We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.
Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside.
The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.
CAN & SHOULD WE BE POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC?
INTRODUCTION:
When I started this meetup back in 2015, I originally just wanted to create a nonpartisan forum for people with different viewpoints to discuss political issues. My thinking was that it would probably be a mistake and a waste of time to invite "true believers" in traditional conservatism or liberal-progressivism to join us since they'd already have their minds made up and would be prone to ranting & preaching. There are already plenty of political groups in the Philadelphia area that specifically cater to the interests of conservatives & progressives, and they've got the two major political parties, so I decided I'd create a space for those who didn't fit neatly into either of those boxes, which I decided to call "political agnostics".
However, over the past 3 years, I've periodically received messages & comments from people expressing confusion over the meaning of the term "political agnostics" - e.g. is this a group for politically active atheists & agnostics? Quite a few people have objected to the idea that one should be "agnostic" - in the sense of ambivalent or apathetic - on political issues that could have big impacts on many people's lives. Others have questioned whether it's even psychologically possible to be truly "agnostic" - in the sense of unbiased & impartial - on contentious political issues. This meetup is meant to address these confusions & concerns.
First off, before we begin, it helps to know how philosophers define the term "agnostic" (and its opposite, "gnostic") and how it differs from the term "atheist" (and its opposite, "theist"). Keep in mind that both atheism & agnosticism can be subdivided into "strong" and "weak" versions. Check out the Rationalwiki entry for a brief explanation: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism
How can we transfer the term "agnostic" into the political realm? I take my start from the political philosopher Eric Voegelin, who defined gnosis as "a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite." Voegelin saw philosophical parallels between the ancient philosophies of Platonism & Gnosticism which claimed knowledge of a "transcendental" reality and communism & fascism which also claimed a form of ultimate knowledge but were more concerned with transforming "immanent" reality, i.e. the political world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin#Voegelin_on_Gnosticism
When we talk about being "politically agnostic" in this discussion, we'll explore several positions characterized by skepticism towards political knowledge:
(1) APATHY/CYNICISM: In its "strongest" form, political agnosticism could mean denying the possibility of any knowledge of what qualifies as a good society or what public policies could improve the human condition. A strong political agnostic would probably be completely apolitical, although they could theoretically adopt a political ideology through an irrational "leap of faith". If they value their own self-interest, their political actions would be entirely guided by what benefits them personally, although they might feign altruism to win approval. They may be cynical and assume all political debate is merely a cover for people pursuing their narrow self-interest. (This is called the "self-interested voter hypothesis" in political science and doesn't appear to hold up empirically for most voters.)
(2) REALISM: In a more "moderate" version, political agnosticism would merely mean that one doubts that anyone has Voegelin's type of "gnostic" knowledge of politics, and thus one would be suspicious of any political prophets or holy texts that claim to furnish an infallible roadmap to utopia and likewise of anyone claiming they should be entrusted with absolute power. This moderate sort of agnosticism would be similar to what the economist Thomas Sowell called the "constrained vision" of politics - i.e. the belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that humans are naturally somewhat selfish & ignorant. Those with a constrained vision of politics often describe themselves as "realists", value law & order, and believe compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. The constrained vision of the political realists suggests we can still know what "dystopias" are from history, and that we'd be better off hedging against really bad political outcomes (e.g. tyranny, depressions, famines, world wars) instead of trying to create a utopia.
(3) PRAGMATISM: In its "weakest" form, political agnosticism could merely mean a form of "political pragmatism" that is suspicious of purist ideologies & accepts that all knowledge is provisional but still believes in the possibility of dramatic progress, albeit typically through incremental reforms rather than revolutions. Pragmatists tend to believe human beings can be improved - in their behavior if not their nature - through education, law enforcement & social programs. Pragmatists favor a scientific approach to both ethics & politics where trial & error are used to reform society & gradually advance towards a utopia we can never quite reach.
A NOTE ON SOME RELATED MEETUPS:
The 1st section of today's outline deals with moral & political psychology, and to prevent our discussion from turning into a pissing match over which political faction is more dogmatic & irrational, it may be necessary to refer to a Skeptic meetup from December of 2017 entitled "The War on Science & Assymetric Irrationality". We looked at arguments that conservatives or liberals are more prone to denying science, endorsing conspiracy theory, voting against their own self-interest, and exhibiting negative psychological traits. In general, we found that there's no clear evidence that one side of the political spectrum is inherently more irrational than the other on every issue: https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/241726423/
The 2nd section of today's outline deals with moral philosophy, and it mentions the ways in which moral uncertainty can justify certain elements of classical liberalism. We explored these topics in a previous meetup entitled "Locke & Mill Revisited" - see Part 2 on J.S. Mill's "harm principle" & how it relates to Cass Sunstein's "libertarian paternalism" and Part 3 on Locke's case for religious toleration & how it relates to Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance": https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywkbfc/
The 2nd section of today's outline also mentions "reflective equilibrium". This concept was mentioned in an earlier meetup entitled "Do Colleges Need Academic Freedom & Political Diversity?" We explored how the deliberation & discussion necessary for "reflective equilibrium" relates to freedom of speech & the press, as well as to Jurgen Habermas's conception of the "public sphere" and Karl Popper's idea of the "open society", both dealt with in the Intro section: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxkbdc/
The past meetup we've had that bears the most relation to 3rd & 4th sections of today's discussion is one held exactly a year ago entitled "Human Freedom & Social Progress Measured". See Part 4 of the outline dealing with Will Wilkinson's argument that the political realities revealed by examining the Human Freedom Index and Social Progress Index defy any orthodox political ideology. Wilkinson suggested that a hybrid "libertarian welfare state" may be the best current model in terms of promoting the highest level of human wellbeing: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnyxcbkb/
