

Reciprocity is the foundation of civilization. Because the kernel of libertarianism is always efficiency and/or unobtrusiveness, and civilization is universally beneficial, it is inherently rational.

Same as the above.

The kernel of all versions of religion is dogma, an instance of faith. Faith is belief without appeal to evidence, the polar opposite of knowledge, and is therefore inherently irrational.

We all believe in things[/quote]Faith is generally viewed as a non-rational something or other. Since it is contrasted with belief, at least often, it is something other.

But our values are also coming without evidence. They are simply what we value.

What government is unobrusive? re:

Because the kernel of libertarianism is always efficiency and/or unobtrusiveness,

Governments have power. They obtrude and impose. What government has ever not been obtrusive? If there is no government that has not been obtrusive, then there is faith that this would be a good thing, since we have no evidence of this being good and it would be an act of faith to consider it good and/or possible. If there is such a government, then we can focus on that one for discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

Deism & natural rights libertarianism get along just fine.

More than that, even. We could keep going.

Libertarian rights are impossible in a deterministic world. Human rights and morality are indefensible in a survival-of-the-fittest world. If there's no God, then there's no chance of freedom: everything is just the automatic, mindless playing out of physical forces. And in such a world, argumentation such as we are doing is also impossible. People can't "change" their "minds." They have neither a real "mind," nor the power to "change" anything that wasn't fated to end up that way from the inception of the universe.

[iambiguous]

Deism & natural rights libertarianism get along just fine.

More than that, even. We could keep going.

Libertarian rights are impossible in a deterministic world. Human rights and morality are indefensible in a survival-of-the-fittest world. If there's no God, then there's no chance of freedom: everything is just the automatic, mindless playing out of physical forces. And in such a world, argumentation such as we are doing is also impossible. People can't "change" their "minds." They have neither a real "mind," nor the power to "change" anything that wasn't fated to end up that way from the inception of the universe.

What on Earth is IC blabbering about here, henry?

All this "philosophical" speculation doesn't change the fact that, given free will, you must either accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior or "on the other side" you will spend all of eternity in Hell.

With me.

Start here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Then get back to us.

Seriously though, you and IC here remind me somewhat of Satyr and MagsJ over at ILP. Satyr is a flagrant white supremist...a racist. And a flagrant sexist. Yet MagsJ, a black woman, seems to let that slide because they share many of the same conservative political prejudices.

Though one possible explanation for this is that, well, nothing any of us post here is not beyond our control?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

From consul 2 years ago above,

Most theistic philosophers and theologians reject the view that religious faith is blind faith, and that "rational theism" is a contradiction in terms. For there is a distinction between faith-based revealed religion and reason-based natural religion.

Reason always follows faith. You cannot get to faith via reason alone.

[MikeNovack]

Deism & natural rights libertarianism get along just fine.

More than that, even. We could keep going.

Libertarian rights are impossible in a deterministic world. Human rights and morality are indefensible in a survival-of-the-fittest world. If there's no God, then there's no chance of freedom: everything is just the automatic, mindless playing out of physical forces.

a) There is a VERY wide range within "libertarianism". And it is misleading to think "left libertarians" and "right libertarians" are on the usual left-right spectrum. Whenever I've been in groups discussing this, we found a surprising amount of agreement and feeling that our preferred societies would have room for us all << mind, the right (individualist) libertarians can't understand why the left libertarians (communalist) would want to live in groups and in reverse, why the other in strict isolation. To each his own.

b) BOTH types can be religious. In what way do you imagine accepting responsibility for your decisions/choices of actions implies not being religious? There are a lot of religions out there.

c) You do NOT understand what "survival of the fittest means". For some reason you imagine it means violence, head to head competition. If a solitary animal, it means being better at doing what it does to survive. For a predator, might be a bit more success in finding prey. Introduced dogs (dongos) drove thylacines into extinction not by killing them in fights but by being better hunters. For an herbivore, maybe it means being able to digest some plant the rest of the species can't << that latter WITHIN THE SPECIES is the bulk of "survival of the fittest >>

But for social animals, it's not just biological evolution but also social evolution. It may be that enhanced co-operation within the group gives that group a survival advantage over groups with less co-operation. So with an animal like us (social animals for millions of years before being human) developing rights and morality quite reasonable. For example, maybe "in an interaction with another member of the group, my choice of action is "right" if it induces reciprocal co-operation" or "if in an interaction that other individual is not treating me fairly. my choice of action is right if it makes it less likely that individual will do it again"

Immanuel, your pessimism is that you see the natural world as evil and no possible basis for morality except your religion. That's OK until you try to convince other people. Haven't I just demonstrated how POSSIBLE for an animal of our sort that "survival of the fittest" MIGHT be behind "rights and morality". That a sane person could believe that.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your pessimism is that you see the natural world as evil and no possible basis for morality except your religion.

Nope, that's not it Mike. It's simpler than that: Secularism itself has no basis for morality in it, and cannot explain the duty involved in any precept at all. That's all by itself. No religion involved.

Even if every other ideology and religion were similarly impaired, or even though they're not, it has nothing to do with them. It has to do with what Secularism itself can warrant...which is nothing.

[Alexiev]

LIbertarians believe in the holiness of property rights.

[MikeNovack]

Immanuel, your pessimism is that you see the natural world as evil and no possible basis for morality except your religion.

Nope, that's not it Mike. It's simpler than that: Secularism itself has no basis for morality in it, and cannot explain the duty involved in any precept at all. That's all by itself. No religion involved.

You are entirely missing my point, IC. I agree, YOU believe that only religion can serve as a basis for morality. You believe that however the secularist describes the basis of his or her morality you call that a non-valid basis (because not based on God's laws). But it's not yourself you are trying to convince but the secularist. You have to give a SECULAR REASON why his or her basis is invalid. They don't have to prove it valid to you since you accept no secular basis.

That's why, IC, if I am challenging your "Christianity incompatible with leftism and vice versa" I do not give you a secular argument why not so but a religious one << I ask you to explain why the True Levellers (Diggers) should be considerd either non-Christian or non-leftist >> I could have perhaps gone back to John Ball but unfair to bring in the difficulty of reading/understanding 14th Century English << For me, 14th Century English is hit or miss. I can read Canterbury Tales but not Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and so I don't know if I could read John Ball >>

Alexiev, Holiness is a bad description and even "property right can be misconstrued. The big difference "left" vs "right libertarians is in who wields these powers. Ppower over, control of property, able to make the decisions over, libertarians might disagree over what A owns B means and where it comes from (what ENFORCES A owns B). The essential difference between right and left libertarians is the nature of A in A owns B. On the extreme rightwe have the individualists where that is meant strictly. In other words, not even ownership shared by an atomic family. On the left side, a group, commune, clan, family, not so large as to disallow decisions by face to face discussion (if larger than that 50-100 no longer "libertarian"). I have taken part in discussions between left and right libertarians intended to clarify where we agreed and where we differed. Both sides surprised about how much we agreed on and that we would tolerate each other.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your pessimism is that you see the natural world as evil and no possible basis for morality except your religion.

Nope, that's not it Mike. It's simpler than that: Secularism itself has no basis for morality in it, and cannot explain the duty involved in any precept at all. That's all by itself. No religion involved.

You are entirely missing my point, IC. I agree, YOU believe that only religion can serve as a basis for morality.

No, Mike. You’re missing the point and entirely, too.

It doesn’t matter about anybody’s “religion,” in this case. Secularism fails on its own terms, and would fail at the task of grounding morality even if Secularism were the only belief system on earth. That is the point.

[Immanuel Can]

The rational and the anti-rational are always incompatible, regardless of what they're about. They literally pull in opposite directions..

Government must be both efficient and unobtrusive to be legitimate. A legitimate government, or society, must value every individual's best interests, not special interests, not even the majority. Reciprocity is the foundation of civilization. Because the kernel of libertarianism is always efficiency and/or unobtrusiveness, and civilization is universally beneficial, it is inherently rational.

The kernel of all versions of religion is dogma, an instance of faith. Faith is belief without appeal to evidence, the polar opposite of knowledge, and is therefore inherently irrational.

Well, this is all very silly, and rather obviously untrue. Historically, it can be showed simply to be false.

In point of fact, Libertarianism goes along very well with any religion that is premised on personal faith. John Locke pointed this out: a man cannot be “forced to heaven,” he said. And upon this fact, he grounded not only the right to free conscience, but the basic rights to life, liberty and property as well. And you can easily look that up. It’s in his “Second Treatise," actually, if you want help finding it. And it’s quoted in the Declaration of Independence, as the basis for human rights. So much for that, then.

Since faith requires a personal commitment, and personal commitments cannot be forced, the only thing such a person from such a “religion” can logically advocate is the right of each person to make his/her own personal choice about faith — and to be allowed to live and die by the consequences of that choice, of course, just as a Libertarian desires to be allowed to do. For even for Libertarians, there is no choice that is free of consequences.

[MikeNovack]

In point of fact, Libertarianism goes along very well with any religion that is premised on personal faith. John Locke pointed this out: a man cannot be “forced to heaven,” he said. And upon this fact, he grounded not only the right to free conscience, but the basic rights to life, liberty and property as well. And you can easily look that up. It’s in his “Second Treatise," actually, if you want help finding it. And it’s quoted in the Declaration of Independence, as the basis for human rights. So much for that, then.

and to be allowed to live and die by the consequences of that choice, of course, just as a Libertarian desires to be allowed to do. For even for Libertarians, there is no choice that is free of consequences.

But do note, using Locke directly (and thus enshrining "property") was in the draft versions of the Declaration. After debate, changed to the more general "pursuit of happiness". It is easy for us today to forget this was a revolt by the propertied class. At the tine, I'm not sure if any of the colonies had yet removed property qualifications for voting. Although the representatives/Declaration signers were all Men of Property, they chose to make a wider appeal.

The second is key to libertarianism of any stripe. Accepting PERSONAL responsibility for choices of action.