Faith and Reason Are Not Enemies
I can remember when I was an atheist in college that I thought faith was diametrically opposed to reason. In particular, I could not STAND it when I or my atheist friends would level some crushing argument against a Christian who was (really) not nearly as intelligent as we were, and then the Christian would just say, “Well I can’t explain that apparent paradox, I have faith.”
And then, to add insult to injury, sometimes the Christian apologists would say something truly asinine (I thought) such as, “Well we can’t prove anything. You have faith that Abraham Lincoln was president during the Civil War. You didn’t see that with your own eyes.” At this point it was time to stop arguing with irrational Christians and hit the bar.
Well now I am older and call myself a born-again Christian. So what is my current view of the alleged divide between faith and reason?
First of all, I don’t say that Christianity is irrational. I would say it is superrational or arational if you want. To put it succinctly, I cannot use my puny mind to logically deduce–or even reasonably infer–the grand truths of the universe. But my mind leads me to say that it is perfectly reasonable to have faith in the promises of Jesus Christ. In particular, I find it implausible that someone could be so wise about human relations, and yet could be nuts or deceitful about the supernatural. (This of course is just the ‘Lord, liar, or lunatic’ argument.)
Let me give an analogy. Suppose you are interested in physics but you’re just an undergrad major in it. You’ve read a bunch of Feynman’s stuff and other pop physics books, but you haven’t worked with a supercollidor or done original theoretical research.
Your older brother is wrapping up his PhD in physics at Cal-Tech, and he invites you to the campus to hear a guest lecture from the latest physics Nobel laureate. During the talk you think the laureate made a basic error about how gravity works. After the lecture you ask your brother, and he says, “No when you study quantum theory in a graduate program you will see that that’s not a mistake. They actually teach you a dumbed down version in undergrad.”
You still don’t quite get it, but you trust that your brother isn’t lying to you about this, and that the Nobel laureate didn’t make a bonehead mistake in front of the Cal-Tech faculy who all missed it. You have faith in all of them that they didn’t miss such a dumb thing, which you, a lowly undergrad major, picked up.
This is analogous to me when I read that the God of the Israelites commanded them to take the promised land through force. Some of the stuff in the book of Joshua is pretty hardcore.
And yet, for sure Jesus of Nazareth is a much nicer, moral guy than I am. If Jesus assures me that the God of the Israelites is perfect and just, then I believe Jesus. Even though it doesn’t fully make sense, I have faith that Jesus wouldn’t lie to me about something that important, and on a topic where Jesus is obviously far superior to me.
It is not irrational to recognize the limits of reason. It is not irrational to trust the claims of particular people who have demonstrated their trustworthiness and competence in particular areas. We do this all the time in everyday life.
There is no conflict between religious faith and reason.
Angus vs. Glenn Beck
I heard this “live” (i.e. I’m not sure if there is a tape delay but I heard it on the radio the day of) and I found it hilarious, but not for the obvious reasons. (HT2LRC) Pay close attention starting around 1:45. After Angus points out Beck’s hypocrisy vis-a-vis the bailout, Beck says something like, “OK Angus, if you have all the answers, then tell me why I was for the bailout.” Angus has no answer for Beck’s absurd flip flop, and Beck & Crew take this as evidence of Angus’ stupidity. What’s really funny is that we don’t even know if Angus was speechless–“Uh, I don’t know how you could have supported the bailout, Glenn, given your rhetoric of the last 12 months, that’s my whole point”–or if they just cut him off. I.e. we never hear from Angus after this point, so for all we know they hung up and then Beck said, “OK Angus, if you have all the answers, why was I for the bailout?”
(BTW don’t be confused: The people making this YouTube cut away as Beck gives his explanation, and show the TV clip from when he supported the bailout. Then they come back to the radio show right after he dukes it out with Angus.)
In case you’re curious, what Beck actually said on the radio was that he initially was for the bailout when he thought it was necessary to stave off disaster, in order to buy time for the politicians and corporate leaders to get their act together. But then (withink two or three days I think) Beck had smelled a rat and realized they weren’t going to change our sinful ways, and that’s why he was opposed to the bailout from that point forward. Beck also worked in the fact that he had been predicting the financial crisis for a long time when everyone thought he was crazy.
By the way, of course people can make mistakes and we don’t need to jump up and down on them for changing their mind. (I am still embarrassed about this article, for example.) But the point is, I was absolutely shocked when Glenn Greenwald sent me this video and I learned that Beck had supported the bailout when it mattered, i.e. when it was first being debated. I had been listening to Beck for only a few months, and I actually bought into his Fight the Power schtick. I couldn’t believe that someone who had declared on national TV that Paulson didn’t ask for enough money, was so clearly painting himself as a Cassandra and diehard opponent of the bailout just a few months later.
Last point: Angus hails from New Braunfels, TX. I wonder if he saw me give a talk there last summer?! (A church in New Braunfels is a hotbed of subversive libertarianism; I think Tom Woods was their speaker the previous July 4.)
Jim Chanos on China
Von Pepe sends this interview with hedge fund manager Jim Chanos, saying that he makes some interesting remarks about GDP accounting. Start the video at 4:30.
Note that I am not endorsing Chanos’ overall opinion of the Chinese economy; I haven’t studied it enough. I know they have been inflating their money and credit, but on the other hand many Asian countries in general have been liberalizing their economies through various measures over the years, and I expect that trend to continue. It’s possible that both Jim Rogers and Jim Chanos are right: China will be the dominant economy in the 21st century, but it’s going to have a crash real soon.
Anyway, Chanos definitely makes some interesting remarks about Western analysts who decry intervention but then praise some particular micromanagement by Chinese communists. I have been frustrated by such analyses too.
What Has Government Done to Their Money?
This is pretty funny:
An exciting new role has just opened up at the national mint of Chile, but there’s a catch: successful applicants will have to be able to spell the word “Chile.”
That seemingly simple task was the undoing of the former general manager of the Chilean mint, Gregorio Iñiguez, who has reportedly been let go after an embarrassing blunder.
Iñiguez minted a set of 50-peso coins with the nation’s name spelt C-H-I-I-E instead of the usual C-H-I-L-E, the BBC reported.
But I think my favorite part of the story is this: “The mistake was also missed by the head franker at the Chilean mint, Pedro Urzúa, who pleaded his innocence when it was alleged the mistake was done on propose, the BBC said.”
Do you see why?
Arnold Kling Smells a Fed Rat
I’ve said before (can’t find the post) that Arnold Kling is my kind of cynic. Try this:
Rather than try to come up with an economic theory to explain Fed policy, I would suggest a more cynical approach. The goal has been to transfer wealth to banks and to the holders of mortgage securities. The thinking is that those constituents are more important to the economy than taxpayers.
…
The Fed has changed from a central bank to a piggy bank. Any economist who tries to interpret Fed policy from the standpoint of economic theory is playing a fool’s game.
Big Shoes to Fill
Ebeling and I leave the Hillsdale College econ faculty, and now those guys can’t even spell “Mises.” (Just kidding.)
GDP Bask
I am trying to pin down the nominal GDP (or GNP) in the US for the years 1919 – 1921. Wikipedia has a graph of US GDP from 1920-1940, but I can’t get the actual data points. Any help would be much appreciated, or, if you dislike the passive voice, I would much appreciate any help.
How Far the Mighty Have Fallen
[UPDATE below.]
You know how I said Scott Sumner had revived my faith in economic bloggers? Well now I feel like the blond-haired kid on the beach who introduced Daniel-son to the other Cobra Kai’s. How’s this for you:
I believe the Great Depression had two primary causes. One cause was deflationary monetary policies during 1929-33, and 1937-38. The other cause was five nominal wage shocks during 1933, 1934, 1936-37, 1938 and 1939. These 5 shocks were caused by New Deal programs, and slowed the recovery. This is why the Great Depression lasted 12 years, ending about the time of Pearl Harbor. I don’t know what ended the Great Depression, and don’t really discuss it in my manuscript, but I suspect it had something to do with the German invasion of France, which led to a military mobilization in the US and elsewhere. This may have directly raised AD, and indirectly increased expected NGDP growth by raising the expected inflation rate. Wars are usually inflationary.
OK let’s just put aside the claim that the German invasion of France ended the Great Depression. How could Scott have failed to include, among the causes of the Great Depression:
(1) Herbert Hoover’s insistence on rigid wages immediately after the stock market crash, and
(2) The outrageous tax hikes passed in 1932? E.g. people who made $10,000 in 1931 faced a marginal tax rate of 6%, and in 1932 the rate had jumped to 10%. That’s rather a big jump, wouldn’t you say? The top bracket jumped from 25% to 63% in one year. Note I’m not saying a 63% increase, I’m saying the rate itself more than doubled in one year. And it wasn’t like 1932 was a good year to begin with.
UPDATE: Well I guess I’ll have to cut Scott some slack, because in the very next paragraph he addressed all of my concerns. He doesn’t deal with the fact that the deflation (whether in money or CPI) was steeper in 1920-1921 than it was in any 12-month period after 1929, but OK fair enough. Come to think of it, maybe Daniel-son is all right, once you overlook him spraying water on the guys in the bathroom stall at the Halloween party.
Recent Comments