Monday, 25 October 2010
Freedom of Self or Freedom from Self?
Freedoms always involve trade-offs, like human rights and security. The most important involves the self. If we are to demand freedom of self, we are committing ourselves to a life of servitude to sin. If, on the other hand, we desire freedom from self, we must be bonded to Christ. These trade-offs have long-term consequences: sin is not a generous master, and will dispose of its servants. Christ, by contrast, rewards His servants with everlasting life.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
God's Economy
Grace is a public good: non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The fixed cost has been paid by Christ, and we are now all privileged to free-ride on the good. However, paradoxically, God’s economy suffers from demand-deficit unemployment. Because there is an infinite supply of perfectly elastic grace at zero price, there is no inflation as more capacity can always be utilised. For this reason there is no such thing as an excess supply of labour at a given price (the Mormons might have you believe that God's company has limited vacancies, but this is false). Moreover, there is no such thing as structural or frictional unemployment, because no prerequisites are required to enter into the service of God (the religious types might have you believe otherwise). However, grace is a perfect substitute for death, and so anybody who chooses death cannot also demand life. Unfortunately, For this reason, the demand of sin (which also has a perfeclty elastic price, set at 'death'), which unfortunately is also inelastic due to its addictive nature, constricts the demand for grace. As the demand for love is derived only from the demand for grace (as God is love), the amount of people employed in the service of God is limited and the total production of love is below full capacity.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Relativism and Transitivity
The toxic philosophy that has so pervaded our modern society, that of postmodernism, espouses a theory of relativism. This theory says that there is no absolute truth ontologically independent from human belief; rather, truth consists of what people take to be true, and is thus inextricably linked to its epistemology. So if one person says that God is not real, and another that God is real, both are correct. Obviously, this is logically nonsensical.
One interesting way to really demonstrate this absurdity is through transitivity.
Take three societies, each with the following 'opinions':
Society 1: A > B
Society 2: B > C
Society 3: C > A
If all societies are correct, we should be able to consolidate their opinions to reveal truth. Thus,
A > B, which > C, which > A.
Clearly, this is a fallacy. If we are to take all 'cultures' to be equally valid, then we must sacrifice the inference 'if A > B and B > C then A > C'.
However, if we use such deduction as our starting point, and thus accept that truth is absolute, then one of these societies must be wrong. For example, if we take Societies 1 and 2 to be correct, then both premises are fulfilled, and A must be greater than C. Society 3 is therefore WRONG. And so on.
One pertinent application of this idea is that of law. In a multicultural society, it is politically correct to say that all cultures should be tolerated. But how to tolerate a culture of intoleration? How to incoroporate Shariah Law into our Western law, when the point of Shariah Law is to vanquish any other values besides those of Islam? How to allow freedom of speech under the assumption that everybody is right when people preach racism or advocate hate crime?
Lines must be drawn.
One interesting way to really demonstrate this absurdity is through transitivity.
Take three societies, each with the following 'opinions':
Society 1: A > B
Society 2: B > C
Society 3: C > A
If all societies are correct, we should be able to consolidate their opinions to reveal truth. Thus,
A > B, which > C, which > A.
Clearly, this is a fallacy. If we are to take all 'cultures' to be equally valid, then we must sacrifice the inference 'if A > B and B > C then A > C'.
However, if we use such deduction as our starting point, and thus accept that truth is absolute, then one of these societies must be wrong. For example, if we take Societies 1 and 2 to be correct, then both premises are fulfilled, and A must be greater than C. Society 3 is therefore WRONG. And so on.
One pertinent application of this idea is that of law. In a multicultural society, it is politically correct to say that all cultures should be tolerated. But how to tolerate a culture of intoleration? How to incoroporate Shariah Law into our Western law, when the point of Shariah Law is to vanquish any other values besides those of Islam? How to allow freedom of speech under the assumption that everybody is right when people preach racism or advocate hate crime?
Lines must be drawn.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Re: Economic Growth - Short Term v Long Term
Another insightful difference between the two schools is their chosen time frame of study. Neoclassical economists are concerned with long-term equilibria. Although deviations may occur in the short-term, the assumptions of rational actors, perfect information and efficient markets will act to counteract any slumps or booms. In the long-run, the only thing that affects growth is supply.
Keynes, on the other hand, felt that aggregate demand could be insufficient (leaving 'spare capacity' in the economy) or excessive (leading to unnecessary inflation), thus justifying government intervention to preserve full employment. In other words, prices would not adjust to the 'natural rate of output' (and thus employment) envisaged by the Milton Friedmans of the world (this links back to assumptions of risk versus uncertainty). For Keynes, there was no ontologically distinct 'long-term equilibrium' in the economy - multiple equilibria could be occupied in the short-run depending on the unravelling of unforseeable events and unpredictable 'animal spirits'.
The result of this disagreement is an inconsistency in emphasis regarding the time frame to be viewed. Ironically, however, Keynes always had some definite time horizon when economic growth would no longer be necessary (the age of abundance) and a social system could be employed, whereas Neoclassicals, whose methodology is far more long-term focused, had no long-term objective. In other words, Keynes was philosophically long-term but economically short-term, and the Neoclassicals were vice versa. Keynes lived in the short-term to achieve a long-term goal; the Neoclassicals lived in the long-term to achieve short-term goals.
What does the Word tell us on this matter? Paul stresses to his various churches that they should seek eternal things that moth and rust do not destroy. We should have an eternal perspective, thus giving us an appropriate understanding of our current situation. Thus, our methodology should be very much that of the Neoclassicists - we know what the final outcome will be, and thus can plan accordingly. There is a long-term equlibrium of Heaven, and so our actions should reflect that.
However, Christ also tells us not to worry about tommorow, for tommorow has enough worries of its own. In this regard, we should be living for the moment, rather than hoarding our manna for the next day. God will provide for us in the short-term. Therefore, unlike the Neoclassicists, and like Keynes, we should not have short-term objectives (such as wealth maximisation). Our philosophy should also be long-term.
The crux of the argument is that we actually live in two time-frames, one finite and one infinite. If anything, our long-term perspective of Heaven should affect our short-term behaviour in a way that causes us to treasure every moment and live as if it were our last. Keynes saw time as finite and discontinuous, and thus constrained himself to living in the present, even though is claimed goal was long-term. Neoclassicists saw time as infinite and continuous, and thus constrained themselves to living in the future, even though their claimed goal was short-term.
We should thus fuse the two strands of thinking. Our treasure is eternal, and so we should not seek to maximise our utility during our finite time frame. However, we should not worry, as Keynes did, about short-term issues that will even out over time. I think that this is what it means for Christ to give us 'life, and life abundantly'. To enter into the Kingdom of God NOW, whilst on Earth (our finite time frame) is only possible if we are adopting this way of living. It is not natural - usually we either micromanage our life to achieve some ambition, or we are blaze about our present because we have future security. As Christians, we have the gift of eternal life, and so should try to maximise THAT life. Often, that means giving up things of the world. As the Neoclassicists studied, we can achieve that long-term equlibrium RIGHT NOW, rather than waiting for 'the age of abundance'. However, as Keynes understood, our life on Earth is frought with difficulties, and we should see these in light of what are actually trying to achieve. Seek first His Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Keynes, on the other hand, felt that aggregate demand could be insufficient (leaving 'spare capacity' in the economy) or excessive (leading to unnecessary inflation), thus justifying government intervention to preserve full employment. In other words, prices would not adjust to the 'natural rate of output' (and thus employment) envisaged by the Milton Friedmans of the world (this links back to assumptions of risk versus uncertainty). For Keynes, there was no ontologically distinct 'long-term equilibrium' in the economy - multiple equilibria could be occupied in the short-run depending on the unravelling of unforseeable events and unpredictable 'animal spirits'.
The result of this disagreement is an inconsistency in emphasis regarding the time frame to be viewed. Ironically, however, Keynes always had some definite time horizon when economic growth would no longer be necessary (the age of abundance) and a social system could be employed, whereas Neoclassicals, whose methodology is far more long-term focused, had no long-term objective. In other words, Keynes was philosophically long-term but economically short-term, and the Neoclassicals were vice versa. Keynes lived in the short-term to achieve a long-term goal; the Neoclassicals lived in the long-term to achieve short-term goals.
What does the Word tell us on this matter? Paul stresses to his various churches that they should seek eternal things that moth and rust do not destroy. We should have an eternal perspective, thus giving us an appropriate understanding of our current situation. Thus, our methodology should be very much that of the Neoclassicists - we know what the final outcome will be, and thus can plan accordingly. There is a long-term equlibrium of Heaven, and so our actions should reflect that.
However, Christ also tells us not to worry about tommorow, for tommorow has enough worries of its own. In this regard, we should be living for the moment, rather than hoarding our manna for the next day. God will provide for us in the short-term. Therefore, unlike the Neoclassicists, and like Keynes, we should not have short-term objectives (such as wealth maximisation). Our philosophy should also be long-term.
The crux of the argument is that we actually live in two time-frames, one finite and one infinite. If anything, our long-term perspective of Heaven should affect our short-term behaviour in a way that causes us to treasure every moment and live as if it were our last. Keynes saw time as finite and discontinuous, and thus constrained himself to living in the present, even though is claimed goal was long-term. Neoclassicists saw time as infinite and continuous, and thus constrained themselves to living in the future, even though their claimed goal was short-term.
We should thus fuse the two strands of thinking. Our treasure is eternal, and so we should not seek to maximise our utility during our finite time frame. However, we should not worry, as Keynes did, about short-term issues that will even out over time. I think that this is what it means for Christ to give us 'life, and life abundantly'. To enter into the Kingdom of God NOW, whilst on Earth (our finite time frame) is only possible if we are adopting this way of living. It is not natural - usually we either micromanage our life to achieve some ambition, or we are blaze about our present because we have future security. As Christians, we have the gift of eternal life, and so should try to maximise THAT life. Often, that means giving up things of the world. As the Neoclassicists studied, we can achieve that long-term equlibrium RIGHT NOW, rather than waiting for 'the age of abundance'. However, as Keynes understood, our life on Earth is frought with difficulties, and we should see these in light of what are actually trying to achieve. Seek first His Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Monday, 16 August 2010
Economic Growth and the Kingdom of God
Two schools of thought dominate academic economics, the choice between which determines the policy stance of a given government. I will not indulge the reader as to the comparisons and contrasts regarding the assumptions, methods and implications of these two schools, except insofar as they are relevant to the present discussion. Suffice it to say that Keynesian economics generally assumes that individual behaviour is significantly shaped by prevailing customs and that future risk is irreducibly uncertain and thus cannot be estimated using past data, whereas Neoclassical economics assumes that individuals are rational maximisers of 'utility', a vague notion of egoism that has been equated with income, wealth, and GDP, subject to discounts of risk aversity and temporal impatience that can be precisely calculated. The implications diverge broadly in that Keynesians stress the importance of maintaining full employment through fiscal policy in order to minimise the disruption caused by uncertain events, whereas Neoclassicists believe in market supremacy and unfettered competition to most efficiently solve society's problems.
It is also interesitng to comment on the objective of economic growth in each case. Economists usually assume that economic growth is desirable. What they usually fail to acknowledge is that 'money' is only instrumentally and not constitutively desirable; that is, it is only a means to purchase real goods and cannot directly be consumed. Neoclassical economists fall into the trap of taking economic growth to be the ultimate goal of society, without a coherent explanation regarding its theoretical underpinning. Indeed, the high levels of human development in areas of lower GDP, such as Cuba and Kerala, attest to the over-generalisation present in Neoclassical thinking. For this reason, Keynes asserted that the positive aspect of economic growth is not that it makes society richer per se, but that in doing so it allows people to have more 'feliticious states of mind' and so act in a more socially desirable manner; the logic being that when one no longer feels the need to fend for one's survival, or even to increase the feasibility set through waged labour, a state of social equity can be arranged. So Keynes saw economic growth as a necessary evil; in fact, he was more than derragotory of the 'love of money' that has so pervaded capitalism, and indeed, has come to define it.
I argue that both schools, by eschewing the moral foundations of Christ, pursue the wrong goal, and moreover perform that endeavour using the wrong means. Because the Kingdom of God is not sought, 'these things' are not added.
Keynesian economics attempts to avoid God. It sees the future as inherently uncertain, and thus attempts to avoid volatility. Moreover, the ultimate goal of economic growth is to achieve 'the good life' through abundance, after which point Keynes argued capitalism should be discarded for a more socially benevolent system. But surely this point is arbitrary. He was right to assume diminishing returns in money to happiness, but abundance cannot be defined so long as scarcity exists - and in a physically limited world, that is always the case. In essence, Keynes attempts to construct an Aristotlean utopia based on human ethics, and is thus doomed. What do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Keynesian principles? Stagnation and a lack of progress.
Neoclassical economics, in its own way, also assumes a divine authority. If the future can be exactly calculated down to a probability function, if humans are predictably rational and markets perfectlye fficient, then selfishness is actually virtuous. Moroever, because money is taken to be the ultimate objective of life, a narrowly defined version of happiness is available to those who can pocket the most cash, and moreover, is ethically positive. For this type of economics, there is no horizon of abundance; the game goes on forever. Wat do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Neoclassical principles? Crises and revolution.
There are several points worth noting. First, the moral sentiments of these two man-made systems diverged, as underlying goals of economic growth. Second, the rationality employed to achieve those goals diverged, in the form of distinct assumptions about human behaviour and risk. Third, neither was able to reach their chosen goal through their chosen means: Keynesian economics reaches stagnation before abundance, and Neoclassical economics confronts crises that interrupt its incessant march.
Abundance of life is only available through Christ, and more importantly, so is satisfaction in that abundance. If our goal is Heaven, then we will experience the Kingdom of God.
It is also interesitng to comment on the objective of economic growth in each case. Economists usually assume that economic growth is desirable. What they usually fail to acknowledge is that 'money' is only instrumentally and not constitutively desirable; that is, it is only a means to purchase real goods and cannot directly be consumed. Neoclassical economists fall into the trap of taking economic growth to be the ultimate goal of society, without a coherent explanation regarding its theoretical underpinning. Indeed, the high levels of human development in areas of lower GDP, such as Cuba and Kerala, attest to the over-generalisation present in Neoclassical thinking. For this reason, Keynes asserted that the positive aspect of economic growth is not that it makes society richer per se, but that in doing so it allows people to have more 'feliticious states of mind' and so act in a more socially desirable manner; the logic being that when one no longer feels the need to fend for one's survival, or even to increase the feasibility set through waged labour, a state of social equity can be arranged. So Keynes saw economic growth as a necessary evil; in fact, he was more than derragotory of the 'love of money' that has so pervaded capitalism, and indeed, has come to define it.
I argue that both schools, by eschewing the moral foundations of Christ, pursue the wrong goal, and moreover perform that endeavour using the wrong means. Because the Kingdom of God is not sought, 'these things' are not added.
Keynesian economics attempts to avoid God. It sees the future as inherently uncertain, and thus attempts to avoid volatility. Moreover, the ultimate goal of economic growth is to achieve 'the good life' through abundance, after which point Keynes argued capitalism should be discarded for a more socially benevolent system. But surely this point is arbitrary. He was right to assume diminishing returns in money to happiness, but abundance cannot be defined so long as scarcity exists - and in a physically limited world, that is always the case. In essence, Keynes attempts to construct an Aristotlean utopia based on human ethics, and is thus doomed. What do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Keynesian principles? Stagnation and a lack of progress.
Neoclassical economics, in its own way, also assumes a divine authority. If the future can be exactly calculated down to a probability function, if humans are predictably rational and markets perfectlye fficient, then selfishness is actually virtuous. Moroever, because money is taken to be the ultimate objective of life, a narrowly defined version of happiness is available to those who can pocket the most cash, and moreover, is ethically positive. For this type of economics, there is no horizon of abundance; the game goes on forever. Wat do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Neoclassical principles? Crises and revolution.
There are several points worth noting. First, the moral sentiments of these two man-made systems diverged, as underlying goals of economic growth. Second, the rationality employed to achieve those goals diverged, in the form of distinct assumptions about human behaviour and risk. Third, neither was able to reach their chosen goal through their chosen means: Keynesian economics reaches stagnation before abundance, and Neoclassical economics confronts crises that interrupt its incessant march.
Abundance of life is only available through Christ, and more importantly, so is satisfaction in that abundance. If our goal is Heaven, then we will experience the Kingdom of God.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Re: Re: Rationality Versus Feeling
Secularism is reduced to human judgement, and distances itself from any recourse to spiritual reference points. For this reason, it can never claim an absolute truth.
First, humans all over the world, at any given point in time, disagree both in what is logical and what 'feels good' or 'feels right'. For example, if you ask an American about human rights, you will get a very different reponse than if you asked a Chinese person. If you ask an Indonesian tribesman how important is the pursuit of money and wealth, again you would get a different answer than from an American. So how can we say that human rights are absolute, or that the pursuit of wealth is the ultimate goal of rationality, when the reason for doing so would be based on human opinions that are aggregately inconsistent?
Similiarly, over time, scientific fact and human feelings diverge. To use the example of human rights again, such 'absolutes' are actually modern phenomena. Meanwhile, facts such as the flatness of the world, the centrality of the Earth in the universe, the perfect circularity of the orbits of perfect spherical orbs, have been refuted and replaced by new 'facts'. How can we say that our current beliefs are somehow sacrosanct? All that we can say is what we infer from experience: and experience dictates that we currently hold to be true will also be refuted.
What is the answer to this diarrhea of truth? Man's wisdom will only get so far. Is it that we have currently reached an 'apex' of truth, as every generation false believes? No. Mankind cannot reach truth by itself, and as soon as it rejected 'religion' in either its sentiments or logical structures, it rejected truth - not because religion is truth, but because it flushed the baby with the bath water. By all means reject religious structures, but only for the reason that they are as man-made, and therefore as flawed, as any other earthly system. But do not reject God, for in Him, all things hold together.
There is God, and He is truth. Nobody reaches that truth without going through Christ. All other roads lead to destruction.
First, humans all over the world, at any given point in time, disagree both in what is logical and what 'feels good' or 'feels right'. For example, if you ask an American about human rights, you will get a very different reponse than if you asked a Chinese person. If you ask an Indonesian tribesman how important is the pursuit of money and wealth, again you would get a different answer than from an American. So how can we say that human rights are absolute, or that the pursuit of wealth is the ultimate goal of rationality, when the reason for doing so would be based on human opinions that are aggregately inconsistent?
Similiarly, over time, scientific fact and human feelings diverge. To use the example of human rights again, such 'absolutes' are actually modern phenomena. Meanwhile, facts such as the flatness of the world, the centrality of the Earth in the universe, the perfect circularity of the orbits of perfect spherical orbs, have been refuted and replaced by new 'facts'. How can we say that our current beliefs are somehow sacrosanct? All that we can say is what we infer from experience: and experience dictates that we currently hold to be true will also be refuted.
What is the answer to this diarrhea of truth? Man's wisdom will only get so far. Is it that we have currently reached an 'apex' of truth, as every generation false believes? No. Mankind cannot reach truth by itself, and as soon as it rejected 'religion' in either its sentiments or logical structures, it rejected truth - not because religion is truth, but because it flushed the baby with the bath water. By all means reject religious structures, but only for the reason that they are as man-made, and therefore as flawed, as any other earthly system. But do not reject God, for in Him, all things hold together.
There is God, and He is truth. Nobody reaches that truth without going through Christ. All other roads lead to destruction.
Monday, 2 August 2010
Re: Rationality Versus Feeling
PS: In a recent discussion with a friend, we mused that there were two types of Christian: the 'happy clappers' (i.e. those who disproportionately stress the Holy Spirit above biblical teaching) and the 'Bible nerds' (i.e. those who disproportionately stress analytical rigour over the Holy Spirit). Why this needless division? To either prioritise the good feeling that the Holy Spirit imparts, or the logical stability that the Bible confers, is to focus on earthly wisdom and desire.
These two ways of living can be reconciled if the Word of God is both the inspiration for divine knowledge and the source of holy sentiment. Consider tongues. In the Bible, the first example of tongues being spoken on a wide scale occured at Pentecost. Was this a random, feel-good orgy of mumbo jumbo, as is sometimes the case at modern processions where tongues are spoken? No. Tongues were used for a specific purpose, which was so that the diversity of languages present at the meeting could all understand Peter's sermon. Paul in his letters outlines very specific guidelines for the instrumentalisation of tongues, as a gift to be used in order to communicate God's wisdom to the masses, and not simply as a means of getting one's 'Holy Spirit fix' in some hypnotic and incomprehensible high.
Similiarly, Jesus tells us that Love fulfills the law. So what is the point of academic rigour, even of God's word, if we are unable to live lives of Love? For this reason Paul tells the Church (see scriptural appendix) that he communicates to them through his actions, and intentionally avoids intellectual constructions, so that they can see the Word for what it really is - not a logical curiousum, but the ultimate reality.
John 6:63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Emotions without the Spirit will die with the flesh; logic without the Spirit will lead to dead-end conclusions.
These two ways of living can be reconciled if the Word of God is both the inspiration for divine knowledge and the source of holy sentiment. Consider tongues. In the Bible, the first example of tongues being spoken on a wide scale occured at Pentecost. Was this a random, feel-good orgy of mumbo jumbo, as is sometimes the case at modern processions where tongues are spoken? No. Tongues were used for a specific purpose, which was so that the diversity of languages present at the meeting could all understand Peter's sermon. Paul in his letters outlines very specific guidelines for the instrumentalisation of tongues, as a gift to be used in order to communicate God's wisdom to the masses, and not simply as a means of getting one's 'Holy Spirit fix' in some hypnotic and incomprehensible high.
Similiarly, Jesus tells us that Love fulfills the law. So what is the point of academic rigour, even of God's word, if we are unable to live lives of Love? For this reason Paul tells the Church (see scriptural appendix) that he communicates to them through his actions, and intentionally avoids intellectual constructions, so that they can see the Word for what it really is - not a logical curiousum, but the ultimate reality.
John 6:63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Emotions without the Spirit will die with the flesh; logic without the Spirit will lead to dead-end conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)