"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." ~ G.K. Chesterton
Atheism is the denial of the existence of God, yet of all the self-proclaimed atheists strutting around today, I have never found one who meets this definition. What I find instead are people who have replaced one God for another. Nature abhors a vacuum, and humans abhor the vacuum created by their unique ability to ask questions for which there are no ready answers. Such is the lesson of Genesis, as eating from the tree of knowledge results in expulsion from the paradise of blissful ignorance.
Nobody embraces the vacuum. What they do embrace is the next all-encompassing narrative -- i.e., the next God -- that their internal vacuums suction onto. As discussed in my recent posts, a popular God these days is environmentalism and showcases all the standard features of a religion: abnegation, catechism, punishment of heretics, reliance on consensus, and imperviousness to reason. Gods can be as complex as political ideologies or as simplistic as the pursuit of entertainment and pleasure, though the latter often denotes a futile attempt to avoid tough questions and re-enter a state of infancy.
The issue is not whether to believe in God, but rather which God to believe in. All that has changed with modern society and "atheists" is that God now resides in matter -- government, flora and fauna, a bottle, or between the legs -- rather than in ideals. This is hardly progress and embodies a shabby form of paganism utterly lacking the majesty of Greece or Rome.
Nobody embraces the vacuum. What they do embrace is the next all-encompassing narrative -- i.e., the next God -- that their internal vacuums suction onto. As discussed in my recent posts, a popular God these days is environmentalism and showcases all the standard features of a religion: abnegation, catechism, punishment of heretics, reliance on consensus, and imperviousness to reason. Gods can be as complex as political ideologies or as simplistic as the pursuit of entertainment and pleasure, though the latter often denotes a futile attempt to avoid tough questions and re-enter a state of infancy.
The issue is not whether to believe in God, but rather which God to believe in. All that has changed with modern society and "atheists" is that God now resides in matter -- government, flora and fauna, a bottle, or between the legs -- rather than in ideals. This is hardly progress and embodies a shabby form of paganism utterly lacking the majesty of Greece or Rome.
Yet another unjustified slap at environmentalism, which again only serves to further demonstrate your innate bias against any perceived intrusion into a Libertarian nirvana. I know many environmentalists that are devoutly religious, and through their religion, they treat all of God’s creatures, including the earth, with respect. While I agree that many atheists are as fanatical about their beliefs as are many devout followers of monotheistic and polytheistic faiths, there is little justification for your conclusion that environmentalism is a religion, unless you are a Druid.
ReplyDeleteHow many times do I have to remind you that I am not a libertarian? I give a detailed explanation of this on my Facebook page. Libertarians and liberals have common cause with using centralized power to disrupt local affairs to their own liking. If you had to slap a label on me, you could say "sovereigntist" or "polyarchist." I believe in competition among rival sovereignties, which is the only way to restrain power run amok and allows for innovation and creativity.
ReplyDeleteYou of all people should appreciate the danger of entrusting too much power to a centralized government. Despite the horrific lessons of the 20th century, you persist in the delusion that power can be tamed into doing good. It resembles the battered-wife syndrome; maybe Hitler was onto something when he said "the masses are feminine." Any power that can be abused will be, and my ancestors were correct in concluding that government is, at best, a necessary evil.
Environmentalists indeed are devoutly religious, which was my whole point. Whoosh!
You are libertarian in the textbook sense – individual liberty with limited government. I also believe in individual liberty, but I recognize that a strong centralized regulatory body is required to protect individuals from corporate misanthropes such as the Kochs and prior day rail and steel magnates. If we abandon regulatory concerns that involve the environment, then we will devolve into a society with limited potential for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Our standards will retrograde to that of present day China, which is an environmental and public safety disaster. If you confuse strong passionate feelings for the protection of the environment with religion, then you willfully misunderstand the intent of the individual.
ReplyDeleteStop telling me what my beliefs "really" are. It's presumptuous and rude.
ReplyDeleteIf a country decides to pursue socialism, theocracy, fascism, or any other form of government, I will be the first to say that no other country may interfere in that decision. When it comes to the U.S., I favor the Constitution because 1) it is supposed to be the supreme law of the land; and 2) it preserves local sovereignty. Thus, if a state such as Massachusetts adopts draconian property regulations and Romneycare, once again, I will be the first to say it may do so. I would oppose any libertarian effort to attack Massachusetts' decisions on those issues. Get it? Got it? Good.
As for using government to control the evil that men do, those selfsame men staff the government and will abuse its power to whatever extent they can. This is why I favor multiple, competing sovereignties -- monopolies are bad in business, but they are lethal in government. If you cannot see history's bloody and recent lessons on the danger of overpowerful government, there's nothing I can say or do to change your mind.
Passion for the environment is one thing. Passion for enslaving humanity under a global political order to preserve the environment is anti-human and despicable.
It is "presumptuous, [and] rude" and condescending for you to assume that I do not ”see history’s bloody and recent lessons on the danger of overpowerful government,” and would need assistance in attaining such understanding. No, I just need to look back only one generation in my family for such understanding. “Get it? Got it? Good.”
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that environmentalism is creating further abuses of power by the government, nor do I believe that it is being used to control mankind. Rather, it is being used to spur mankind’s creativity and ability to attain heretofore undiscovered capabilities. As we develop alternatives to fossil fuels to lessen CO2 emissions, we also lessen the strength of government by reducing our dependence on foreign nations. I do recognize that the earth is a living organism with a finite lifespan, and I firmly believe that each generation of mankind should act responsible as the earth’s transient caretakers.
Doesn't work that way. You don't throw punches at me and then complain when I hit back. This isn't a marriage or the workplace, so you don't get to play that game here. Your statement that you do not believe environmentalism is being used to control mankind disqualifies you from serious conversation on this matter. Hasta la vista.
ReplyDelete