Obama's "Question": Does Government Work?

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..."

-Barack Obama

At first this question irritated me, but as I thought about it I realized this a very good question.  However the problem is that Barack did no intend on answering it. He did not bother to explain the nature of government and exactly what makes it work. If he is asserting that some government programs "work" and others do not, he did not make any distinction between what "works" and what doesn't work. He simply goes on to list problems.

"...whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

If you ask a "question" but simply assume the answer, then you have not asked a question at all.

Perhaps what Mr. Obama intended to say is "Government works, and you should accept it as a given".

Mr. Obama has posed and evaded the most essential question of our time "Does government work?" Or to put it more clearly "Does a monopoly on physical violence solve problems?"

After the blood bath of the 20th century where the largest governments on earth have ever existed this can no longer be a question that can reasonably evaded. We can no longer afford to intellectualize midstream. The premises of government must be examined rather then accepted due to cultural default.

If Mr. Obama did intend on truly answering this question there are three criteria he would have to meet and satisfy.

1. What is human nature?
2. What is the nature of government?  and
3. What is the relationship between the two of them?

But these questions were not asked, but rather assumed

1. Human nature: Evil/Self-destructive
2. Government: Good
3. The Relationship: Healthy

A very fundamental question must be put forward to this logic.

If human nature is self-destructive, how can government solve that problem considering that the government is made of human beings?

If human interests are self-destructive or evil, they very last thing that we want is a government.

The government can never solve the problem of evil and self-destructive behavior because the government consists of people its self. To use this logic is to simply apply principles of human nature inconsistently.

Perhaps the people in government are good but the people outside of it are bad? You can claim that rocks fall and clouds float, however there is a fundamentally different nature to two things. Where as human nature is fundamentally the same. There must be some explanation for this problem. It cannot simply be assumed.

Thus the essential problem of government and why it doesn't work is that government's necessity is based on the problems of human nature, but these problems also apply to the government. Thus the problems of human nature have simply been elevated with the existence of government, and it is not a valid solution to problems.

The Problem of Faith and Revelation

As assertive as this claim may be I cannot help but feel that I have formulated an argument that debases religion's epistemology (a philosophical position of how one obtains knowledge). Which usually consists (in all cases I have come across) some vague mix between faith and revelation.  They use which ever one is convenient at the time.

These arguments usually go something like this:

1. "Well, you just need faith" or
2. "Well, you just need to pray about it, and god will let you know"

I am sure it is put differently then this is most cases, but the essence is the same.

Argument from Faith

I will define faith as thus:

"Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim." -Wiktionary

Now something important to understand in this definition is proof. What is the purpose of proof?  To prove something is to establish truth values and relevance.

So it can be said that faith is the statement that: it is virtuous to believe in things lacking truth-values. Or perhaps in a less neutral way we could define faith (as in the virtue of faith) as the belief that is it virtuous to believe in something for no reason at all.

Faith has clear problems which lead to the excuse of revelation (which we will get to a little later) and I believe that everyone including the religious know it.

If we believe in things without truth-values (and if god is beyond matter then by definition there is no way to establish truth-values on him) then all belief is arbitrary. If truth-values are irrelevant to belief then 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are on equal ground.  Ultimately without truth-values having one belief over the other is pointless. So the belief in faith makes no sense.  Might you have faith to not believe in faith? I see no reason why not.

Argument from Revelation

At this point the argument from revelation comes into play. Some religions may not like the word revelation, but the only point I am trying to make is most religions believe that there is some way to make the belief in god relevant to you usually by him "manifesting" himself to you.  The way each religion might claim he does this is not important.

It is here that we get to the heart of the matter. If you have revelation of some kind then what is the use of faith? In itself I have no problem with the argument from revelation. If there is a way to figure out that god exists and to make his existence more relevant then say a pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, then I think that's great! But it is when we put faith and revelation side by side then it becomes a problem, because the two ideas are not compatible.

Revelation: implies that there is a way to determine truth-value to the concept of god (and usually a specific religion also).  Or in other words, it is good to believe in something for a reason.

Faith implies that empirical reasons are irrelevant to a system of belief. Or that it is good to believe in something for no reason.

So I suppose my criticism of "revelation" is that if it such a useful tool to making god a relevant claim and determining truth-value, then why is faith still important?

Perhaps I can offer my answer?

Because there is no reason for believing in god, that is why faith is still around.  If revelation actually worked then faith would be useless. If there was a reason to believe in god, then we wouldn't have to make it a virtue to believe in things for no reason.

So it can be seen that faith has no way of determining truth-value from one belief to another, and revelation is not compatible with the premises of faith. Thus the union of faith and revelation has failed and is simply applying principles inconsistently.

Either knowledge is gained by the establishments of truth-values by reasoning and evidence or there is no knowledge. So, is there a reason to believe in god or isn't there? That must be decided.

Defending Materialism

The most fitting definition for materialism that I could find was from "Wikitionary"

Materialism: The philosophical belief that nothing exists beyond what is physical (also called physicalism)."

The term "materialism" has gained a bad wrap for being close-minded and short sighted over the years but many including C. S. Lewis.  However I am here to reclaim materialism (or physicalism if materialism is no longer savable from the endless slander it has received).

The basic argument against materialism goes something like this "we don't know everything, so it is ridiculous to assume that everything that exists is material." The most basic flaw in this argument is that "existence" is a property of matter, so it apply it to anything else that is "immaterial" or "spiritual" doesn't make any sense.  So by definition anything that is not material doesn't exist.  At least not in anyway that we can possibly understand or talk about.

The point is that everything that we know and understand is based on the material world and how it functions. Even logic it's self is based on the functioning of the material world (that is what makes logic relevant and universal). And as a subject of logic, even true and false are concepts that we derived from the material world.

To say "It is true that an immaterial being (god) exists" means nothing. Its just a bunch of words thrown together.  If god is not made of matter then what sense does it make to apply concepts that are derived from the functions of matter such as "true" and "false" to him?  These concepts are only relevant to the material world.

No one knows what a "square-circle" is because it has no relevance to the world around us.  Its just two words thrown together.  You cannot say that a square-circle exists because it is contrary to the functions of matter, and the concept of existence is a function of matter. The two are not compatible.

There is no truth value or truth statements that can be applied to anything "outside of reality" or the "immaterial world".  All knowledge, language, and concepts we can possibly understand or talk about are within the realm of matter and its functions. Anything else is meaningless.

Atheism, Materialism, and Pantheism

Around when I first started this blog I wrote an article called Pantheism and Anti-Mysticism. I proposed the idea of pantheism being an effective term because atheism in its self is not anti-mystical but simply a lack of belief in god.  I would like to fallow up on that blog and and maybe clear up some of my ideas.

To make things clear, I am in fact an atheist, but it is quite well accepted that atheism in it's self doesn't offer much.  It is simply a lack of belief. For this reason many people call themselves "humanists". I don't find that term fitting for myself so in the past and I have tried to come up with terms that might better describe my beliefs when it comes to the issue of god, and other mystical forces.

In a pervious blog (which I provided a link to above) I talked about the terms "pantheism" and "anti-mysticism". I have decided that the word "materialism" might be what I was really looking for as opposed to "anti-mysticism". And as for pantheism, it seemed to cause more confusion then effective communication of my beliefs. However I still believe that it is a useful perspective.

Essentially pantheism and materialism are the same thing (at least as I define them). It is the acceptance of the material world as all that exists and matters.  However the term pantheism embraces the material world.  Perhaps the two terms can be compared to nihilism and existentialism.  The nihilists claimed "life is meaningless" the existentialists claimed "life is meaningless and beautiful".

So many of us materialists take the reality of nothing but matter as a cold hard fact, but I believe that we should embrace the material world and reject mystical assertions, not sorrowfully but proudly.

Perhaps what the pantheist perspective offers more then anything is the fact that reality is a wonderful thing that we should come to terms with and observe with a sense of wonder and respect. It brings out the fact that life is godless and beautiful.