Grant Havers on Libertarianism, Religion and the Role of the Church in a Free Society

Exclusive Interviews

Every Sunday, here at the Bell, we bring readers exclusive interviews with leading free-market thinkers from around the world.

Here's a brief sample:

Jim Rogers

Ron Paul

Lew Rockwell

Dr. Tibor Machan

Hugo Salinas-Price

G. Edward Griffin

Peter Schiff

Dr. Antal Fekete

Who's Coming Next?

Subscribe & We'll Let You Know

Receive FREE email updates when future interviews, news and guest editorials are posted to the Daily Bell.

Click Here Now

Posted by Michael R Gibbons on 7/25/2010 7:34:07 AM

Theism is a de facto rejection of reason. The attempt to justify capitalism and individual rights on religious grounds will fail because of the intrinsic subjectivity inherent in such an argument.

My view of libertarianism is that it's members have become increasingly more religious which makes it more of a problem than a solution. The only robust justification of capitalism and individual rights was provided by Any Rand.

If Dr. Havers is all you have to offer your readers, I suggest you need to find a better group of people to interview.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Sad you would denigrate spirituality, especially. One could argue that Rand was a most spiritual person in her own way. Here is an definition of what you disagree with, from Wikipedia:

snip------

Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or immaterial reality; an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the 'deepest values and meanings by which people live.

Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; such practices often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.

Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life. It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.

Posted by Victor Barney on 7/25/2010 8:12:43 AM

Grant Havers on Libertarianism, Religion and the Role of the Church in a Free Society with Ron Holland: First, Ron, you will soon learn that "Hebrew" is the "only" spiritually inspired language, not Greek, Latin, or even English(Zeph. 3:9)!

Secondly, that these set-apart Hebrew Scriptures can only be interpreted through the scientific procedure of deduction(2 Peter 1:20), not through induction has almost "everybody" has done in history! Until the two-witnesses come that have been described in the Book of Revelation to punish us(America, Israel by the seed of Joseph) for it's women putting a self-confirmed anti-messiah over Yahweh's chosen people from the seed of Joseph(Gen. 48:16)!

And, it's still not over! I now wonder just "who" is it that gives each other presents after the two-witnesses get killed by the Anti-messiah "Beast" of Revelation? The women who voted this forbidden foreigner(non-Israelite) and self-confirmed anti-messiah (Marxist) too(Deut. 17:15)? If so, nothing has changed in 6,000 years, has it?

Posted by Adam on 7/25/2010 8:13:02 AM

Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

Click to View Link

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Interesting ...

snip-----


Most people cower under the shadow of this beast, calling their fear "prudence," but a few - drunk perhaps on courage or foolhardiness - decide to fight. Year after year, decade after decade, wave after wave of hopeful champions try to match their strength, virtue and cunning against this terrible tyrant.

Try - and fail.

The beast is always immortal, so the villagers cannot hope for time to rid them of their despot. The beast is never rational, and has no desire to trade, and so no negotiations are possible. The desperate villagers' only hope is for a man to appear who can defeat the beast.

Inevitably, a man steps forward who strikes everyone as utterly incongruous. He is a stable boy, a shoemaker's son, a baker's apprentice - or sometimes, just a vagabond.

This book is the story of my personal assault on just such a beast.

This "beast" is the belief that it is impossible to define an objective, rational, secular and scientific ethical system. This "beast" is the illusion that morality must forever be lost in the irrational swamps of gods and governments, enforced for merely pragmatic reasons, but forever lacking logical justification and clear definition. This "beast" is the fantasy that virtue, our greatest joy, our deepest happiness, must be cast aside by secular grown-ups, and left in the dust to be pawed at, paraded and exploited by politicians and priests - and parents. This "beast" is the superstition that, without the tirades of parents, the bullying of gods or the guns of governments, we cannot be both rational and good...

Posted by Dana Mason on 7/25/2010 8:45:08 AM

I agree with much of what Havers says. I do not agree with his assessment of Lincoln as being opposed to slavery or Lincoln being a moral Christian. Lincoln clearly stated that he cared not about slavery except that it could be used as a tool to help force the Southern States back into the Union at gun point. I suggest Havers read The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo and perhaps his view on Lincoln's Christianity will change. I see Lincoln as a perverse tyrant, a wolf in sheep's clothing at best.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

We don't agree with him about Lincoln either.

Posted by Tom Clark on 7/25/2010 9:05:55 AM

I do agree with Mr. Gibbons. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Just when I think it's time to give up on The Bell, the first post after Grant Havers interview gives me "faith" to at least not unsubscribe.

Posted by Sean Allison on 7/25/2010 9:19:29 AM

Very rich interview, Mr. Gibbon's objections aside. To the contrary, I find exclusive reliance upon reason to be vacuous and tedious. For myself it is very reasonable to take one look around at all the creatures of the creation and think that there must be a creator, however one may conceptualize that.

And indeed, actually, I think the Bell is on to a very important point. Man also seeks "meaning" along with his goals. A purely rationalistic society is one very susceptible to statism. Hence, the state's constant efforts to weaken a strong church (or family or clan or tribe).

I say better voluntary "theism" than coercive (no matter how rational) legislation.

I appreciated Dr. Havers distinction about bourgeois Christianity's ethic of loving your neighbors and enemies. Not that I agree with it. But it is an important insight.

Personally, I ceased being the Christian I was raised to be when I realized that the ethic of the "old covenant" was superior to the ethic of the proposed new one. For example, therein it states, instead of the ambiguous and subjective idea of loving your neighbor or enemy, to simply follow the same law with regard to those foreigners who may be living amongst you as you do amongst yourselves. To me this is superior in that it clearly gives no ground for mistreatment towards the weak and strangers, yet allows you to defend yourself without apology if they happen to be(come) your enemy. And without having to somehow conjure up some notion of love as one does it.

Other issues I have is that one can make a case for egalitarianism (Galatians 3:28) and the state and its taxation (Romans 13:6) from Christian scriptures.

But most importantly, I decry the "doing away" with the old law via the "new covenant". The old law was libertarian in the sense that there was explicitly no place for legislative or executive power invested in a state. Power was to be exercised on an ad-hoc, as needed basis, when the local community came together via the calls of its natural leaders (elders at the gate for example) to meet a crisis.

In my opinion, historically, the state has been very happy to coexist with the Christian church as the church conveniently provided these justifications for its existence from a religious and therefore philosophical basis. Nevertheless, it is true, the state has grown at the expense of the church. The child is pushing its parent aside. The old religion (the Church) is replaced by the new (the State). Whose laws you obey, that is your god.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

It beggars belief that people think "freedom" exists in some kind of bubble and that human beings (greater apes) relate to each with some sort of pure rationality as regards these matters.

Almost everything individuals do has some sort of instinctual or biological base. One can argue about the ability for people to make "choices" (free will) but in our view one must accept (so long as one accepts some form of evolution) that people are primarily tribal beings whose societies habitually have been communal and familial. Therefore, "freedom" as most would construe it exists mostly within such parameters.

The question becomes not "freedom" versus "society" but whether one wishes to live in a communal, familial environment within the boundaries of culture and elements of formal spirituality (whether one chooses to believe or not) or whether the modern-day state construct of regulatory democracy is preferable. We would argue the modern-day state with its endless warring, fiat ruin, ever-increasing taxation, military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes and corrupt public justice system is the likely not the choice most would make, had they the possibility of a choice.

Posted by Terry Haney on 7/25/2010 9:47:26 AM

Tolerance, diversity and open borders sounds like a wonderful ideal to those suffering from the the Protestant guilt Havers described. The naive fail to realize that those that are invited in often do not share their views and with enough dilution of their poplulation they lack the ability to have any say in their own country.

You may have an Agapeic love for you neighbor even if they are a child molestor, but that does not require inviting them into your home to be around your children.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

OK. You have taken issues fundamental to the organization of the human community and turned it into an argument about immigration. Amazing how this interview is becomes a reflection of people's preoccupations and prejudices.

Posted by Duane Bass on 7/25/2010 9:47:43 AM

I have faith in the DB, for keeping us informed on so many different levels. Great interview!

Posted by Pat Fields on 7/25/2010 9:48:19 AM

What a delightfully informative article! I found the span and sequence of questions particularly interesting, whether that came about ad hoc or by careful preparation, because it allowed Dr. Havers to illustrate how religious philosophical foundations in a society really do affect all aspects of it.

I was especially pleased that The Bell wove in the inter-relationship between Western religious mores and Common Law's maintenance of Individual Determinism and parry against tyranny. On the other hand, I was disappointed that the question of monetary influence on social underpinnings wasn't explored more prominently.

Being a fellow who is admittedly 'anal' regarding the use of English and the precise meaning of words, one phrase Dr. Havers used, 'socialistic capitalism', was highly disconcerting, as the two are ... polar social structures. Such phraseology is an irreconcilable dichotomy. The sole form I can rectify his meaning with is Mercantilism, as it contains certain elements of the two ... yet (as precursor to both) is in fact neither.

The article prompted me to dig out de Tocqueville's reflection on 'American Philosophy'. Viz ...

"I think that in no country in the civilized world is less attention paid to philosophy than in the United States...Yet it is easy to perceive that almost all the inhabitants of the United States use their minds in the same manner, and direct them according to the same rules; that is to say, without ever having taken the trouble to define the rules, they have a philosophical method common to the whole people." That being to "...evade the bondage of system and habit, of family maxims, class opinions, and, in some degree, of national prejudices; to accept tradition only as a means of information, and existing facts only as a lesson to be used in doing otherwise and doing better; to seek the reason of things for oneself, and in oneself alone; to tend to results without being bound to means, and to strike through the form to the substance 'such are the principal characteristics of what I shall call the philosophical method of the Americans."

Reply from the Daily Bell:

You saw much that did not occur to us, so many thanks for such an astute feedback.

Posted by Michael Crofton on 7/25/2010 10:02:17 AM

For one who professes that his protestant faith is superior to all others because of its teaching that one should love one's enemies, Dr. Havers appears to harbor deep-seated hostility towards entire categories of people different from him.

Furthermore, the claim itself ' that the call to love one's enemies is an exclusively Christian characteristic ' is patently false. Many atheists and "left wing modern liberal collectivists," who Dr. Havers so obviously despises, would, on moral and other grounds, share the view that one should love one's enemies.

He also does not satisfactorily explain the inherent contradiction between the Christian beliefs he professes, and his own statement that, "White evangelical Protestant Republicans are still the most reliable supporters of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though there is something rather blasphemous about using massive firepower to democratize howling wildernesses."

I'm not sure that a return to the Christian bourgeois society which Dr. Havers hankers after is feasible, even if it were desirable.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

You would suggest? ...

Posted by Terry Haney on 7/25/2010 10:27:59 AM

Havers said

"Spinoza feared the seditious consequences that would result from the decline of a bourgeois Christian ethos. He would be shocked that "liberals" today are inclined to fling the doors and borders open to anyone who desires entry into today's modern democracies"

I wasn't changing the subject to immigration. I was commenting on Havers statement. Whether it is borders or idiology, one should be careful who they invite in.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

OK, you are obviously responding to the interview. Thanks for your feedbacks and for your courteous clarification.

Posted by Richard Ambler on 7/25/2010 10:28:45 AM

"...a spiritual ' religious ' society is likely to be more supportive of freedom and free-markets than a statist one."

This has the feel of a false dichotomy to it. It may be true, and certainly self-imposed morality (wherever it may exist in organised religion) is preferable and more aligned to libertarianism than morality imposed by others (which is why I said wherever it may exist in organised religion), but there are better alternatives, in my opinion, than either.

For example, a code of morality based on beliefs something more substantial than that of a goodness-defining ghost peeking over your shoulder every second that you live. (I personally cannot understand how anyone who has actually read his bible can see the Judeo-Christian god as anything more than a particularly petty and foul demon among the various imaginary friends concocted by people in their delusions and hallucinations over the past several millennia.) I realise that DB has commented about spirituality as being separate from dogma, saying that Rand can be seen as having been deeply spiritual in a sense, for example, but this interview is specifically referring to religious belief system.

As I said, the choice is not either statist or religious. Rational human being is also an option.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

"As I said, the choice is not either statist or religious. Rational human being is also an option."

We didn't write this. We wrote history shows that human beings have lived for tens of thousands of years in tribal societies with religious underpinnings - and that such a lifestyle might be considered "free" - or at least "freer" when compared to what is going on in modern regulatory democracy. How anyone can deny this is puzzling to us.

Posted by Pat Fields on 7/25/2010 10:28:58 AM

Michael R Gibbons Cite: "Theism is a de facto rejection of reason."

I humbly put that denial of 'spirituality' is an exceptionally shallow conceptualization of one's surroundings. Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are precise 'phase shifts' of one and the other, implying that sentience may well correspond to both. Indeed, 'string theory' indicates a series of physical realities unimaginable in their structures that our own 'reality' appears to be able to 'meld' with under possible (energetic) conditions.

It's long been speculated that what we vaguely perceive as 'supernatural', may rather be perfectly natural phenomena for which we have no experiential reference by which to comprehend it.

As with any hypothesis, an initial investigation necessitates 'faith' in its inferences.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

You mean modern "magick" science is an act of faith - a religious experience? We're with you on that! (Actually we know what you meant and agree with it entirely. Human beings cannot conceive of even the first and fundamental fact of their environment, which is the concept of infinity. Perhaps a little humility is in order?)

Posted by David Biggs on 7/25/2010 10:31:43 AM

I thank Daily Bell for presenting this interview. It broadened my understanding in many areas and inter-relationships.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks. It is probably not an interview you are likely to stumble across in TIME or Newsweek.

Posted by Adam on 7/25/2010 10:46:07 AM

Cite @DB:

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Interesting ...

--

The actual content is even better.

Freedomain Radio -- Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (PDF)

Click to View Link

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The reason that scientists do not need a government is that scientists have an objective methodology for resolving disputes: the scientific method. The reason that language does not need a central authority to guide its evolution is that it relies on the "free market" of accumulated individual preferences for style and utility. The reason that modern morality ' and morality throughout history ' has always had to rely first on the bullying of children, and then on the threatening of adults, is that it is a manipulative lie masquerading as a virtuous truth.

The truth is that we need morality; the lie is that gods or governments can rationally define or justly enforce it. My goal in this book is to define a methodology for validating moral theories that is objective, consistent, clear, rational, empirical ' and true. The primary danger to human beings is not the individual criminal, but irrational and exploitive moral theories.'

Posted by George Sign on 7/25/2010 11:00:06 AM

You can always tell when an argument is false, when it runs into many words for an explanation. Truth about anything is usually simply explained. Religion is a man made idea based on control.

There is no factual evidence that the "miracle " man" Jesus ever existed. If "religious" and "spiritual" people kept their beliefs private that would be OK but they just can't resist telling everyone they have the answer. Religious people are very amenable when they are not in power but given the chance to rule they would force the rest of us to follow their ideas.

Religious people always fall back on the idea that it us, the non-believers, that should prove God doesn't exist. My answer to them is that if I say I have super-powers and can fly they would rightly say "prove you can fly".

Posted by Jamon on 7/25/2010 11:09:11 AM

Since my precious child died tragically a few years back I have been shown that life does not end, but continues in the spirit. This is a source of great comfort and freedom to me: the comfort of knowing my child is OK and at peace; and the freedom to believe in a life many others do not know or understand, but which takes away fear, adds love for others and is generally a mode of thought and being that brings joy in the midst of sorrow.

Posted by Stephan Lemelin on 7/25/2010 11:17:06 AM

I am not inclined like so many to believe that moral thought was basically non-existent before Christianity. If anything, the Council of Nicaea compiled biblical thought from many of the pre-christian philosophies.

Huge swaths of the New Testament are plagarized from Egyptian writings almost word for word. It is indeed difficult to know exactly how the pre-christian faiths operated entirely, due to the annihilation of this knowledge by the Roman church.

I am also doubtful that socialism grew by leaps and bounds in Quebec due to the reduced influence of the church. Unlike Protestants, Catholics are less inclined to individualism to begin with. It is said that Baptist minister John Leland had much influence on the political philosophy of James Madison. You don't find that sort of individualism in very Catholic Italy by a long shot, for example. If anything, the Pope's of the time were hugely opposed to the "American Experiment" and some believe that it resulted in "The Secret Treaty of Verona."

Our family is from Quebec City and the virtual theocracy which existed there through the 1960s was a heavy factour in politics. The stranglehold got bad enough to cause French Canadians to turn their backs on the church. Europeans are also more aware of the Church's influence behind the political scene in their countries.

Whom you should vote for was preached from the pulpit. Charles Wilcox's "Transformation of the Republic" thoroughly documents the power of the Catholic Church in America, especially with the seeding of regions with Irish Catholic voters.

He reproduces several of the letters between Pius IX and Jefferson Davis where the Pope recognized the south as a separate nation which greatly angered Lincoln. He also documents the fomenting of riots by Catholic leaders in America, including the draft riot in New York during the Civil War arranged by the local bishop.

Ultimately, I also see a few sections of the bible as a problem when it comes to throwing off oppressive political systems. We can see how the Abrahamic faiths discourage messing with the temporal and to live for the after-life (Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36--(don't worry be happy with what you got)). The very wealthy elite of the time had the means to institute the state-controlled religion and portions seem to codify a sort of Stockholm Syndrome:

1 Peter 2: 13-17--"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."

Romans 13: 1:7--"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Render thereforeto all their dues: tribute to whom tributeis due; custom to whom custom; fear towhom fear; honour to whom honour."

Posted by Pat Fields on 7/25/2010 11:31:16 AM

George Sigh Cite: "If "religious" and "spiritual" people kept their beliefs private that would be OK but they just can't resist telling everyone they have the answer."

An irksome transgression, I'm sure, you are never guilty of yourself. Even now!

Posted by Ian MacFarlane on 7/25/2010 1:08:29 PM

The existence of any "supreme being" or 'god' depends on the needs and consequent inventiveness of the human mind.

That so many belief systems exist makes it clear to me the concept of one god does not meet the needs of all people.

In fact the concept of any god is antithetical to the thoughts of some. Whole philosophies are constructed around and adhered to by the followers of each conceived deity. If in fact any god exists outside the mind of it's adherents, which among the world's religious belief systems is then not subject to question?

We create each of our gods to explain our belief in and adherence to our particular "earthly" philosophy. Religions allow and even promote violence against other religions. The ongoing violence in the Middle East clearly pitting Christian against Muslim appears as a poorly disguised attempt to gain control of a proven much needed energy source. Were it not for the fact that religion is used to push our respective armies to and keep them on the front rational thought would be in play, forcing both sides to put down their arms.

Religions may offer some, even a majority of humanity, a personal answer to the unanswerable question of death but in so doing it simply perpetuates the denial of mortality on a scale sufficiently large that adherents are manipulated and controlled by those who stand to gain from this deceit.

I don't expect many, if at all even one person, who reads this offering, to agree with these thoughts but I would ask them to refute, without resorting to the premise of "belief', the validity of this reasoning.

Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 7/25/2010 1:13:29 PM

All are out today -- agnostics, athiests, believers of all sorts (especially the Randian cultists...requires as big an act of faith as any).

You cannot replace something with nothing. Man has and always will have a need to group around something, believe in something, have faith in something larger than themselves. Government as practiced in the west (and elsewhere) has done a great job of making that "thing" that many believe in to be...government. Even the non-(Judeo/Christian/Muslim) religious posters on this thread are demonstrating a faith in something not provable and larger than themselves in many of their comments. No need to ridicule each other about it, and I don't believe the answer to the truth of Christ or the origins of the universe will be found on these pages.

But it is certainly true that you cannot replace something with nothing. Using family, friends, faith, church, clubs, communities -- pretty much any sort of voluntary organization -- as a means to help set boundaries, norms, mutual assistance, etc., is vastly preferable to the current religion of regulatory democracy and government as god. Why is this hard to accept, and more so, what harm comes to you if someone believes something that is counter to your view?

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Well done. Thanks.

Posted by George Sign on 7/25/2010 1:21:15 PM

@Pat Fields,

Obviously your wit and righteousness know no bounds. I would presumably be high up on your list of sinners for re-education and gentle burning at the stake if your friends of the Inquisition ever come to power. For your information I am not trying to "evangelise" my ideas I am merely trying to enter into a debate with the writer of the article.

Your ever so humbly put statement "denial of spirituality' is an exceptionally shallow conceptualization of one's surroundings" with an added touch of Einstein thrown-in for effect is mumbo-jumbo dressed-up as intellectual argument.

Posted by Rrust on 7/25/2010 1:49:49 PM

My reading of this interview and comments has been superficial.

But... the concept that insidious government interference in lives has marginalized *religion and related territories* is of considerable interest to me.

What if one were to look at this from the point of view of:
Just how much discretionary time does each of us have... considering our life spans are all too limited?

Government is eating us alive, in terms of sheer time demands, across a very broad swath of categories... not the least of which are legal battles in attempts to receive justice... generally futile and expensive efforts.

It seems to me that many vastly interesting uses of our time have been marginalized, even destroyed, by the ravages of the State at all levels... universally.

I am delighted Daily Bell exists. There are good minds contributing to it. I like the site and find it interesting. But a significant fraction of the time I have spent and will spend here is due to the necessity of fighting statism. There are other things I would like to use my time for... is this not true of many here?

Posted by Liberty666 on 7/25/2010 2:03:40 PM

The most boring interview I've ever read in daily bell...sorry

Posted by Peter J Brock on 7/25/2010 2:07:08 PM

Thank you for an excellent interview and to Doctor Havers commanding responses. He is very impressive. It was an educational read.

Posted by Dave Narby on 7/25/2010 2:13:52 PM

I'm not sure, but I think the Buddhists teach that you have no enemies to begin with..!

Oh, well... Anyway, they claim it's a philosophy... XD

Posted by Peter J. Ritter on 7/25/2010 2:14:41 PM

This "beast" is the superstition that, without the tirades of parents, the bullying of gods or the guns of governments, we cannot be both rational and good...

To DB.

This is a very important topic, well worth spending more time on. It would be doing something positive... the equivalent of lighting a candle in darkness.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

"This "beast" is the superstition that, without the tirades of parents, the bullying of gods or the guns of governments, we cannot be both rational and good..."

So very well put, thanks.

Posted by Adrian W. on 7/25/2010 2:42:18 PM

Why deny the evidence of a Supreme God? His name was erased thousands of times in the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures. It appears in the Koine Greek scriptures under the Hebrew/Aramaic language.

For some reason translators through the years have found it necessary to remove it from the oldest remaining scriptures and yet the Tetragrammaton is undeniable. Logical reasoning would convince an individual that a house found in a barren desert must have been created by a human. A roof, walls, doors, windows, rooms for various purposes. Would it be logical to say it evolved from the resources around it? How much more complex the Earth's systems given to us freely by a Supreme God. And yet, many simply claim it just happened through Evolution. Even Charles Darwin wasn't foolish enough to deny an original Creator.

I believe it comes down to freedom of "choice". Choose to believe in a Supreme God that has authority to rule us or choose any other lesser god or philosophy. I believe that this course of action has been being played out according to the Bible since mankind's existence. It will continue to be played out. The choice is everyone's...

Posted by Pat Fields on 7/25/2010 2:56:01 PM

George Sign Cite: "I would presumably be high up on your list of sinners ..."

You presume incorrectly, because I make no such judgment of anyone.

I simply find it comical of one to proselytize non-spirituality by way of protest against others who similarly proselytize their 'faiths'. Of course you'll never admit to the act of preaching non-religion, but the fact is that you commit the very act you complain of. That duplicity is so strikingly blatant I can't help but chuckle at its figurative nudity.

Posted by Ichabod on 7/25/2010 2:59:35 PM

"It is not the belief structure itself that is so important as its presence within human society as a counterweight to the aggression of the state. Seen in this context religion, or at least spirituality, ought to be welcomed (certainly tolerated) by those concerned about maintaining a balance between secular authoritarianism and the rights of an individual to live freely and in peace."

I consider this statement pure nonsense. Words don't have meaning. Ideas don't have consequences. Plus you can see the political tint of modern evangelical thought in Dr. Havers' discourse.

He totally misrepresents "agape love" and "loving thy neighbor" by ignoring context of scripture. I have personal experience with being called "unloving" by another Christian because of refuting an argument he made about end times.

Over the course of 30 years I have heard more than 40 sermons on love preached from 1st John Chapt 4. It's all about love. And the love mentioned was always a sentimental feeling and "idea of love" as held in our society. But always ignored is the presentation in Chap 5 of how you know someone loves his neighbor. Look it up. You know because he obeys the commandments and you are not held hostage to his private interpretations. We have that in abundance as a replacement for the written word.

Dr. Havers did nothing to present the biblical view of love. And the Bell recap states essentially any old spirituality will do for you. I won't join in that. But I understand I have an uphill climb in today's society. That's the inevitable result when you only have the dualism of libertarianism and collectivism. It shows no appreciation of covenantal exposition based on scholarship.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

"Words don't have meaning. Ideas don't have consequences."

You sure about this?

Posted by Ted Berthelote on 7/25/2010 3:07:49 PM

Kudos to The Bell for offering another in its series of eclectic and erudite interviews, well designed to prompt mostly civil and thoughtful debate.

The experiences of successfully negotiating almost 77 years of life as mining engineer, meteorologist, dentist, husband, and father of four, have led me to a rather simple understanding of the fundamental reason for the invention of god by mankind.

Simply stated, human experience is confronted with fearsome mystery, awesome and inexplicable, which, although inexplicable, must be somehow explained to assuage the fear.

Hence the near universal process of anthropomorphizing a deity, making the mystery understandable in human terms.

The fact that such a god cannot be a matter of empirical knowledge has been nicely shown by other posters, but evidence of the existence of organizing forces beyond those of the human species abounds, and is the proper domain of spiritual inquiry and practice, as well as that of quantum physics.

Posted by Rrust on 7/25/2010 3:25:33 PM

@Ted Berthelote

I can see you have indeed learned a few things in your 77 years.

"...evidence of the existence of organizing forces beyond those of the human species abounds, and is the proper domain of spiritual inquiry and practice, as well as that of quantum physics."

That's a nice, good, and useful turn of phrase. It sort of explains my impatience with the overwhelming fraction of God-deniers who have freely chosen the narrowest possible understanding/interpretation of the term/name.

Thanks for your posting.

Posted by Noah on 7/25/2010 3:43:33 PM

@ Michael R Gibbons

"The only robust justification of capitalism and individual rights was provided by Any Rand."

Rand was wonderful at theory, but her approach to me seemed to place the individual in a vacuum without any true historical context, which is not so practical. For those who live in the real world, with real kids, parents, friends and jobs... well, accepting a little religious thought may not be objective, but it is quite helpful and useful. This is life we are living in, not a novel or a textbook.

Posted by Mary Boud on 7/25/2010 3:50:05 PM

I'm too old to worry about whether I'm being "irksome" in speaking of my faith and religion -- especially in a setting such as this where such self-disclosure is invited. But I will also include a political angle as well.

Dr. Havers writes about the negative effects of an oppressive statism on charitable giving. It is known that many of our (US) wealthy, liberal/ progressive (regressive) politicians give far less than the average middle-class citizen. It must be the mind-set. The lib/prog regressives decline true charity in favor of the welfare state. Just pay your taxes and the 'oligarchy' will decide how to dispense it.

In my view, this is because they have adopted secular humanism and, thereby, divorced their version of 'giving' from Christian charity (love/ agape). In addition, their acceptance of moral relativism undermines a reliance upon truth (something that is sadly lacking in much of our mainstream media -- print and TV and even radio and blogs. And... without truth, there can be no true freedom. That's why I still like Glenn Beck. The vast majority of what he teaches is presented directly in the subjects' words -- written, heard and observed.

Dr. Havers suggests that Catholics tend to be less conservative and, therefore, less freedom-loving than Protestants. We Catholics actually have quite a political divide within the Church comparable to the general public. Some follow the lib/prog lead, convinced by their "we're for the little guy" rhetoric. In other cases, there is a deliberate effort to infiltrate groups and pervert the truths of the Gospel.

This is not only a Catholic threat. Although there are many others involved, the evangelical, Jim Wallis, is a self-avowed socialist whose magazines and books are promulgated in both Catholic and Protestant groups for the purpose of influencing the churches and, thereby, the nation.

A small group in our parish has recently organized and are committed, through education, to countering this corruption of the Gospel and of Catholic social teaching. Just a nascent group, we tentatively call ourselves 'Advocates for Charity, Truth, and Subsidiarity.' It is our hope that this will spread through parishes across the counry -- kind of like a tea party movement but without rallies.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote 'Caritas in Veritate,' (Charity in Truth) in 2009. In it he reminds us that charity "rejoices in the truth" (I Cor 13:6). He also writes of 'truth in charity (Eph 4:15). He states: "Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within ... charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth." And he further writes: "Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived." For us Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, God is both Agape and Logos, Charity and Truth, Love and Word.

Subsidiarity is a foundational, permanent principle of Catholic social doctrine which has too often been overlooked. As an organizing principle in society, it declares that the highest, central authority is subsidiary to smallest, most local level of society, namely, the person and his family. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention." (#1885) Several papal encyclicals discuss this principle but probably the most complete source of information on the subject is the 'Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church' which can be found at the following website:
Click to View Link

--- or else do a search and select the vatican.va source.

There now. Have I been irksome enough?

Posted by W.barnes on 7/25/2010 3:58:46 PM

Havers states that the Koran states that "Allah only loves those who love Him back"..well Jesus states that you must "accept me as your saviour before you can enter the kingdom of heaven"

Posted by Ichabod on 7/25/2010 4:13:43 PM

When I saw words don't have meaning and ideas don't have consequences I'm referring to the result you get from the article presented. Havers used "love" with a meaning not supported by scripture. That's a common approach in evangelicalism today.

As for ideas having consequences, the ideas brought forward by the Reformation advanced western civilization. But Havers is clearly anti Reformed thought. So be it. He can be whatever he wants and so can anyone else. It took the first half of my life for me to advance beyond tradition and what others had to say to develop my belief on a solid foundation. There I stand like Luther when threatened. I can do no other.

The covenant law was written on great stones as travelers entered Israel's land. Their reaction? "What nation is this that has such great laws." The surrounding nations didn't offer aliens and sojourners in their midst the protection of equal rights before the law.

One feedbacker doesn't understand the new covenant did not do away with the old covenant. It expanded on it adding the spirit of the law to the letter of the law. Another reformed marker is "Reformed and always reforming." Feet aren't in the cement of ancient days.

If you understand that the covenant operates in three spheres (church, family and state) it's easier to make application. The true church is properly not in the business of dealing daily in state affairs. It's place is the worship of the Lord and encouraging it's members to live according to their faith.

In today's world all aspects of life have been politicized and that's the main thrust of collectivist political and "spiritual" politics. I was disappointed to see the Bell apply the same politicization approach to libertarian philosophy. The trinitarian covenant includes the individual, the family, the church and the state.

In America today we couldn't get agreement on what a family is. That a result of politicized efforts by the left.

Posted by M Cavan on 7/25/2010 4:19:31 PM

These interviews are the biggest reason I read DB. That DB is willing to publish lengthy, honest interviews like this one is what keeps me coming back. I certainly look forward to reading more of Dr. Havers' stuff.

Also, whether religious or not personally, it is strange that so many of the commenters above are so quick to dismiss as juvenile religious belief and its adherents.

Not all Christians are fundamentalist evangelicals just as not all conservatives are neocons, by the way. If we on the right are unwilling to engage with thoughtful philosophers such as Dr. Havers, I believe it is our prejudice and our childishness that is on display. I doubt I need to list Christian philosophers from history who were, marvel of marvels, able to contribute positively to the growth of Western thought...

Posted by Philip Mccormack on 7/25/2010 4:23:37 PM

@ DB

I thought it was a superb interview. IMHO. I did not read it from whether I am religious or otherwise. George Sign There is factual evidence that Jesus did exist. Josephus and "Jesus the Man" Barbara Thiering, Superb book, miracles or otherwise!

ADAM Scientists may not need government to resolve disputes, many are getting their work funded by them (of course the taxpayer). Many are economists, unfortunately. Ending yesterday the Vienna conference on HIV and drug addiction, 493 scientific method papers showing that harm reduction therapies reduce the transmission of the disease by 52%. It doesn't win votes in Canada so the present (Harper) government ignores it. UPB thumbs up.

After reading the interview I came to the same conclusion I have had for 15 years, the enemy is the state, and we all seem to need more education and I am getting it blogging with DB. Thank you. Happy days.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 7/25/2010 4:26:24 PM

. This "beast" is the superstition that, without the tirades of parents, the bullying of gods or the guns of governments, we cannot be both rational and good..."

Exactly.

To that, I'd add one thing. Just as reason is not opposed in any way to spirituality, but is a form of it. So too, religion is not in its fundamentals opposed to science. In earlier days, it was a form of it.

In its way, the much-maligned "New Age," though often shallow and meretricious, attempts to do just this " reconciling reason and spirituality, religion and science, individual and society, humanism and tradition...

The New Age is very libertarian.

Posted by James Wahler on 7/25/2010 4:37:57 PM

I won't argue with Dr. Haver's feelings on Christianity but have strong objections to his belief that Abraham Lincoln was an 'ideal Christian' and a very good man/President.

As I argued in my Lincoln book, it is impossible to comprehend Lincoln's opposition to slavery, * Lincoln was a white supremacist who's only ideas for the Negroes were to keep them out of the western territories and ship them back to Africa. Despite his words, he was NOT opposed to slavery. During his first inaugural speech he said, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." *

his call for merciful treatment of the defeated Confederacy in the Civil War, and his warnings against the dangers of self-righteous triumphalism without understanding his indebtedness to charity. * He allowed his army to fight a war of total destruction of everything in the South that would have seen him and his generals charged with atrocities for their wanton scorched earth policies as well a rape and plunder. *

What I stress in my book is that this liberal Protestant understanding of morality, which Lincoln so brilliantly articulated in his rhetoric, * Like so many politicians, you can't take Lincoln at the face values of his words, as demonstrated above.

is not transferable to other cultures or faiths. It is absurd of both neoconservatives and leftists to assume that all peoples around the world want a democracy in the Lincolnian sense, when they have not been exposed to the American version of Christianity upon which Lincoln built his moral appeal to end slavery. * The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the Southern Confederacy but NOT in the rest of the country!

Many cultures are quite happy to tolerate slavery today; only a Protestant Christian republic like America would have torn itself apart over slavery. * Only a culture of ??? would have used war to accomplish what was done peacefully in Europe, i.e. End slavery.

Please see "Lincoln Unmasked" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and "Truths of History" by Mildred L. Rutherford as evidence of my rebuttal.

Posted by George Sign on 7/25/2010 4:58:33 PM

Ah! Tis the point Pat Field. I do not "preach" as you put it. Unlike you. Chuckle all you like and join Philip Mccormack who still believes in the "doctored" evidence of Christ. You'll all start telling me the World was created 6000 years ago next. Religion does have that whiff of smugness and self-righteousness. No proof but hey, who needs proof when you know your right.

Posted by Bob Coffey on 7/25/2010 5:38:50 PM

As long as Truth is not the goal, this sort of hemming and hawing is the inevitable fruit of pondering upon the imponderables. And by "this sort" I mean the rumination I see over the subject of Church and State.

Of course, the comfortable (and inevitable) reply is "whose truth." That merely begs the question by refusing to deal first with the underlying assumption that there is a "whose truth" instead of a The Truth. Until that debate has been held, none of the proposed solutions to the problems that arise from having two poles of social authority will work. Because if there is a The Truth instead of a "whose truth," then it is to that Truth to which we must advert for the solution.

I propose, rather than starting out from the (Protestant) notion of a "whose truth" as a given, thus ending up bogged down in the endless complexities that inevitably result from the radical personalism and individualism that position creates, those who are really serious about finding an answer that works start discussing whether or not there is a The Truth that better fits both the human condition as we encounter it and the means of alleviating that condition, including the way of arranging the relations between those two fonts of authority over which so much (virtual, lol) ink has been spilled herein.

If there is a The Truth, then not to start out from It is to render reason, and it's handmaiden logic, impossible. If the premise is incorrect, then the solution cannot be right (unless through a wildly imrobable fluke, but that's not what's under discussion here). If there isn't a The Truth, then at least we've satisfied a preliminary condition for rational invedtigation before launching out into the deeps of the unfathomable.

Of course, once seen in this light, the outcome is inevitable. Even the rejection of the notion of The Truth immediately puts the rejectors in the unenviable position of self-contradiction. If there is no The Truth, those who hold that position have embraced it as their own The Truth. History and a study of human nature tell ud that inevitably they will seek to impose it upon those whose The Truth is contrary to their own, as in fact is clearly implicit in some of the various postings that comment on the instant interview. In fact, another often implicit, though sometimes explicit, insight that comes from these (virtual) pages is that without some institutional source of moral authority, political authority becomes onerous, and eventually descends into tyranny.

Thanks for reading, and God bless us every one.

Yr friendly neighborhood confederate alchemist, LOL

Posted by Weeble on 7/25/2010 5:57:48 PM

@ Pat Fields

Again, you cracked me up. Twice in a row!

"I can't help but chuckle at its figurative nudity."

I wish I had sufficient time to read this today, as the subject, feedbacks and replies are very good. I feel like removing my hat.

Posted by Philip Mccormack on 7/25/2010 7:30:05 PM

Ah George I wasn't writing about Jesus the "Christ" but Jesus the man. Don't confuse the two! Happy days Philip

Posted by Raymond Simons on 7/25/2010 7:56:27 PM

Dr. Havers exposes himself as a "cafeteria" christian who wishes to pick and choose which of the teachings of Christ he will believe.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 7/25/2010 8:22:28 PM

@Raymond...

"Cafeteria" is all most of us can manage..

Who really follows everything Jesus said? Who even known exactly what he said, and what was distorted? And would we really be better for following everything he said literally and in opposition to our own reason and conscience? I doubt it.

Man picks and chooses what he wants to believe and what he's able to understand, each at his own level, according to his best lights, and to the extent of his endowment.

This isn't a bad thing, except to insecure dogmatists.

Everything in life is interpretation. Everything is relative to something else. Understanding that doesn't lead to decadence and confusion...it just means that we follow our own lights, while allowing others to do the same.

The blind men and the elephant, you know. Truth (big T, the elephant the blind men don't see)is one. But truths (little t, the different parts the blind men felt) are many....

Not so hard to understand.

Posted by Philip Mccormack on 7/25/2010 8:40:59 PM

Thanks LILA Rajiva. That's lovely. Happy days Philip

Posted by Jeff Baltrus on 7/25/2010 9:08:59 PM

The Bell is the best and all you contributors are amazing. I have a renewed sense that there really are thinking people out there. Thanks again.

Posted by Mary Boud on 7/25/2010 9:18:40 PM

Re: Bob Coffey presents the classical argument that challenges the belief that truth is merely and always relative or subjective.

He writes: "Even the rejection of the notion of The Truth immediately puts the rejectors in the unenviable position of self-contradiction. If there is no The Truth, those who hold that position have embraced it as their own The Truth."

They stumble upon their own thoughts and words -- all the while assuming with their loose logic that they hold the more rational argument.

It would be better for the denier of objective reality to simply state that he does or does not accept a particular declaration of truth or The Truth. Furthermore, neither the believer nor denier ought to "impose" a belief upon another but rather to 'propose.' Without this distinction, it has already descended "into tyranny.

When faced with Absolute Truth, we humans are still free to say 'yea' or 'nay.'

Posted by Peter J. Ritter on 7/25/2010 9:38:21 PM

For creationists, things are clear, everything started 6000 years ago. But they are not the majority. Anyone knows exact numbers?

For atheists, especially hardcore ones, there is no God, period. But they are few.

For the large rest of the people, a common question is where religion came from. Where indeed?

In my thinking, it started with healing. Healers were special, they could do and knew things others did not. To make themselves even more special, the healers imbued themselves, their methods and things with spirituality, some of it probably genuine. Thus the healers were able to put themselves in positions of power over others.

And to me it appears that their staying in power always had more priority than the search for absolute truth in the spiritual field. That seems to be the fly in the ointment of religion. And here we are today with thousands of years old spiritual codes that didn't undergo the evolution other sciences did, and religious representatives that are stuck in the past. It would be a great service to mankind to develop an updated and living moral code, and the book mentioned above, "Universally Preferable Behavior" (I downloaded it immediately) may be a good start. If a new code has hand and foot and gets enough acceptance, it could jumpstart the old religions to finally evolve.

Fear of death must also have played a role in the development of religion, thus the churches still exercise power over people, but the churches are not willing to let go of the old ways. Their desire to stay in power still takes precedence over innovation.
That's my general impression of things, and I am, of course, fully aware into what kind of hornet's nest I'm poking here. But better to get a discussion going than nothing at all.

Posted by Weeble on 7/25/2010 10:44:32 PM

@ Peter J. Ritter

That was a very insightful perspective in my opinion. The only thing I would question, is that the "download" is for you and you only. If you try to pass it on, it is for the receiver to accept or reject. That is the crux of religion. It cannot be forced upon others. However, if the "mantra" is accepted as a norm when you are born then you are too young to throw it away, due to just being the new guy, and you had better follow the religious rules.

In other words, you need to programmed in order to change your own programming.

God is within you (and no, I am not a Buddhist, I am an Anarcho Pacifist Verbalist today).

I am half way through The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis, and experiencing Hell on Earth from a very nice vantage point. But hey, I wouldn't force it on anybody!

Posted by Dauden on 7/25/2010 11:23:28 PM

Well, there are so many minds out there with so many backgrounds. I just returned from a Bible study where we "rightly divide the word of truth" as found in 2 Timothy 2:15 King James Bible, Click to View Link. It doesn't have to be very complicated.

The gospel that saves every one today is found in I Corinthians 15 verses 1-4, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures".

If you're not using the King James Version, you will not understand how God promised to preserve his word (not in a hundred difference corrupted "per-Versions") for all generations. And if you don't "rightly divide" the Scriptures, you won't see how the Apostle Paul's writings, Romans thru Philemon, make clear that we are living in the dispensation of grace, without the law, period! Man is not going to hell because of his sins. They have been dealt with at the cross. But he will end up in hell by failure to believe that Christ has paid for their sins. No works are permitted for salvation. However, works are rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ if committed in the will of God, i.e., done according to the doctrine revealed to Paul in his writings.

For further study:

Click to View Link

Posted by Michael Ponzani on 7/25/2010 11:44:24 PM

How come you didn't ask him about the differences between his Lincoln and Thomas Dilorenzo's? This Lincoln seems like a saint of Sweetness and Light, while Dilorenzo's is a "fish fece". I.E. a bass turd.

Posted by Marten on 7/26/2010 1:45:55 AM

Religions will never reform Mankind, because religions is SLAVERY...

Posted by Victor Barney on 7/26/2010 7:25:11 AM

Dr. Grant Havers, look at the bight side of things if there is one about obama! Once he is soon established(September 9?) to be the end time Anti-Messiah(Christ, if you must), he'll only have 3 1/2 years left of his terror reign!

Posted by Victor Barney on 7/26/2010 10:51:23 AM

P.S.: Lucifer is the spirit head of this earth until the one qualified to replace him comes back and replaces him! Otherwise, it also is written, unless you are called-out of it, you will necessarily be a part of it! Watch!

Posted by Dauden on 7/26/2010 12:24:07 PM

@ Marten

Yes, religion IS slavery....to the one who has deceived man from the beginning in the garden of Eden..."Yea, hath God said....?"

From that time forward, when man fell (into sin), Satan has been on his rampage to deceive men ever since BY RELIGION; in other words, to change the word of God or to bring doubt upon it (Romans 1:25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie...". Thankfully, we have a perfected, completed, inspired and preserved word of God in the King James Bible and if you rightly divide it, i.e. understanding that to the Apostle Paul was revealed a salvation message that was a mystery, hid in God and not revealed in Scripture until Paul reveals it (I Cor 2 and Eph 3:9). So Satan, who thought he was killing off the Messiah, because he did not have foreknowledge that God would then after open up salvation to the whole world by grace alone, not of works---"lest any man should boast"--was stunned by Paul's declaration that we who believe are free indeed from sin!

We can attain the righteousness of Christ by His faith and obedience to His father! That is the glorious and marvelous good news (gospel) today! Yes, religious organizations and systems under Lucifer's influence, corrupt this truth into printing Bible versions that change whole doctrines, not just the "thees" and "thous", that confuse and lose students who might try to decipher meaning and understanding from the Scriptures.

Study and learn why Westcott and Hort, the father of all modern PER-versions today, are heretics and defile the truth; and learn that God has preserved in The Authorized Version, the King James (which version alone cannot be copyrighted), his word, infallible and complete. Then, by studying Paul, who numerous times says things contrary to Peter's doctrine (which no one can follow today--so they claim it is allegory or symbolic and doesn't really mean what it says, because it was meant for Israel before they were "lo-ammi" --not my people!) The Bible is easy to understand if you can see that Romans thru Philemon were written to us today as our "mail" to be opened:

1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Read on!

Posted by Tazio Zatori on 7/26/2010 4:54:10 PM

Another outstanding Sunday Interview and my suggestions are these; Sunday Interviews with Lila Rajiva (without doubt, one of the most insightful, intelligent, original DB Reader Feedbackers to date)
and Stephen Molyneux (link posted by Adam re Click to View Link: Universal Preferable Behavior, On Truth;The Tyranny of Illusion, How to Achieve Freedom, etc).

Can an open-minded, clear-thinking, freedom-loving, non-theist be a neo-Libertarian?

Posted by Weeble on 7/26/2010 5:07:44 PM

@ DB,

Thanks for having me for these last few months, and sorry for being such a bother, but I think I am going to accept a position with Anderson Cooper on his new show "Anderson Cooper 129,600". (360 squared). We will be going to all points on the globe for "Hard Hitting News". We will be boating everywhere in our Coracles.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Good luck!

Posted by Weeble on 7/26/2010 9:54:24 PM

One last thing (in the true Columbo style:

Tonight's the night I shall be talking about of flu the subject of word association football. This is a technique out a living much used in the practice makes perfect of psychoanalysister and brother and one that has occupied piper the majority rule of my attention squad by the right number one two three four the last five years to the memory. It is quite remarkable baker charlie how much the miller's son this so-called while you were out word association immigrants' problems influences the manner from heaven in which we sleekit cowering timrous beasties all-American Speke, the famous explorer.

And the really well that is surprising partner in crime is that a lot and his wife of the lions' feeding time we may be c d e effectively quite unaware of the fact or fiction section of the Watford Public Library that we are even doing it is a far, far better thing that I do now then, now then, what's going onward christian Barnard the famous hearty part of the lettuce now praise famous mental homes for loonies like me.

So on the button, my contention causing all the headaches, is that unless we take into account of Monte Cristo in our thinking George the Fifth this phenomenon the other hand we shall not be able satisFact or Fiction section of the Watford Public Library againily to understand to attention when I'm talking to you and stop laughing, about human nature, man's psychological make-up some story the wife'll believe and hence the very meaning of life itselfish bastard, I'll kick him in the Balls Pond Road.

By John Cleese, my idol, and the type of prose I aspire to trade in shortly.

Posted by Harold S Larsen on 7/27/2010 2:59:20 AM

Modern economics and religon have this in common,they are both detitute of common sense, human reason, and logic, sumed up in the words of scripture, there is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end therof is the way of death, with all due respect to Dr Havers.

To the question , how do we know that GOD exists, the stunning reply, from someone claiming to be a christian,we do not know that he exists,if we did there would be no need for faith.

On the premise that chistianity owes its origons from the old and new teasterments, his statment shows, in my humble opinion, a serious lack of familiarity with the written word, the bible says, the fool has said in his heart, there is no GOD,now I am aware that DR Havers does not say that GOD does not exist , but the he , personly does know, my question to such a proposal is this how can one claim a belief in an entity,that does not exist,faith in the GOD OF THE BIBLE IS NOT A LEAP INTO THE DARK ,IT IS NOT A MATTER OF BLIND BLUNDERING CHANCE, IT IS NOT IGNORANT ASSUMPTION ,the right name for that is superstition, no, faith in the living GOD is intelligent trust. The biblical declaration is pretty clear HE THAT COMMETH TO GOD (MUST****)BELIEVE THAT HE IS AND THAT HE IS A REWARDER OF THEM THAT DILLIGTLY SEEK HIM, how on earth does one dilligtly seek for one who you believe may not even exist.

Dr Havers should leave religion well away and stick with subject matter that really exists, like Winston Churchill. Jesus the son of GOD,who may not really exist, if GOD DOES REALLY EXIST, SAID THIS ,THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL ,THAT YOU MAY KNOW THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD AN HIS SON ,WHOM HE HAS SENT, this Dr HAVERS SAYS IS A FORM OF IDOLATRY, you cant really blame people for their lack of conviction/faith,in both economics and religion

Posted by Mark R. Spengler on 7/30/2010 9:43:54 PM

Outstanding article and interview. Certainly covered a lot of ground !