Quote of the day
"The only freedom which can last is a freedom embodied somewhere, rooted in a history, located in space, sanctioned by genealogy, and blessed by a religious establishment. The only equality which abstract rights, insisted upon outside the context of politics, are likely to provide is the equality of universal slavery." M.E. Bradford, A Better Guide than Reason
posted by Old Rebel @ Monday, February 08, 2010
12 Comments
Links to this post
12 Comments:
I, as Thomas Jefferson did, disagree. Reason is the only guide. Religion has been used for thousands of years to justify all manners and forms of statism, all working for the "common good."
Reason, and more specifically rational egoism, is the only philosophy which roots freedom in reality, and stands up for individual rights unapologetically.
Religion has also been used to fight statism. Look at the Christians under Roman rule. Many socialist/communist/fascist states have thrown religion out the window and demanded obedience/worship to the state (Soviet Union) or to its leader (Nazi Germany).
Reason/rationality are not enough for a functioning society. If a baby falls into rough waters, the reasonable/logical thing would be let it drown, rather than for another person to risk his/her life trying to save it. After all, there are enough other people that the loss will not be noticed. The mother can just have another, right?
That is not a world I would want to live in. Without some sort of higher authority, some source of morality, some higher good that is meant to be attained (be it Heaven, enlightenment, or whatever else one may believe in), then people start to embrace their dark side because it's easier and safer to care only for yourself and your own petty desires.
Libertarians believe that through the pursuit of one's own interests, they are also advancing other's interests. What can benefit one man can be adapted to benefit others as well. While libertarians seek personl advancement, they are also peacefull and advocate peace and harmony to the best extent possible. The converse can be damaging: those that seek to advance themselves through violence to others bring destruction on themselves and everyone around them.
This might be a bit long and disjointed, then I apologise: I'm not the best at explaining things, and I'm trying to delve into deep philosophical things in the space of a blog comment.
Tom,
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, B.1.135
Notice Mr. Jefferson didn't write about any "philsophy" that bequeathed liberty, but instead of the tradition of liberty he and the other Founders fought to preserve.
Garland,
You've given us a very good summary of the crucial role of faith in human society. It would be a very different, and I think, undesirable world without it.
No wonder the Soviets tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II.
Tom, I must disagree. Faith must precede reason. It is an act of faith that reality is knowable and reasonable. A religious man need not believe in God. There very man false gods and reason divinised is one of them.
Look I'm not going to get into a Jefferson quoting contest here because that could go on forever. The man was brilliant. However, it is well documented that while he believed in God, he abhorred religion. He was always complaining about the "Platonists" who ran the churches at the time and how he preferred the teachings of Aristotle, who taught that reason was our only tool for dealing with the world.
Reality exists outside of our interpretation for it. Reality exists regardless of faith. A is A.
Telling people to believe in something because of faith is like telling people to believe in hope and change. Empty, baseless, and maleable to any intention, good or bad.
PS - the reasonable thing would not be to let a baby drown. That is ridiculous. Rational egoism teaches that in an emergency situation you should help out if you can (without dying) because you would appreciate the same from others if you were in the same situation. That doesn't mean that in your every day life you should sacrifice yourself for others, as Jesus taught. If you read the Sermon on the Mount, you'd understand why so many people support Socialism.
"Reality exists outside of our interpretation for it."
Tom, that's just your interpretation; reality exists outside it, so why should we listen to you? You refute yourself.
PS Read *Deuteronomy*, the basis of small government, confirmed by The King of Kings.--Chuck
Reason unguided by faith and human experience (tradition) creates monsters. Look at the French Revolution--which crowned reason as its goddess--and all the bloody revolutions that it spawned.
The "rational egotism" of the Ayn Rand stripe quickly degenerates into plain old-fashioned selfishness. If you need any example, just look at Rand's sordid private life.
Tom:
There is a difference between faith and religion. Faith is the connection of your spirit with God's. Scriptures can help you cultivate your faith, but at the end of the day, it is up to you how or whether you will interpret them.
Religion is the institution that is intended to promote faith; but as we all know, religious organizations sometimes get corrupted by power or control issues and fail to carry out their purpose.
Keep in mind that a reliance on "reason" led to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution and to the horrors of Communism. We need to test our reason against a higher standard, which comes from faith.
Note that in this response I have not advocated any particular religion, even though I have a definite preference.
The French Revolution was not based in Rational Egoism or Rational Self Interest. Please check your facts. Ayn Rand has been the subject of books by second handers trying to make money off of her fame but criticizing her personal life with fictitious slander says absolutely nothing about her ideas. You can't disprove an idea by calling the person who says the idea names.
Regardless, continuing to argue with you is pointless as you view reason as impotent and faith as the source of knowledge. Why should I attempt to reason with an unreasonable person?
Great thinkers through the years from Aristotle to Aquinas to Jefferson to Rand have taught the primacy of reason and society has benefited from them to the degree that society has adopted their ideas. Unfortunately we are moving in the opposite direction today.
Tom has left the field declaring himself the victor. But he still didn't answer the objections raised.
The French Revolution was indeed based on reason, even if that reason didn't draw the conclusions that Tom prefers. And was the reasoning of the French Jacobins really irrational? If reason alone is your guide, why not use and abuse others if you can get away with it? And this applies all the more to the kind of reason that makes egoism its first principle.
Faith--specifically Christian-- faith, however, does give a good reason to respect others. The Jacobins and the Reds removed that reason, and bloody consequences naturally followed.
Ayn Rand evidently, in practice, saw no reason to respect others either. Please read Murry Rothbard's expose on the cult-like mind control she imposed on her followers. Rothbard was a man of considerable accomplishment--certainly no second hander.
And finally, Tom, why do you quote Aquinas? Don't you know that he was a professing Christian, and thus from your Randian perspective an evil "mystic?" And Aristotle believed in God too, at least as some kind of prime mover.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home