Logical conclusions stem from axioms, but are not necessarily correct if the axioms are false. We can say “if God exists, then these are the moral laws that must be followed.” However you can’t remove the “if”.
In our society The “if” gets removed by some all the time. I’ve heard many theists arguing positions from the axiom that the Bible is correct and inerrant.
Say we’re discussing the teaching of evolution. If you allow one side to use the axiom “the Bible is absolutely correct” then you can indeed conclude that it is wrong to teach the incorrect doctrine of evolution. Do you agree or disagree that this axiom should be accepted as true and not require proof or more accurately evidence?
I disagree. Secularism has come a long way. I concede, to borrow a familiar phrase, “It’s taking longer than we thought.”
There is some good literary content in theological writing. I particularly like Paul’s Epistles, Philipians 4:8. I’m not a biblical scholar and I’m sure there is more. Theology is part of the compendium of human knowledge. If nothing else, it teaches us about our history; What we got right and what we got wrong.
I will ask again that you, and others in this debate, bear in mind that my position is not to remove all theological arguments from all public debates but only for the more narrow definition of public policy debates, specifically those taking place in legislative bodies that make laws. For example, nobody on the floor of the Alabama state congress should be arguing to deny women’s rights to all abortions based on their religious convictions.
Now, I realize that this is a minority opinion and you and Max S. can and will continue to pound on the law because you have that and precedent on your side. I will continue to hold the view that I have facts and this keyboard on my side, so I will continue to pound on that.
If this is the case, then there is no standing to disagree with any damn fool thing anybody claims. There’s a pink invisible unicorn in my attic. You have to accept this is true because you can’t prove it is not. The evidence that it’s there only increases with the number of people I can convince to agree with me.
Has it? Because secularism seems prey to the same issues. As I have mentioned there is a not so insignificant portion of the alt-right which considers itself atheist - Richard Spencer as the most prominent example.
There is quite a bit of it more. Aquinas, by himself, can keep you busy for years. And of course multiple Theological debates that aren’t ever settled just by “God said so” (albeit that may be the feeling behind certain arguments - I’m thinking of Luther v. Erasmus in particular).
This distinction makes it no better. I see no reason to single out religious beliefs to be removed from public policy debates while other philosophical viewpoints are allowed.
Many a bookstore has had a section called “Philosophy/Religion”. Your narrowing of the question doesn’t make any sense to me why religion should be treated any different than any other philosophical underpinning for an argument.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
n/m
Did I make the claim that all atheists are good people simply by the nature of their secularist views? There are bad secularist arguments and positions which can be refuted with good scientific data.
While there is space on the bookstore shelves for all kinds of ‘philosophies’, I hope you’re not suggesting Deepak Chopra’s pseudo-scientific blather should be given equal standing in a scientific discussion about the nature of the universe.
Look, if you feel it helps your argument to reduce things to the axiomatic level and claim victory there, have at it. But you know as well as I that countless public debates of secularism v. religion have been had and it always comes down to the same – that religious claims based on the authority of the word of god lack evidence. The best argument a religious person can make is faith based. Some (not all) are convinced that their religion permits them to discriminate against some segment of the population based on some bronze-age ethics and (often un-examined) modern day bigotry. I consider this to be a disqualifying basis of reason in public policy debates concerning the making of legislative decisions.
Sorry, Max. Meant to address my post (#306) above in response to you as well.
And your religious arguments sound like a non-sequitur to anyone who doesn’t believe in your particular religion. In other words, they may be relevant within your head to your opinion on a civil matter, but they’re not relevant to everyone else.
(plus which,* if* a religious authority is self-contradictory? There may be a religious authority which isn’t self-contradictory; but it sure isn’t the Bible. Congress could easily waste all century quoting bible verses at each other.)
Look, if the only argument you can bring to back an opinion on civil law is based on your religion, then what you’re doing is saying ‘everyone else has to follow my religion’. There have certainly been human societies based on this principle; but bear in mind that in that type of society, when the ruling powers change religion everyone else is supposed to follow along, so you’d have to be willing to change your own religion to match whatever got decreed or voted in. Which is why the USA is supposed to specifically not follow that principle.
Voyager, what you would call “universal” ethics I would call either “absolute” or “shared” ethics. It was my fault for failing to recognize this before. Not a problem, I’ll start using “absolute”, “equally-applied”, or “shared” instead.
An absolute ethical rule contains no exceptions: “stealing is always ethical” or “stealing is always unethical” or “stealing is never ethical or unethical”.
An equally-applied ethical system is one where the rules apply to everyone. This system can be absolute although it does not need to be.
A shared ethical system is an equally-applied system which all parties involved are subject to; depending on context this could mean all of humanity or just a locality.
Let’s return to a couple of posts back. I have made liberal cuts and additions as to how much text was quoted, then replaced “universal” with either “absolute”, “equally-applied”, or “shared”. This post is pretty lengthy with all the nested quotes so I’ve thrown in a few spoilers.
Well, if it was an honest debate the defender of faith would be willing to let you examine the premise, that is, they would have to address any apparent contradictions you point out in their own position. They are not obliged to offer proof for an axiom, neither are you obliged to adopt their axiom.
Trivial indeed, I’m sorry about the confusion.
The allegory of Mrs. Streep fails to represent the rationale behind the religious party. A religious person might think failing to outlaw certain acts is immoral regardless of the actor’s religion. A religious person might believe a failure to prevent certain acts causes real non-physical harm to themselves or others. For an act to simply be moral is not enough to pass a law forcing people to perform said act against their will. Theoretically it could be (eg: human sacrifices) but in practice most (modern) religions do not award morality to unwilling acts of worship. A fan of Meryl Streep has no such motivation to force laws upon non-fans. This discrepancy makes the Meryl Streep fan seem irrational to all.
Let’s put that aside and say the Meryl Streep fans honestly believe it is immoral to avoid a meeting. Their reasons are rational but you disagree with an axiom that is necessary to support their position. Let’s say the fans want to enact a law forcing everybody to attend meetings, and they actually gather a considerable following on the city council. The Streep fans still need more votes and want to debate. They think enough people will accept their axioms and take their position if only they heard the full argument. You think most people will reject the axiom and take your position if only they heard the full argument. Do you want a public debate? What if you were undecided, would you want a public debate?
Should the Streep fan’s arguments have a place in public policy debate? Why or why not, and to what extent?
If you answer in the affirmative, we are agreed. I don’t have to agree with the Streep fans, only that their arguments should have a place in public debate. Ideally their arguments would be more prevalent as more people join their ranks; having a place in public debate does not imply a false balance.
Another answer might go like this: partly in the affirmative, but only to the extent that there exist Streep fans who hold what you consider to be false axioms. Ideally they would not hold those beliefs because in your opinion the beliefs are wrong and therefore ideally there would be no Streep fans who advocate for such a law. I think this is your position, Voyager. This isn’t a gotcha, it is a legitimate viewpoint although one I only concur with. I don’t fully agree because I haven’t fully developed a personal philosophy of epistemology and so refrain from assigning any confidence to religious (or Streep-centered) axioms.
Now consider an answer in the negative. This is what I have trouble understanding. I think the rationale is “In my opinion, the Streep fans rely on false premises and their proposed law causes harm, therefore, in my opinion, they should not be allowed to present arguments based on those premises.” I think this is the position of QuickSilver. It seems to me that this argument, in the view of its own proponent, is similar to the demonized view of the Streep fan’s argument. We’re right, they’re wrong, [DEL]that’s the end of the story. The arguments of this radio program cannot be broken[/DEL]. So from the view of someone who says Streep fan’s arguments have no place in public policy debate, one’s own argument boils down to vainglory. I don’t think anyone here is a narcissist unless they openly admit it. This is why I say I do not understand their argument.
Again, none of this is a “gotcha!”. I suppose the above could be a legitimate viewpoint assuming certain narcissistic axioms, but it is one I vehemently disagree with. According to my own arguments even the above should have a place in public debate, although I sincerely hope it is a minority viewpoint deserving little coverage.
~Max
I disagree: in my opinion an axiom stating “the Bible is absolutely correct” should not be accepted as true. I think I would require proof or evidence or some sort of underlying argument to accept that statement as a premise. To accept that statement as an axiom is out of the question, in my opinion.
Now to address the larger picture. If I allow one side to use the axiom “the Bible is absolutely correct”, I can conclude that it is wrong to teach the doctrine of evolution, but it does not logically follow. I might not personally accept the axiom despite allowing one side to use it, and this is exactly what I think would happen. I might also disagree with the implied premise, which would say the Bible says it is wrong to teach the doctrine of evolution. Thus rejecting both premises, the conclusion does not follow.
This is again my opinion, but the purpose of public debate is not necessarily to convince people who are already set on one side. If you can do so, for example by finding a contradiction in your opponent’s argument, that is great; however, the primary purpose seems to be laying out your argument and the opposing argument and letting society make an informed decision.
~Max
I am free (have standing) to disagree due to a lack of evidence, but I do not have standing to force you to disagree due to a lack of evidence. The same works in reverse. You are free to claim there is a pink invisible unicorn in your attic. You are not free to force me to accept that claim as fact.
What you are free to do is to try and convince your fellow citizens to vote into law, according to already established rules, a memorandum declaring the pink invisible unicorn to be real and a statute requiring every household within three miles to send one cupcake per year to your residence to sustain the unicorn. You are not free to coerce your fellow citizens without their majority consent (a passing vote) as required by established law.
~Max
Your phrasing, whether deliberate or not, continues to refuse to distinguish between “public debate” and “political/policy debate”. The latter is a subset of the former and stricter rules of acceptable rhetoric should apply, IMO.
Thus, if we are looking for society to make an “informed decision”, I submit that perpetuating dogmatic arguments in the context of political policy debate does not accomplish that goal.
To some of us the God fan seems irrational also.
I’m not disputing that the religious person honestly believes what he or she is saying. I’m just saying that their beliefs are based on unexaminable axioms. For example, the Catholic majority in Spain honestly thought that not being Catholic would be harmful to a person in the afterlife, and therefore forced conversion was both moral and imperative. Letting a Jew stay Jewish was immoral. Is this the kind of thing you would support? Remember, examining their axioms would get one the rack at best.
Another example. There are certain crimes for which the death penalty is mandated in the Bible. There is no getting away from that if you think the Bible has special importance. There are crimes for which the death penalty is mandated in secular law, but we have been able to examine the reasons for this, and have mostly done away with the death penalty. Quite apart from which side of this debate you come down on, we can all agree that in the secular case there is room for us to evolve our positions. Not much when religious arguments are made.
Sure would.
Only if they agree that they might be wrong.
However, once again you are misinterpreting what we are saying. We don’t want to gag anyone with religious views. Say someone stands up in a legislature and proposes a bill because that is what Barney the Dinosaur told him he wants. I think the proper response here would be “that’s nice. Let’s move on.” If we treated religious arguments similarly, I’d be happy. What we do today, though, is to say that not paying attention to what Barney says is somehow wrong, and we end all speeches with Barney bless America.
So the right response would be for them to be ignored. No special Streep pleading. What if Blythe Danner fans tried the same thing? Cher fans? Bo Derek fans? Shari Lewis fans? How would you respond to Streep fans passing bans on Shari-a Laws? 
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Not false axioms, axioms that can’t be examined. I think that supply side economics rests on some false assumptions, but they all can be examined in a secular context. Conservatives give arguments as to why they are true, I haven’t seen any appeal to faith. Of course Keynesian economics is subject to the same examination.
If a similar thing were done in Spain, the rulers would say “I think you are going to hell, on faith, but I realize I can’t prove that and therefore you are free to do whatever you believe.”
This is the old time religions - really old time, over 2000 years old - worked. Plenty of wars back then, just not religious ones.
Already dealt with. Their arguments can be presented but laughed at, and soon enough they’ll stop presenting them. Not laughed at because they are wrong, just because they are based on faith.
Even if God does exist, I’m not interested in basing policy on what people say he wants unless they can demonstrate his existence.
Atheist argument: I don’t think god exists, so you can do what you want.
Deist argument:I think a god exists, but I don’t think he interacts with us, so you can do what you want.
Theist argument: I think God exists, and he told some people things a long time ago supposedly, so you can’t open your stores on Sunday.
I know Jefferson, a deist, used a creator as the reason for our rights, but back then that was the most likely choice. Even Paine accepted a creator. Don’t you think he could make a purely secular argument today?
tl;dr: Arguments based on faith and axioms that cannot be examined shouldn’t be banned, they should be laughed out of the arena. Secular arguments should replace them. Correctness or incorrectness - unless this can be demonstrated - is not an issue.
Why is this axiom any more or less wrong than the God axiom? Many fundamentalists consider them intimately connected.
As for the evolution debate, I should have said that this mandates teaching creationism as a fact as opposed to banning evolution.
Though I suspect that would be the next step. I was prevented from teaching human origins to elementary school children because the father of one was a 7th Day Adventist and had previously threatened to sue if his child was exposed to that evilution. But I’d be hard pressed to make a rational case for this.
What is the difference between a faith based argument and a non-faith based argument? Doesn’t “faith based” just mean religious and “non-faith based” mean secular? And as I was trying to say, aren’t religious arguments differentiated from secular arguments by their reliance on religious axioms, or axioms involving a superhuman controlling power such as God?
You still haven’t answered the question. Why would you disqualify faith based arguments from public policy debate? Let me do a little substitution. Why would you disqualify arguments that rely on religious axioms from public policy debate? What is it about religious axioms that makes you want to preempt what would otherwise be free political speech?
Is it just because you disagree with the axiom?
~Max
Correct, religious arguments will not persuade someone who denies the underlying religious premises. So it doesn’t make sense to use religious arguments unless you intend on convincing people who affirm (or so you think) the underlying premises, or if you have doubts about your own position and want to lay out the full argument, or if you are playing devil’s advocate and want to find contradictions within the religious position.
And then of course there is the possible goal of converting your opponent to your religion. This should be the only resolution, aside from agreeing to disagree, between two debaters with logical arguments but contradictory axioms and conclusions.
“Everyone else should have to follow my religion, because society accepts my religious premises (and my religious premises imply everyone else should follow my religion and everyone else should do as society accepts).” A bona fide argument like that is best countered not with laughter or silence or silencing but by pointing out, if possible, that society does not accept the premises, and if possible, that accepting the premises does not mean everyone else should have to comply.
~Max
I think American exceptionalism could qualify as a non-religious faith-based argument.
America is the best! In everything. We don’t need no socialist healthcare!
But these European countries have better outcomes for less money.
Didn’t you hear me say America is the best. All those facts are invalid.
Should be laughed out of the public arena (but not banned) just like religious arguments.
Right, that has been my position all along. Arguments that boil down to, “Because my God/Religious doctrine says so”, should be excluded from public policy debates when legislation is being made. Not because I disagree with the axiom out of some personal animus, but because the axiom lacks evidence, is rife with inconsistencies, contradictions, and is damaging to humanity.
Are you saying people should be able to simply ‘opt out’? It doesn’t strike me that the new laws prohibiting abortion in Georgia and Alabama are open to such flexible interpretation of compliance.
It wasn’t deliberate but upon review I think the purpose of public debate, as you quoted, does not change if the debate is political or concerns public policy.
Doesn’t it? I think it should be the public who decides whether or not an argument is sound. Is a “dogmatic” argument inherently unsound to the public? I take it “dogmatic” is a synonym for “religious”, and we have the same question I raised in almost every post in this thread. I first raised this question at you with the face all the way back in [POST=21669072]#28[/POST], reproduced in the spoiler for your convenience.
The closest answer I find in any of your responses is this:
This post is effectively an enthymeme and I disagreed with the missing premise. I’m not sure if you are a fan of these syllogisms I’ve been making but I find them easier to understand at a glance:
[ol][li]QuickSilver thinks all religious arguments are invalid.[/li][li](If QuickSilver thinks all religious arguments are invalid, then QuickSilver thinks all religious arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates)[/li][li]Therefore, QuickSilver thinks all religious arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates.[/ol][/li]I’ll accept #1 for the sake of argument because I could easily imagine myself thinking all religious arguments are invalid. But I still cannot wrap my head around the implied second premise.
~Max