Skip to content

Can & Should We Be Politically Agnostic?

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Can & Should We Be Politically Agnostic?

Details

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/

It may also be worth looking at an old discussion from 2016 entitled "Less Wrong on the Lack of Consilience in Politics" which delves into why no single political ideology appears to have a monopoly on the truth:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/pdjntlyvmbwb/

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

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 debates in psychology, ethics, political philosophy & public policymaking that relate to agnosticism, realism & pragmatism. 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 44 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 address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM:

  • DO ANY OF THE "BIG FIVE" PERSONALITY TRAITS (OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, EXTRAVERSION, AGREEABLENESS, NEUROTICISM) CORRELATE WITH POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM?

  • HOW DO TRAITS LIKE "NEED FOR CLOSURE" & "COGNITIVE RIGIDITY" AFFECT POLITICAL BELIEFS?

  • ON THE POLITICAL LEFT, COULD CENTER-LEFT "NEOLIBERALS" BE CONSIDERED MORE POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC? HOW ABOUT EFFECTIVE ALTRUISTS?

  • DOES THE "CONSTRAINED VISION" OF "BURKEAN" CONSERVATIVES' INCLINE THEM TOWARDS A FORM OF POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM?

  • AMONG LIBERTARIANS, ARE THE "COSMOPOLITAN" BELTWAY WONKS MORE INCLINED TO POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM THAN THE "PALEO-LIBERTARIANS" & ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS?

  • CAN SOME RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS BE CONSIDERED POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT THEOLOGICALLY AGNOSTIC? COULD THEIR FAITH HELP THEM TOLERATE UNCERTAINTY MORE?

  • IS EQUATING "POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM" WITH CENTRISM & MODERATION JUST FAVORING AGREEABLENESS & STATUS QUO BIAS?

1a) Arie Kruglanski, "The Price of Certainty" (video - 6:46 min.)
https://youtu.be/f2YMJTBiSxo

1b) Philip Tetlock, "Fox vs. Hedgehog Personalities" (video - 3:58 min.)
https://youtu.be/7mwdoFA1dig

II. THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF AGNOSTICISM:

  • HOW DO MORAL SKEPTICISM & MORAL NIHILISM PARALLEL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOLOGICAL AGNOSTICISM & ATHEISM?

  • HOW DO MORAL SKEPTICISM & MORAL UNCERTAINTY PARALLEL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRONG & WEAK AGNOSTICISM?

  • CAN WE BASE MORALITY ON COMMON MORAL INTUITIONS OR EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF HUMAN PREFERENCES & WELL-BEING WITHOUT REFERENCE TO GOD OR A COSMIC ORDER?

  • SHOULD WE HANDLE MORAL UNCERTAINTY BY LOOKING FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT ETHICAL SYSTEMS? OR SHOULD ISSUES BE PUT TO A VOTE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF DIFFERENT ETHICAL SYSTEMS?

  • IF WE COUPLE ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST WITH NATURAL HUMAN EMPATHY, WOULD WE ARRIVE AT SOME FORM OF UTILITARIANISM? HOW WOULD MORAL UNCERTAINTY AFFECT OUR NOTION OF UTILITY?

  • IF WE'RE UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHOSE LIFESTYLE IS MORE VIRTUOUS, WOULD THIS JUSTIFY JOHN STUART MILL'S "HARM PRINCIPLE", I.E. ONLY USING FORCE TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HARMING OTHERS?

  • CAN RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL TOLERANCE BE JUSTIFIED BY MORAL UNCERTAINTY & THE REALITY OF MORAL PLURALISM? ARE MORAL EMPATHY - UNDERSTANDING OTHER'S MORAL BELIEFS - & WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE VIRTUES IN THIS CASE?

  • IF WE NEED TO USE DELIBERATION TO ATTAIN COHERENCE & STABILITY IN OUR ETHICS (I.E. REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM), DOES THIS JUSTIFY AN "OPEN SOCIETY" WITH FREE SPEECH & A FREE PRESS?

  • DOES MORAL UNCERTAINTY ALLOW FOR MORAL CONSTRUCTIVISM - CREATING MORALS? IF SO, DOES IT ALLOW FOR PRAGMATIC ETHICS - USING TRIAL & ERROR TO IMPROVE MORALITY?

  • IF WE ACCEPT MORAL PRAGMATISM, SHOULD WE TREAT TRADITIONAL MORALS FOUND IN MANY CULTURES AS DEFAULTS SINCE THEY'RE THE PRODUCT OF PARALLEL CULTURAL EVOLUTION?

2a) Rubin Marshak, "Moral Skepticism and Moral Nihilism" (video - 7:57 min, watch til 7:00)
https://youtu.be/OJsKwAOhWkQ

2b) Massimo Pigliucci, "How to think like a philosopher: Reflective Equilibrium" (video - 4:49 min.)
https://youtu.be/jqSXAC-7dnk

III. THE COLD WAR ERA'S CASE FOR AGNOSTICISM IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY:

  • WAS ERIC VOEGELIN RIGHT THAT MARXISM POSITED A FORM OF TRANSCENDENTAL KNOWLEDGE OF POLITICS COMPARABLE TO PLATONISM & GNOSTICISM? WILL SECULAR SOCIETIES ALWAYS BE TEMPTED TO "IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON" (I.E. CREATE HEAVEN ON EARTH) AS VOEGELIN CLAIMED?

  • WAS KARL POPPER RIGHT THAT "HISTORICISM" (HISTORICAL DETERMINISM) INVOLVES UNFALSIFIABLE ASSUMPTIONS & IS UNSCIENTIFIC? IS POPPER'S "PIECEMEAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING" A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO RADICAL SYSTEMIC CHANGE?

  • WAS MICHAEL OAKESHOTT CORRECT IN PREFERRING "NOMOCRACY" (NEUTRAL RULE OF LAW THAT TRIES TO MAINTAIN ORDER) TO "TELEOCRACY" (JUDICIAL ACTIVISM THAT TRIES TO DIRECT SOCIAL CHANGE)?

  • IS JOHN RAWLS' USE OF THE "ORIGINAL POSITION" THOUGHT EXPERIMENT VULNERABLE TO THE SAME CRITIQUE AS MARXIST UTOPIANISM? DO WE NEED SOME SORT OF "IDEAL THEORY" TO GUIDE POLITICAL REFORM IN OUR NON-IDEAL WORLD?

3a) Kenneth Minogue & William F. Buckley, "The Mind of a Marxist - Understanding Ideologues" (video - 11:21 min, watch til 4:12)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5MlF59gF98

3b) School of Life, "Political Theory - John Rawls" (video - 6:33 min.)
https://youtu.be/5-JQ17X6VNg

IV. THE 21ST CENTURY DEBATE OVER POLITICAL PRAGMATISM & EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING:

  • IS NILS KARSON RIGHT THAT POLITICAL PRAGMATISM OUTSIDE THE U.S. IS MOSTLY THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF KEYNESIAN POLICIES IN THE 1970s & THE ADOPTION OF "NEOLIBERAL" MARKET REFORMS IN THE 1980s-90s THAT MADE WELFARE STATES SUSTAINABLE?

  • CAN POLICY BE BASED ON EVIDENCE WITHOUT UNDERLYING IDEOLOGY?

  • DO POLITICIANS RIG THE RESEARCH PROCESS FOR "POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE MAKING"?

  • IS HENRY FARRELL RIGHT TO SAY THAT PRAGMATISM SOMETIMES REQUIRES RADICAL SOLUTIONS TO DISMANTLE BARRIERS TO "UNFORCED INQUIRY"?

  • IN RETROSPECT, WAS OBAMA A PRAGMATIST? DID HIS PRAGMATISM HIDE A RADICAL IDEOLOGY, AS JONAH GOLDBERG ALLEGED?

  • IS JONAH GOLDBERG WRONG TO EQUATE PRAGMATISM & PROGRESSIVISM WITH "LIBERAL FASCISM"?

4a) Nils Karlson, "Pragmatism vs. Ideology" (video - 16:29 min, start at 11:18)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QcrZiqKkY8&t=11m18s

4b) Jonah Goldberg, "Which One Are You: Ideologue or Pragmatist?" (video - 5:11 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_rBxHxaco

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