But isn’t what you are saying that employers should not be able to hire and let go whom they please, and that some government board should be in charge of assigning people into jobs?

No. It is about giving people more choice and opportunity not less. The fundamental problem is that rises in productivity tend to benefit a small class of people, not the society as a whole, even though it tends to be the society that enables the productivity increases, not just the few individuals who benefit the most (i.e. the people who own the capital). The challenge is to find a way push productivity forward without the positive feedback effects it induces between the owners and the workers. Yes, the government has to be involved in any solution along these lines, but it takes a rather severe blindness not to recognize how the government enables the current inequitable system.

Equity is a good idea, but the problem is that some are better at doing certain things than others. Distrbuting work by committee means that people would be assigned jobs by government officials who lack the relevant data.
And who gets to decide what channels are productive and which are wasted? If nuclear weapons aren’t productive, what about employing people to create abstract art? Or play classical music that most people do not want to hear? Capitalism works because it lets people decide which channels they want to use their money for and, hence, which are productive. (The reason nuclear arms are being created and money is being spent there is by government fiat, not by voluntary contracts by producers and private consumers.) How would your ‘committee on economic productiveness’ be different from that which chooses to spend money on nuclear weapons?

I agree, having a work committee would not be practically different than serfdom. However, there are a few things that I believe should be subsidized because they yield enormous benefits to people who can’t possibly pay for them yet. Basic scientific research would be a good example. The point about nuclear weapons was just as an example of military-Keynesianism gone awry. And I do believe building a nuclear weapon is worse than doing nothing. The only productive thing to do with a nuclear weapon is to dismantle it. Yes, funding artists would be better, but it isn’t like I strongly endorse that either. I would like to see more people free to become artists instead of funding a select few who happen have the right connections.

So my question to you is: can you really think of no other way of tweaking the rules of our economy so that greater equity is achieved as productivity increases besides creating a totalitarian work board?

Equity is a good idea, but the problem is that some are better at doing certain things than others. Distrbuting work by committee means that people would be assigned jobs by government officials who lack the relevant data.

And who gets to decide what channels are productive and which are wasted? If nuclear weapons aren’t productive, what about employing people to create abstract art? Or play classical music that most people do not want to hear? Capitalism works because it lets people decide which channels they want to use their money for and, hence, which are productive. (The reason nuclear arms are being created and money is being spent there is by government fiat, not by voluntary contracts by producers and private consumers.) How would your ‘committee on economic productiveness’ be different from that which chooses to spend money on nuclear weapons?

My response to your comment is here: http://codesmithy.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/ravi-zacharias-socrates%e2%80%99-daimonion-and-liberation/

It is sort of meandering, but I hope underlying point comes through. If you want to continue this discussion, I ask that we do it over at the new post, since I consider it off-topic here.

Ok…well I feel everything is clear…so, tata

So I’ve read 90 Minutes in Heaven recently and though we may question as to why some things happened the way they did and not completely understand then that wouldn’t be the work of God. There will be things in our lives where we don’t know why things turn out they do, from simple decisions to life changing decisions. For all ‘Christians’ out there stop questioning and trying to figure things out and just be in awe of our Lord and Savior. Our Lord has, is and will always do things in our world where we won’t be able to completely comprehend but at that point we should just leave it at that.

Now for the guy of this blog deal or whatever…I was just wondering if you have heard or listened to the Christian Apologist, Ravi Zacharias? I can honestly say that you would talk circles around me as like most athiest you are well read and have carefully thought out your rebutals and all. So I shall not wast my time but if you have a chance go to the library and check-out the book “Jesus Among Other Gods.” I feel that this book will really have you thinking and help you in your understanding of Christ. Then as a follow up there are YouTube videos as studies in which I ask that you view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk_ivE7CdRs.

Upon completion of these things, or an honest attempt at least, I would like to hear your response.

I do agree with you in what you said regarding “…all beliefs should be challenged and held to similar standards, whether people like it or not.” If we as so called, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. wish to claim that our faith is #1 and ‘The Way’ then we need to back it up and be well informed not only of our own religion but of the other religions and their arguments. So yes, we need to be questioned. Once we stop questioning things, then God’s work is done.

Take care my friend and I wish you a safe and successful journey in life no matter where it may take you. Also, if given the time I look forward to your response, maybe to just this post, but if you have the time a response to the reading and viewing of the YouTube videos.

~God Bless~ Ryan in Russia

Eagleton’s lecture? He gave multiple lectures. How did you know we were discussing the same one?

Nevertheless, the one that I listened to before I posted was this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdt0GBQu6SY

He wasn’t defending all manifestations of religion.

I never claimed that he was, in fact I implied the opposite. I said that Eagleton might consider the numinous and God to be the same thing (it is hard to tell.) However, once you drop, say, the truth of resurrection, many Christians will start accusing you of being an atheist.

He’s not arguing for superstition

He is arguing for the very definition of superstition. In another lecture (Faith and Reason) he gives his assessment of the Yeti view of faith (about 10:50 in)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31rDPh_gqsg

He claims that “God is not even a possible object of cognition.” He then goes on that it is the inherent nature of God that He cannot be seen. If that isn’t woo (to borrow James Randi‘s word), I don’t know what is.

Superstition is defined as an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=superstition

Eagleton’s admitted his ignorance, and Eagleton already sets up the dichotomy between reason on one side and faith on the other so it can‘t be rational.

We are then left to conclude that Eagleton just drops the things that would be embarrassing to defend in public and then complains when someone, like Hitchens or Dakwins, have the gall to bring them up. There is no reason to read philosophy to gain insight on what Eagleton is doing, just spend some time critically examining any other sophist shyster.