Category: Uncategorized

Modern Art and Visions of Values

January 24, 2003

Two weeks ago, the Battalion featured a photo of a life-like ultra-realistic human sculpture in the local gallery.  The model clearly showed great talent in its construction – although I did not see it in detail, I will grant that the artist has better skill in the reproduction of a human body than I ever could.  However, which specimen of the human race did he choose to portray?  Did he decide to create a beautiful woman entranced by some book (or perhaps a lover)?  Did he create a strong hero that gave the audience a sense of courage, pride, and confidence?  Perhaps, he showed a wise man (or woman) lost in though over some crucial problem?  No, the artist portrayed an old woman, deeply wrinkled, and with a smiling, yet meek expression, as if to tell the world “fate has tossed me this way and that, and here I am at your mercy.”  This typifies an approach to art that is known as “modern art.”  As I will explain however, modern art is such a complete failure as art, that there is no term to describe it other than anti-art, the epitome of what art is not, and should not be.

The last art museum I went to was the Dallas Museum of Art.  I brought along my digital camera, determined to find some good art to add to my (photo) collection. I spent about four hours in that museum, and only took three photos.  I deleted them after I downloaded them into my computer at home (but kept the photos I took of skyscrapers next to the museum.)  As I left the museum, I thought that my seventh grade art class had better samples of art than the entire Dallas Museum of Art.  Let us see why.  I clicked on the website of the current exhibitions page, and see the following image:

This is the latest masterpiece of “renowned German artist Sigmar Polke.”  Mr. Polke “has refined his continuing investigation of popular culture imagery through experimentation with “printing mistakes” – technologically marred images culled from various printed media.”  What does this mean in plain English? Besides the collectivist implications of the term “popular culture imagery” – implying that art is a product of a society, rather than individual creativity, Mr. Polke’s goal is to explore what art is.  In short, his work is art for the sake of art. 

It is not art designed to project any particular ideals or values of the artists (at least, consciously).  It does not attempt to reproduce or project the artist’s conception of the world.  It is art designed simply to explore art.  It does this by reducing every single element that real art holds as a value:  there is no subject, because that limits the “freedom” of the artist to portray whatever he may like.  There is no realism, because that prevents the artist from exploring the medium.  There is no perspective, illusion, dimension, or any other sense of space because the artist would be “restricted” to recreating three-dimensional space.  There is no attempt to create a harmony of composition, color or tonality, no attempt to balance white space, no effort whatsoever to create a painting that appeals to the audience, because all these things limit the artist’s “freedom” in exploring art for the sake of art.

But what is the nature of this “freedom?”  By throwing out all the elements that make a painting an inspirational, appealing, eye-catching, and romantic piece, the modern artist defines himself out of art is, and into something equivalent to the palette of colors the painter mixes to get just the right shade.  But again, I give modern art too much credit – the artist’s palette has a purpose – to produce harmonious and appropriate colors, whereas the modern artist’s work has no purpose, no meaning, and thus, no value.  This then, is the true nature of modern art, and it is an exact reflection of the philosophy that created it: subjectivism.  Modern art rejects all the principles that make art good because it rejects the notion that there are absolute standards by which to judge art.  Hand in hand with subjectivism, modern art is nihilistic in that rather than attempting to present an ideal, value or inspiration to the viewer, it abhors things like “gender bias,” “western imperialism,” and “ethnocentrism” and attempts either “realism” or pure abstractionism, devoid of subject or theme.

Realism, of course, is not a random sampling of reality: no one can “sample” the world without bringing in his personal values.  Rather, the “realists” usually choose the lowest, most pathetic, weak, and degrading elements of society or primitive tribal art of non-western cultures – not realizing that their choice of subject is the message itself.  Their choice of the lowest and worst elements of humanity typically presents their view of man as a weak being, living a life full of suffering and sin, alleviate only by acts of pity and self-sacrifice.  Don’t take my word for it however, – go to your local museum of modern art, and see for yourself. 

Imagine if instead of a meek old woman, the local art gallery presented a man in the image of Michelangelo’s David, or a woman in the image of the goddess Diana, rather than a suffering Christ, a glorious God in the form of Man, proud and confident of his own existence, in control of his actions, and successful in his exploits.  Such a sculpture would truly be a depiction of great art – by its selection of a subject that seeks to inspire rather than demean and degrade, by its successful exploitation of the principles of color harmony, dimension and tone, it would serve as a source of inspiration rather than degradation.  By choosing an inspiring subject matter and a masterful use of technique, it could serve as a source of inspiration, concretizing values in a physical creation, giving our goals and ideals concrete form, and inspiring us to better ourselves.

Art is essential to man’s spirtual life as savings and investment is his material life. If subjectivism manages to drown great art in the sewage of meaningless scribbles that passes for art today, they will also take away our most vital source of inspiration. If romantic realism (the presentation of man as he can and should be) once again replaces modernism as the dominant from of art, it will inspire our society to a new renaissance. Ayn Rand once said that “the purpose of all art is the objectification of values.” It is only such a vision of art that man must adopt if he is to survive qua man.

---

1 There have been many “proofs” put forth for the existence of God, and just as many rebuttals of why each one is false. While many skeptics have found the proofs for God’s existence to be less than compelling, they have also acknowledged that the nature of God might be such that any evidence of God’s existence might be hidden from us, and because no evidence is possible either way, the proper position to adopt is agnosticism. Others have concluded that in the absence of positive evidence for either side, one must assume the negative and hold that God does not exist. However, I believe that both of these positions are erroneous. If neither side were able to present convincing evidence to God’s existence, then the proper course of actions would be to withhold judgment until convincing evidence for one side is given. However, that is not the case. While we may not have evidence that God does or does not exist, we can conclude that God’s existence would entail a logical contradiction, and thus his existence is not possible.

2 The “burden of proof” principle holds that the burden of proof lies on the side proposing the positive, and in the absence of evidence either way, we must assume the negative. Most scientific disciplines adhere to this principle, and for good reason. If their burden of proof was on the positive, then a scientist could invent any number of theories that would have to be assumed true if they were difficult enough to disprove. For example, an astronomer could invent any number of invisible stellar phenomena, and confound astronomy students with theories that could or could not be true, but must be assumed to be true until man is able to go to the stars and verify them in person. In daily life too, we usually assume the negative. Suppose that we are divided between driving and biking to work, and a stranger tells us to bike. We would take the advice of a health expert, but not an environmentalist, but we do not know which the stranger is. Without evidence either way, we would choose not to take his advice. Thus, given a lack of evidence either way, we will usually assume the negative.

3 However, a lack of evidence does not always prevent us from assuming a certain position. If a friend yells “duck!” during a soccer game, we assume a ball to duck from first, and look for evidence later. However, if someone from the opposing team yells “duck!” it would be reasonable to assume foul motivations and assume the negative. Even though we may lack any direct evidence for it, our trust in teammates and skepticism of opponents is itself evidence of the validity of their claims. Thus, even in cases where there is a lack of evidence for a given claim, it is possible to evaluate its likelihood by considering whether the claim will integrate into the rest of what we know of the world, and assume the negative if the proposed claim does not fit in. For example, should we assume without hearing back from the weapons inspectors that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction? Even if we do not have evidence either way, Saddam’s past actions are sufficient evidence to assume the worst when dealing with him. On the other hand, if someone tells us to “watch out for invisible floating pink elephants,” skepticism might be the more appropriate response. The difference is that Saddam’s history of aggression is well known, but everything we know about elephants suggests that the invisible pink variety is quite rare. Thus, the “burden of proof” principle is far from being an absolute rule of logic, and is often substituted for our worldly experience to determine just how likely a certain proposition is. In many fields, the “burden of proof” approach is useful for the purposes of justice, objectivity, or scientific experimentation, but it is not a logical rule, and is not itself a basis for disproving an idea. If we want to disprove that invisible pink elephants exists on earth, it is not sufficient to show that we have no evidence either way: this would only show that there is no positive evidence of the elephant being there. Rather, we must show that the loxodonta africana is not able to turn invisible or float in the air given the nature of reality and the laws that govern it – which is a trivial matter, considering the number of physical laws that such a proposition would violate.

4 If there is indeed a lack of evidence either way, and the “burden of proof” principle does dot apply, then we must examine whether the properties given to God make the existence of such a being a possibility. There are a number of properties that the atheist can dispute, and he only needs to show that one of them is not possible, but he cannot simply prove that all of the rational theist’s proofs are false to make the claim that God does not exist.

5 Because the properties given to God have varied widely between different individuals, it makes sense to present an objection that is as general as possible to cover all the varying views. One claim presented by almost all rational theists is that God is the entity responsible for the creation of the universe. The theist’s argument hinges on the fact that a creator is necessary for the universe to exist. The atheist’s argument can show not only that a creator is not needed, but he is not possible precisely because he is needed.

6 Before proceeding to prove why God is not possible, it is important to prove what God is not. He cannot be a product (or creation) of the universe, because then he would only be a powerful alien being. Furthermore, if humans are limited by the same set of laws are God, then we could one day develop the technology to equal, or even overshadow God. If his only credit is being responsible for putting humans on earth, then surely we could one day travel and populate other planets – and what theist would argue that that would make us gods? God is also not equivalent to being the universe, because that would not only redefine the concept of God as it is traditionally known, but make God a superfluous concept. If the God was equivalent with the universe, then we could gain knowledge of him directly, rather than supernatural events, prayer, and revelation. The term “God” itself would lose its usefulness, since it would refer to the same thing as “universe.”

7 Nor is God the equivalent of the laws governing the universe, because that would once again make God a superfluous concept. The God usually referred to by theists is necessary a supernatural one – that is, a consciousness that answers prayers, makes itself known through revelation, and in general, does not follow normal physical laws. If God were some natural part of the universe, then he could be approached as any other natural phenomenon and validated on the basis of the scientific evidence we have for God, and how it fits in with our understanding of physical laws and the like.

8 Thus, God, if he exists, must have the property of existing independently of our universe and the laws that govern it. Some theists believe that precisely such a God is necessary for the universe as we know it to exist, giving God credit for various aspects of it, such as the existence of time and space, matter, life, morals, and even logic. However, if the existence of any one of those entities requires a creator, then God’s nature must be such that he existed or is able to exist without it. If God created life, then he must not be a living being. If he created morals, then he must be beyond morality. If he created matter, than he must not be made out of matter. If he created time and space, then he must exist independently of time and space. If he created the universe, then he must exist outside and prior to existence, (making his existence non-existent), and finally, if he created logic, than he must exist outside of logic, which – if he were to indeed exist – would make this essay quite pointless.

9 One of the replies given by theists is that the nature of God is that he is beyond the requirements attributed to all other things in the universe, either because he does not follow “normal” rules of logic and matter, or because he is beyond our ability to understand his nature and motives. All theistic attempts to necessitate God’s existence must ultimately fall back on the argument that God is somehow immune to the requirements that impinge on everything else that exists, namely that for something to exist, it, or its antecedent, must be created. However, it is a logical contradiction to claim that while all objects in the natural, logical universe must be created in order to exist, God does not. If God is not a part of a natural universe, then he must exist in a supernatural universe, for which no logical explanation so is possible. However, if God is beyond reason, then he is beyond proof as well, and since the rational theist cannot make a logical argument without using logic, his case falls apart.

10 A rational theist might use a parallel from the movie the “Thirteenth Floor,” in which one of the characters discovers that he is actually an artificial intelligence living within a computer program. The theist might claim that the programmer in control of the simulation is equivalent to our God: he is able to control and create the rules which govern the artificial world, he could set up the simulation so that the “people” in his program are not be able to conceive of it’s true nature, and he may even be able to stop and rewind the simulation, controlling its “time.” However, does that make him their God in the same sense as we conceive of the concept? The answer is no – the entities inside the computer could postulate that their creator operates in a larger meta-universe, with a larger set of meta-laws, of which theirs is a subset. Once they recognize this, they can study the nature and rules of the “outside” world in a rational and scientific manner. Likewise, the rational proponents of God should realize that their notion of God would simply operate within a larger set of physical laws, in a larger universe that includes a being that seems to like deluding humans about reality. The proper approach to such a being however, would be a scientific analysis of its nature (which would show that such a scenario is extremely unlikely), not a priori analysis and mysticism.

11 Thus, while the atheist cannot prove God’s non-existence simply by rejecting the various proofs for God, he can show that a being with the attributes given to God could not exist in reality, since a being limited by natural laws and logic would not be necessary, and a being beyond natural laws and reason would not be logically possible.

Putting Liberals into Context
by David V.
January 3, 2003

One of the biggest problems with the rhetoric of today’s liberals is their use of context-dropping whenever it suits their ideological needs. Context-dropping is the over-simplification of ideas to create floating abstractions that ignore relevant distinctions that exist in reality.

For example, take the notion of “extremism.” Liberals criticize conservatives’ “extremist” views, hinting that their extremism follows from latent racism, overt religious fundamentalism, and quite often, support of capitalism. “Tolerance and moderation must replace extremism,” they say, but is this really a meaningful statement? Within some contexts, such as our daily intake of vitamins, moderation is indeed the best policy, as it is in our consumption of foods, exercise, rest, study, etc. In other contexts however, moderation is not a good thing – there is no such thing as too much love, justice, freedom, intelligence, etc. What thinking person would say that there should be moderation between freedom and slavery, kindness and cruelty, carefulness and negligence, or truth and falsehood? Clearly, the virtue of “moderation” depends on the particular context (just as the truth of every fact applies only within a particular context) and it is unreasonable of liberals to drop that context whenever it suits their ideological needs.

“Discrimination” is another common area of context dropping. Liberals often say “discrimination is bad” regardless of whether the characteristic being discriminated is relevant or not. After all, nearly every action we take involves discriminating better choices from worse ones, good values from bad, and evaluating other people is no exception. In fact, when it comes to evaluating people and societies, liberals often condemn evaluations by relevant characteristics, while glorifying irrelevant ones. For example, differentiating those who are better skilled in something is “ableism,” differentiating moral from immoral men is “bigotry” or “elitism” and differentiating societies which have better values (such as freedom, capitalism, and democracy in America vs. mysticism, statism and force in Africa) is “cultural imperialism” or “ethnocentrism.” Irrelevant characteristics on the other hand, are glorified and promoted. While promotion based on skills and academic achievement is damned as “ableism” and “Western bias,” promotion based on irrelevant characteristics such as race, origin, and income is glorified. Once, again, the context of the discrimination at hand is dropped to serve the liberal’s purpose.

Another example of context dropping is in liberals’ paranoia of carcinogens and pollutants. “DDT is bad” they say, so it should be banned. However, while all substances (even water) are fatal in sufficient doses, ignoring the potential benefit of a substance is irrational scare mongering. DDT has been shown to cause cancer in mice (but not humans) when ingested in helpings equivalent to 30 tons of treated crops a day, for a year, but it also reduced the malaria cases in India from 30 million to 50 thousand (and the number promptly went back up to 30 million when environmentalists banned it.) Broccoli has natural toxins, which can kill you if you eat tons every day, but that does not stop us from consuming the large majority of fruits and vegetables with built-in natural pesticides. Aspartame will give a rat cancer if you feed it half its body weight of aspartame every day, but toxins in soybeans will kill you much sooner if that’s all you eat your whole life. Turning a blind eye to the many benefits of modern chemicals and the promises they offer for improving our lives because of paranoia of the slightest toxin is a very dangerous consequence of context-dropping.

Yet another example of context-dropping by liberals is their love of pacifism. War, violence, invasions, retaliations, and killing are always wrong (at least when referring to America), they say, muddling the distinction between those who initiate force and those who use force in self-defense. No one likes violence, but while self-defense and justice is a moral requisite, the initiation of force is always a moral evil. Pacifists drop the context of which is the moral and immoral party, and typically side with the side initiating force, rather than the side using force in self-defense. Few feminists protested when a young Arab woman was nearly beaten to death for performing in a pornographic movie, or the dozen or so women in Palestine who are killed by their own families for adultery every year, or the women in Afghanistan who were publicly beaten and privately raped by the Taliban, but feminists were very vocal in damning America for trying to change the regime of oppression.

Likewise, liberals engage in context dropping when it comes to dealing with criminals in America. They say that violence and murder is always bad, ignoring the difference between victims and criminals. Each time an activist judge lets a guilty criminal go, he is in fact ignoring the plight of the victim, and worse, equating the two (often explicitly, making the criminal a victim of “social neglect” or “misunderstanding.”)

Liberals should heed Albert Einstein’s maxim that “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Dropping the context of various concepts may serve your political purpose, but it does not make for an honest discussion of the issues at hand.

 

Econometrics 463 Term Project:

The Relationship Between

Economic Freedom and Prosperity Around The World

By David V.

December 10, 2002

Introduction

The collapse of the Soviet Union has been followed by worldwide economic liberalization and increasing international trade. The increase in economic freedom has been followed by a global increase in prosperity, but not without setbacks. The economic slowdown beginning in the late 1990’s has caused some to question the progress of economic liberalization as well as its benefits. An analysis of relationship between economic freedom and prosperity may be useful in determining whether economic freedom increases prosperity and which specific factors have the greatest effect on wealth. This information would be very useful to anyone seeking to determine the weakness of various governmental policies. Governments may find it important to know which factors have the greatest effect on economic growth and investors may find it helpful to predict which countries are more likely to develop as potential markets.

Methodology

For this paper, ten factors that measure different aspects of economic freedom were correlated against the 2001 per capita GDP of 155 nations. There have been several studies on economic freedom since 1980 (Easton, 1997) by various think tanks. The Heritage Institute results were used for this paper because they measured the largest number of factors, and had data for over 155 countries –more than the other studies. For the GDP data, the 2001 results from the CIA Factbook were used because the CIA had the most complete and generally the latest GDP data. The Heritage Institute’s 2003 report actually came out in November 2002, but the 2001 data was used because for the majority of countries, the latest available GDP data is still for 2000 or 2001. A comparison of the Heritage Institute evaluations of economic freedom to those of the Fraser Institute (2002), showed that the reports all gave the same approximate evaluations of economic freedom.

There were ten independent variables tested: (the abbreviations used in are parenthesis)

• Trade policy (Trade)

• Fiscal burden of government (FiscalBu)

• Government intervention in the economy (Governme)

• Monetary policy (Monetary)

• Capital flows and foreign investment (ForeignI)

• Banking and finance (BK)

• Wages and prices (Wagesand)

• Property rights (Property)

• Regulation (RG)

• Black market (BlackMar)

Each of these variables was a cardinal value from one to five, with one being the least government involvement and five being the most. The dependent variable was indGDP, the 2001 per capita GDP. Additional variables considered were Econ_Sco, the overall economic score and WorldRan, the ranking according to the overall score.

Regressions were run on the overall economic score and then the ten independent variable. Initially a linear model was used, then all the variables were tested for significance under logarithmic, quadratic, and interactive relations, and variables that were not significant under any test at the 5% level were dropped from the model.

The CIA data had estimated GDP data for 236 regions — almost every country and territory on earth, but the Heritage listed 161 countries. Of these, 155 had data available for all ten variables, so 155 countries and 10 factors were used in estimating the model. The software used for all the regressions was Gretl.

Procedure

The first step was to find out what overall relationships were present in the model. For this regression, the indGDP and Econ_Sco variables were used. A linear regression between them produced an unadjusted R-squared of 0.496862.

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const 34622.6 2160.89 16.022 < 0.00001 ***

5) Econ_Sco -8480.91 689.958 -12.292 < 0.00001 ***

Mean of dependent variable = 8854.32

Standard deviation of dep. var. = 9169.89

Sum of squared residuals = 6.51533e+009

Standard error of residuals = 6525.63

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.496862

Adjusted R-squared = 0.493573

A more closer match was found by adding sq_Econ to the model:

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const 76270.6 5767.89 13.223 < 0.00001 ***

5) Econ_Sco -36958.0 3782.94 -9.770 < 0.00001 ***

17) sq_Econ_ 4575.07 600.351 7.621 < 0.00001 ***

Mean of dependent variable = 8854.32

Standard deviation of dep. var. = 9169.89

Sum of squared residuals = 4.71419e+009

Standard error of residuals = 5569.06

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.635953

Adjusted R-squared = 0.631163

The graph below shows the predicted model and the Econ_Sco variables:

The relationship here is clear: increasing government involvement lowers GDP at a rate of $36, 958 per index point. The quadratic function seems to indicate that super-high levels of involvement actually raise GDP, but only about six countries seem to be part of that trend, with two having a per capita GDP above 5000: Iran and Libya.

After a simple one-factor regression, a regression with all ten factors (but not Econ_Sco) was attempted. Initially, a simple linear regression was used with all 155 variables and all 10 factors, without any quadratic or interacting variables:

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const 20847.5 2372.98 8.785 < 0.00001 ***

6) Trade -1209.12 445.846 -2.712 0.007503 ***

7) FiscalBu 1576.36 481.540 3.274 0.001330 ***

8) Governme 976.563 594.194 1.644 0.102459

9) Monetary -609.650 333.642 -1.827 0.069732 *

10) ForeignI 194.577 720.675 0.270 0.787553

11) BK -826.296 689.728 -1.198 0.232884

12) Wagesand 1382.06 720.518 1.918 0.057071 *

13) Property -2068.62 739.690 -2.797 0.005870 ***

14) RG -213.362 838.028 -0.255 0.799395

15) BlackMar -2863.18 535.661 -5.345 < 0.00001 ***

Mean of dependent variable = 8854.32

Standard deviation of dep. var. = 9169.89

Sum of squared residuals = 3.43621e+009

Standard error of residuals = 4884.93

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.734643

Adjusted R-squared = 0.716216

F-statistic (10, 144) = 39.8665 (p-value < 0.00001)

Durbin-Watson statistic = 2.14011

First-order autocorrelation coeff. = -0.071209

(Higher coefficients indicate higher government involvement in the various areas.)

A test for quadratic variables was used:

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const 25616.2 5818.15 4.403 0.000022 ***

6) Trade 3241.39 1794.43 1.806 0.073105 *

7) FiscalBu -4843.72 2560.55 -1.892 0.060693 *

8) Governme 596.296 2228.13 0.268 0.789402

9) Monetary -263.771 1262.99 -0.209 0.834885

10) ForeignI -867.630 2083.24 -0.416 0.677725

11) BK -2086.66 1858.50 -1.123 0.263547

12) Wagesand -2955.80 2517.71 -1.174 0.242476

13) Property -3070.39 1991.59 -1.542 0.125510

14) RG -1281.77 2795.31 -0.459 0.647305

15) BlackMar -7242.81 1796.90 -4.031 0.000093 ***

16) sq_Trade -423.008 265.461 -1.593 0.113407

17) sq_Fisca 744.970 378.890 1.966 0.051343 *

18) sq_Gover -149.109 386.857 -0.385 0.700524

19) sq_Monet 121.290 207.138 0.586 0.559160

20) sq_Forei 88.0300 369.384 0.238 0.812000

21) sq_BK 338.051 314.633 1.074 0.284561

22) sq_Wages 216.479 414.127 0.523 0.602022

23) sq_Prope 626.785 334.349 1.875 0.063019 *

24) sq_RG 135.053 428.646 0.315 0.753199

25) sq_Black 1210.16 262.880 4.603 < 0.00001 ***

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.396284

Adjusted R-squared = 0.306177

Test statistic: TR^2 = 61.424005,

with p-value = prob(Chi-square(10) > 61.424005) = 0.000000

And a test for logs:

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const -1873.56 2260.44 -0.829 0.408665

6) Trade -1990.24 1334.03 -1.492 0.138075

7) FiscalBu 4059.26 2287.05 1.775 0.078187 *

8) Governme -506.908 1945.41 -0.261 0.794827

9) Monetary 804.378 1058.59 0.760 0.448676

10) ForeignI 192.145 1865.56 0.103 0.918120

11) BK 1984.84 1670.56 1.188 0.236883

12) Wagesand 847.905 2099.09 0.404 0.686902

13) Property 3116.16 1779.32 1.751 0.082179 *

14) RG 343.683 2304.40 0.149 0.881666

15) BlackMar 6442.66 1340.24 4.807 < 0.00001 ***

17) l_Trade 6925.99 3734.78 1.854 0.065872 *

18) l_Fiscal -12569.4 7106.97 -1.769 0.079236 *

19) l_Govern 978.852 4892.75 0.200 0.841736

20) l_Moneta -960.438 2574.34 -0.373 0.709678

21) l_Foreig -1249.52 4273.17 -0.292 0.770425

22) l_BK -4921.49 3858.68 -1.275 0.204362

23) l_Wagesa -6570.98 5447.23 -1.206 0.229828

24) l_Proper -6491.89 4115.55 -1.577 0.117061

25) l_RG -2554.60 6290.98 -0.406 0.685337

26) l_BlackM -16450.3 3732.15 -4.408 0.000021 ***

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.411176

Adjusted R-squared = 0.323292

Test statistic: TR^2 = 63.732241,

with p-value = prob(Chi-square(10) > 63.732241) = 0.000000

It appears that sq_Fisca, sq_Prope, sq_Black, and l_Trade and l_BlackM are significant, so these variables were created:

Model 2: OLS estimates using the 155 observations 1-155

Dependent variable: indGDP

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const 34351.3 9683.62 3.547 0.000531 ***

6) Trade -2750.11 1190.66 -2.310 0.022376 **

7) FiscalBu -2757.13 2424.35 -1.137 0.257385

8) Governme 964.732 488.511 1.975 0.050267 *

9) Monetary -109.990 271.083 -0.406 0.685555

10) ForeignI -190.634 582.886 -0.327 0.744120

11) BK -965.605 556.143 -1.736 0.084735 *

12) Wagesand -63.7690 603.954 -0.106 0.916063

13) Property -5953.28 1787.79 -3.330 0.001112 ***

14) RG -867.724 679.755 -1.277 0.203899

15) BlackMar 1615.02 9421.44 0.171 0.864143

16) l_Trade 5907.95 3327.77 1.775 0.078029 *

17) l_BlackM -15172.6 11337.6 -1.338 0.182998

18) sq_Fisca 651.370 362.476 1.797 0.074507 *

19) sq_Prope 800.209 284.262 2.815 0.005586 ***

20) sq_Black 233.137 848.323 0.275 0.783861

Mean of dependent variable = 8854.32

Standard deviation of dep. var. = 9169.89

Sum of squared residuals = 2.08499e+009

Standard error of residuals = 3872.98

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.838989

Adjusted R-squared = 0.821614

F-statistic (15, 139) = 48.2863 (p-value < 0.00001)

Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.84585

First-order autocorrelation coeff. = 0.0767549

Taking out the non-significant variables, the resulting regression is:

Model 3: OLS estimates using the 155 observations 1-155

Dependent variable: indGDP

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const 31596.2 2336.61 13.522 < 0.00001 ***

6) Trade -2970.81 1199.32 -2.477 0.014387 **

8) Governme 756.926 481.722 1.571 0.118279

11) BK -1047.66 493.696 -2.122 0.035519 **

13) Property -8954.56 1615.13 -5.544 < 0.00001 ***

16) l_Trade 6379.73 3351.79 1.903 0.058959 *

17) l_BlackM -7828.71 1176.19 -6.656 < 0.00001 ***

18) sq_Fisca 242.486 56.5346 4.289 0.000032 ***

19) sq_Prope 1273.94 249.607 5.104 < 0.00001 ***

Mean of dependent variable = 8854.32

Standard deviation of dep. var. = 9169.89

Sum of squared residuals = 2.3127e+009

Standard error of residuals = 3980

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.821405

Adjusted R-squared = 0.811619

F-statistic (8, 146) = 83.9364 (p-value < 0.00001)

Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.97101

First-order autocorrelation coeff. = 0.0129411

Government and log(Trade) do not appear to be significant in this model, so they were dropped:

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STDERROR T STAT 2Prob(t > |T|)

0) const 32948.4 2093.65 15.737 < 0.00001 ***

6) Trade -701.47 352.948 -1.987 0.048715 **

11) BK -930.70 492.710 -1.889 0.060856 *

13) Property -9310.0 1571.14 -5.926 < 0.00001 ***

18) l_BlackM -7606.7 1174.58 -6.476 < 0.00001 ***

19) sq_Fisca 255.859 56.3419 4.541 0.000012 ***

20) sq_Prope 1329.27 242.992 5.470 < 0.00001 ***

Mean of dependent variable = 8854.32

Standard deviation of dep. var. = 9169.89

Sum of squared residuals = 2.40055e+009

Standard error of residuals = 4027.4

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.814621

Adjusted R-squared = 0.807105

F-statistic (6, 148) = 108.394 (p-value < 0.00001)

Durbin-Watson statistic = 2.01359

First-order autocorrelation coeff. = -0.00986223

The estimated model was thus:

indGDP=32948.4 -701.47 *Trade -930.70 BK–9310.0 *Property-7606.7 *log(BlackM)+ 255.859 *Fiscal^2 + 1329.27 *Property^2

(The mean of indGDP was 8854.323 and S.D. was 9169.893 , and the mean of Econ_Sco was 3.0384 and S.D. of 0.76215.)

Below are the observed versus fitted ingGDP residuals:

Summary and Discussion

The most obvious evidence shown by the data is that the average value of economic freedom has a strong relationship with per capita GDP. The R-squared value in the quadratic model with Econ_Sco is 0.635953 and at least up to a freedom factor of about 4.2, where the trend suddenly reverses. This may be because the three outliers at the 4.5 range (Libya (capita GDP of 7600) Iran (capita GDP of 6400), and Iraq (capita GDP of 2500)) are socialist economies that maintain unusually high incomes because they derive most of their GDP from oil exports. However, the quadratic relation also suggests that increasing government involvement is progressively less harmful to indGDP. On the other hand, this also means that decreasing government involvement is exponetial more beneficial to GDP.

The final model derived from the regressions was:

indGDP=32948.4 -701.47 *Trade -930.70 BK–9310.0 *Property-7606.7 *log(BlackM)+ 255.859 *Fiscal^2 + 1329.27 *Property^2

This model has several interesting properties. First, it is surprisingly accurate at predicting per capita GDP. With an R-squared of 0.814621, it indicates that 81 percent of variation in wealth between countries is caused by their economic policies. This makes the fact that increased economic freedom leads to more prosperity is hard to dispute. The model also shows that other than the small positive coefficient on fiscal burden, there are strong negative correlations between the above factors and prosperity: that is, free trade, strong property rights, and low black market activity lead to higher prosperity. The question of what exact effect the factors had on GDP and which factors were most influences was more complicated however.

The BlackM factor, or the amount of black market activity shows a high negative, suggesting that the more market activity is conducted underground, the lower the level of GDP. This is highly intuitive, as illegal and hidden activities are bound to have significantly higher costs because of the usual costs risk associated with operating against the law. These factors may be a good proxy for how difficult it is to run a business legally in any given country. Of course when a large percentage of business is underground, most of the legal restrictions on businesses do not apply, which may diminish the accuracy of the other variables at high levels of black market activity. There are 45 countries with the highest level of black market activities, with an average economic freedom ranking of about 124, and average capita GDP of $2,746, significantly below the world average of $8,854.

Trade was another major factor. The quadratic relationship suggests that increasing free trade yields diminishing returns, but the overall pattern was clear: the 34 nations with the highest level of trade restrictions have a capita GDP of $3,578.53 and the top eight nations with the highest level of trade freedom have an average capita GDP of $11,577.5. Since the grading system uses cardinal rather than quantitative rankings, it was hard to get more precise estimates of the effect of trade restrictions, but free trade nevertheless seems to be an important factor for GDP growth. Economic theory would suggest this outcome, since foreign investment is key in the growth of developing nations. A time series study on the growth in GDP versus trade restrictions may clarify this theory.

Property rights had the biggest coefficient out of all the other factors, which is not at all surprising, considering that private property ownership is at the root of capitalism. However the relationship was not linear, as the plot of the actual and fitted indGDP versus Property bellow shows:

Despite the non-linear relationship, the trend in the quadratic relationship reverses itself only in unfree countries, which may be an indication that property rights are less effective in nations that already have weak property rights protections. Indeed, the average per capita income in the 14 nations with the lowest level of property rights is $2,563.08 and their average ranking is only 144.6 out of 155.

An unexpected result of the model was that increasing fiscal burden (which is defined as “tax rates and the level of government expenditures” (Heritage p53)) seems to actually raise per capita GDP. This may be explained by the fact that as nations get wealthier, increasing profits allow higher taxes to be raised. Nevertheless, taxes do not seem to have a significant impact on GDP, and are probably not the first thing a country should look to cut if it desires economic growth

It is unclear why a number of variables (like foreign investment) that are clearly significant individually were not significant in the full model. When a regression was done on the individual variables, nearly all (other than fiscal burden) variables show significant negative correlations between more government and per capita GDP. This suggests that there is some degree of collinearity in the variables, which is not surprising considering that each factor attempts to isolate certain aspects of bureaucratic policy from a single structure of regulation.

While the particular relationship between the ten factors used is less than clear, the basic conclusion from the data is beyond question: increasing levels of economic freedom are highly correlated with increasing levels of per capita GDP, and the variation in economic freedom explains most of the differences in wealth around the world. This outcome would be surprising to many individuals who attribute factors like natural resources, population growth, or income distributions to differences in wealth, and holds many lessons for anyone attempting to stimulate growth in their own country or companies looking for growth opportunities around the world.

References

1. Easton, S. T., and Walker, M.A., eds. (1992) Rating Global Economic Freedom. Vancouver, B.C., Canada: The Fraser Institute.

2. Hanke, S.H., and Walters, S.J.K. (1997) Liberty, Equality, Prosperity. A Report to the Senate Joint Economic Committee. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate.

3. Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Jr., Kim R. Holmes, (2002) 2002 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.

3. Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Jr., Edwin J. Feulner, (2002) 2003 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.

4. CIA World Factbook 2002.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

5. Economic Freedom of the World, 2000. (2002) Fraser Institute.

http://www.freetheworld.com

6. Gwartney, James, and Lawson, Robert. Capital University Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report 2002: Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/economicfreedom

 

Google, Censorship, and the Hostage Dilemma

David V.

December 9, 2002

On September 8, 2002, the Chinese government blocked Google, one of the Internet’s biggest search engines. The government of China regularly blocks websites that it considers “dangerous” to its regime, but Google.com is a search engine – it only indexes the Internet without bias or preference to the content of a particular website. So why would Google be banned in China, especially considering that it is a crucial research tool without adequate Chinese substitutes? I believe that the answer lies in a game theory scenario known as the hostage dilemma. Because Google had the potential to greatly improve coordination between pro-democracy supporters, it may pose a threat to the Chinese regime. While the exact intentions of China in blocking Google are not clear, the incident holds a lesson for anyone trying to support or suppress democratic movements in authoritarian regimes.

It has been widely recognized that preventing communication and coordination is key to suppressing dissent in an authoritarian regime. Governments have a much easier time subjugating their citizens when there are no organizations through which one may express dissent. Louis XVI failed to learn this lesson when he called together the Estates General to raise money and ended up being beheaded when the delegates teamed up against him. Gorbachev may have forgotten it as well, as his policy of glasnost not only exposed the Soviet Union to the west, but allowed the democratic movement to organize the a government, leading to the collapse of the USSR. In China and Cuba, dissidents are severely punished and isolated from their peers, for any statements that paint the state in a bad light. It is clear that authoritarian regimes not only have an interest in suppressing opposition, but preventing coordination among dissidents as well.

Traditionally, opposition groups have used conventional means of communications to coordinate their efforts, but in an oppressive (and especially urban) society, this poses many problems. In person communication requires planning, which may be intercepted by the government. Telephone calls, mail, and print publications can be recorded or seized and the organizers arrested. While local interpersonal communication is hard to trace, any organization on a national level is nearly impossible to organize in an authoritarian regime because of the hazards to the organizers. Many of these regimes are almost universally opposed by their citizens, but because a coordinated revolt is very difficult to organize, oppressive regimes may persist for many years.

However, governments cannot keep an eye on every citizen, and therefore they must find a way to set up incentives so that no citizen would want to engage in “counter-revolutionary” activities, even if the risk of getting caught is small. Many methods have been devised to do this over they years. The most obvious is to impose severe punishments for even minor infractions, so that the high cost of protest makes opposition too risky for most. Another common method is to refuse to distinguish political dissidents from common criminals, thereby denying dissidents the possibility of martyrdom. Penetrating social structure is yet another method – for example, breaking of weakening familial bonds by raising children away from parents and encouraging them to turn in any critics of government, even family members. A similar strategy is to replace old social organizations with new party-oriented ones, and set up leadership arrangements so that the most loyal party members are always in charge. For example, in China, the State runs labor organizations, youth leagues, and otherwise maintains a monopoly on all organizations, so that no non-governmental framework exists to organize dissent. Perhaps this is why China so opposed to Falun Gong – it represents an entity outside of its control, unlike the government authorized and controlled Catholic and Buddhist churches/temples.

The growth of the Internet poses a significant threat to authoritarian an government’s ability to monitor its citizens. The Internet allows communication to be instant, relatively anonymous, globally accessible, and perhaps most damaging of all, it allows citizens to learn about living standards and political philosophies of free nations. For this reason, most authoritarian regimes have restricted Internet access to varying degrees. In Cuba, where only a tiny minority of the population can even afford a computer, domestic Internet access is still banned. Citizens may only access email for a steep fee in government Post Offices, and nowhere are they allowed to print or save any documents to disc. As one of the Cuban dissidents explains: “The high [email-access] prices, which disguise high taxes, are a subtle form of censorship, and they finance everything from new investment to the maintenance of the repressive apparatus.”⁵

Several nations with wealthier populations allow limited Internet access but block any website that is critical of the government. The only nations (out of those that allow Internet access at all) to have successful website blocking programs at the ISP level are China and Saudi Arabia.² However, the Internet has over 36 million websites⁶, and it is impossible to block all the objectionable ones. It is estimated that over 30,000 people in China work on filtering out websites¹ and the cost of manual filters and Cisco-developed filtering technology makes the cost of finding every single objectionable site prohibitive. To complicate the problem, supporters of democracy often set up mirrors (exact duplicates) of banned sites abroad, and a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations are working to set up automated methods for creating alternative access routes to blocked sites. This is where Google comes in. Its automated spider crawls the web from link to link and indexes all the sites it finds in a giant database. Google also creates copies, or a cache the sites it finds, so that it can be access when it’s down (or blocked.) Furthermore, Google constantly and automatically updates its indexes, so that each day brings fresh search results from new sites. Because China does not have the resources to index every single site, it apparently decided to block the entire search engine. As a recent Newsweek article put it, “When the Chinese government decided that the Web offered its citizenry an overly intimate view of the world outside its borders, what better way to pull down the shades than to block Google?” By blocking the entire search engine, it tried to make it significantly harder for dissenters to communicate and locate unblocked (and cached) versions of undesirable sites.

However China’s blocking of Google was not entirely successful. Many websites have licensing deals with Google, and blocking them would require blocking most major search engines and many other sites. Hours after Google was blocked, part of Yahoo and AltaVistsa were blocked because media sites immediately reported ways to get around the block. Since then, the ban on most Google-enabled sites has been lifted in lieu of new technology that filters out particular search results (“cache”, the term for Google saved archive of a site is one of them) or simply disconnects the user from the Internet.

In addition to blocking websites on the ISP side, China has attempted to control access from the user’s side as well. Earlier this year, citing “fire hazards” and “students who died of fatigue in cafes,” China shut down thousands of cafes, imposed mandatory filters, a voluntary “Public Pledge on Self-Discipline” and time and age restrictions on café use. Furhermore, a ban on a particular nation’s media outlets seems to travel along with the Dalai Lama.^{8 With} such policies, China hopes to make access to “dangerous” ideas more difficult. It is widely acknowledged that China can never block every single dissident site, but my raising the amount of effort needed to communicate with fellow dissidents at home and abroad, it thinks it can prevent the medium from being used for reasons “harmful to social stability.” ⁹

The fact that China does not ban Internet access completely is an indicator that that the government does not have a free hand to impose dis-incentives against undesirable activity. While blocking Internet access completely would be a more effective way to prevent coordination, this may also be too costly as solution because of the vital role the Internet plays in integrating China into the world market and China’s desire to enter various international trade organizations. Furthermore, China removed most of the blocks on Google less than a week after they began, probably a response to the combination of negative media coverage and complaints from its own researchers. Overly harsh punishments also have the risk of creating martyrs and arousing public resentment. Thus, authoritarian regimes must maintain a balance between suppressing and punishing expression of undesirable ideas and keeping the resources and attention on their activities to a minimum.

What kind of strategies could dissidents use to overcome government efforts at censorship? The Internet, with its anonymous and encrypted means of communication, provides unique opportunities to circumvent official restrictions. The ability to locate websites on foreign servers is another great advantage to dissidents– it’s hard to operate a printing press or a even server (because IP addresses can be tracked down to their origin) in secret from one’s own government, but moving operations abroad doesn’t raise the cost of communication while preventing raids and confiscation of equipment for the dissidents. (This isn’t always true: China has been the origin of a number of hacking incidents in various universities and government agencies, including several library servers at Texas A&M earlier this year.) Furthermore, the support of governmental and non-governmental projects in democratic countries can be a big help to dissidents, by creating new technologies such as Peekabooty, and Triangle Boy, which may also go a long way towards this goal. These technologies create encrypted networks that have no central point of origin and facilitate anonymous access to shared documents and/or regular websites. The Global Internet Freedom Act, a proposed bill in Congress to create an Office of Global Internet Freedom with a 50 million dollar budget may also be of great help to raising the costs to China of censoring democratic movements. Pressure from major media networks has also been successful in opening access to blocked sites, as widespread condemnation of China’s blocking of western news outlets has led it to reopen access to some of the sites.

Whether immediate efforts to prevent coordination among dissidents are successful, China’s attempts at censorship are bound to fail in the long run. Because the Internet’s value as a commercial and research tool are bound to grow, and are closely intertwined with alternative uses, the costs of preventing access to any particular material is bound to become prohibitively expensive, especially with the rapid and exponential growth of Internet users in China. Meanwhile, the best strategy democratic nations can follow is to make China’s censorship policy as costly as possible by sponsoring the development of circumvention technologies.

References

1 “Replacement of Google with Alternative Search Systems in China”

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/google-replacements/

2. Felipe Rodriquez. (30 November 2002 ) ‘Freedom of the Media and the Internet’. Paper for the OSCE workshop

http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efelipe/OSCE_paper.pdf

3. Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello. Every Cuban Has a Built-In Policeman

http://www.cubafacts.com/Commentary/roque1.htm

4. John DeSio. (January 2, 2002) First pro-democracy Web site in Cuba is launched. Digital Freedom Network

http://dfn.org/focus/cuba/roque-website.htm

5. Manuel David Orrio. (October 8, 2001) Independent Cuban journalist gets access to e-mail. Cooperativa de Periodistas Independientes (CPI)

http://dfn.org/focus/cuba/expensive.htm

6. Internet starts to shrink. (January, 2002) BBC Sci/Tech News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1738496.stm

7. Bobson Wong. (July 23, 2002) Chinese Internet clampdown continues after cybercafe fire. Digital Freedom Network

http://www.dfn.org/news/china/cafe-reopen.htm

8. Bobson Wong (April 25, 2002) Temporary Chinese ban on Australian news site ends. Digital Freedom Network

http://www.dfn.org/news/china/abc-ban.htm

9. Zhao Ying, “information and security issues,” Jingji Guanli, no.5, may 5. 1998pp as printed in Rand Report ‘You’ve got dissent!’ pp48 chapter two, government counter strategies

10. Steven Levy. (Dec. 16, 2002) The World According to Google

http://www.msnbc.com/news/844175.asp?0dm=T11PT

11. Paul Wilkinson. (October 2, 2002) Bipartisan, Bicameral Bill Stops Internet Jamming

http://policy.house.gov/html/news_release.cfm?id=111

 

A recent incident at University of Texas is indicative of the nature of the pacifists opposing a war with Iraq. After the student government of the University of Texas passed a resolution condemning a U.S. attack on Iraq, the Young Conservatives attempted to engage them in a debate with the “Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice.” However, as CNN later reported, “Most listeners in the audience seemed to agree with the Campus Coalition, or at least people on that side seemed more vocal about their feelings When an antiwar advocate began heckling a student in the pro-war camp, other supporters of the President’s policies stood up, and a fistfight almost broke out.” One can easily imagine what “more vocal” means when reverse-translated through the filter of CNN’s liberal bias. Apparently, the “peace protesters” are not so peaceful. All over the world, they have been rioting against aggression. What is the true nature of the anti-war sentiment in America then? Much insight about the nature of the “anti-war” protest can be found in their “Statement of Conscience,” which has been endorsed by thousands of professors and students across America.

The Statement begins with seemingly noble remarks: “peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for.”

It is unclear to me however, who’s “rights” the protesters support . Is it Saddam’s “right” to violently suppress dissent by gassing thousands of his own people, and attacking Iran, Kuwait, and Israel? If the protesters are truly concerned about dissenters, why aren’t they showing any support for the opposition groups that seek to establish a democratic government in Iraq? Do they believe that the bloody coup in which Saddam Hussein became dictator gives him a “right” to do as he pleases with anyone who crosses his path?

The resolution goes on to claim: “Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed.” When one considers the behavior of the anti-war protesters in America‘s universities, this statement seems especially misleading. At my own Texas A&M, stands of the “The Examiner,” a local conservative student paper were vandalized and the newspapers stolen by an unknown culprit. It is unclear whether he was offended by the article titled “[Condoleezza] Rice: Iraqis cannot eat their oil reserves” or “Conservative student publications plagued by theft.” In universities like Berkeley, “pro-peace” students have vandalized opposing newspaper offices, and claimed “aggression” when they were arrested for trespassing. Clearly, when supporters of America‘s right to self-defense find their newspapers vandalized and are labeled racists and bigots, it is not they who are suppressing speech.

The most common claims of the antiwar protesters is that Iraq is President Bush’s excuse to promote oil interests and cover up the faltering economy. But is there any truth to either of these claims?

“A Crude View of the Crisis in Iraq,” a Washington Post story, reports that the outcome of regime change in Iraq is far from clear: American companies may be denied access to Iraq as they were in Kuwait, and a new Iraqi government may develop oil production on it’s own, taking a significant time to do so without any major influence on oil prices. On the other hand, it is also likely that Saddam will attempt to destroy as much infrastructure as possible on his way out, so that it will take many years to put out the fires and rebuild Iraq‘s oil production capability. In any case, the effect of a war on American oil interests is far from certain and has not even been brought up in discussion with Iraqi opposition.

The second claim — that Bush is pushing for a war to distract Americans from the economy is equally ridiculous. Liberals who are bitter about the GOP win claim that the Republicans blew the terrorist threat out of proportion to avoid focusing on the economy. However, a recent Gallup poll shows that fully 57 percent of Americans believe that the economy is better off in republican hands and 67 percent believe that the war against terrorism would be better handled by republicans. While I would dispute that either party has handled terrorism or the economy very well, it is clear that most Americans support the Republicans in both of these areas.

The resolution attacks immigration procedures for singling out certain nationalities ignoring the fact that a Saudi national is, oh about 100% more likely to be a terrorist than someone from Sweden or Japan. The peaceniks oppose the racist policy of giving 18 to 40 year old Arab men more scrutiny in airports than a grandma going to see her grandkids while supporting race-based admission policies in universities.

The protesters’ claim that the war on terrorism has given “police sweeping new powers of search and seizure” and “brought down a pall of repression over society.” However, when one considers how vocal the protesters have been in the media, a “pall of repression” is nowhere to be found. On the other hand, when my own “conservative” university banned students from hanging American flags outside their windows, so as “not to offend international students,” the true direction of repression became clear. If indeed the government is holding American citizens without trial or due process, there is cause for concern, but it is only an evasion of the real threat to our security to claim that we should ignore legitimate national interests because of the potential for abuse.

But the protesters’ real agenda has little to do with Iraq. Suppose that after a thorough and unhampered search, the inspectors discover that all those hidden bunkers and presidential palaces are actually full of unanimous ballots from his last election. (Which, according to Saddam, was an 11,445,638 to 0 “Yes” vote.) Suppose that the chemical weapons and arms sales to Iraq that Yugoslavian officials have recently admitted to were actually fireworks for the celebration of Saddam’s election victory. Would I change my mind and oppose going to war with Iraq? Sure.

But suppose that despite Hans Blix’s negotiations with Saddam on the restrictions of our unrestricted access to Iraq, we find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Will the anti-war protesters change their minds? The answer can be found in their Statement: “What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?” — and this is their reply. Their objection is not so much to Bush’s policy towards Iraq, but in the fact that he may engage in it unilaterally — without the permission of the rest of the world. Robert Jehnsen, author of inspiring articles such as “U.S. just as guilty [as the terrorists] of committing own violent acts” claims to represent the “No-war Collective,” and this is just how he sees the world — as a collective in which the United States must ask for permission to defend itself against terrorism.

The pacifists cannot honestly object to the fact a war may lead to the death of Iraqi civilians — they do not protest the civilians Saddam kills every day. Neither can they complain that “dissent is being silenced” — they have no problem silencing dissent here in America, or to Saddam’s silencing dissent in Iraq. The Statement accuses the government of “putting out a simplistic script of ‘good vs. evil'” — but what the antiwar crowd opposes is any declaration of moral legitimacy in fighting the war on terrorism. They ask “What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?” but they don’t oppose a world where terrorists and dictators have a blank check to the same. Despite their rhetoric, to the peaceniks, there is no difference between a barbaric dictatorship and a free democracy fighting for its very existence (as Israel is) or freedom from terrorism (as the United States is). As their “Statement of Conscience” shows, their primary objection is not that America may go to war with Iraq, but that it may do so unilaterally without the permission of the rest of the world. What the protesters in fact claim, is that any evaluation that a democratic regime is morally superior to a bloody dictatorship is evil, and any difference between the U.S. and Iraq is a probably result of “western imperialism.”

A recent CNN photomontage shows young Palestinian kids with automatic weapons and war-paint on their faces screaming furiously at the camera protesting against a war in Iraq. The next slide shows a protest in America, with an unshaven man in a crowd of angry faces with banners proclaiming “no bombing of children for oil.” Despite the fact that the Palestinians live in an oppressive, violent, and primitive society and the American protesters grew up in the wealthiest, freest, and most successful nation on earth, the differences almost seem lost in the two photos. Perhaps this is what the pacifists are truly after.

 

 

I was writing a reply to a post, and thought that my idea was significant enough to merit an essay. Here goes:

 

Many theists claim that some sort of “spiritual connection” is a universal part of human experience and valid proof of some sort of spiritual realm. Furthermore, some Christians claim that if one tries hard enough, he will feel a “connection” and experience “proof” that some sort of spiritual realm exists. While such a spiritual feeling certainly exists, when properly identified, it indicates the greatest flaw of religion, rather than proof of an omnipotent being.

 

First, many widespread religions have no concept of a “spiritual connection” and are inherently atheistic, such as Buddhism, Taoism, etc. They may have spiritual elements, but they do not claim that mediation, prayer and such allows any connection to some sort of higher being. More importantly, only a few sects of Christianity believe that one should believe in God because of internal spiritual evidence. Certainly the old (Jewish) testament, traditional Catholicism, etc attempt to give evidence of historical events as proof of God, not internal “connections.” Furthermore, Judaism, Islam, and most other major religions focus entirely or mostly on external evidence for God, not “feelings” or any such evidence. Thus, it is not factually accurate to claim that “all” religions accept some of spiritual connection as proof of God, Jesus, Vishnu or any other such being.

 

Now, even if such a belief were universal, it would be no indication at all of whether some sort of spiritual world existed or not. Certainly, before the scientific process was invented, it was almost universally believed that gods, demons, etc. ruled nature and caused rains, volcanoes, seasons, and other natural events. However, this idea has been completely discredited by science. Spiritual feelings are no indication of external reality and are not accepted as valid evidence in any field – and should not be considered conclusive evidence of a God.

 

For example, suppose that when Einstein came up with his theory of relatively, the scientific body replied that they simply “felt” that Newtonian laws were true, and no exceptions were possible. Certainly, they had spend their whole careers accepting the validity of Newtonian physics, and since classical physics was almost universally accepted and embedded in their minds, they certainly “felt” them to be true, and relativity wrong, but no one tried to argue the absurd argument that feelings constitute proof in science – any neither should one say that in theology.

 

Nevertheless, it is true that many people experience a strong feeling during prayer and religious services, and it is worthwhile to examine its nature. Let me give a brief personal account of “spiritual connections” at this point. When I was six, I read several novels by Jules Verne and Arthur Conan Doyle (author of Sherlock Holmes.) These authors taught me to apply “philosophical detectivism” to my study of the world, and rely in logic and the validity of my own conclusions. Ever since, I have applied a critical approach to all my studies, and when I was first exposed to religion at 10, I attempted to do the same. I attended Jewish Sunday school for eight years, eventually becoming an assistant Sunday school teacher for three years. I studied various religions and different views on God, attended services of different religions and denominations, and tried very hard to feel the “connection” that everyone was talking about.

 

I did experience the emotion commonly described as a “spiritual connection,” and since I believe that my feeling is what most people refer to when they talk about divine connection, I would like to describe what I experienced in particular and my conclusions on the nature of religious feeling in general.

 

Initially, when attending Sabbath services, I felt nothing but unease and awkwardness at being unable to understand what was going on –especially since at the time I did not speak English or Hebrew – the two languages used in Jewish services. I was like a native to whom a missionary was trying to sell religion. Eventually however, I learned the format of the service, and was able to read and understand both the English and Hebrew prayers. After several years, I became familiar with not just the literal meaning, but also the theological and historical significance of the prayers and rituals involved in services. I studied Jewish history, spent a summer in Israel, and immersed myself with trying to understand theology.

 

I began to experience a strong emotion during services, which I suppose many people would call “God.” However, since I knew that oftentimes my emotions were proven wrong by experience, I attempted to define and verify the nature of my feelings. I realized that the feeling I felt during services was much like the feeling I felt when I heard politicians and preachers talk about things like “freedom,” “a cause greater than oneself,” “justice” etc, etc. Such words, whether in the forms of prayer or political rhetoric, where a projection of values and goals to my life, which otherwise had no apparent end or purpose that I could derive on my own (at the time). In short, the feelings I experienced during services and while reading and listening to “deep thoughts” about the meaning of life involved the projection of the proper purpose of man’s life on earth and the proper beneficiary of his actions.

 

Giving a purpose and meaning of one’s life is certainly both a noble and crucial goal for anyone who wants to have a meaningful and happy life. It is only proper that realizing the mission and function of your life should be accompanied by a feeling of great joy and self-fulfillment. This is why many (most?) atheists who believe that religion is the only thing capable of giving life a purpose become either depressed or hedonistic, (unsuccessfully) seeking to give meaning to their life by drugs, sexual experimentation or New-Age mysticism.

 

However, adopting a religious basis for the purpose of one’s life creates a problem commonly mentioned but rarely identified: regular cycles of inspiration and guilt. Every single religious person has a cycle of going to a religious service and experiencing relief at the fact that there is after all a greater meaning to his or her life, and then finding their religious ideas impractical, idealistic, unattainable, or just hard to apply to real life. While this conflict varies greatly by person and religion, every single religious person experiences the feeling of guilt that arises from being unable to fully live up to their religion. Every Sunday (or whatever day they have their services) the guilt is absolved and the theist is newly inspired and motivated by their particular God, and as soon as their leave their church/temple/shrine the guilt begins to accumulate and the cycle begins anew. The greater the persons devotion to their religion, the greater their guilt at not being able to live up to it, and the deeper the emotion they experience during their weekly fix.

 

I know this, because immediately after my trip to Israel, I briefly went through this weekly cycle, and I have had many friends who have described exactly the same cycle to me. For some (like born-again Christians), the escalation of this cycle leads to life-long fundamentalism, for others it leads to a periodical ups and downs of depression and devotion, and for others, it leads to a complete rejection of religion, never to be tried again.

 

My initial bout with atheism happened when I was 15, during a Sunday school retreat that culminated a yearlong discussion on God. After a weekend of discussing our “relationship to God,” we were having our closing ceremony, lighting candles, singing songs, and the usual. All throughout the weekend I critically examined the different “relationships” that were talked about, and other than the feeling mentioned above, I could find no proof whatsoever that they led to the existence of God. Finally, right in the middle of a song proclaiming my devotion, I suddenly realized how silly and irrational the words I was singing were, and firmly rejected the whole notion of God. In the next few years, I discovered Spinoza and toyed with deism, and “cultural” religion, but shortly after beginning college, I examined all the evidence I had on theism and religion and rejected the whole enterprise for good.

 

Back to the topic at hand, my discovery of the philosophy of Objectivism filled in the holes in my understanding of emotion and morality. I realized that feelings are not random chemical reactions or hormones reacting in your head. Neither are they forms of divine inspiration guiding us in all our actions. Rather, feelings are the near-instantaneous reactions to things and events based on subconsciously and consciously held values and beliefs. “Divine inspiration” is simply the reaction to our need to give our life a purpose and meaning, not evidence of a supernatural being sending us messages.

 

Unfortunately, while a good life does need to have purpose and meaning, using religion for this purpose has several major flaws, which lead to the aforementioned cycle of guilt and inspiration. A proper discussion of religious ethics is beyond the scope of this essay (see http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10666 for a hint) but suffice it to say that religious values are impractical because they strive towards a non-existent spiritual world while ignoring the means needed for a happy and successful life in the real, physical world, leading to the eternal conflict and ever-present guilt because one is not able to fully live up to either. When I discovered that the world was natural, I finally felt free to find my own meaning and purpose, experiencing a feeling aptly described by Robert G. Ingersoll in “Why I Am Agnostic”:

 

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural – that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world — not even in infinite space. I was free — free to think, to express my thoughts — free to live to my own ideal — free to live for myself and those I loved — free to use all my faculties, all my senses — free to spread imagination’s wings — free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope — free to judge and determine for myself — free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past — free from popes and priests — free from all the “called” and “set apart” — free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies — free from the fear of eternal pain — free from the winged monsters of the night — free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought — no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings — no chains for my limbs — no lashes for my back — no fires for my flesh — no master’s frown or threat – no following another’s steps — no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

[October 15, 2002] After tonight’s meeting I had a debate with a friend of mine (the only other Objectivist on this list)

I took the opposite position of the one I held tonight and played devils advocate as he tried to prove why theft is always wrong.

Take a look, and skip to the bottom if it gets boring.

 

–David

 

GreedyCapitalist: Give me a solid proof of why theft is always self-detrimental
RedRyan3523: First of all it may be wise to consult textbooks on egoism/altruism. They seem to say that both egoism and altruism say that you shouldn’t steal or do something against other people, but where they disagree is whether it’s wrong to refrain from doing something for other people. I’ve been thinking on the subject and think I’ve come up with an idea.
RedRyan3523: Your self-interest is your health and happiness. Happiness can only be achieved in a certain way, and it’s in the nature of happiness that you refrain from theft. You don’t refrain from theft because you care about the other guy, you refrain from theft for your own selfish reasons.
RedRyan3523: So all it has to be demonstrated is that by the nature of happiness and logic, and then it follows that theft is detrimental.
GreedyCapitalist: how?
RedRyan3523: also one can’t have the value of pride if he steals. Altruism neglects this aspect of man’s character.
GreedyCapitalist: Can’t you be proud of being the best in your business (thievery)?
RedRyan3523: can you be proud of how many women you have sex with in a short period of time?
GreedyCapitalist: sure, why not?
RedRyan3523: what is the character of such a person?
RedRyan3523: is he really happy?
RedRyan3523: Happiness is dependent upon self-esteem. That which hurts self-esteem hurts happiness. Self-esteem entails self-reliance.
RedRyan3523: So while you may gain what you steal, you lose some degree of self-esteem because you aren’t being self-reliant.
GreedyCapitalist: why does self esteem entail self reliance?
GreedyCapitalist: can’t you have high esteem in your ability to steal?
RedRyan3523: Stealing only seems attractive because you are only taking under consideration material values.
GreedyCapitalist: oh?
GreedyCapitalist: why can’t you be satisfied by material values alone?
RedRyan3523: It’s not in your nature.
RedRyan3523: Man needs material to maintain homeostasis, but he will be little more than a vegetable unless he has other values.
GreedyCapitalist: why can’t he get those materials by theft?
RedRyan3523: that neglects his non-material values.
GreedyCapitalist: why does he have to fulfill them [non material values] to be happy?
RedRyan3523: it all falls back on self-esteem and its relationship to happiness and self-reliance and its relationship to self-esteem.
RedRyan3523: Feelings of helplessness are common symptoms of depression.
GreedyCapitalist: you still haven’t tied self reliance and self esteem
RedRyan3523: It seems there’s a relationship between self-esteem and competence, i.e. self-reliance.
RedRyan3523: Depression feeds on incompetence, and one’s evaluation of oneself is dependent upon what a person can do.
RedRyan3523: In other words, happiness is not independent of the path through which you try to achieve it.
GreedyCapitalist: ok, but why can’t you feel competent at thievery?
RedRyan3523: self-reliance entails dealing with reality independent of an agent. Theft is dependence.
GreedyCapitalist: ok, but why is self-reliance so important to self-esteem?
RedRyan3523: You judge how well you do on a test by how much you got right. Your evaluation of yourself entails a standard by which to evaluate. An evaluation of a particular entity entails a particular standard by which to judge that entity. Self-reliance is that standard.
GreedyCapitalist: why is it the only possible standard?
GreedyCapitalist: maybe you could have a standard of other-reliance, i.e. altruism
RedRyan3523: Evaluation of a particular entity entails evaluation by a particular standard. You don’t judge how well you did on a test by the same standard as how you would judge how ell you did building something. The standard of evaluation goes hand in hand with what you are evaluating. Altruism entails assuming that one’s self is worthless, so that in particular can’t be used as a standard.
GreedyCapitalist: but you are saying that actions can only be evaluated by one standard — self-reliance. Why are other standards not applicable?
RedRyan3523: Like you can only evaluate particular things according to the nature of the thing being evaluated, you can only evaluate people by a particular standard. How much is a person worth to you? That depends on what he can do for you and how well he can do it.
RedRyan3523: There may also be characteristics of character people may have to be worth something. What qualities do you find attractive in others? Ability and character are the standards by which you judge others, so those two are the standards by which you evaluate yourself.
GreedyCapitalist: I see
GreedyCapitalist: Going back to the thief, I think you correctly point out the necessity of self-reliance for self esteem — which is itself necessary for happiness
GreedyCapitalist: The nature of humans is such that they must be productive to survive, and being a thief violates that nature
GreedyCapitalist: One may confuse true productivity with proclivity in crime, but that will only worsen the thief’s reliance on others labor for his welfare
GreedyCapitalist: he cannot escape that fact because reality is such that if you are not producing your own daily sustenance, you are taking it from others

GreedyCapitalist: The professional thief lives a life that goes against the objective requirements needed for a human being to provide for his own sustenance, and as long as he obtains his sustenance by stealing from others, he cannot have any self-esteem.  The same thing can be seen in lifelong welfare recipients and mooching bureaucrats.  They may hide from that fact, but they cannot avoid it, and that fact probably account for why most of them are losers who are often depressed, don’t amount to much  in life, and are afraid to get a real job that doesn’t involve stealing from others hard work

 

David’s Brief Case for Objective Morality:
October 15, 2002

 

1. The are two forms of matter in the universe: living and nonliving, distinguished by the fact that living matter is mortal

 

2. All lifeforms, including humans must satisfy certain needs (ie food, air, shelter, etc) in order to stay alive These needs are specific to the particular nature of each being: i.e. fish need water and worms, man needs air and meat/veggies

 

3. Hence, all lifeforms have certain values (needs) they must achieve if they are to stay alive.

 

4. For non-human animals, values are automatic: ie, their instinct tells them automatically that they must act in a certain way (hunt, run, reproduce) in order to remain alive. Humans however, are unique in that values are not automatic to them: unlike plants and animals they may choose to starve and die, and sometimes do.

 

5. Man is also unique in that the means of survival is not automatic for him: instead of instinct he must learn to think and choose to do the things that prolong his life. He cannot (speaking generally) stay alive without using his mind. Thus, he must not only choose the values needed for life, but he must also use his rational faculties to achieve them.

 

6. From 4 and 6, survival for man is dependent on the unique and necessary ability to use reason as his primary (actually, only) means of survival. Man cannot wish or pray for his food. He may steal it for a while, but someone, somewhere must create his daily sustenance by using his mind as the tool of his survival.

 

7. The requirements for survival are objective (from 2) hence (from 6) the requirements for survival are the same for each individual and require the use of his mind to achieve objective (universal) goals in order to remain alive.
8. Humans can choose other goals and ends during their life, but in order to accomplish them, they must remain alive (at least as long as death isn’t the goal they’ve chosen, in which case no values or actions would be needed at all.)

 

9. Thus, in order to stay alive and accomplish any other goals, man must satisfy the requirements needed for his life: the use of reason to accomplish the needs of his survival.

 

10. Since reason is a necessity of survival (from 7) and survival is the prerequisite of all other goals (from 9), all goals beyond mere survival must be analyzed to see how they affect survival. (For example, one can decide to risk his car as a race car driver, but since being a successful race car driver requires one to stay alive, he must take some minimum safety precautions.)

 

11. Since the great majority of people have values that require their long-term survival (even when engaging in risky behavior) they must place their life as a primary means to all their other goals.

 

12. Irrationality and mysticism are not a valid means of survival (from 6), and irrational values necessarily lead one towards death, since they do not accomplish the actions necessary to stay alive. (Not to mention not having any basis — which is another argument)

 

13. Hence, “Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem.

 

14. There is no other rational end (no possible rational justification for acting against self interest) – For example, not altruism since altruism goes against the rational requirements necessary for life.

 

15. Thus: “Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society – because altruism is the irrational state of acting against one’s own life and towards death.

Introduction to Objectivist Ethics

(Notes for my presentation on Nov 13, 2002)

What questions does ethics answer? – 3 fundamental yet interrelated questions:

1. For what end should we live?
2. What fundamental principle, if any, should guide our actions?
3. Who should profit from our actions?

What have been traditional answers to these questions? This depends on the source of morality various philosophers have used.

• God
• Society
• Individual subjectivism
• No basis for morality at all (since we can’t go from an is statement about reality to an ought)

Objectivism says that morality is derived from the nature of reality, and answers the fundamental questions as such:

1. Ultimate value is life.
2. Primary virtue is rationality.
3. Proper beneficiary from actions is oneself.

Before we can get into what values man should have, we must ask what values are, and what their purpose is.

The meaning of values is derived from observation of how people act in everyday life.

Ayn Rand said that values are something “is something that one works to gain or keep”

This implies that values have a specific goal to be achieve and an alternative, that is an alternative outcome is possible.

This implies that values imply choice, as only one outcome may actually be possible in reality, but it does imply that the entity possessing values perceives an alternative where the value is not achieved. If some value is automatically guaranteed, it is not in our power to achieve or fail to achieve it, and this it is outside the scope of morality.

For example, one may value gravity and food. However, the law of gravity is an aspect of nature that you have no control over, while all animals, including humans, must act to pursue food if they are to survive.

The only entities that we know to have values are living organisms. A rock or a chair does not pursue values because it has no alternative other than to sit there.

Living organisms on the other hand, must pursue self-generated and goal-directed actions in order to survive. From the simplest amoeba to a human being, it is our mortality that gives us the alternative between life and death, and gives us the ability to have values.

In short, goal-directed entities do not exist in order to pursue values – they pursue values in order to exist. Or, as AR says in Atlas Shrugged, “it is only the concept of life that makes values possible.” Life is thus the proper target of all goal-directed actions, it is not just a requirement for all other values to be possible, but the goal of all other values.

When applying this principle to man, we observe that man is fundamentally different from animals and plants. For all other varieties of life on earth, values are automatic, while man is the only being capable of choosing the values by which to lead his life.

Some people in this group have brought up dolphins as an example of an advanced “thinking” species of animal. Suppose this is true – suppose that dolphins have a limited vocabulary, highly developed communication skills, and complex social orders. Even if true, this the purpose of a dolphins is always the same – to survive. A dolphin may have a limit knowledge of the world and limited reasoning skills. But whatever abilities it may have, it only can only use them for a single purpose: to continue its own and its species survival.

Man on the other hand, is a being that developed a volitional, conceptual consciousness. We do not have an automatic course of action, no overwhelming desire for self-preservation. The evidence for this is not only in many suicides but our hostility to many life-sustaining processes by self-destructive actions.

Like all other animals, man has a specific nature he must act in accordance with in order to survive, just as a lion must hunt, and a fish must swim. However, for humans the process of survival is not automatic, and the knowledge does not come to us without a mental effort.

The specific nature of man is that he must use the faculty of reason in order to survive. Reason involves the ability to form long-range goals, to sacrifice short-term gains for long-term goals, to continually use his faculty of reason. Man, like all living organisms must continually act in accordance with his specific means of survival, and when we stop using our means of survival, it’s as if we let go of the wheel while driving a car down the road of life. We can pray and hope to get to our destination, but without using the facility required to do so, we’ll only end up in a ditch.

Because unlike animals. we have no instinct to guide us at every stage of life, long term planning become a necessity for all human beings, this is where the need for principles arises. Principles are not an idealistic luxury but a requirement for all human beings in order to achieve their long term values.

 

What does “atheism” mean?

There are many misconceptions about what it means to be “atheist.” Most dictionaries define atheism as “Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods” and it is important to keep in mind that this is all that atheism means. It is not a belief system, or a religion but simply the denial that supernatural beings exist. There are many kinds of atheists, with all sorts of philosophies, beliefs, and religious views, as atheism is simply a negation that God(s) exist, not a positing of any other ideas of beliefs.

Then who are agnostics?

An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God, or he does not yet have evidence on whether God(s) exist.

Because, agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge, not the rejection of a belief in God(s), atheism and agnosticism cover separate areas. A person can be an agnostic theist, an atheistic agnostic, or an atheist who has concluded both that he does not hold any belief in God, and that God does not exist.

Aren’t all atheists immoral?

The books of the Bible/Koran/Torah all provide a framework for morality, but that does not mean that a person cannot be moral without a religion/God to tell him what morality is.

The dictionary defines morality as “a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.” A religious book is one source of an ethical doctrine, but atheists have many other ethical systems that they use as a guide for their actions. Some believe that society determines morality, some believe that seeking pleasure is the only point of life, and others believe that doing good for humanity is the only worthwhile activity in life. My own morality is based on rational egoism – that is, the principles I adopt as the standard of good and evil for my actions are based solely on what I believe is necessary for my life and happiness.

But then you must be a greedy, self-centered egoistic bastard, right?

In a sense, you are correct. In my philosophy, the achievement of my own values is primary, whereas most theists dedicate their life partially or completely to Jesus/Vishnu/Allah/etc.

However, just because I only act to achieve my own values, does not mean that I don’t care about others. There are many people – friends, family, colleagues, who I care for because they provide me with friendship, love, insight, or inspiration. However, unlike Christians, I believe that love, respect, and devotion must be earned, not granted. Hence, I don’t “love my fellow man” and I certainly don’t claim to love a stranger or a neighbor in any sense similar to the way I’d love a significant other.

But if everyone is a selfish, who will care about the poor/disabled/sick?

Because I value my own life as a precious and wonderful thing, I also have a respect for human life in general. Additionally, I value a happy, prosperous world much better than one full of violence and poverty. Because of this, I believe in private charity for people and ideas I would like to see better of. I think that charity that is done because of a willingness to live in a better world is much better than charity done out of the fear of hell or social obligations to the needy.

Doesn’t atheism lead to communism/socialism/Nazism?

While it’s true that socialism and its various flavors are inherently atheistic, these regimes are actually very much like religion because they simply replace worship of God with worship of the State. Religion, especially fundamentalism actually makes a society more, not less susceptible to these regimes. For example, before communism took hold, Russia was a very mystical and religious state where people took it for granted that their life was ruled by a central authority (God.) When the communists took over, they banned all the churches, but imitated all their tactics to try to make the people believe that serving the state, rather than God was their only purpose in life. An atheist who believes in the inherent value of his own life would be much less susceptible to this kind of regime.

Are you a Satanist/Wicca/Hippie/New Age Cultist?

Actually, atheists reject the existence all forms of supernatural beings and other forms of mysticism. Those Satanists who worship Satan as a supernatural deity are not in fact atheists, since atheist precludes worshipping a supernatural deity.

While some atheists do lead unusual lifestyles, many become better people after becoming atheist because they resolve a deep conflict between their faith and reality, and are able to start living happier lives. I personally live what most people would call a conservative lifestyle, drinking only socially and occasionally at best, not engaging in promiscuous sex or drugs, and voting for republican candidates. I live the lifestyle that I do because I believe that is the best way to promote my life and happiness, not because I read it from a book.

What if you’re wrong – can you risk an eternity of hell?

What if you are wrong? What if the Hindu is right? What if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right? What if the Muslims are right? What if the Native Americans are right?
This question comes from the root of Pascal’s Wager.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and inventor. He is best known for his religious argument called “Pascal’s Wager”. Pascal was looking for a way to convert friends to his sect of Roman Catholicism, called Jansenism. He devised an argument that he thought was foolproof and that would cause instant conversion to Jansenism. Amazingly, many theists today still think this argument is foolproof.

Simply put, Pascal’s Wager goes something like this:

• Either the believer or the non-believer will be correct – one of them has to be wrong.
• If you are a believer and you are correct – then you will be rewarded with eternal life.
• If you are a non-believer and you are correct – then you will die and nothing will happen.
• If you are a believer and you are wrong – then will you will die and nothing will happen.
• If you are a non-believer and you are wrong – then you will be punished with eternal damnation in the pits of hell.

· Therefore, if you are a believer you have a chance of eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven – even if you are wrong. If you are a nonbeliever you have zero chance. Why should we not be a believer just in case the believers are right?

Pascal’s Wager cannot work and is not foolproof, contrary to the persistent belief of some theists. Replace God with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Mithras, or Allah and re-read the wager. Does it still sound okay to you?

First and foremost, the non-believer must forsake the truth in order to be a believer. Should I stop searching for knowledge and forsake the truth for a “chance” that I might be wrong? The sky is blue: that’s the truth. Should I forsake that truth because a religion says the sky is green and that if I’m wrong I could spend an eternity in hell? No, I’ll stick to the truthful blue sky.

Second, the wager does not specify which god to believe in. Do I believe in Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter, Allah, Jesus Christ, Mother Earth or extra-terrestrials? Which god do I sacrifice the truth to in order to have a chance, just in case?

Since Christians often use Pascal’s Wager the most, which sect of Christianity do I choose to follow? Do I choose Pascal’s Jansenism or do I go with the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Do I choose the Baptists, Mormons, Catholics or Lutherans? Choices, choices and more choices. There are over 3,500 sects of Christianity; each believing differently. Which one will be right? Should they all sacrifice their beliefs for others, just in case? While they all certainly have a root belief in Jesus as the Christ, they all choose different paths to gain access to heaven.

Third, the wager says we should believe something solely for the prospective reward. Should we sacrifice knowledge and truth for rewards? What happens if a religion offers a better version of Heaven and less vile version of Hell? Should I leave Christianity for that one? If people are so afraid of being wrong, shouldn’t they be looking for the best Heaven out there?
(This answer came from http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/questions/pascals_wager.htm)

Atheists must have faith in something, don’t they?

People generally base their views on one of two things – on faith of what someone else has said or on underlying assumptions. Since reading this FAQ would only be useful to someone who is willing to critically examine and formulate their own views, rather than simply borrowing someone else’s, I am first going to explain why one should care to form independent views of their own in the first place.

To base your opinion on faith (also known as blind faith) is to base your understanding of the world on what someone said without actually attempting to independently find go out and determine what the world is actually like. As such, faith is dangerous (that is, harmful to your and others lives) because it falsely assumes that everything claimed by some politician, teacher, or theologian is true and leads a person to act on these false premises. Usually these premises are based on someone’s desire for wealth, power, or both. Even when such people have good intentions, they are usually wrong, and following them not only leads one to ignore reality, but to sacrifice the interests of themselves and those they care about in order to reach an earthly or heavenly utopia that does not exist and is impossible to reach but requires the loss of real values in the process. Political and religious fundamentalist movements from the Nazis to fundamentalist Muslims, to blind State-worship in the form of communism have led to much death and destruction in the 20^th century, and thus is it absolutely critical that no one should ever base their views on anything solely on someone’s word, whether it be parents, preachers or college professors.

The alternative to basing your opinion on someone’s word is to verify that position with reality – that is to see whether what someone said is actually true as reflected in reality or as Ayn Rand said, “no concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the sum of his knowledge.” In science, this is known as the scientific method.

What is the point of life without God or an afterlife?

This question could just as easily be turned around to say “what’s the point of living when getting to the afterlife is your only goal of life?”

Unlike a theist, an atheist knows that this life is all he or she has and thus will try to live each day to the fullest. Because I live for myself, I can enjoy every day of my life without worrying about ruining my chances of getting into heaven.

Furthermore, because I am an atheist, I know that I am solely responsible for my achievements as well as my failures in life. When I accomplish something in life, I can take pride in having done it on my own, and when I see a great piece of art, literature, or architecture, I take pride in the achievements of other men, instead of attributing it all to an invisible puppet master.

What will you tell your kids about God? How will you teach them morality?

People are born atheists – theism is something that has to be taught. Religion was invented to explain various phenomena that cavemen could not explain, and often used by rulers and shamans throughout history to force the populace to adhere to their rules. Since I think reason and science provides all the answers we need about the world, I see no need to teach my children about any religion, but I plan to truthfully answer any questions they have about religion and let them discover the truth on their own.

Instead, I will give them the critical thinking skills needed to explore and determine reality on their own. As far as morality goes, I will tell them that certain principles are good because it is in their own self-interest to follow them, and when they are old enough, they can come to their own conclusions about what they believe.

What holidays will you celebrate without Christmas/Hanukkah/Ramadan?

Even if this was a problem, keeping holidays is not a valid reason to hold on to an entire system of beliefs if you believe that it is false. However, there are many secular holidays one can observe to celebrate great events in our nations history. As far as Christmas goes, I see the gift giving as a celebration of friends and loved one and a showing of appreciation for the people you care about by giving gifts, and I plan to celebrate other holydays in a similar secular manner.

Do you hate God/theists/religion?

Some Christians assume that atheists are actually theists who are “hate God” or have somehow lost faith due to some misfortunate event(s) in their life. But according this view, there would be no atheists at all, since not liking God does not constitute not believing in him.

However, the great majority of atheists have no bone to pick with God, just as they don’t have any offense about Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. Regarding religion, I think it would be giving it too much credit to say that I hate it.

Aren’t atheists ignorant to “God’s Word”? Have you even read the Bible/Qu’ran/Torah/Bhagavad-Gita, etc?

Most atheists only reject religion after extensive examination, and many were devout and religious people before becoming atheist. Personally speaking, I spent many years an observant Jew, including three as an assistant Sunday school teacher, and continued my formal education in Judaism well into high school, including an eight week trip to Israel. However, I was always troubled by the logical flaws in religion, and finally rejected theism and religion outright when I realized that it was fundamentally incompatible with my view or reality.

Additionally, like many atheists, I’ve studied and read many parts of the Jewish Bible, and for a time attended Christian bible study as well and read the New Testament as well, and while there are some great stories in the Bible, it is also full of contradictions, horrible ethics, and miracles that contradict everything I know about reality.

You’re only atheist because you just haven’t really opened your soul/heart to Jesus/Vishnu/Siddhartha.

That’s kind of like saying “you can only believe if you really want to believe.” The reason why the great majority of people are theists is that they want to believe, even if their experience with reality dictates otherwise. Like hypnosis, religion only works if you really want God to exist – at the expense of forsaking your own experience of the world. Having lived all my life with the assumption that reality is an absolute, and my mind is the only tool I have of comprehending it, it is simply impossible for me to throw it all away and take a completely new reality from a book. For more, click here.

What is the atheist’s Bible?

There isn’t one. There is no Atheist Manifesto or other atheistic documentation that declares required atheistic beliefs. Atheism is not a belief system so it follows no given rules. Atheists are individuals and each of us has our philosophy and our own ideologies. Many atheists subscribe to a certain philosophy, but unlike Christians, they do usually do so because their own experience of the world shows it to be true – not because they want that view of the world to be true.

How can you prove there is no God?

How can you prove that God does exist? The real question is — how does one prove a negative in the absence of evidence either way? How do you prove that invisible pink elephants don’t exist? How do you prove that Leprechauns don’t exist?

Of course theists cannot prove there is a god. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Theists make the exceptional claim that there is a god. That claim requires exceptional proof. Therefore the burden of proof is on the theist and not the atheist. After all, I don’t see waters parting, manna from heaven, and God speaking down from heaven every day, — what I do see a logical, ordered universe, where the principle of causation is absolute.

Furthermore, I could easily invent an imaginary creature, such as an invisible floating pink elephant, and claim that the book I am handing you is his Word, and hell is the price of not following it. However, unless I can show evidence to support my position, you have to go with everything else you know about the world, and conclude that magical invisible beings don’t exist — unless and until there is evidence to the contrary.

Isn’t America a nation based on Christian values?

No. America was founded on the Western values of individualism, reason, freedom, and capitalism. Christianity had existed in Europe for 1700 years, but it was not until the Renaissance that reason was accepted as the dominant means of gaining knowledge about the world. Most of the founding fathers were deists (the believed in a God who created the universe and then left it alone) and wanted strongly to separate church and state. As John Adams said, “I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.” The Virginian delegation led to the movement to extend Virginians constitution separating church and state to the United States Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson said, “In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

Isn’t atheism a perverse conspiracy to overturn these values?

I have no intention of forcing my atheism or any other ideas on anyone else, however I do want to make sure that neither I nor my children are forced to be indoctrinated by any religion, and I want to make sure that my tax dollars do not go to pay for religion either. I firmly support the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that I have a right to promote or criticize any religion I choose, but I must respect others right to the same.

Do you believe in evolution?

This is often posed as a loaded question by fundamentalist Christians trying to equivocate an irrational faith into a reasonable conclusion based on overwhelming evidence. I do not have “have faith” in evolution — I have concluded that it is the most likely explanation for the immense variety of life on earth. The distinction between a rational belief and faith is that a rational belief is backed up evidence and a conclusion reached through logic, whereas faith is based on simply the desire for something to be true, without independent, logical verification.

Doesn’t the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevent evolution?

The short answer is no, because while entropy does increase in a closed system, the earth is not a closed system – it is powered by the sun, hence the law is not violated.

For a longer technical explanation, go to http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/questions/thermodynamics.htm

If the universe doesn’t have an intelligent designer, why is it so complex and not chaotic? Did it all come about just by random chance?

No, there is definitely an order to the universe – that is obvious to anyone who observers that rocks don’t turn into flowers, flowers grow only on the ground and not in the sky, and there is an immense variety of life on earth. However it would erroneous to credit god(s) with this. When the theist asks “Is it all chance?” what is he really asking? He is either saying that God is the only thing keeping rocks from turning into flowers, or God made the rules of nature that rule the universe in general and rocks in particular.

The first position is clearly false because it easy to see that the universe is governed by certain universal (meaning that they apply to all things) laws, which explains why each and every thing in the universe has a certain nature, and cannot act contrary to it. This is known as the law of causation: each action has a cause, and each object an identity: and given the same exact initial conditions, a silkworm will always turn into a butterfly rather than a maggot. Likewise, no god(s) is needed to make a species adapt to its environment, as a process of cause and effect directs evolution just as a process attracts a opposing magnets to each other, every time, in the same way.

The second position (known as deism) is to say that god(s) created the laws that govern the universe, and then left it alone. This view is harder to dispute, but it also falls flat after a careful analysis of the logic behind it. The first thing to recognize is that such a being is not a Christian, Jewish, or Hindu god, but might as well be a green-eyed creature from the dimension X who created our current dimension. A more serious blow is struck by the question of who made the rules that govern the god-being itself. If we assume that the universe needs a creature to define the “rules of the game” we have to impose the same standard on the creator! Immediately, then, we are faced with the question of who created the creator who created the creator, and so on. The typical theist reply to this is claim that the nature of God is such that he is beyond the need for a creator, as his nature is immortal, all-powerful, or other such variation. However this is a logical error, because if this assumption were true, then the question would arise: if God does not need a creator, why does the universe need one? Faced with these two options, it is much more reasonable to accept that the universe is in fact eternal, and so are the laws that govern it.

A possible objection with the atheist reply above is to ask why physical laws are defined and the universe is organized precisely such that intelligent human life on earth should arise just by following them. However this is a scientific question more than a philosophical one. Astronomers estimate that there over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10²¹) stars in the known universe alone, and there only needs to be one planet with the conditions for life to exist. Additionally, physicists see evidence of more than one dimension and certainly many states of matter existing in the universe – and only one dimension and state of matter is necessary for suitable conditions for intelligent life. Skeptics may claim that such chances are extremely remote – but every man produces billions of sperm in his lifetime, only a few of which may become a person, and yet, babies are born every day.

How do you tell your family and friends you’re an atheist?

I believe that there is a good and bad way to become atheist.

The bad way is to decide that religion does not reflect reality or achieve your happiness and adopt a nihilistic, rebellious attitude that rejects religion, but does not adopt anything better. Such people often resort to sex, drugs, or equally mystical philosophies such as environmentalist earth-worship and new-age cults and give a bad name to atheists.

The good way to become atheist is to decide that religion does not reflect reality or achieve your happiness, and adopt a rational set values that servers to achieve your life and happiness. Personally, I believe that Objectivism is such a philosophy, however, if you adopt a philosophy on faith rather than verifying and integrating every principle with your own experience of reality, you have never really lost your religious mysticism.

 

Back to “coming out” with your atheism, if you follow the second path, your friends and family will notice a happier and more successful you, they may still disagree with your theology, but they will find it hard to argue with results.

Why I Am Agnostic

by Robert G. Ingersoll

 

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural – that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world — not even in infinite space. I was free — free to think, to express my thoughts — free to live to my own ideal — free to live for myself and those I loved — free to use all my faculties, all my senses — free to spread imagination’s wings — free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope — free to judge and determine for myself — free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past — free from popes and priests — free from all the “called” and “set apart” — free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies — free from the fear of eternal pain — free from the winged monsters of the night — free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought — no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings — no chains for my limbs — no lashes for my back — no fires for my flesh — no master’s frown or threat – no following another’s steps — no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

FAQ by David Veksler, v1.0 — 9/23/2002

(Some of these questions are adapted from http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/questions.htm)