Does religion have a place in public debate?

[Crane]

All debates are won by knowledge
The word of God is omniscient
:. The word of God wins all debates

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

Every single one. It is my understanding that mainstream religions cover all the bases and encompass all truths.

~Max

It is true that they each make those claims. Yet, all religions are wrong in the same way and they frequently contradict one another. Which is why they must be disqualified from participation in making public policy.

[Max_S]

@Crane

All debates are won by knowledge
The word of God is omniscient
:. The word of God wins all debates

But the word of God is not omniscient because it was written by man, and man is fallible.

[ul][li]The word of God is something written by man[/li][li]Something written by man is something fallible[/li][li]Therefore, the word of God is something fallible[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]The word of God is something fallible[/li][li]Something fallible can not be omniscient[/li][li]Therefore, the word of God can not be omniscient.[/ul][/li]
Proof by contradiction:
[ul][li]Omniscience is knowledge[/li][li]All debates are won by knowledge[/li][li]Therefore all debates are won by omniscience?[/ul][/li]Which is clearly not the case.

~Max

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

It is true that they each make those claims. Yet, all religions are wrong in the same way and they frequently contradict one another. Which is why they must be disqualified from participation in making public policy.

You can’t disqualify people because they have invalid beliefs, not without someone judging the validity of the beliefs. And public debate is supposed to be that judge, is it not?

~Max

[k9bfriender]

@Max_S

But the word of God is not omniscient because it was written by man, and man is fallible.

[ul][li]The word of God is something written by man[/li][li]Something written by man is something fallible[/li][li]Therefore, the word of God is something fallible[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]The word of God is something fallible[/li][li]Something fallible can not be omniscient[/li][li]Therefore, the word of God can not be omniscient.[/ul][/li]
Proof by contradiction:
[ul][li]Omniscience is knowledge[/li][li]All debates are won by knowledge[/li][li]Therefore all debates are won by omniscience?[/ul][/li]Which is clearly not the case.

~Max

Okay, so you answered your own question as to why you should not invoke religion in a public debate.

We are talking about when people say that homosexuals can’t get married becuase homsoseuality is a sin. Or that a fetus has rights because it has a soul. Stuff like that. Stuff that is not falsifiable, but is insisted upon anyway, because god said so.

@Max_S

You can’t disqualify people because they have invalid beliefs, not without someone judging the validity of the beliefs. And public debate is supposed to be that judge, is it not?

~Max

Who said anything about disqualifying people? If that is something that you made up, then you shouldn’t do that. It is only the logic behind a policy that I care about. Is it based in secular logic, or is based on bronze age writings?

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

I guess, if that was my religion.

~Max

So inclusion of religion in a public debate is not really what you’re after.

What you’re really after is the right to enforce your religious custom and laws, punishing those who would break them or oppose them outright.

[Voyager]

@DrCube

But what does “excluded from public policy” mean, if not some form of shutting people out of debates or politics? If I don’t like abortion for secular reasons, and my buddy doesn’t like it because his priest said so, can we not team up to further our shared political goals? Can we not both vote for candidates who agree with us, and support legislation to that end? Should we not join the same political party if we both find our beliefs align with its platform? If we both think something is morally wrong, why does it matter where those morals ultimately come from?

Because one should make moral arguments for good reasons. The secular argument might or might not be what I consider valid, but it is not invalid by definition. Why is believing something because a priest said so any more valid than believing it because Darth Vader said so, or Harry Potter, or Frodo, or your dog? Well because the priest is transmitting the word of God. Then one must demonstrate both that God exists and that he said that. Once you hit belief from faith, the argument becomes unconvincing and invalid.
Arguing something from religious not secular reasons boils down to special pleading, because the person who does so can never demonstrate the validity of the source of their beliefs.

[Voyager]

@Max_S

You can’t disqualify people because they have invalid beliefs, not without someone judging the validity of the beliefs. And public debate is supposed to be that judge, is it not?

~Max

Ever heard God said it, I believe it? I don’t care what a person does based on their beliefs that affect only themselves, but when they want to enforce those beliefs on other people they need to demonstrate their validity.

For example, if you want to fast on a religious holiday (generic you) that’s fine. If you want to close down all restaurants on that holiday, not fine.

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

You can’t disqualify people because they have invalid beliefs, not without someone judging the validity of the beliefs. And public debate is supposed to be that judge, is it not?

~Max

I’m not looking to disqualify people from debate. Say whatever thought pops into your head. I’m saying, “god said it - his will be done!”, is not the right way to carry out public policy.

[Max_S]

@k9bfriender

Who said anything about disqualifying people? If that is something that you made up, then you shouldn’t do that. It is only the logic behind a policy that I care about. Is it based in secular logic, or is based on bronze age writings?

@QuickSilver

I’m not looking to disqualify people from debate. Say whatever thought pops into your head. I’m saying, “god said it - his will be done!”, is not the right way to carry out public policy.

Then should you answer the original question with a “yes, if only to be struck down as invalid”?

~Max

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

Then should you answer the original question with a “yes”?

~Max

I believe he did. I know I did in my first response to you. As have others. You just won’t accept “yes” for an answer because you’re not after a simple “yes”. You’re after, “yes, because religious and secularist positions are of equal standing in deciding public policy.” They’re just not.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Voyager

Because one should make moral arguments for good reasons. The secular argument might or might not be what I consider valid, but it is not invalid by definition. Why is believing something because a priest said so any more valid than believing it because Darth Vader said so, or Harry Potter, or Frodo, or your dog? Well because the priest is transmitting the word of God. Then one must demonstrate both that God exists and that he said that. Once you hit belief from faith, the argument becomes unconvincing and invalid.
Arguing something from religious not secular reasons boils down to special pleading, because the person who does so can never demonstrate the validity of the source of their beliefs.

From this, I infer that your definition of a religious argument (as opposed to a nonreligious or secular argument) is one which rests somehow on “God said so.”

My feeling is that this is too narrow a definition. But in order to challenge it, I’d have to provide an alternative definition, or at least give a counterexample of a religious argument that doesn’t fit this definition. Which I haven’t been able to do, at least not yet.

[QuickSilver]

@Thudlow_Boink

From this, I infer that your definition of a religious argument (as opposed to a nonreligious or secular argument) is one which rests somehow on “God said so.”

My feeling is that this is too narrow a definition. But in order to challenge it, I’d have to provide an alternative definition, or at least give a counterexample of a religious argument that doesn’t fit this definition. Which I haven’t been able to do, at least not yet.

An excellent example of why honest and thoughtful religious debate should be welcome in public forum.

Thank you, TB.

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

I believe he did. I know I did in my first response to you. As have others. You just won’t accept “yes” for an answer because you’re not after a simple “yes”. You’re after, “yes, because religious and secularist positions are of equal standing in deciding public policy.” They’re just not.

But that’s not what you said, you said “Religion has no place in political social policy debate.” And I said by public debate I meant political social policy debate.

If you aren’t throwing out debaters who use religious arguments, and you actually address their arguments, I don’t see how that squares up with religion having no place in public (political social policy) debate.

If most people inform their personal morals with religion, I would think most of the debates will involve religious arguments.

~Max

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

But that’s not what you said, you said “Religion has no place in political social policy debate.” And I said by public debate I meant political social policy debate.

If you aren’t throwing out debaters who use religious arguments, and you actually address their arguments, I don’t see how that squares up with religion having no place in public (political social policy) debate.

If most people inform their personal morals with religion, I would think most of the debates will involve religious arguments.

~Max

Okay. I see what you’re asking now.

I’ll clarify my response: Arguments based on religious beliefs have no place in political social policy debates (in a secular society). I’m not suggesting people with religious beliefs can’t participate in public policy debates. They just can’t present/argue policy based on what they think their god thinks. That’s the disqualifier.

Now, how about you address why you think a religious argument has the same standing as a secular one.

[sisu]

@QuickSilver

Because religion is not a basis on which to build a just society. If you disagree, I challenge you to cite one country governed by religious doctrine that you would call a just society.

All societies are influenced by the religion of the founders and residents, not controlled but informed. I am an atheist who identifies as a cultural Christian and that influences my voting choices etc.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Mind if I introduce an example of a religio-political policy argument? See What Those Who Seek Socialism Really Need Is A Church And Family
First, some framing:

Many of its American advocates are unclear on whether they are promoting real “the state owns the means of production” socialism or something like Sweden before the Swedes made a lot of free-market reforms. This confusion stems from some genuine disagreements, but much of it results from people using socialism as a vague, aspirational ideal for something better than what we have now.

This confusion on the left is too often matched by sloppy thinking on the right that fails to understand socialism and its appeal.

America consists of the categories the socialist left, and the right. Everybody but magazine writers is dumb.

I’ll let you read the whole thing for yourself. Here’s the conclusion:

Socialism Tries to Fill a God-Sized Void

Socialism does not seduce with spreadsheets, but with visions that appeal to the aches and voids in our souls. As various political philosophers have noted, Marxism functions as a secular religion. Many of those favorably inclined toward socialism know that something important is missing in modern liberal life—connections and care that are not contingent on the marketplace. And they are right. But the socialism we need is not a command economy; the socialism we need is that of family, church, and community.

Of course, families and congregations fail far too often, and even the good ones have their flaws and conflicts. But the Marxist ideal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is more consistently (albeit still imperfectly) realized in family and churches than anywhere else—including Marxist nations. The government cannot provide unconditional love in a community of universal brotherhood and transcendent meaning. Even Plato knew that his city of philosopher-kings would fail if it somehow came into being.

It is the church, not the state, that can extend the love and communion of family beyond the limits of family, tribe, and nation, ordered toward a transcendent good. The brotherhood of man is realized in prayer and communion, not political action.

Plato was unaware of the church. But both his philosophical triumphs and limitations direct us to a concern for our souls, not for socialism. He still has much to teach us, and conservatives who wish to address socialism should be learning from Plato, not trash-talking him.

I find the article to be manipulative propaganda. Does anyone think that it makes a good brick in the foundations of public policy?

[LAZombie]

Atheists and liberals generally believe that they were born with morals and ethics and are smarter than all of humanity that proceeded them. They constantly berate the people of the past for things such as slavery when in all likelihood they would have behaved no better than their ancestors if they had been born 200 years ago. They knowingly purchase products made by de facto slave labor and claim to be morally superior.

Societies around the world developed through trial and error and synthesized their wisdom into religions and cultural norms. The abolition of slavery came through trial and error as well. Religion is a reference guide to how people should behave; and thus, religion does have a place in public debate.

[tampora]

@Thudlow_Boink

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.

There are no paradoxes in reality. We use the idea of a paradox to highlight mistakes in our logic. All religions demand a mutually-exclusive version of reality; which is a paradox. Religious people are necessarily less logical because their false and conflicting interpretations of reality would create paradoxes.

[Voyager]

@Thudlow_Boink

From this, I infer that your definition of a religious argument (as opposed to a nonreligious or secular argument) is one which rests somehow on “God said so.”

My feeling is that this is too narrow a definition. But in order to challenge it, I’d have to provide an alternative definition, or at least give a counterexample of a religious argument that doesn’t fit this definition. Which I haven’t been able to do, at least not yet.

You got me right. Think of why an argument from the Bible is different from an argument from the Iliad or War and Peace or Gilgamesh or the Eddas.
All of these things can be a trigger for a moral discussion. But none of these works of fiction should be given a special position in moral discussions.