Skip to content

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Just click the link below at the scheduled date/time to join the Zoom discussion...

***

***

SHOULD WE GROUND OUR POLITICS IN RELIGIOUS VALUES OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

INTRODUCTION:

In case you haven't heard, the atheist activist & former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently announced she'd converted to Christianity, but she didn't mention any arguments about the existence of God or the death & resurrection of Jesus that she'd found convincing. Rather, she explained that she'd come to believe that atheism was too psychologically unfulfilling for her or indeed most people, and that only Christianity could equip the West for "civilizational war" against Russia, China, and Islamism. As you can imagine, her essay has sparked lots of controversy - this article from Andrew Sullivan is helpful because it summarizes the response by Ross Douthat, Shadi Hamid and Freddi deBoer before providing his own thoughts.

In light of Ali's article and the public debate surrounding it, I figured it would be useful to revisit a topic we covered back in early 2020. 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? And rather than base policies off ethical precepts that are unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition, wouldn't it be possible to base our policies off tenets shared by most major religions, such as the "Golden Rule"? 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. David Hume's "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 (e.g. certain religious tenets) are a necessary precondition for a free society, and to what extent should government protect or promote them with formal laws?

The 1st half of this discussion also relates to a pair of meetups hosted by the Philly Skeptics back in May entitled "Did Protestantism Make America Great?" and "Has Christianity Made America Dysfunctional?" The first one looked at claims that Protestantism led to scientific innovation, industrialization, modern liberal democracy, and secularization. The second one looked at claims that the South's religiosity is rooted in racism, New England's secular progressivism is rooted in Puritanism, and that fundamentalist strands within Mormonism and Catholicism are inimical to democracy.

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.

***

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 52 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 "CHRISTIAN NATION" - AND HOW DOES THIS DEBATE TIE INTO AMERICA'S "CIVIL RELIGION"?

  • 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?
  • WAS THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI (1797) RIGHT TO SAY THAT "THE GOV'T OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION", OR WAS THIS JUST A PLOY TO GET THE BARBARY PIRATES TO STOP SEIZING OUR SHIPS?
  • 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 1st AMENDMENT'S "FREE EXERCISE" CLAUSE SUGGEST RELIGIOUS FAITH WAS CONSIDERED A NECESSARY CIVIC VIRTUE, OR MERELY AN ACCEPTABLE FREEDOM?
  • 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)?
  • DOES THE STABILITY OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY DEPEND ON A "CIVIL RELIGION" THAT USES NATIONAL SYMBOLS & CEREMONIES TO PROMOTE UNITY & REVERENCE FOR THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES & DEMOCRATIC NORMS? IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THIS DEPEND ON "CEREMONIAL DEISM" AND OTHER NOTIONS BORROWED FROM THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION, LIKE "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" & "ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS"?
  • IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AMERICANS TO PRACTICE A MODERATE & TOLERANT FORM OF "CIVIL RELIGION" THAT ENCOURAGES CIVIC TRUST & SELF-SACRIFICE, OR DOES IT JUST CREATE A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO A JINGOISTIC & EXCLUSIVIST FORM OF "CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM"?

1a) Counter Arguments, "America Is A Christian Nation" (video - 10:00 min, listen to 9:30)

1b) Andrew Mark Henry, "American Civil Religion: Is the U.S. Capitol a Religious Building?" (video - 11:28 min)

.
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.)

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

.

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 SELF-REPORTED POSITIVE MOOD & LIFE SATISFACTION, OR SHOULD WE INCLUDE BROADER FACTORS IN WELL-BEING LIKE HEALTH, WEALTH, EDUCATION, SAFETY, PERSONAL FREEDOM, GOOD RELATIONSHIPS, SENSE OF MEANING, MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS, ETC? CAN WE EMPIRICALLY MEASURE THESE THINGS?
  • ARE THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO HAPPINESS MOSTLY DUE TO GOV'T POLICIES, OR TO GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS LIKE CLIMATE & NATURAL BEAUTY AND/OR CULTURAL FACTORS LIKE ETHNIC HOMOGENEITY OR DIVERSITY, RELIGIOSITY, WORK ETHIC & LAWFULNESS, SOCIAL TRUST & CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, DIET & EXERCISE, ART & MUSIC, ETC.?
  • WHAT SORT OF POLITICAL SYSTEM WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE WHO WEIGH THE FACTORS OF WELL-BEING DIFFERENTLY TO PURSUE THEIR OWN PREFERENCES WHILE MINIMIZING CONFLICT? CAN FEDERALISM ACCOMMODATE "IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES"?
  • WOULD AVOIDING DEBATES OVER "RIGHTS" IN FAVOR OF UTILITARIAN ETHICS HELP SOCIETY AVOID POLITICAL GRIDLOCK? OR 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.)

3b) Joshua Greene & Russ Roberts, "Econtalk: Moral Tribes, Moral Dilemmas, and Utilitarianism" (3:45 minutes)

3c) VICE News w/ Frank Martela, "Is Finland Really The Happiest Country In The World?" (video - 4:36 min.)

.
IV. COULD A TECHNOCRACY DETERMINE & IMPLEMENT BETTER 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 POLICIES, EVEN IF THEY'RE BENEFICIAL? ARE ELECTIONS NEEDED TO CONFER A SENSE OF LEGITIMACY ON THE GOV'T EVEN IF IT LEADS TO SUBOPTIMAL POLICIES?

4a) Nerd Alert, "Neil Degrasse Tyson Proposes a New Government: Rationalia" (video - 4:49 min)

4b) NowThis World, "What Is A Technocracy?" (video - 2:54 min.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Freedom of Religion
Science
Political Philosophy
Separation of Church and State
Good Government

Members are also interested in