From your response it's now becoming clear why we have different stances on this subject. You are blurring the line between belief systems and religion to the point where you feel that any belief system is in itself a religion; it is not. Ethics, morals and behaviours can all be shaped by a multitude of beliefs which have no basis in religion. This is why you feel my definition of religion is too narrow, and why I feel yours is too broad.

To highlight this, here's an example:
Is it true that religion is a belief system? Yes.
Is it also true that a political outlook is a belief system? Yes.
Is a political outlook a religion? By your definition, yes. By my definition, no.

Thank you for stating the religion you follow and the application of why you think you're religious against my definition of religion. What is apparent from your first point is that you don't actually follow a defined set of rules from your God, as you have no Holy text or scripture to follow. To constitute being a religion you require some kind of physical embodiment of your God's rules, as without this you are simply following your own path in much the same way as I do.

You can probably guess by now that I would have to answer no to your question on whether I would say you have all the defining elements to be in a religion, or that you're religious. Ethical monotheism in itself is a belief system, not a religion for the reason I outlined in my above paragraph.

I have a very simple moral system that works, it comes from within, system that most passionate human beings would say is worth following.

My moral principle is this: "If an action causes harm to any living organism, that action is immoral".  Please explain how this principle is incompatible with my denial of God existence.

My one liner moral system suppresses defection without reliance on a supernatural stick.  Not sure what is your point.  You still have not answered the question of morality, where do you get it from.
How do you determine if an action is moral?

Christianity: Jesus
"So  everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Judaism: Hillel the Elder
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
Islam: Abdullah ibn Amr Al-Ass
"Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them"
Philosophy: Immanuel Kant
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
"

I have a very simple moral system that works, it comes from within, system that most passionate human beings would say is worth following.
And you just come out and say that my system of morality is immoral because I refuse to accept existence of some undefined infinite entity that should dictate my morals? Where do you get your morality from?  So far I have not seen anything from your logic that talks about the source of your morality..

Also, if you want to have a discussion on the subject of God please state your position by answering the following questions:

Anyway, my moral principle is this: "If an action causes harm to any living organism, that action is immoral".  Please explain how this principle is incompatible with my denial of God existence.

A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world.

Yes I do. Here is how I reached this conclusion.

Claim #1 There are things in this universe that are True yet even cannot ever be proven True no matter how much knowledge or technology advance.

This first step has nothing to do with God but is a general statement about the possibility of truths that can never be proven and it can be derived from mathematical deduction.

Gödel’s theorem proved that any generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. What this means is that in any created system that determines basic arithmetical truths/answers, there is at least one statement that is true, but not provable in the system.

The universe is a non-trivial computational system. We know this from the Church-Turing thesis which tells us that physical systems can express elementary arithmetic. It is a system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.

Thus we can conclude that the universe is incomplete.

There is at least one thing in the universe that is True but cannot ever be proven from inside the universe. Optimal understanding of the universe necessitates we develop a way of evaluating concepts that are possibly true yet forever unprovable.

We know that we can prove some truths and we know that we cannot prove all truths. Therefore we must develop a theory of truth that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.

See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

Claim #2 The Coherence Theory of Truth is the best known system that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.

The Coherence theory of truth provides us with a mechanism for testing both provable and unprovable truth. Coherence theory holds that a belief is true if we can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.

Coherence theory holds that a statement is true when it can be fully integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which is then tested against reality. Similarly an idea is false when it cannot be integrated into a group of complex ideas or if upon integration the set fails when tested against reality.

Another and more common word for an unprovable truth is an a priori truth.

See: The Coherence Theory of Truth

Claim #3 Metaphysical truths are unprovable/assumed/a priori truths. They can only be verified with a systematic approach such as The Coherence Theory of Truth and their verification or falsification is important due to their dramatic impact on human society, human action, and human institutions.

Nihilism leads to very different conclusions then Theism. Varying conceptualizations of reality lead to varying conclusions.

All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms of this type. Without knowledge, scientific inquiry including empiric inquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyze the world around us. Choosing sound metaphysical first axioms is therefore a critical part of the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.

See: Metaphysical Attitudes

Claim #4  Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.

Ultimately progress is maximized when voluntary cooperation is maximized. Another way of saying this is that progress is maximized when superrationalality is maximized.

Superrationality (or renormalized rationality) is an alternative method of reasoning. First, it assumes that the answer to a symmetric problem will be the same for all the superrational players. This sameness is taken into account before knowing what the strategy will be.

Superrationality occurs when individuals have perfect rationality (and thus maximize their own utility) but can assume that other players are also superrational. Superrational players for example can escape Nash’s prisoner’s dilemma.

See: Superrationality and the Infinite

Claim #5 Defection is the fundamental challenge humanity must overcome. Without the suppression of defection we cannot solve the coordination problem. The removal of defection allows superrationality to manifest and thus maximizes cooperation.

Cooperation involves a mutually beneficial exchange that improves the well-being of both participants. Defection is an interaction that benefits one party at the expense of another. Defection always implies violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction.

The greatest obstacle to human progress is not a technological hurdle but the defection inherent in our nature. All forms of law and government are ultimately collective attempts to limit this defection. Instinctively we know that defection must be suppressed so we form laws and governments to do this. Government is expensive and inefficient. These inefficiencies are less costly then unrestrained individualism, however, because of pervasive human defection.

The utopia of limited to no government would only be possible for a population in which all individuals were constantly striving at all times to always be superrational. Such a utopia would require all individuals to always act cooperatively, honesty, and transparently. We lack the required moral fiber for anything like this to work at our current juncture in history. Defection ultimately can be viewed as a manifestation of evil.

See: Religion and Progress

Claim #6 The state is incapable of suppressing defection/evil over long time horizons.

The nation state, police, and laws suppress physical violence and obvious defection but it is composed of many individuals who inherently wish to defect. Over time the functionality of the state must inevitably fail as the habits and virtue necessary to sustain it are undermined by the defection of its citizens and leaders. When this occurs the internal integrity of the state itself fails.

Collectivism limits some avenues of defection while opening entire new possibilities. New opportunities for defection arise along the entire economic spectrum. Everything from special interest lobbying, to disability scammers, and on a larger scale our entire fiat monetary system are essentially forms of defection allowing the few to profit at the expense of the many. Nation state collectivism has allowed for the creation of great civilizations and yet it is entirely unsustainable in its current form.

This failure is not a new observation. Polybius described this about 100 years before the fall of the Roman Republic. It was also well articulated by Henning Webb Prentis, Jr in the 1940's.

"The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more." - Henning Webb Prentis, Jr

See: Faith and Future

Claim #7 The a priori truth of God is capable of suppressing evil and limiting defection.

Genuine belief in God especially individual belief in God coupled with a genuine fear of God’s judgement is world changing. It is a well-known empirical fact that humans are much less likely to defect if they know their behavior is being observed. This has been documented in study after study in both children and adults.  

A society where all individuals genuinely believe their actions are being observed by God and fear God’s judgement would all else being equal have much less defection then an otherwise identical society where individuals feel their actions are secret.

A society where all individuals are genuinely striving not to defect would dramatically transform the landscape of the possible. In such a society defection would be minimal and the defection that did occur would be the result of ignorance not intent. Errors of ignorance themselves would rapidly decline with time as knowledge progressed.


See: The Beginning of Wisdom

Claim #8 God and the attendant superrationality that accompanies God is the only pathway forward that does not lead to permanent tyranny or utter ruin.

Freedom is the right of the individual to choose how he controls himself, so long as he respects the equal rights of every other individual to control and plan his own life. Freedom is thus not the ability to do whatever you want. It is self-control, and self-government, no more, no less.

Thus "freedom is self-control" leads to the conclusion that as acting individuals, we must respect the rights and boundaries of others. In other words, every individual should control his or her actions such that they do not aggress or invade against other individuals. A free society is a superrational society. It is one where all individuals are able to live their lives without being subjected to violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction.

Human nature is deeply flawed. That ultimately is the common theme in each stage of the cycle highlighted by Polybius and Prentis all those years ago. As human knowledge progresses we as individuals are rapidly growing ever more powerful. One man with a knife can only do so much harm one man with a bioweapons lab quite a bit more. This trend will only accelerate in the years to come.

Without a matching growth in moral behavior technological progress must inevitably lead to ever growing omnipresent state control as a logical necessity. Freedom requires self-control if the people’s self-control does not grow to match their power it is inevitable that the state will dramatically grow in a necessary attempt to control the people.

Yet as discussed above the state cannot suppress defection/evil over long time horizons. The more powerful the state becomes the greater the opportunity, temptation and profit that results from defectors corrupting the state itself. The very growth of the nation state will lead to its accelerated corruption.  

The cycle of governmental collapse highlighted by Polybius and Prentis is mostly accurate but it has three basic requirements for progression to occur.
 
1) There has to be moral corruption that those with power are susceptible too.
2) There has to be a means by which the corrupt can be overthrown.
3) There has to be survivors following the collapse who are able to continue society.

If we ever reached the stage where there was leadership without corruption the cycle would cease. If we ever reached the stage where tyranny was absolute omnipresent with no viable way to ever overthrow it the cycle would also cease. If we reach the stage where we are so powerful that government collapse leads to utter loss of control and the destruction of all human life the cycle would cease.

Unfortunately of the three possible ends to the cycle the path of freedom from corruption appears the least likely one. We are a perhaps only a single generation away from the time when technological advances will make overthrowing a tyranny nearly impossible once it is established. Whatever small hope there is of attaining a moral leadership without corruption requires we establish both a leadership and a population that is superrational. This in turn requires God.

Our forefathers understood that it is morality, virtue and ultimately God that allows for freedom. It is a lesson many of their descendants have forgotten.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” - James Madison

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” - George Washington

See: Freedom and God

Claim #9 Ultimately the a priori claim of God requires genuine faith in God or it is hypocritical.

To accept something a priori means to accept it on faith axiomatically and without doubt. The Christian Pastor, the Jewish Rabbi, and the Islamic Imam are ultimately correct.

You have to believe. That is the only viable pathway forward for humanity. That is my view having thought about this issue for a very long time.

A worldview that leads only to extinction or permanent tyranny is not one I am interested in entertaining. I define any such worldview as evil as false.

God is the very narrow very difficult road that leads to life.

I believe in the a priori truth of God. I have faith in God.

Now you know why.

1.   Do you believe God exist?  What lead you to this conclusion?

ANALYSIS: Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection; Alder Hey hospital steeped...

Via LifeSiteNews.com:

While you find my definition of religion too narrow, I find your definition too broad.

Your definition encompasses each and every single factor an individual will live their life by, whether by choice or not, thus you're effectively defining the act of being alive as being involved in a religion.

My definition of religion requires the individual to worship an entity, be it supreme or human, and to live their lives governed by the rules that this entity defines or dictates.

Your point about your believing in God but not being a member of a formal religion aligns with my definition of not being religious. If any individual accused you of being religious without cause it would be self serving, regardless of how they identify with their own beliefs. By categorising you it allows them to stereo type and debate you based on that stereo type.

The issue you have though is that by your own definition you are religious, so any accusations are justified. The problem now is that because you don't identify with any particular religion the discussion is doomed to fall into disarray as there is no common ground of understanding around which to debate. The question now becomes, if you really are religious, which religion do you follow? If you can't answer that, then you're not religious.

...
My logic lead me to my position, not the other way around.  

To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.

To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.

It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.

Indeed, metaphysically insanity is the only true madness - it is the madness of having false assumptions about the basic nature of reality.

Modern man is sure of only one thing: that there is no God. That is why he is insane - because this metaphysical assumption leads to nihilism (unbelief in reality).

Once he is unsure of anything; he loses all possibility of a scale of judgment: so modern Man utterly believes things that not only aren't true, but cannot be true - and what is more he knows they are not true and cannot be true - but he believes them anyway (sort of) because, ultimately, nothing is true.

And he disbelieves common sense and his own experience because, after all - he might be insane, deluded, hallucinating... indeed Modern Man knows, deep down, that he is insane.

And therefore he cannot believe anything - or rather, he can disbelieve anything; no matter how obvious, no matter how much evidence or logic agrees with it.

Modern Man knows he is insane because he knows that he has made himself insane - by choice, by choosing to be sure of only one thing: that there is no God.

Therefore, Modern Man is completely to blame and responsible for his condition and situation - he initiated and perpetuates it; and fights tooth and nail to retain his insanity against the hourly onslaught of counter-evidence, rationality and basic conviction.

He could change at any moment in the twinkling of an eye - but he does not. So this is a moral insanity - insanity based upon evil.

The basic answer (not the complete answer - but the necessary start) is itself very basic - acknowledge the reality of God, of Deity.

I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.  I am an engineer.

What you are asking is beyond my expertise.

If you want to talk science, I'm all yours.

Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence.  Science is clear on the subject.

You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.

Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.

Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.

Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.

*

So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.

But what is special about being a social system?

Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).

So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.

*

Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.

Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.

How did this perception arise?

1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).

Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.

(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)

2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.

*

And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.

Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.

A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.  

Again, only religious people feel the need to categorise atheism as a religion when the only thing that makes someone an atheist is their non-belief of a supreme entity.

There are no defined set of rules that atheists have to live by, nor specific places, people or entities they have to worship, nor things they have to believe for whatever reason, so there are none of the defining elements to make atheism a religion.

If I, an atheist, were to wake up tomorrow and decided that I now believe in the presence of a supreme entity, would that mean I now instantly have to follow a particular set of rules that I have to live my life by? If so, which religion have I instantly become to know what rules I should be following? And if my religion is suddenly dictated by which entity I believe in, what would happen if I believe in more than a single supreme entity?

My point is that you can both believe or not believe in a supreme entity and still not have a religion. It's only narrow mindedness that creates the need to categorise everyone into a religion for reasons that I purely feel are self serving.

I define religion as anything an individual structures their life around either consciously or unconsciously. Thus I consider things like Communism, Nazism (Fascist Darwinian Nationalism), and Nihilism religions if they are honestly embraced by the individual as overarching truth. I agree with BADecker that a very broad classification religion is more representative of reality.

Most people believe what they do because they were taught that way not because of an introspective search for the truth. This is true of a huge swath of humanity whether their religion is centered on God or centered on something else. It is one of our many major flaws a fundamental and deep lack of reflection.

The rise of nihilism in modern times is largely due to the fact that we are reaching the point in our development where this lack of reflection is becoming less and less of an option. Unlike in simpler times we can no longer ignore the question and blindly embrace the beliefs of our colleges and parents. We are increasingly forced to confront challenges to our views and thus actively define who we are.

Only religious people say atheism is a religion, it's not. It's simply a non-belief in supreme entities. That is the single thing all atheists share.

Where the arguments against religious faith usually go astray is that they attempt to introduce an arbitrary and illogical division between faith in religion and faith in other things. They then attempt to argue against religion while totally ignoring "other faith".

Humans don't live in a vacuum. We cannot like a computer shut ourselves off and stop. We are all ongoing and actively developing entities. Rejecting a faith is never a simple matter of removing a set of beliefs. It is ALWAYS a replacement of one religion with another or if you prefer a replacement of one set of core beliefs with another. These new beliefs whatever they may be are also ultimately just another faith.

Take the hardcore nihilist. If you push him to define and defend his beliefs you will usually after some digging drill down into something like Nihilism = True or "The entirety of the universe including the creation of the universe is random." They can't prove this they simply take it on faith.  It is the core foundation of nihilism. The rock or soggy sand of nihilism if you will.

As I personally lack the wisdom to disprove nihilism the best I can do is point to the dangers in the faith direction of nihilism and hold up an alternative. Nihilism ultimately is based in a priori faith.

The nihilist are honest in their arguments and I respect them. They reject faith in God while simultaneously outlining and defining the faith they are basing their attacks from and advocating as a replacement. Most of the Atheist are far less honest. These illogical or dishonest arguments try to limit the conversation to simple attacks on religion without any attempt to define the belief structure they are using as an alternative. These attacks usually go something like "I just don't believe in your flying spaghetti monster and don't want to talk about what I do believe in."  These types of arguments are childish and logically unsound noise.

Questioning one's faith is ultimately a good thing. We need to be introspective and examine what we really believe in and why. If we don't we will never know if we have structured our faith on something solid or something unsound.

What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication.

- Philosophy often is the examination of the sciences that are way beyond what we scientifically know at present. We "feel" some of the greater and deeper science. Philosophy tries to examine it without our science, because our science is so far behind, but we want (need) answers anyway, so we philosophize.

Take care.

Because they Do.

Naturally, people care more about religion than any other 'big idea' - more than about politics, nations... and certainly more than about their own comfort, convenience, peace and prosperity.

Naturally...


But it is probable that the reader finds this an incredible, perhaps ridiculous, idea. Probable that he looks within himself and observes: "Well, I don't care much or anything about religion!"

That may well be true. Because this blog is read mostly in the West, in developed nations, among the intellectual or leadership class - and this class of people (including you, me...) are mentally sick.

They (we) are insane - as can be seen from their behaviour; which is not just passively indifferent to the primary realities of life (marriage, family - as well as religion); and passively doing nothing to sustain the living conditions they supposedly value (for example science, technology, education, law have all been allowed to become destroyed, utterly, by politics) -- but they are also strategically destroying themselves and their living conditions by multiple active means...

(I mean: Politically correct leftist policies of many types from socialism, multi-culti, diversity, antiracism, and the sexual revolution; through mass immigration, through the global warming fraud, to deliberate incitement of civil and international conflict by systematic propaganda of resentment, entitlement, fear...)

In fact - religion is the One And Only Big Idea that people naturally, spontaneously care about.

Delete religion (or alternatively corrupt, subvert and invert it) and the result is simple demotivation and despair - alleviated by self-distraction, aimed-at suicide.

Our culture has deleted religion. Modern political 'substitutes' simply don't work - because nobody really cares about politics.

They just don't - politics is almost-entirely a mixture of covert selfishness, idle gossip and projection; which are insufficiently strong motivators - and insofar as politics is a real motivator it is feeble, unstable, subjective - useless for the heavy-stuff of living.

*

Why do people care so much about religion?

Why wouldn't they? Because religion is real (albeit distorted fragments of reality); and religion is about truth, life, consciousness - the fundamental assumption - and these are necessary.

And nothing else except religion even tries to provide them.


Of course there has been frequent, massive and hostile disagreements about religion in the past... but never the idea that religion didn't matter.

Never that religion was purely subjective.

Never the idea that religion could simply be deleted from Man and Society, and this deletion would actually improve Man and Society!...


That's just crazy. As religious people can see all around.

It amounts to the cardinal sign of insanity - lack of insight... The non religious are so crazy that they cannot perceive the fact - it's the one fact they cannot perceive; despite the chaos in their minds and the chaos all around.

So crazy that each individual supposes he is the only sane thing in a mad universe...

And the escape begins with recognising that fact.  

LOL.  You guys are in a cult.

...
I think you all have lost your mind.  I really do.

...

Why did God not intervene?
...
You sound like a mother of a serial killer saying that her son is "a good boy...
...
What is wrong with you Christians, no compassion?  Have you lost your humanity?  You all sound like Bronze Age sadistic killers.

I asked a valid question.  
...
You are a God groupie.  He fucks you in the ass with a barbwire, punches you in the face and you say: "wow that hurt, but it is ok because he loves me".

Alfie Evans is dead. The 23-month-old boy died Saturday morning at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, England, five days after his life support was removed on orders from the United Kingdom’s High Court. There is no other way to understand the boy’s death than to say that the government of the United Kingdom decided he must die—against the wishes of his parents and against the pleas of the Vatican, the governments of Italy and Poland, and countless supporters throughout the world.

Together with the death of Charlie Gard last year, whom British authorities would not allow to be taken to the United States for an experimental treatment, Evans’ death seems to confirm British policy in such matters: children belong to the state, and when the state decides that they should die, they will die.

Extraordinary international efforts were undertaken to save the boy’s life. Italy, which granted Evans citizenship, kept a specially equipped plane from the Italian defense ministry on standby to transport the boy to a Vatican hospital in case the U.K. courts ordered his release. Pope Francis issued a personal appeal to British authorities and met with the parents. None of it made any difference in the end.

Given the facts of the case, it is hard to see what purpose was served by Evans’ death other than to demonstrate, before a gaping world, the unquestioned power of the United Kingdom over its subjects.

‘The Object Of Power Is Power’

In that way, the boy’s death illustrates, in horrifying detail, the cold logic of the mature welfare state. The purpose of the welfare state is to exercise power over its subjects—and make no mistake, they are subjects, not citizens—and that’s it. Nothing more and nothing less.

That power is not exercised for anyone’s good, or for the good of the people at large, or even for some collective goal. It is exercised for its own sake. “Power is not a means; it is an end,” says O’Brien, the party official in George Orwell’s “1984,” as he tortures Winston. “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

Of course, no government, not even a brutal dictatorship like the North Korean regime (or the fictional regime of Oceania in “1984”), would ever come out and publicly admit that its entire raison d’être is to exercise unchecked power over its subjects. Such governments always justify their exercise of power in positive terms: security and safety, victory over a common enemy, economic prosperity, health and well-being.

Health and well-being are especially potent justifications for the welfare state’s use of power because they’re directly connected to the larger justification of the regime: welfare. The state wants you to be healthy, so it will set up a national health service. The state wants what is good for you, so it will compel you to participate in the national health service. The state is looking out for your best interests, even if you are not, so it will empower the national health service to make decisions for you and your children, against your will, if necessary.

Sometimes, in extreme cases, the national health service will decide that what is in your best interests is to die.

From Alfie Evans to Involuntary Euthanasia

Obviously, this makes no sense. But the brazen illogic of the state insisting that it is in your own best interests if you cease to exist serves the overarching logic of the welfare state, which is power. When the national health service decides, for instance, that your sick child must be allowed to die because it is in the child’s best interests, what it really means—but is not quite willing to say outright—is that is in the best interests of the state that your child be allowed to die.

We do not have to speculate about this because it has been happening for some time in Europe, where in some countries euthanasia is commonplace. In Belgium and Holland, the elderly and infirm are sometimes killed without their consent. Children as young as twelve can be euthanized in Holland, with parental consent. In Belgium, children of any age can be euthanized if they are terminally ill.

The most outlandish rationalizations are put forward for these killings. Holland allows euthanasia for those who are neither terminally or mentally ill but are merely “tired of life.” Some patients need not even give consent before they are killed. One study found that in Belgium, nearly a third of all euthanasia deaths occurred without the patient’s request or consent. Most of those euthanized were comatose, but in 8 percent of those cases the physicians said “discussing it with the patient would have been harmful to that patient.”

Any state that asserts such a nonsensical justification for euthanasia or denial of medical care will, in time, be free to apply it to any class of people it chooses—not just the elderly and infirm but also the disabled and the sick, the addicted and mentally ill, perhaps even the poor and destitute.

All of this can be done for what sound like reasonable, even compassionate motivations, like relieving a person of unbearable and incurable suffering—even if the suffering is only mental or psychological, as was the case with a perfectly healthy 29-year-old Dutch woman who earlier this year requested to be killed and was obliged by state doctors.

But of course when it comes to life and death, reasonable and compassionate motives are beyond the ken of physicians and bureaucrats and high courts. As C.S. Lewis wrote in a 1958 essay entitled, “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State,” specialists in power are acting outside their area of expertise: “Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.”