A religious person is no less logical than you just because they argue from different premises, or consider different kinds of things to be evidence.
“Logic” and “internal logic” are not the same.
(bolding mine)
So, your saying a religious person gets to pick their own facts?
People can debate all of these things. Since it’s questionable whether the Bible is actually informing the pro-life viewpoint, it’s perfectly within the bounds of fair and open discourse to argue a case for other motives. I mean, you will be hard pressed to find any scripture forbidding abortion.
I find this example confusing and water-muddying, because, as we discussed in a recent thread, it’s not at all clear that the Bible says anything about abortion. (ETA: Posted before I saw your post just above mine, which makes much the same point.)
nm
Depends on the premises and the “different kinds of things” they consider evidence.
In a sense, everybody “gets to pick their own facts”: everybody has to decide what sort of things they’ll accept as evidence, and what axioms and premises they’re starting from when they argue logically.
Why not? As far as I know, no form of epistemology is rooted in any religious text, cf. people who lived before the invention of writing or who died before coming in contact with said text. Theologians regularly debate the word of God, and even the authority and integrity of the so-called word of God. Even the Indian philosophers dedicate an entire school of thought (Nyaya) to the authority of religious texts.
~Max
My answer to the thread title’s question is “YES,” because to answer “NO” would mean that religion would be forbidden in public debate, which I don’t like because (1) restriction on freedom of speech, and (2) how do you define what counts as “religion”?
Anyone putting forth arguments in a public debate that are meant to affect all members of society (such as new laws or overturning of existing laws) should make make an effort to make those arguments from a secular viewpoint, even if their motivation for resisting or encouraging the change is religious. I say this because any broad changes are guaranteed to affect a large minority (or even a majority) of people who don’t follow your religion.
Is this just another abortion debate? If so, then the pro-life people should be making non-religious arguments, and they often do. They say that abortion kills a living human organism, which it does. They want to define that as murder, which is arguable. What they don’t usually say in public debates, and they shouldn’t, is that abortion kills a human soul or it’s a grievous sin. Those will be unconvincing to those who don’t share their faith or have none.
Similarly, there were laws against contraception. One can make a secular argument that contraception should be illegal, since it may encourage promiscuity which may lead to the spread of disease and have negative effects on the concept of family. But, someone looking to keep contraception illegal would be ill-advised to say that the church says that using contraception is a sin or that God says that all intercourse should have the possibility of procreation, because those will be unconvincing. (To be clear, I don’t think contraception should be illegal)
So, I guess I’m saying that religion doesn’t really have a place in the public debate – it may spur religious people to look for social changes, but those people should present their arguments for those in a secular context if they want to appeal to the public at large.
Because the person on the other side of the debate believes his side represents the word of God.
I’m not a theologian or a philosopher, I have no interest in debating the relative merits of someone’s religion. If I want to talk about public policy, let’s talk about that without the implication that one argument is backed by the word of an omnipotent, benevolent deity. Let the argument stand on its own merits.
To me, religion is a person’s deep and sincere philosophy. Alternatively religion is the denomination or large group of people who share a deep and sincere philosophy.
~Max
If you insist on using the Max S. Thesaurus, you may find it difficult to communicate with other people.
Also, if I want to determine whether or not someone’s philosophy is deep or sincere, how can I go about it? How can I differentiate between someone who is insincere and someone who is incoherent or dim?
I don’t always insist on my own definitions, Thudlow Boink asked and I answered.
Differentiate between sincere and insincere religious beliefs at your own discretion. Ideally I would assume sincerity by default and insincerity if there is evidence of bad faith. Judging someone else’s motivation will always be a little subjective.
~Max
Is argument from sincere religious conviction representing a large group of adherents morally more compelling/right/just than argument from equally sincere evidence based philosophically a-religious POV?
Question one: what’s meant by public debate?
If we’re talking not about debates within a particular sect and/or religious debates among willing participants in religious debates whether or not they’re part of the same sect: those can certainly be held in public in the sense that people doing this don’t need to go hide behind locked doors but can keep on talking about it in a restaurant or in the street or whatever as long as they’re not doing so in a fashion which forces others to pay attention to them.
If we’re talking about debates about what laws, regulations, or even customs should be inflicted on the general public in ways that are also going to impact those who don’t believe the particular religion, then what MichaelEmouse said:
I doubt you can get religion out of public debate entirely: both in the sense that religious people are going to be motivated by their religious beliefs, and in the sense that sometimes it’s necessary to have public debate about what is and what isn’t permitted religious behavior. Should we close government offices on Sundays? on Christmas? How much accommodation does a business that’s open on Saturdays need to make for people who keep a Saturday Sabbath? Is it illegal to take peyote as part of a religious ceremony, if it’s illegal to take it in a secular fashion? Et considerably cetera.
But if the public debate is about something that will affect the lives of those who aren’t members of the religion, then it has to find grounds on which to argue that are actually reasons according to grounds that aren’t religious. Partly because that’s the way to do it unless you want a theocracy; and partly because that’s the only way you’re going to convince such people.
I think it would be helpful if people would state when they’re holding a belief that affects public policy on religious grounds – but I doubt that’s enforceable, if only because many people hold beliefs based on religious grounds without even realizing that their grounds are religious. They just think everybody knows, or ought to know, that X is wrong.
There are “pro-choice” Christians and “pro-life” atheists. Framing your post in a way that appears to deny this gives it a highly slanted appearance.
Not necessarily, and certainly not due to the size of the group or sincerity of the beliefs, unless the argument is in fact about the size of the group or sincerity of the beliefs. I reserve the right to decide which argument is more compelling on a case-by-case basis.
~Max
Huh, I missed this.
But, as I said in that thread, no, religion has no place in informing public policy.
How do I know this? Because God told me so.
By public debate I meant both, and I think I agree with MichaelEmouse, except I would add “or argue for conversion to their faith”. It doesn’t actually have to be conversion, just an argument for whatever premises underly the religious argument.
I guess what I am saying is that I am uncomfortible discounting an argument for or against a public policy just because the argument rests on religious principles. If I disagree with the principle, I say so and we debate the principle, and so on until one of us changes our minds, we agree to disagree, somebody loses the will to debate, or one of us abandons good faith (and the other loses the will to debate).
Again I am not religious, but if I were, I imagine that every position I hold on public policy would be based on religious beliefs; that my entire system of morals (therefore right v. wrong) would be rooted in religion.
… exactly!
~Max