Religion is not incompatible with Liberalism EXCEPT when it contradicts a Liberal ideology. The fact is the Liberalism is it's own religion. If you don't follow the rules you get censored, exorcised, excommunicated and cancelled. It is the worst of all religions because it's the most powerful and it is approaching the standards of an authoritarian government. Liberals attempted to control the airwaves, stop any open conversations happen with views that opposed their own views and crushed anybody that tried to do so. We're living in a scary dystopia where the greatest threat to humankind is the Liberal government trying to save them - just like it has always been throughout every dark time in history. That's not love. It's power and control.
Maybe Liberalism isn't what it used to be as I used to be considered a Liberal. Liberal's used to be anti government and for the people. Now they've got it reversed. Or maybe you're confused about what Liberals have done, including censor real truths and suppress free speech across social media platforms for political gain. Either way, that doesn't sound like Liberalism. It sounds like slavery under the guise of freedom, just like religion.
Sadly, I think this guest speaks, and perhaps thinks, only in extremes in order to make points. She said, "The nation, the dictatorship of the proletariat, social engineering, socialism itself, even science can have this pernicious effect — you can think of all kinds of examples of science taken as a religion...."
Perhaps one can think of those things as religions, but to me, science survives on its own demand that you ought to try to prove it wrong. On the contrary, religion, especially Christianity survives on demanding faith that the church is right in its belief that it is right.
The separation of church and state, as the guest says, may have been at the root of classical liberalism, but I wonder how much more liberalism would have progressed in the recognition of the equality of humankind if there was a separation between state and belief in the Judeo-Christian God.
Since adolescence I have considered a belief in a deity as not rational - that is, there is no fact, demonstrated by scientific testing, which would lead to a belief in some Supreme Being. Despite centuries of wasted intellectual debate we are no nearer to proving that any of the beliefs upon which all religions are based have any basis in fact. As such, anyone who admits to having such beliefs has to be considered irrational and viewed with some wariness. I am now an old man and have seen nothing which would change that view in my time on this earth.
After reading this conversation with Deirdre I am totally confused. Is she rejecting any role for government in alleviating poverty? Neither of you mentioned Social Democrats who support a regulated market economy (such as in the US). Would she eliminate regulation? As for belief in a deity, this seems to be a red herring - it’s connection to good government is not demonstrated.
She has written a lot about the role of government (and the market) in alleviating poverty. The 50 page long preface to her book, "Bourgeois Virtues," is my favorite version of her argument. But she recently published another, more popular audiences version in the form of this book: https://amzn.to/3KC3i97
I also had her on a few times on my old podcast, Free Thoughts, and those episodes are more squarely on economic and market economy issues. You can find those here (just scroll down the page to the "podcasts" section): https://www.libertarianism.org/people/deirdre-mccloskey
McCloskey has written quite a few, quite long books setting out her philosophical views and defending them about critics, and her next is a book length treatment of the ideas we discussed in the interview. I encourage you—and everyone, for that matter—to read her work. It's deep, and thoughtful, and rewarding.
Religion is not incompatible with Liberalism EXCEPT when it contradicts a Liberal ideology. The fact is the Liberalism is it's own religion. If you don't follow the rules you get censored, exorcised, excommunicated and cancelled. It is the worst of all religions because it's the most powerful and it is approaching the standards of an authoritarian government. Liberals attempted to control the airwaves, stop any open conversations happen with views that opposed their own views and crushed anybody that tried to do so. We're living in a scary dystopia where the greatest threat to humankind is the Liberal government trying to save them - just like it has always been throughout every dark time in history. That's not love. It's power and control.
I believe you're confused about what liberalism is.
Maybe Liberalism isn't what it used to be as I used to be considered a Liberal. Liberal's used to be anti government and for the people. Now they've got it reversed. Or maybe you're confused about what Liberals have done, including censor real truths and suppress free speech across social media platforms for political gain. Either way, that doesn't sound like Liberalism. It sounds like slavery under the guise of freedom, just like religion.
Sadly, I think this guest speaks, and perhaps thinks, only in extremes in order to make points. She said, "The nation, the dictatorship of the proletariat, social engineering, socialism itself, even science can have this pernicious effect — you can think of all kinds of examples of science taken as a religion...."
Perhaps one can think of those things as religions, but to me, science survives on its own demand that you ought to try to prove it wrong. On the contrary, religion, especially Christianity survives on demanding faith that the church is right in its belief that it is right.
The separation of church and state, as the guest says, may have been at the root of classical liberalism, but I wonder how much more liberalism would have progressed in the recognition of the equality of humankind if there was a separation between state and belief in the Judeo-Christian God.
Since adolescence I have considered a belief in a deity as not rational - that is, there is no fact, demonstrated by scientific testing, which would lead to a belief in some Supreme Being. Despite centuries of wasted intellectual debate we are no nearer to proving that any of the beliefs upon which all religions are based have any basis in fact. As such, anyone who admits to having such beliefs has to be considered irrational and viewed with some wariness. I am now an old man and have seen nothing which would change that view in my time on this earth.
After reading this conversation with Deirdre I am totally confused. Is she rejecting any role for government in alleviating poverty? Neither of you mentioned Social Democrats who support a regulated market economy (such as in the US). Would she eliminate regulation? As for belief in a deity, this seems to be a red herring - it’s connection to good government is not demonstrated.
She has written a lot about the role of government (and the market) in alleviating poverty. The 50 page long preface to her book, "Bourgeois Virtues," is my favorite version of her argument. But she recently published another, more popular audiences version in the form of this book: https://amzn.to/3KC3i97
I also had her on a few times on my old podcast, Free Thoughts, and those episodes are more squarely on economic and market economy issues. You can find those here (just scroll down the page to the "podcasts" section): https://www.libertarianism.org/people/deirdre-mccloskey
Worst kind of hogwash. Not a coherent philosophy. Everybody is wrong save Deirdre.
McCloskey has written quite a few, quite long books setting out her philosophical views and defending them about critics, and her next is a book length treatment of the ideas we discussed in the interview. I encourage you—and everyone, for that matter—to read her work. It's deep, and thoughtful, and rewarding.