We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, caddy corner 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, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.
SHOULD WE BASE OUR POLITICAL POLICIES ON RELIGIOUS VALUES OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?
INTRODUCTION:
The title of this meetup summarizes what we'll be discussing, but I'd like to start by pointing out that the "religion vs science" framing may be setting up a false dichotomy. After all, couldn't we base our political policies on aspects of BOTH science AND religion? Would it be better to conceive of religion & science as separate domains (as in Stephen Jay Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" concept) that address different questions - i.e. the "fact-value distinction". And couldn't we based our political policies on other things as well - like ethical principles from secular philosophy, or ethical intuitions most people share, or a collective notion of "the public good" arrived at through an evolving group consensus - or maybe "all of the above"?
I think those are valid objections, and in several of our past meetups we've discussed how political philosophers have come up with various theories about the best foundations for political reasoning and how to reconcile citizens' divergent values and incorporate both ethical principles & scientific evidence into policymaking. But in this discussion, I'd like to stick with the simplistic "religion vs science" dichotomy since it's so common in political debates, and we can address some of the common arguments that arise from this.
To help with clarity, I've broke our discussion down into 4 sections:
In the 1st section of this discussion, we'll look at some of the common historical arguments about whether or not the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" and what the 1st Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of religion" really means.
In the 2nd section, we'll look at several points religious believers often raise about the authoritarian tendencies of expressly atheist countries like the Soviet Union & Communist China, as well as some less glaring but still potentially deleterious problems with secular democracies today.
In the 3rd section, we'll look at some of the basic issues that underlie the debate among intellectuals & scientists over "scientism" - i.e. the idea that the scientific method is universally applicable, can answer both factual & moral questions, and and can potentially solve all of humanity's problems.
In the 4th section, we'll see how the "scientism" debate is also related to the idea that humanity would be better off if we curtailed democracy somewhat in favor of "technocracy" - i.e. a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of scientific & technical knowledge.
RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:
The 1st half of this discussion is related to a meetup we had back in the summer of 2017 entitled "Locke & Mill Revisited" where we addressed several fundamental questions in political philosophy from a "classical liberal" perspective. One of those questions was what type of cultural values & social norms (if any) are a necessary precondition for a free society, and to what extent should government protect or promote them with formal laws? https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywkbfc/
The 2nd half of this discussion is a recap of a meetup we had back in March of 2017 entitled "Scientism, Naive Utilitarianism & Technocracy". The outline was somewhat different - it omitted the first 2 sections of our outline about religion, and instead we spent more time on the philosophical varieties of utilitarianism and the psychological profiles of utilitarians, scientists & atheists. https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/236906739/
Back in January of 2019, we had a meetup entitled "Can & Should We Be Politically Agnostic?" In Parts 3 & 4, we discussed how even those who eschew the utopian visions of both theocrats & technocrats, there's a philosophical divide between "realists" and "pragmatists". Realists tend to be more conservative in their ideology and are skeptical about government being able to provide much beyond military defense, policing, courts & basic infrastructure without becoming corrupt. Pragmatists tend to be more progressive in their ideology and think that government officials along with voters can use the "laboratories of democracies" to experiment with different policies, determine which ones work better, and gradually improve the policy regime over time. https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/dxmsjqyzcbrb/
