Reply to: Atheism Does Not Undermine Classical Liberalism.

So not to be misunderstood this is the context of the statement that ruffled some feathers:

"Transition to a society envisioned in the philosophy of classical liberalism needs our attention. Atheism and interventionism are the two major distortions."

Who can seriously say that the society envisioned in the philosophy of classical liberalism can either have interventionism or atheism? To say that or to think that is a distortion of that 'ideal' society.

An atheist can adopt classical liberalism as a meritorious philosophy and then choose to personalize it. However the roots of classical liberalism do not change simply because an individual has selectively deleted those things that are considered abrasive.

Again the easy way out is to pretend that science is flawless and that religion is flawed.

In truth, science can be flawed and religion can be flawed. In truth, both science and religion are valuable tools for the discovery of that which you are seeking. Some use only one tool while others choose to use both.

It is because interventionism and atheism are major distortions of classical liberalism that they undermine classical liberalism.

Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy

For more information go to my newly renovated website.

If you know of anyone interested in ethics and economics,
or liberty and justice, please send them this link:
http://divineec.ipower.com/2/

Reply to: Atheism Was Instrumental In Guiding Me To Classical Liberalism.

The fact that you are searching after truth means that you have chosen an active entrepreneurial spirit over a latent one. I am not saying that science (classical liberalism is an example of science that uses the correct methodology for studying human action) does not lead to truth. On the contrary it is one of the most powerful tools of discovery. Science, if it is erroneous (empiricism in social sciences, for example), can also lead astray.

That is the same problem with religion.

When put on even ground, then, both science and religion have the same potentials - good and bad.

Now, how would you regard an individual who only used religion as the sole tool for the discovery of truth? In your mind you probably would regard that individual as imbalanced, I suspect.

Just because religion is a difficult path to traverse since it is plagued with the errors of ego-driven interpretation does not mean that religion is an invalid tool for the discovery of truth. If someone says, "Look at the ridiculousness of Keynesianism; economics is a bunch of bunk!" and then they fall into a mode of a latent entrepreneurial spirit, does that do any good for anyone?

I merely suggest that we have the choice to use all the tools for discovery that are at our disposal. The easy way probably will not yield the best results.

Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy

For more information go to my newly renovated website.

If you know of anyone interested in ethics and economics,
or liberty and justice, please send them this link:
http://divineec.ipower.com/2/

Divine Economy Theory And Natural Rights.

Discovery is at the forefront of the advancement of civilization. These early scholastics documented their discoveries and promulgated them enough to activate the consciences of most who learned of their discoveries.

Just like natural rights represents an inseparable essence of the human reality so too does the divine economy represent the essential institution that was created as the means for the flow of the grace of God.

If this statement is a new discovery so be it. It will have the same significance as the discovery of natural rights. It is a corollary of natural rights.

Yet as it is unfolded in the divine economy theory it is like a laser whereas natural rights is like a candle!

Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy

For more information go to my newly renovated website.

If you know of anyone interested in ethics and economics,
or liberty and justice, please send them this link:
http://divineec.ipower.com/2/