Skip to content

Bi-Weekly Discussion - Should We Base Politics on Religion or Science?

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Bi-Weekly Discussion - Should We Base Politics on Religion or Science?

Details

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/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over whether politics should be based on religion or science. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 47 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll tackle the topics in the order presented here. As you can see, I've listed several questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. WAS THE U.S. FOUNDED AS A SECULAR NATION OR AS A CHRISTIAN NATION WITH RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE?

  • WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE FOUNDERS' PERSONAL RELIGIOUS VIEWS FROM THEIR LETTERS, SPEECHES & WRITINGS? IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT MOST WERE "CHRISTIAN DEISTS"? DOES KNOWING THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS HELP ESTABLISH THE "ORIGINAL INTENT" OF THE CONSTITUTION REGARDING RELIGION, OR SHOULD WE ONLY CONSIDER THE "ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING" OF THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION?

  • DOES THE INVOCATION OF THE "CREATOR" & "NATURE'S GOD" IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE MATTER, OR IS IT IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S NOT LAW?

  • SINCE THE CONSTITUTION ONLY MENTIONS RELIGION IN ARTICLE VI WHERE IT OUTLAWS RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, DOES THAT MEAN THE U.S. WAS FOUNDED AS A SECULAR NATION?

  • HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET THE "ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE" OF THE 1st AMENDMENT? DOES IT MEAN THE U.S. IS OFFICIALLY SECULAR, OR MERELY THAT THE FEDERAL GOV'T CAN'T SPECIFY A SPECIFIC SECT OF CHRISTIANITY AS THE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION? DOES THE "FREE EXERCISE" CLAUSE SUGGEST RELIGIOUS FAITH WAS CONSIDERED A NECESSARY CIVIC VIRTUE, OR MERELY AN ACCEPTABLE FREEDOM?

  • DID THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE (1787), WHICH PROCLAIMED RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE NEW TERRITORIES BY THE GREAT LAKES, ALSO ENDORSE STATE FUNDING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION?

  • DOES ARTICLE 11 OF THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI (1797) THAT SAYS THE U.S. IS "NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION" PERTAIN TO U.S. LAW?

  • WHY DID SEVERAL STATES HAVE ESTABLISHED CHURCHES INTO THE 19TH CENTURY? DID THE 14th AMENDEMENT'S "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" EXTEND THE 1st AMENDMENT'S ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TO THE STATES, EFFECTIVELY OUTLAWING ESTABLISHED CHURCHES?

  • IS THE THREE-PRONGED "LEMON TEST" THAT EMERGED FROM "LEMON VS. KURTZMAN" (1971) GOOD JURISPRUDENCE - I.E. A STATUTE MUST HAVE A SECULAR PURPOSE, ITS PRIMARY EFFECT CAN'T BE TO ADVANCE OR INHIBIT ANY RELIGION, AND IT MUST AVOID EXCESSIVE GOV'T ENTANGLEMENT WITH RELIGION? IF SO, SHOULD THE GOV'T FUND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS & HOSPITALS?

  • DOES THE FACT THAT "IN GOD WE TRUST" BEGAN TO APPEAR ON U.S. CURRENCY IN 1864 AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDED THE PHRASE "UNDER GOD" IN 1954 MEAN THE U.S. GOV'T NOW ENDORSES CHRISTIANITY? OR IS THIS MERELY "CEREMONIAL DEISM" THAT LACKS ANY SIGNIFICANT RELIGIOUS CONTENT, AS THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN "LYNCH V. DONNELLY" (1984)?

1a) Counter Argument, "America Is A Christian Nation" (video - 10:00 min, listen to 9:30)
https://youtu.be/bcnBUdLPp2s

1b) Craig Benzine, "Crash Course Government & Politics: Freedom of Religion" (video - 6:47 min, start at 0:33 & listen to 6:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dI1GTWCk4&t=33s

.
II. ARE SECULAR COUNTRIES PRONE TO VIOLENCE AND/OR INHERENTLY UNSTABLE, OR ARE THEY HAPPIER & MORE PEACEFUL?

  • DID RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS CAUSE MOST WARS HISTORICALLY, OR WERE MOST CAUSED BY STRUGGLES FOR POLITICAL CONTROL, NATIONALIST & ETHNIC CONFLICTS, AND/OR FIGHTS OVER LAND & OTHER RESOURCES?

  • WAS NAZI GERMANY A DE FACTO ATHEIST REGIME, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T BAN RELIGION? DID THEY BASE THEIR GENOCIDAL POLICIES ON IDEAS ABOUT GENETIC INFERIORITY DRAWN FROM DARWINISM? IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT MOST SECULAR SOCIETIES TEND TO ADOPT EUGENICS OR EUTHANASIA?

  • WAS THE TOTALITARIANISM OF 20TH CENT. COMMUNIST REGIMES, ESP. UNDER STALIN & MAO, A RESULT OF ATHEIST SOCIETIES TRYING TO "IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON" (I.E. BUILD A UTOPIAN "HEAVEN" ON EARTH)? IS THIS UNIQUE TO SECULAR REGIMES, OR IS IT EQUALLY LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN AUTHORITARIAN THEOCRACIES?

  • DO SECULAR SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES LIKE THOSE OF WESTERN EUROPE & JAPAN OFFER A COUNTER TO THOSE WHO CLAIM SECULARISM NATURALLY LEADS TO AUTHORITARIAN POLICE STATES?

  • DO SECULAR SOCIETIES HAVE PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL COHESION, ESPECIALLY AS THEY BECOME MORE ETHNICALLY DIVERSE? IF SO, WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE LOWER CRIME RATES?

  • DO SECULAR SOCIETIES CAUSE "ANOMIE", RESULTING IN HIGHER RATES OF DEPRESSION & ANXIETY? WHY DO STUDIES OFTEN FIND THAT RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUALS ARE HAPPIER, BUT SECULAR SOCIETIES HAVE HIGHER AVERAGE LEVELS OF HAPPINESS?

  • DO SECULAR DEMOCRACIES INEVITABLY HAVE BELOW-REPLACEMENT BIRTH RATES THAT LEAD TO A "DEMOGRAPHIC DEATH SPIRAL"?

2a) Ben Shapiro, "Why Has the West Been So Successful?" (video - 5:51 min.)
https://youtu.be/RVD0xik-_FM

2b) Young Turks, "What Are Most & Least Religious Countries?" (video - 6:54 min.)
https://youtu.be/XPicZApvRYI

.
III. SHOULD WE BASE OUR MORALITY ON SCIENCE & UTILITARIANISM INSTEAD OF RELIGIOUS VALUES?

  • CAN SCIENCE BRIDGE THE "FACT-VALUE DISTINCTION" AND DISCOVER A SINGLE SET OF EMPIRICALLY CORRECT MORAL VALUES FOR HUMAN SOCIETIES? IF NOT, CAN IT AT LEAST NARROW DOWN OUR OPTIONS?

  • CAN SCIENCE HELP US DEFINE "SUFFERING" & "FLOURISHING" RIGOROUSLY? IF SO, IS MINIMIZING SUFFERING MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAXIMIZING FLOURISHING, DUE TO DIMINISHING RETURNS ON THE LATTER?

  • IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO INCREASE THE AVERAGE HAPPINESS OF THE POPULATION THAN TOTAL HAPPINESS, SINCE THE LATTER COULD INVOLVE GREAT DISPARITIES? HOW DOES THE FUTURE HAPPINESS OF GENERATIONS YET TO BE BORN FIGURE INTO THIS?

  • SHOULD WE DEFINE "HAPPINESS" AS POSITIVE MOOD, OR SHOULD WE INCLUDE BROADER FACTORS IN WELL-BEING, LIKE ENGAGEMENT, RELATIONSHIPS, MEANING & ACHIEVEMENT (AS IN POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY'S "PERMA" MODEL)?

  • CAN WE CREATE AN ETHICAL SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO WEIGHT THE FACTORS OR WELL-BRING DIFFERENTLY TO PURSUE THEIR OWN PREFERENCES WHILE MINIMIZING CONFLICT?

  • WOULD AVOIDING DEBATES OVER "SINS" & "RIGHTS" IN FAVOR OF UTILITARIAN ETHICS HELP SOCIETY AVOID POLITICAL GRIDLOCK? WOULD THIS RESULT IN A DYSTOPIAN SOCIETY WHERE PLEASURE IS THE ONLY VALUE & THE FEW ARE SACRIFICED TO SATISFY THE MANY?

3a) Sam Harris, "How Science Can Determine Human Values" (video - 7:03 min.)
https://youtu.be/rg2yll0pgu0

3b) Joshua Greene & Russ Roberts, "Econtalk: Moral Tribes, Moral Dilemmas, and Utilitarianism" (3:45 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCpcnbaEsw

.
IV. COULD A TECHNOCRATIC GOV'T DETERMINE & IMPLEMENT OBJECTIVELY BETTER POLITICAL POLICIES THAN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY?

  • WHAT SORT OF ASSUMPTIONS WOULD WE HAVE TO MAKE IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT "OBJECTIVELY" GOOD POLICIES? IS IT IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE CITIZENS HAVE SUCH DIFFERENT PREFERENCES, OR ARE OUR PREFERENCES LESS DIVERGENT THAN MOST PEOPLE THINK?

  • CAN THE NATURAL & SOCIAL SCIENCES ALLOW US TO DEDUCE THE MOST EFFECTIVE PUBLIC POLICIES FROM THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE?

  • TO WHAT EXTENT DO POLICYMAKERS RUN INTO CHAOTIC & EMERGENT PHENOMENA THEIR MODEL COULDN'T PREDICT (A.K.A. "BLACK SWANS")? DOES THIS CREATE AN "EPISTEMIC HORIZON" THAT PLACES ON LIMITS ON THE PLANNING ABILITIES OF TECHNOCRATS?

  • COULD "UNDEMOCRATIC LIBERALISM" (A TECHNOCRACY THAT MAINTAINS CIVIL LIBERTIES) BE THE SOLUTION TO THE RECENT RISE OF "ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY" (POPULISM THAT SQUASHES CIVIL LIBERTIES)?

  • DO POLITICAL BODIES WITH APPOINTED OFFICIALS & CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS TEND TO PRODUCE BETTER POLICIES THAT THOSE WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, OR ARE THEY A DANGEROUSLY UNDEMOCRATIC "DEEP STATE" THAT PREVENTS REFORM?

  • WOULD A TECHNOCRACY INEVITABLY FACE A POPULAR REVOLT IF/WHEN IT PASSED UNPOPULAR BUT BENEFICIAL POLICIES? ARE ELECTIONS NEEDED TO CONFER A SENSE OF LEGITIMACY ON THE GOV'T EVEN IF IT LEADS TO SUBOPTIMAL POLICIES?

4a) Think Tank, "Neil Degrasse Tyson Proposes a New Government: Rationalia" (video - 4:44 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAkfi_D-Nwk

4b) NowThis World, "What Is A Technocracy?" (video - 2:54 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqmPbzqCQOI

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
See more events
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
public group