Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Religion & Moral Issues

Religion & Moral Issues For discussion of all issues of religion, spiritualism, faith and moral issues.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old Sep 24th 2015, 01:21 PM
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Official Forum Lutheran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Kingdom on the Left and the Right
Posts: 2,142
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
That makes me wonder what the word faith actually means in American English. For instance, it would make no sense whatsoever to say that e.g. communism is Glaube-(German), geloof-(Dutch) or foi-(French) based. In fact, it would be hilarious and a contradiction in terms. I have to specify American English here because in English the word faith is not used either in this apparently very broad sense. So what is the definition of the word so that it can be meaningfully applied in the sense of your statement?

Edit: wouldn't 'conviction' be a much better word in this specific context?
Trust is the most basic definition of the word. Here I would say I mean trusting something in the absence of proof via reason. Faith is by no means a synonym for religious belief.
__________________
Lighten our darkness.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Sep 24th 2015, 06:24 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,838
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
I disagree with you if you think that the simple laws of supply and demand constitute an ideology.

For example, the belief that increasing abundance of something while demand remains the same, will drive down the price of that thing. I don't think that that is faith-based, but a scientifically demonstrable fact.
I certainly do not consider an economic theory to constitute an ideology.

Ideologies are quite different than economic theories. Actual economic theories, like scientific theories, postulate statements that are falsifiable. Ideological statements are not falsifiable. That is the key distinction.

In modern political terms, all mainstream political parties in every western country fully accept that the 'law of supply and demand' is 100% true. Even Marx himself would never deny that. Where it becomes ideological is when one draws political, moral or ethical conclusions based on this truism of economics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
Socialism, on the other hand, in ignoring human nature and the laws of supply and demand, leads to such things as the demise of the Workers Paradise Soviet Union and the economic difficulties in Greece and Detroit.
Well, now you are being ideological because your statement is non-falsifiable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
Socialism relies on religion-like dogma which has been preached to several generations of Americans in public school catechism,

It's faith-based fundamentalism portrays Uncle Sam/Big Brother as the one true, benevolent, God, and it's believers pray that ordained politicians will turn their water into wine, and multiply their fishes and loaves.

And it's popular. Bernie Sanders might well beat anyone the Republicans put up. (But, even though I think that socialism is a disastrous economic system, I would prefer Sanders to anyone the Republicans put up except maybe Kasich. I don't know enough about Kasich.)
As noted above, all ideologies, including socialism, libertarianism and all religions, are faith based dogmas.

And I'd dispute Bernie's chances of winning the D-primary, let alone a general election. That's a long-shot bet by any standard. We're still 4-5 months before the first primaries and over a year until the election. And when it comes right down to it, the winner is the strongest centerist. Bernie is too far to the left to be viable in a general election. He's running just to pull Hillary to the left and is popular with the Democratic base for doing that. The Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) have never been particularly popular with the activist base of the Democratic party and have always been viewed as too centerist and too corporate-friendly. Thus the popularity of Bernie in New Hampshire and Iowa - two states with strong political activism due to their primary status. I can't imagine Bernie doing well in the SC primary that immediately follows the first two - he's toast down there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
True enough, but the libertarian belief that the market can solve almost any problem is nothing short of a faith statement.
Absolutely.

And I do apologize for asserting that 'religion = ideology'. In my [atheistic] terms, they are 100% equal and I cannot understand what religion is, if not as particular type of ideology.

Indeed, we do agree that religion is faith based, and ideology is faith based.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Sep 24th 2015, 06:30 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,838
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
Perhaps, but I think there are two important distinctions to make here:

1) Libertarianism, even in its simplest form, is not "law of supply and demand." Economic "laws," in and of themselves, offer no goals for society, no sense of priorities, no guiding principles. They simply describe how certain systems tend to behave given a specific set of starting conditions. The same is true of all the sciences. Libertarianism, however, goes further. Offering, among other things, an ideal vision of society to pursued and a pathway toward that ideal. In so doing it separates itself from mere economic laws and becomes ideological.

2) The "law of supply and demand" is "scientifically demonstrable" only in the loosest sense of the words. It accurately predicts how people tend to behave in many circumstances, but its applicability to high dependent on the people involved. Most glaringly, it presumes that the people involved are rational actors seeking to maximize profits. This is not always the case.

E.G. To pull from my own field of knowledge, French traders in early North America presumed that, when they began offering more trade goods for certain mammal pelts (i.e. increase in demand --> increase in price) Native Americans would respond by hunting more animals (i.e. increase in price --> increase in supply). That isn't what happened. Instead, many Native American groups began hunting fewer animals (increase in price --> decrease in supply). The hunters were not, as it turned out, trying to maximize profits but only trying to maintain a certain lifestyle. Higher prices meant they were able to do so with less hunting.

There are also examples in English history of the "moral economy," where prices were determined by cultural beliefs about intrinsic value and social obligation. In such circumstances, prices might well remain fixed even when supplies rose.

All this to say, the Law of Supply and Demand presumes certain social and cultural conditions. And that's fine. Things become more complicated, however, and enter the realm of ideology when one starts declaring what social/cultural conditions should exist or describing some as "natural" and others as "aberrations."

There's nothing inherently wrong with ideologies, of course (in fact I'm not sure it would actually be logically possible to judge them from the outside).
Awesome!

Best post of the week/month/year! (slim competition lately, alas!)

Btw, excellent point about the fur trade - I'd read of that counter-market theory example previously, but had long forgotten it.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Sep 24th 2015, 06:40 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,838
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
That makes me wonder what the word faith actually means in American English. For instance, it would make no sense whatsoever to say that e.g. communism is Glaube-(German), geloof-(Dutch) or foi-(French) based. In fact, it would be hilarious and a contradiction in terms. I have to specify American English here because in English the word faith is not used either in this apparently very broad sense. So what is the definition of the word so that it can be meaningfully applied in the sense of your statement?

Edit: wouldn't 'conviction' be a much better word in this specific context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
Trust is the most basic definition of the word. Here I would say I mean trusting something in the absence of proof via reason. Faith is by no means a synonym for religious belief.
I agree with Non. Trust seems to be the best substitute word for faith in this context.

And I'm surprised at your reaction to this usage of the term. It seems quite natural and consistent with the way the term is used in translations of Descartes and Rousseau - or in Locke or even Bishop Berkeley's famous argument of solipsism.

Religious faith is having 'trust' in God (or something similar). Ideological faith is having 'trust' that one's ideology is true. Marital faith is having faith that one's spouse is true (and faithful).
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Sep 25th 2015, 06:37 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,058
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I agree with Non. Trust seems to be the best substitute word for faith in this context.

Religious faith is having 'trust' in God (or something similar). Ideological faith is having 'trust' that one's ideology is true.
Here are some people who had trust or faith in Adolf Hitler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqzmE2OB0bE

Although Germany was a Christian country before Hitler and is a Christian country now, those people are not TRUE Christians, and the people in the US who are bombing and droning people all over the Mid-East and Pakistan every day are not TRUE Christians, since TRUE Christians wouldn't do that.

The True Scotsman Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old Sep 25th 2015, 10:42 AM
Dominick's Avatar
Dominick Dominick is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dying Europe
Posts: 3,837
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
Trust is the most basic definition of the word. Here I would say I mean trusting something in the absence of proof via reason. Faith is by no means a synonym for religious belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I agree with Non. Trust seems to be the best substitute word for faith in this context.
I don't see how 'trust' and 'faith' can be used interchangeably. In any other language I know they're quite different concepts. Nobody would use 'confidence' (Fr. !) and 'foi' in this way. Isn't English supposed to have the richest vocabulary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
And I'm surprised at your reaction to this usage of the term. It seems quite natural and consistent with the way the term is used in translations of Descartes and Rousseau - or in Locke or even Bishop Berkeley's famous argument of solipsism.

Religious faith is having 'trust' in God (or something similar). Ideological faith is having 'trust' that one's ideology is true. Marital faith is having faith that one's spouse is true (and faithful).
Translations perhaps, yes, but that's exactly the problem. It isn't in the original.
http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques...s_methode.html
In Discours de la méthode the word foi is used only once and then only in a context which doesn't make part of the actual argument. See page 19 in the PDF version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descartes
Après m'être ainsi assuré de ces maximes, et les avoir mises à part, avec les
vérités de la foi, qui ont toujours été les premières en ma créance, je jugeai que, pour tout le reste de mes opinions, je pouvais librement entreprendre de m'en défaire.
Nowhere else is not only the word not used, the concept isn't.
__________________
Wir haben es wieder nicht gewusst.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Sep 25th 2015, 10:55 AM
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Official Forum Lutheran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Kingdom on the Left and the Right
Posts: 2,142
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
I don't see how 'trust' and 'faith' can be used interchangeably. In any other language I know they're quite different concepts. Nobody would use 'confidence' (Fr. !) and 'foi' in this way. Isn't English supposed to have the richest vocabulary?
Well... I didn't create the language, only learned it:

Quote:
Full Definition of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Source

I can also say that when Christians talk about faith we always mean, and really always have, trust in God.

I am curious now, though, what does the word mean for you?
__________________
Lighten our darkness.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Sep 25th 2015, 05:13 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,838
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
I don't see how 'trust' and 'faith' can be used interchangeably. In any other language I know they're quite different concepts. Nobody would use 'confidence' (Fr. !) and 'foi' in this way. Isn't English supposed to have the richest vocabulary?
The words are certainly not interchangable. You asked for a word that was closest and we gave you one (trust) that conveys the general idea of the meaning of the word (faith) used in this context.

As for English, I really can't fathom how or why the usage of the term "faith" in this context troubles you. In English, religion has always been referred to as 'faith-based' in general terms.

In many ways, the term 'faith' is used to express an alternative to 'reason'.

Bishop Berkeley's solipsism argument and [translations of] Descartes argument about radical doubt both employ the term 'faith' in precisely the same way we are using it here.

Quote:
Translations perhaps, yes, but that's exactly the problem. It isn't in the original.
Of course it isn't in the original - the original is in French!

Translations use the most appropriate word - and in the case of Descartes' argument, the most appropriate word in English is "faith" - as in faith that god exists, or faith that god is good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
Nowhere else is not only the word not used, the concept isn't.
Precisely what concept are you referring to here?
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Sep 25th 2015, 05:40 PM
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Official Forum Lutheran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Kingdom on the Left and the Right
Posts: 2,142
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
I don't see how 'trust' and 'faith' can be used interchangeably. In any other language I know they're quite different concepts. Nobody would use 'confidence' (Fr. !) and 'foi' in this way. Isn't English supposed to have the richest vocabulary?


Translations perhaps, yes, but that's exactly the problem. It isn't in the original.
http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques...s_methode.html
In Discours de la méthode the word foi is used only once and then only in a context which doesn't make part of the actual argument. See page 19 in the PDF version.



Nowhere else is not only the word not used, the concept isn't.
so after a discussion with my wife, who knows French, she suggested that the word foi is directed only at God (e.i faith in God), but that the word confiance might be a better French word for what I am talking about. The difficulty appears to be that in English we just have the word "faith." There is no word specifically reserved for faith in God.
__________________
Lighten our darkness.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Sep 26th 2015, 06:18 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,058
Default Re: Libertarian Trashes Christianity

Do any of you have faith in The Deep State? Not a conspiracy, but not exactly Sweet land of liberty as portrayed here:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/...w-world-order/
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com