Why Atheism will Replace Religion, and Why Capitalism Cares

[cleanhippie]

Here's a question that's bugged me for years: why aren't all Christians strong socialists? As Carl Gibson at HuffPost wrote the other day:

Christians would do well to vote for those who actually practice what they preach. While Perry and Paul demand cuts to public programs and health care for the uninsured, President Obama is finding his inner Luke and asking the richest Americans to share their possessions to help lessen the burden of deficit reduction already on the shoulders of working families.

If Jesus demanded a socialistic approach to helping the poor, then why are evangelical Christians almost universally against socialized medicine, unemployment insurance and a decent Social Security system?

Because it's bad for religion, that's why.

--snip--

Religion hates socialism because it's bad for religion.

If you combine Barber's findings with a study of memetic evolution (how ideas evolve and survive as they're passed through society and down through history) the answer is clear. Religions that support socialism make people feel secure, which in turn makes them lose faith. In the "survival of the fittest" world of evolving religions, the branches of Christianity that don't follow Jesus' teachings about helping the poor are the "fittest."

http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-atheism-will-replace-religion-and.html

[PETRUS]

1. I've wondered

about the apparent contradictions.

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." -Chesterton

[Cool Logic]

2. "why aren't all Christians strong socialists?"

For the same reason that non-Christians are not socialists: Human nature.

If all human beings possessed an impeccable moral code of values, the consequences of anarchy and oligarchy would be identical--any form of government would work. The same thing can be said about economic systems. Everything works in heaven; however, it is the imperfect nature of the human psyche, that necessitates the evaluation and selection of an economic system.

The evidence is incontrovertible--Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system for dealing with the imperfect nature of the human beings. It was Capitalism that raised our standard of living from the depths of the past. And it will be Capitalism that enhances the ability of humans to create and develop better ways to care for themselves, their fellow citizens and their environment.

In years 1000–1820 world economy grew sixfold, 50 % per person. After capitalism had started to spread more widely, in years 1820–1998 world economy grew 50-fold, i.e., 9-fold per person.<64> In most capitalist economic regions such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the economy grew 19-fold per person even though these countries already had a higher starting level, and in Japan, which was poor in 1820, to 31-fold, whereas in the rest of the world the growth was only 5-fold per person.<64>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[PETRUS]

4. Human nature

...is not any one thing. The best, most current thinking on the science of the brain suggests we are a bundle of contradictions. We do, of course, have strong instincts for self-preservation and sex. But apart from that we will react according to the incentives and penalties - explicit or implied - of the current situation (that's why we make laws). I bristle at the suggestion that we've arrived at the best of all possible worlds. What a failure of the imagination. What if our founding fathers declined to suggest a new way?

[Cool Logic]

9. "I bristle at the suggestion that we've arrived at the best of all possible worlds."

As do I; however, I accept the fact that humans are not perfect creatures--we have need for further intellectual and moral development. But just as there are no limits to human knowledge, there are no limits to human ethical improvement. Likewise, just as there are objective and natural laws of science, there are objective and natural laws of ethics.

We know that humans are capable of discovering such laws and of acting in accordance with them. Thus, it stands to reason that humans are capable of not only of developing their intellect and ethical standards, but also of "regulating" and governing their lives accordingly. It was our intellectual and moral development that allowed humans to traverse the beyond the boundaries of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Enlightenment. Likewise, our intellectual and moral evolution will navigate us to next level of "Enlightenment."

If you can accept that there is nothing wrong with a person doing something for their own benefit, while at the same time, doing something good for the world, you will realize that free-market Capitalism is a brightly lit super-highway to intellectual enlightenment.

[PETRUS]

12. Interesting

Can you flesh out the thesis implied in your 3rd paragraph? I am willing to accept that there is nothing wrong with someone doing something for their own benefit while doing something good for the world, but I don't understand how that leads to your conclusion. I'm not poking at you, nor do I have a contrasting idea. Heck, I don't really have ANY idea. (My wife does, though - she's a Marxist. We argue politely.) I just don't understand the logic.

I'm tempted to suggest that the problems with what we call "capitalism" are so severe that the modifications required, once delivered, will render such a different structure that the system will deserve a new name. Maybe this is a facile analogy, but I am not just a different flavor of australopithecus - I'm an entirely new species.

[Cool Logic]

14. Capitalism is a product of the Age of Enlightenment...

Unlike the tribal/collectivist principles of the Dark Ages, the Age of Enlightenment represented a significant step forward, for humans of that era sought to displace the powers of church and state, with the powers of logic and reason. This resulted in the advancement of knowledge, ethical standards and the idea of inalienable individual rights. These advancements led the demise of the accepted practices of slavery and serfdom.

The advantage that Capitalism has over other systems is that all market relations are voluntary. The two-part nature of a supply and demand economy allows the People to control the market from either side of the equation. When honorable People are on both sides, no other economic system can match its creative power and standard of living.

When people are free to deal with one another and logic and reason are the only judges, it is the best products and the best values that win every time. Accordingly, when individuals are free to travel as far on the road of achievement as their ability and ambition will carry them, they raise the standard of living, as well as the standard of ideas, for everyone. Hence, by doing something for their own benefit, they are simultaneously doing something good for the world,

I do not believe that knowledge has limits. Likewise, there are no limits on the evolution of human beings. We humans are not yet perfect, nor are we perfectible; however, our process of evolution has only just begun. The same applies to Capitalism.

[tama]

17. When

capitalists "privatize" (steal) common land and other means of production turn free people into "labor force", you either work for capitalistic profit making (wage slavery) or starve. Labor market relations are not voluntary, they are distortion.

[PETRUS]

18. OK

You still haven't answered my question nor did you address my suggestion that Capitalism evolved to the point where it's truly beneficial to all humankind would be unrecognizable as Capitalism, but you've made some points I can respond to.

I should start by reminding you that the dark ages were characterized by Feudalism, not collectivism. And tribalism is writ large in the globe today. It should be done away with - and as Harvard's Steven Pinker points out, there's evidence to suggest it's eroding, that people are broadening their ideas about what is "us" and narrowing their ideas about what is "them" - but it hasn't gone away yet. It's often used to great effect by politicians here in the US to win office or advance policy goals.

Now let's turn to Capitalism as a product of the Enlightenment. Markets predated the Enlightenment. (Markets are practically a natural phenomenon.) Therefore, Capitalism and the market are not inextricably linked. The main problem the big 20th century experiments with economic systems other than Capitalism suffered from was top down, centralized, non-market planning, which I think doesn't work (and sucks to live with). But if you accept your own assertions, you have to admit that markets can exist without Capitalism. Plus Capitalism works just fine without all the other (horribly inconvenient) Enlightenment principles like freedom and democracy. Look at China. Heck, Capitalism may serve its own goals more efficiently without such burdens.

And finally: If you were living in the US in the 1960s and didn't look too closely at what was happening outside of our borders, you might think Capitalism was evolving. But what was really going on? Severe exploitation and domination of non-Americans and their resources by Americans pursuing profit, backed by authoritarian coercion and violence, or the threat of it. And inside the US, what's happened since? Capitalism reared up, took aim at the very provisions that "improved" it - i.e. made it benefit the general population and not just the owners - said "that ain't Capitalism" (and, for good measure, threw in "that's un-American") and set about crippling or killing the "improvements" with a great deal of success.

What do you see happening next?

[Cool Logic]

19. I took your query to be general, rather than specific in nature,

and my point was that only Capitalism allows individuals the freedom to pursue happiness--the freedom to choose the work they have a passion for, to specialize in it--to innovate, create and then trade their products for products that others produce. This raises their standard of living as well as their standard of knowledge; thereby facilitating further innovation and creation. Hence, the by-product of individuals working for their own benefit and happiness enhances society at large, i.e., something good for the world.

It is not clear to me why you believe that Capitalism has "evolved to the point" of being unrecognizable. As long as there are more discoveries to discover and knowledge to be learned, Capitalism will continue to evolve--its evolution has no limits.

Markets can indeed exist without Capitalism--but free-markets cannot. John Locke was one of the most influential of thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. He is often referred to as the father of liberalism and he was one of the first thinkers to put forth the theory that all people are equal and independent. Subsequently, during the 19th century, the expression of the intellectual trend that he helped begin led to the evolution of a new economic system, a system of free trade in a free-market--free-market Capitalism.

China's state "capitalism," consists of state ownership of profit-seeking enterprises that operate in a capitalist manner in a market economy. However, since the state controls the means of production, it is essentially an enormous corporation with state power, i.e., the power to exploit the working class. State capitalism, like crony capitalism, is not free-market Capitalism; for logic and reason are not their judges.

What's next? Well, like humans, Capitalism is not perfect. For Capitalism is no different than other economic systems when the moral character of the human beings making use of it is deficient. Likewise, Capitalism suffers when the moral character of those in charge of regulating it is corrupt.

Why do you think 1% of the population controls 38% of the wealth? Answer: Because our Representatives let them have it.

A true free-market economy, is not controlled by the rich or by the poor; rather, it is controlled by the simple law of supply and demand. That means the rules (regulations) are the same for everyone. However, when the market is tightly-regulated by the powerful, consumers are not allowed to choose from the best products. Rather, they get to choose the products produced by companies with the best lobbyists. Or, as is the case with things like ethanol, we don't even have choice; we are forced to buy their products. The same goes for the weapons of war we are forced to buy to wage the wars that the regulators initiate for them.

It is clear state controlled systems will ultimately suffer from cronyism. And while private free-markets are not immune from immoral and/or unethical business practices, their market relations are voluntary. Thus, it is not so much a question of which economic system, as it is a question of the morality of the humans beings who are employing it.

[PETRUS]

20. First of all...

...thanks for the discussion.

It looks as though my language wasn't clear on one thing: I was not suggesting that capitalism HAS "evolved to the point" where its failings are mended enough so that all three objectives of economic efficiency, social justice, and individual liberty are met, I meant to say that IF AND WHEN that state is reached, the system could well be unrecognizable as capitalism.

Let me put aside for a moment that state controlled systems are not the only alternative and address something you said. It is not true that state controlled systems will (inevitably, I assume you meant) suffer from cronyism. It is clear that autocratic and opaque systems will. Transparency and democratic accountability work wonders. Social Security is a model of efficiency and honesty. Enron, meanwhile, imploded.

Capitalism and freedom (what a loaded word) have nothing to do with one another. Capitalists seek to limit freedoms. Sure! Unionize! Sounds great! There are laws on the books written by capitalists (Taft-Hartley, etc.) that criminalize workers ability to act in their own self interest, like limits on strikes and the prohibition on secondary boycotts. The fact that important philosophy about freedom led to and/or coincided with the development of capitalistic thought does not bind them in perpetuity.

As I mentioned earlier, my wife is a Marxist. I have yet to extract from her a satisfactory description of what the end game is and an explanation of how and why it will work. I'm not saying she's wrong, but so far it appears to me that she is operating on faith and the abundant evidence of capitalism's shortcomings. (Although I do think the Marxist critique of capitalism is sound, that doesn't guarantee that vision for the future is correct.) I'm not saying you're wrong, either - maybe the future IS capitalism! - but your prediction springs from belief (and maybe the lack of an alternative example), not reason. I'm tempted to demand again that you furnish a logical explanation, but I'm pretty sure you can't. Not because you aren't intelligent and informed - I'd say you are - but just because it's not possible. To return to our evolution analogy, no biologist would claim the ability to predict with any certainty how future organisms will look or behave, and whether they could be correctly categorized as members of existing species, or even orders, or entirely new ones. You like capitalism, that's fine, many people do, but its flaws are numerous and all attempts to solve them have failed so far.

PS. Most countries we describe as "capitalist," ours included, are actually mixed economies because of the expectation or experience of market failure in certain areas. In countries where people report the highest levels of life satisfaction, the public sector (socialism) is much bigger than the US. Do they have higher per capita GDPs? No. Do they have lower tax burdens? No. Turns out money isn't everything. Maybe for some people, but they're causing real problems for the rest of us.

[Cool Logic]

22. Lord Acton said it best...

Lord Acton said it best...

If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.

Money is power; or alternately, a means to acquire power. Thus, when politicians, whose sole objective is to acquire power, have the ability to spend, they will.

If the SSTF had been managed by people actually cared about the People, they would have evaluated and adjusted to the factor of Boomer demographics. But the People's Representatives didn't care about that. The only thing they were concerned with was how to enhance their own power.

American workers invested a $2.7 Trillion (surplus) in the SSTF. The SSTF trustees took this cash and gave it to Congress in exchange for Treasury Bonds. Congress took the money and spent it on votes. However, Congress did not combine these activities with the general fund and treated it as an off-balance sheet liability (sound familiar). Now, American workers must ante up another $2.7 Trillion, to "service" this liability. How ‘bout them returns?!

We saw the results off-balance-sheet accounting had on Enron's employee retirement plan. Why anyone would support the fedgov's policy of employing the same accounting practices in managing the SSTF is beyond my realm of comprehension. Enron’s execs went to jail, as did Bernie Madoff. However, those who looted the SSTF merely laugh it off. And now that Enron's former lobbyist works for the Federal Reserve, the laughter resonates anew.

Capitalists seek to limit freedoms.

On the contrary, Capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible with freedom, for in a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary.

Back to the SSTF: Those who were swindled by Madoff, had a choice; the worker who was swindled by the SSTF did not. In a free society, people are not forced to deal with one another. However, in a state controlled society, coercion and force are standard operating procedures. Whenever an individual is made to act without their own personal voluntary consent, their rights are violated.

My belief in Capitalism is not founded on hope or wishing; bur rather, on reason and morality. In nearly every case that has been used statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument for a government-controlled economy, it was determined that the transgressions were made possible by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrialists, e.g., Taft-Hartley, Smoot–Hawley, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of state power over industry. The villain was not the Capitalist, it was the legislator--it was not free enterprise, but state coercion and force.

Indeed, nearly all "Capitalist" countries are mixed economies. Likewise, most countries that are referred to as being socialist are mixed economies as well. And it is the Capitalists who provide the means for paying for the socialism.

I too, thank you for the rational exchange of ideas. For very few people on DU are advocates of Capitalism, and on occasions some are dreadfully inhospitable.

[PETRUS]

23. Hi again

Sorry, gotta be quick but I can't accept that capitalism promotes freedom. I know that's part of the ideology, but the evidence doesn't support it.

On the other thing (Social Security), I should admit that I was a little hasty. It is transparent and efficient, but like you pointed out, it's been messed with. That's because our government is NOT democratically accountable, and the reason for that is the manipulations of the capitalists.

[Cool Logic]

24. Actually, the manner in which SS is managed is a working example...

of why it is a bad idea to let those who control the guns, control the economy. You don't need a crystal ball to predict the unavoidable emergence of political corruption that would ultimately lead to the demise of US prosperity.

Do you believe that a paradigm shift from voluntary to coercive relationships is possible in the US?

[Viva_Daddy]

6. Capitalism has been around for a very long time

The merchants and traders of the ancient world were capitalists. What really fueled the economic expansion this article praises was the Industrial Revolution which was the result of the Renaissance, when religion was no longer able to stifle thinking and innovation.

A lot of economists would like to turn Capitalism into another religion - as the Wikipedia article cited above makes clear. This will only result in more spurious cause-effect type thinking where unwarranted conclusions are accepted and then "reasoning" is used to support the already accepted conclusions.

[Viva_Daddy]

7. I forgot to mention that kings and the nobility were also Capitalists

Many "modern day Capitalists" would like to return to the days of kings and nobles.

It seems to me that the spread of Democracy and egalitarian ideas had much more to do with the praised "economic expansion" than just Capitalism.

[Cool Logic]

10. Actually, they were not Capitalists, they were Oligarchs...

and it was Capitalism that facilitated the demise of slavery and serfdom in civilized world of that era.

[tama]

13. Capitalism as we know it

is distortion of human nature, it is collective mental disorder. We have potential for many ways of life, but destruction of the carrying capacity of Earth's ecosystem is not a way of life, it is the way of self-destruction.

[Cool Logic]

15. Capitalism, as we know it, is not true free-market Capitalism...

For when the market is over-regulated by the rich and the powerful, consumers are not allowed to choose from the best products. Rather, they get to choose the products produced by companies with the best lobbyists. Or, as is the case with ethanol, we don't have choice; we are forced to buy their products. Similarly, we are forced to buy weapons for the wars that our Representatives initiate and wage for them.

Crony capitalism is not free-market Capitalism.

[tama]

16. Free market and capitalism

don't go together. Capitalistic ownership of means of production is not free market, control of the creation of money is not free market. Free market is anarchy.

[patrice]

3. Agreed. Socialism fucks with Paul -ine holy expansionist quid-pro-quos.

[Meshuga]

5. I wouldn't be so optimistic about "atheism replacing religion"

...since we will continue to see the branch of the religious who ignore Jesus' socialist/ethical teachings as long as there are people going through tough times. In addition to the argument the article makes, we can see examples throughout history that the most fanatical religious followers thrive when societies are going through bad times.

In short, social apathy from the religious congregations made up of people who believe that salvation comes from faith alone is convenient in many ways.

However, I don't see why less or more suffering would influence the membership in congregations where Jesus' ethics/socialism is the main focus. I would think that people join these congregations more because of identification and compatibility than because of suffering and despair. For example, people may join a church because the congregation social justice activities are compatible with the values of the new congregant.

[provis99]

8. atheism will never replace religion.

in Socrates' day they had atheists, too, and things haven't changed in 2000+ years. 20000 years from now, atheism will still be a minority position, because humans are hardwired by evolution to believe in unprovable deities.

[David Sky]

11. I enjoyed reading this entire thread, even those posts from the person

who considers Capitalism the savior of the modern world, (why does "savior" sound familiar? OH YES, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE use that one in one of their equally factless fantasies.!!)

[deacon_sephiroth]

21. Right but then by that logic, they are winning...

If feeling secure leeds to atheism, and feeling like you're completely screwed and left to the wolves to fend for yourself in a seflish ratrace style dog-eat-dog-eat-your-face kind of go-screw-yourself-and-startve system promotes religion, then they're WINNING aren't they? They're working REALLY hard to make America a 3rd world country and our champions are working REALLY hard to not stop them. If that continues, maybe they'll get their wish and Atheism WON'T replace religion.