# Does religion have a place in public debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709 "2019-05-29T15:02:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/181 "2019-05-31T21:40:21Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Sure. Transcendent ideas though are a subset of all ideas. Specifically ideas without empirical or physical evidence. Some ideas are materialist; eg “I think if I drop this ball it’s going to fall.” Other ideas are not, eg “Humans should be free to choose their own destiny” or “God values us all equally.” Some laws are materialist eg “You can’t hunt deer out of season because it’s dangerous.” (although this has some transcendent roots as well, namely that dangerous things are ‘bad.’) Some are mixes. “You can’t fish for candy darters because overfishing will lead to their extinction and for an undefined reason we feel that a species has inherent value.” Some are fully transcendent. “You can’t use a helicopter to hunt deer because it’s not fair to the deer.” You might be amused to know that equal protection under the law wouldn’t fall under the umbrella of “transcendent”, then, because there are good solid empirical reasons to support it: creating an underclass of any kind increases the potential for social instability and lowered quality of life for all in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/182 "2019-05-31T21:53:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You might be amused to know that equal protection under the law wouldn’t fall under the umbrella of “transcendent”, then, because there are good solid empirical reasons to support it: creating an underclass of any kind increases the potential for social instability and lowered quality of life for all in the long run. The Chinese government might disagree with you. The Roman Empire was the model of unequal protection and survived and thrived for millennia creating the basis of Western Civilization. The Ancient Greeks were horribly unequal and essentially invented the framework of science and philosophy. Prior to the Christian era essentially every non-tribal society had tiers of unequal treatment and quite a few were stable and had high life quality especially for the upper classes. Besides, that’s at best sociology and not an empirical science. You are also making a value judgement that social instability is a bad thing and you’re picking a random definition for quality of life. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/183 "2019-05-31T22:00:08Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > The Chinese government might disagree with you. The Roman Empire was the model of unequal protection and survived and thrived for millennia creating the basis of Western Civilization. The Ancient Greeks were horribly unequal and essentially invented the framework of science and philosophy. Prior to the Christian era essentially every non-tribal society had tiers of unequal treatment and quite a few were stable and had high life quality especially for the upper classes. Besides, that’s at best sociology and not an empirical science. You are also making a value judgement that social instability is a bad thing and you’re picking a random definition for quality of life. Oh, have no doubt that unequal treatment persisted into the “Christian era” - american slave owners were doubtlessly all good christians down to the last man. And I never said that governments couldn’t function if they ignored equal protection - governments have persisted while _legalizing murder_ for a select cadre. I’m just saying that there are empirical reasons to support equal protection. It’s not something one has to believe on faith, though some do. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/184 "2019-05-31T22:29:53Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Oh, have no doubt that unequal treatment persisted into the “Christian era” - american slave owners were doubtlessly all good christians down to the last man. > > And I never said that governments couldn’t function if they ignored equal protection - governments have persisted while _legalizing murder_ for a select cadre. I’m just saying that there are empirical reasons to support equal protection. It’s not something one has to believe on faith, though some do. I think you do. There’s no physicalist reason to prioritize wealth or stability over anything else. We simply ascribe transcendent value to those concepts. We say that wealth and healthcare is ‘high quality of life’ but that’s not based on anything measurable. It’s just something we take as a given. We may hide them behind such nebulous concepts as “wants,” but wants aren’t empirical. You can’t hook up a person to a desirotron and see that the desire for stability measures 1.3 kilo-dreamias. We simply exist in a particular time and place that values accumulating things and living a long time. Those values though aren’t appeals to objective physical evidence, but appeals to emotion at best and even more it’s an appeal to the way things “should” be, which is an inherently transcendent argument. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/185 "2019-05-31T22:40:34Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > I think you do. There’s no physicalist reason to prioritize wealth or stability over anything else. We simply ascribe transcendent value to those concepts. We say that wealth and healthcare is ‘high quality of life’ but that’s not based on anything measurable. It’s just something we take as a given. We may hide them behind such nebulous concepts as “wants,” but wants aren’t empirical. You can’t hook up a person to a desirotron and see that the desire for stability measures 1.3 kilo-dreamias. We simply exist in a particular time and place that values accumulating things and living a long time. Those values though aren’t appeals to objective physical evidence, but appeals to emotion at best and even more it’s an appeal to the way things “should” be, which is an inherently transcendent argument. :dubious: I believe that there’s empirical evidence that starving to death and/or dying in a civil war would suck. I believe that there’s empirical evidence that being overthrown or having a population that is starving and untaxable is antithetical to superior government operation. You may find it valuable to deny these things for the sake of your argument, but you’re going to fail to convince me that I’d be better off being broke and dead. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/186 "2019-05-31T23:13:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Please define the claim you feel I am making. You claimed that abortion wasn’t a sin. Ok, genius, the word “abortion” isn’t in the Bible. Probably because the word itself didn’t exist thousands of years ago. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/187 "2019-05-31T23:17:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > :dubious: > > I believe that there’s empirical evidence that starving to death and/or dying in a civil war would suck. I believe that there’s empirical evidence that being overthrown or having a population that is starving and untaxable is antithetical to superior government operation. > > You may find it valuable to deny these things for the sake of your argument, but you’re going to fail to convince me that I’d be better off being broke and dead. The fact that you’re talking about a superior vs one supposes inferior government is inserting non-materialist values into the conversation. As regards being broke and dead, I have no interest in challenging your faith. The strength of your convictions though does not make them physicalist, anymore than the strength of Ayatollah Khomeini’s convictions somehow make them non-transcendant. It’s fine by me that you place your faith in health and wealth being “good.” You’re hardly the first or only person to do so. My contention though is that placing one’s faith in adherence to a structured belief system is not inherently different, so thus should not be ‘invalid’ with regards to public policy discussions. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/188 "2019-05-31T23:22:49Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > The fact that you’re talking about a superior vs one supposes inferior government is inserting non-materialist values into the conversation. > > As regards being broke and dead, I have no interest in challenging your faith. The strength of your convictions though does not make them physicalist, anymore than the strength of Ayatollah Khomeini’s convictions somehow make them non-transcendant. It’s fine by me that you place your faith in health and wealth being “good.” You’re hardly the first or only person to do so. My contention though is that placing one’s faith in adherence to a structured belief system is not inherently different, so thus should not be ‘invalid’ with regards to public policy discussions. Oh for the love of rational thought. Have fun with that silliness. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/189 "2019-05-31T23:30:06Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You claimed that abortion wasn’t a sin. > > Ok, genius, the word “abortion” isn’t in the Bible. Probably because the word itself didn’t exist thousands of years ago. This is actually a fair objection. The word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Bible, but the practice itself is described at least once, in Numbers: 16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse\*\* among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” What’s missing, of course, is any sort of a condemnation of abortion. The upshot appears to be that, if you think your wife was unfaithful, it’s totally okay to kill her fetus. Which gives the Bible the interesting distinction of taking a position on abortion that both sides of the modern debate would find abhorrent. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/190 "2019-06-01T00:45:56Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Transcendence is that which in non-material. It transcends the material. Government by practice if not by nature is completely tied up in the transcendent. A simple example in our own government is the concept of equal protection under the law. There is no physical law or empirical observation that dictates such a stance. There are examples of societies that don’t believe in such a thing that are successful. We take a philosophical, non-material stance that equal protection before the law is an objectively “good” thing. These types of transcendent claims are completely woven throughout governments. Freedom, equality, democracy, value of life, obligation to each other and society, even the ideas of what is best for ourselves and each other is largely transcendent. This seems to say that ideas and ethical principles are transcendent, and I’m okay with that. Do you agree that secular principles can be as transcendent as religious ones? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/191 "2019-06-01T00:53:14Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > I would say that my statement is the government is dinner and some people want pasta and some want hamburgers and they may disagree, but there’s no inherent reason to exclude any from discussion. It is if some of them want food from a Dr. Seuss book. They need to show such food exists before I put it on my shopping list. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/192 "2019-06-01T00:57:56Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. 10 commandments weren’t handed down to every single human being alive in the world at that time. Somehow other civilizations more or less advanced than some direction challenged semites managed to figure out that indiscriminate killing was bad for their respective societies. To say nothing of the fact that immediately upon receiving the commandments, Moses ordered all the idol worshipers killed and then they went merrily on to commit genocide. Better than that, in Exodus 2:11-22 Moses kills an Egyptian for beating a Hebrew, then hides the body. Long before he received the 10 Commandments. So he and everyone else had kind of figured out that killing was bad. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/193 "2019-06-01T01:12:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This seems to say that ideas and ethical principles are transcendent, and I’m okay with that. Do you agree that secular principles can be as transcendent as religious ones? Certainly. Freedom, equality, value of the individual, human rights and many other things are not necessarily religious, but they are transcendent. The reality is that society may need transcendence to function. “If God didn’t exist, we would need to invent Him.” Some people invent God via other transcendent ideas because they’re uncomfortable with a divine being so prefer divine concepts. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/194 "2019-06-01T01:17:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It is if some of them want food from a Dr. Seuss book. They need to show such food exists before I put it on my shopping list. You are certainly allowed to be unconvinced by any of their arguments and appeals to their version of transcendence, just as they are allowed to be unconvinced by yours. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t even allowed to bring their ideas and reasoning to the table. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/195 "2019-06-01T03:24:54Z")
By all means, they should bring their reasoning to the table. But to say, “I don’t need any evidence to support my claims because I have faith” is not reasoning. It is the rejection of debate in favor of demanding that others accept, on their authority, the bare assertion fallacy to accommodate their baseless claims. I am not sure which part of that you aren’t getting. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/196 "2019-06-01T06:07:01Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Certainly. Freedom, equality, value of the individual, human rights and many other things are not necessarily religious, but they are transcendent. The reality is that society may need transcendence to function. “If God didn’t exist, we would need to invent Him.” Some people invent God via other transcendent ideas because they’re uncomfortable with a divine being so prefer divine concepts. Or maybe it isn’t that we’re uncomfortable with a divine being, but that we’re uncomfortable with a supposed divine being who doesn’t seem to exist being the motivating fact behind laws. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/197 "2019-06-01T06:10:37Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > You are certainly allowed to be unconvinced by any of their arguments and appeals to their version of transcendence, just as they are allowed to be unconvinced by yours. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t even allowed to bring their ideas and reasoning to the table. They can bring their mud pies to the table for all I care. They just shouldn’t expect me to eat any of it, or anyone else with any sense. I kind of think people should bring good arguments, and if they don’t accept when their arguments are demonstrated to be bad. Religious arguments have the characteristic that if they come from a god, they can’t be demonstrated as bad no matter what. Usury laws hurt economic growth and thus hurt people? Don’t matter if god said getting interest is sinful. Just to pick one most Americans don’t have problems with disobeying. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/198 "2019-06-01T12:50:44Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > By all means, they should bring their reasoning to the table. But to say, “I don’t need any evidence to support my claims because I have faith” is not reasoning. It is the rejection of debate in favor of demanding that others accept, on their authority, the bare assertion fallacy to accommodate their baseless claims. > > I am not sure which part of that you aren’t getting. They do have evidence, it’s just evidence you find flawed. There’s a difference. Regarding Voyagers statements, the question posed was not whether or not a particular person would find their arguments convincing, but whether they have a ‘place’ at the table. Whether you find them convincing depends largely on your presuppositions. If you presuppose that all religious arguments are wrong, you are unlikely to be convinced. A certain type of Neitzschean might find any appeals to fairness or equality fundamentally wrong-this does not mean that we arguments about fairness have no place in political duscussions. Simply because we all have different presuppositions does not mean that any assertion that relies on a particular subset of presuppositions does not deserve a hearing. If we disallowed any argument based on presuppositions that others might find flawed, no arguments would be allowed at all. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/199 "2019-06-01T12:51:44Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > By all means, they should bring their reasoning to the table. But to say, “I don’t need any evidence to support my claims because I have faith” is not reasoning. It is the rejection of debate in favor of demanding that others accept, on their authority, the bare assertion fallacy to accommodate their baseless claims. > > I am not sure which part of that you aren’t getting. They do have evidence, it’s just evidence you find flawed. There’s a difference. Regarding Voyagers statements, the question posed was not whether or not a particular person would find their arguments convincing, but whether they have a ‘place’ at the table. Whether you find them convincing depends largely on your presuppositions. If you presuppose that all religious arguments are wrong, you are unlikely to be convinced. A certain type of Neitzschean might find any appeals to fairness or equality fundamentally wrong-this does not mean that arguments about fairness have no place in political duscussions. Simply because we all have different presuppositions does not mean that any assertion that relies on a particular subset of presuppositions does not deserve a hearing. If we disallowed any argument based on presuppositions that others might find flawed, no arguments would be allowed at all. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/200 "2019-06-01T13:29:21Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Certainly. Freedom, equality, value of the individual, human rights and many other things are not necessarily religious, but they are transcendent. The reality is that society may need transcendence to function. “If God didn’t exist, we would need to invent Him.” Some people invent God via other transcendent ideas because they’re uncomfortable with a divine being so prefer divine concepts. And some people understand that transcendence is a feeling and emotion, not unlike some others in the human emotional spectrum. Often, those same people understand that abstract ideas and social constructs are not transcendent in any divine sense, eg.: math and sciences. They’re just a way for social creatures to develop, express and share common goals and values which evolve over time out of our continued desire to survive and understand the universe in which we briefly live. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=11)