tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1417269222619334206..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Is secularism unprincipled?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43958378183417379632013-08-21T06:06:19.481-04:002013-08-21T06:06:19.481-04:00The issue isn't the word "suppose", ...The issue isn't the word "suppose", the issue is whether there is any secular evidence for the beginning of End Times.<br /><br />This article started well and then took a wrong turn when it claimed that "When it comes to policy, every question is<br />potentially a religious question."<br /><br />Frankly, that's just not true. Let's follow on:<br /><br />"On what earthly basis can I 'take no position' on the question of the End Times because it’s a 'religious question'? Am I to abandon my country to the massacre and famine I know is coming?"<br /><br />Provide secular evidence. Otherwise it is a religious question, a matter of unverifiable belief, which shouldn't be applied to those who don't share that belief.Levhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07217663962862675300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69180619259544485272013-08-20T17:39:38.793-04:002013-08-20T17:39:38.793-04:00Sorry, I didn't see this earlier.
"I thi...Sorry, I didn't see this earlier.<br /><br />"I think a willingness to put things on an empirical basis is a fair price of admission."<br /><br />If you mean a willingness to put things on the basis of good evidence, I agree with you. Everyone who takes his beliefs seriously will agree with that, although not necessarily when put that way. Religious people claim to have reasons for their beliefs just as non-religious people do.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90722503468298160362013-08-15T02:24:56.881-04:002013-08-15T02:24:56.881-04:00"Laws and policies are going to be based on c..."Laws and policies are going to be based on certain ideas of what is true and rational." Maybe. But quite often, they are based on the lawmakers' emotional views of what is moral, without regard to either truth or rationality. And some laws are based on truth but aren't necessarily rational responses to that truth. Some are based on outright fiction (here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002).<br /><br />"We shouldn't simply make things up with no evidence and assert them to be true, especially basing public laws and policies on them!" No argument from me, but I'm not sure how that relates to my point, which is that secularism can be based on excluding views that are irrational, which is very different than asserting the truth of views one wishes to promote.<br /><br />"'True believers' in these religions believe that their religions have a basis in the evidence and that therefore it is rational to believe and to assert them to be true and to take them into consideration in public lawmaking." I think this misses a key point, which is that asserting such deeply subjective views as "true" violates what Ian was referring to as "accessibility" (though he then rejects this perfectly good requirement on specious grounds when he reframes it as a "translation" problem -- an inconsistency that I've commented on elsewhere on this page). True believers are welcome to claim rationality, but that is a claim that is subject to analytical review (in other words, "accessible").<br /><br />On objective matters (where evidence is relevant), focus on what is true. On subjective matters, focus on what is rational. As far as I can tell, that's the best we humans can do.<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11473954226432776212013-08-14T10:22:12.747-04:002013-08-14T10:22:12.747-04:00I don't actually believe this. See the word &q...I don't actually believe this. See the word "suppose".ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60107599594151526052013-08-14T08:51:30.527-04:002013-08-14T08:51:30.527-04:00Laws and policies are going to be based on certain...Laws and policies are going to be based on certain ideas of what is true and rational. To say that a certain view is not based in any evidence is to say that it is not rational to positively assert it to be true. We shouldn't simply make things up with no evidence and assert them to be true, especially basing public laws and policies on them!<br /><br />So if you say that certain views are based in no evidence, you are limiting the options as to what views it would be rational to accept and base policy on. If you think that religious/supernatural views in general are based in no evidence, then you have in effect declared that we should be at least agnostics if we want to be rational, and we should base laws only on naturalistic considerations. And this amounts to what I've been saying.<br /><br />In short, what I hear you saying is this: "The society should be secular--that is, it should base its policies not on religious but only on naturalistic considerations--because supernatural beliefs are not grounded in sufficient evidence." You can assert this proposition, but you can't claim that the proposition is neutral or free from worldview-endorsement/rejection, because not everyone agrees with this proposition. This is a proposition held by agnostics and atheists, but not by traditional Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. "True believers" in these religions believe that their religions have a basis in the evidence and that therefore it is rational to believe and to assert them to be true and to take them into consideration in public lawmaking.<br /><br />So, again, secularism is unprincipled because it wants to assert a controversial way of thinking as the basis of law while at the same time asserting that it is not endorsing or rejecting anyone's worldview beliefs. But secularism's foundational ideas are no more neutral than if we were to base laws on Christian or Muslim beliefs, as in both cases the foundational ideas are disputed between worldviews.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28227175483456519612013-08-14T00:54:32.891-04:002013-08-14T00:54:32.891-04:00Actually I spoke of excluding views in the name of...Actually I spoke of excluding views in the name of rationality, not of accepting only certain views in the name of rationality. In other words, the principle would be "View X has no rational or empirical basis. Therefore, although we certainly don't prohibit people from taking View X based on faith, there is no mutually shared basis for that faith and therefore we cannot base policy on it." Not "We've decided View Y is true and so we will base policy strictly on View Y". I think it is irrational to assert "atheism is true" or "Catholicism is true". There can be no meaningful debate on such terms, as the assertion elevates the belief to an axiom rather than something to be demonstrated -- ultimately, it's just an exercise in question-begging. But people can debate, quite meaningfully, whether or not atheism is rational, or whether or not Catholicism is rational. "Rational" and "true" are not synonymous.<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79126429798473701612013-08-10T01:12:36.641-04:002013-08-10T01:12:36.641-04:00The article's argument is incorrect.
"Su...The article's argument is incorrect.<br /><br />"Suppose I believe that 2015 will be the beginning of the End Times, when the world will be consumed in a great war involving all countries."<br /><br />Provide secular evidence on why this is the case.<br /><br />Levhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07217663962862675300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78484816490641021832013-08-08T14:12:05.461-04:002013-08-08T14:12:05.461-04:00Yes, that would be a principled way of excluding t...Yes, that would be a principled way of excluding them. If the state were to say, "OK, we've decided that atheism is true (or agnosticism, or Catholicism, or whatever) based on an evaluation of the available evidence, and so we will base laws on that assumption and not on any contrary assumption, such as that some alternate worldview is true.", then this would be to abandon the neutrality-claim of secularism in favor of a straightforward affirmation of the beliefs and values on which laws will be based.<br /><br />All societies in reality do base their laws on some specific and non-neutral beliefs and values. The only question is whether or not this will be acknowledged or hidden. The un-principled-ness of secularism comes from its choosing to try to keep its specific foundations obscure and hidden (under the guise of non-endorsement, fairness, neutrality, etc.) rather than straightforwardly acknowledged.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10955795324962840632013-08-08T14:03:44.052-04:002013-08-08T14:03:44.052-04:00"it tries to exclude certain views for no rea..."it tries to exclude certain views for no real stated reason in the name of a false non-endorsement or neutrality."<br /><br />Then, is it okay if it excludes those views in the name of rationality, or in the name of empiricism?<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90813181414384503842013-08-07T23:52:39.452-04:002013-08-07T23:52:39.452-04:00I don't think atheists have "appropriated...I don't think atheists have "appropriated" the term, though some may apply it to themselves. Perhaps some may apply it to themselves exclusively, which would be incorrect, but such usage would need to be widespread to call it "appropriation". Let's not forget, evangelicals have been using the term "secularism" as a pejorative for a long time now. And evangelicals want to tie the two (atheism and secularism) together, whether atheists want that association or not. I don't know of any polling data indicating whether they want it.<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41859781603045992602013-08-07T12:58:56.104-04:002013-08-07T12:58:56.104-04:00"In other words, one principle can trump anot..."In other words, one principle can trump another."<br /><br />Sort of. But I think Ian's deeper point is that there is something hypocritical about secularism, is that it tries to exclude certain views for no real stated reason in the name of a false non-endorsement or neutrality.<br /><br />"Or one's principles aren't always well-thought-out."<br /><br />That's more the issue, I think.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12309326610643251882013-08-07T12:57:00.052-04:002013-08-07T12:57:00.052-04:00"However it is principled in another sense be..."However it is principled in another sense because the virtues of tolerance and fairness also motivate secularism."<br /><br />Virtues which you yourself advocate based on your Catholic worldview. So you are really trying to base law on Catholic beliefs and values. Your goals may coincide in practice (to some extent) with many of those agnostics who are also advocating secularism, but you are actually seeking a different foundation for law.<br /><br />"Assume for a moment there is no God(as most of you do) then where does that leave religion? Obviously then it is an extremely deep seated and persistent sociological phenomenon that is going to be around for the foreseeable future(it is not going away). In which case a democratic society must make practical adjustments that recognise this phenomena and accommodate it. Violating such a deep seated and persistent phenomenon does not make for a harmonious society."<br /><br />Good articulation of an atheistic case for toleration and religious freedom. It seems very reasonable, assuming that atheism is true. (And you may agree with many of its practical conclusions from your Catholic point of view as well, but for different reasons to some extent.)<br /><br />"All of this is complicated by the fact that militant atheists have appropriated the word 'secularism' as a weasel word that acts as a front for their activities, creating the semantic confusion evident in some of the comments."<br /><br />Actually, I think that the atheists and agnostics who are trying to use secularism to remove religion from the public sphere are acting consistently with the mainstream idea of what secularism is, as Ian has spelled it out in his two principles (laying aside for the moment its internal inconsistency and taking "agnostic" for the real meaning of "neutral). If civil society is truly to take a "know-nothing" attitude towards religious claims, not endorsing any over any other, then laws and policies cannot be based on religious (that is, non-naturalistic) beliefs and values. Here, I suspect, is where your Catholicism is going to come into conflict with the agnostic idea of secularism.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3077475982759748032013-08-07T12:56:50.744-04:002013-08-07T12:56:50.744-04:00"Belief systems don't motivate secularism..."Belief systems don't motivate secularism in general. What motivates it rather is the desire to find a practical accommodation for contending belief systems that does not limit democratic freedoms."<br /><br />But secularism is indeed always motivated by beliefs and values that agree with some worldviews and disagree with others. That is precisely one of Ian's main points. For example, certain forms of Islam are opposed to secularism because they believe that God is opposed to it. Secularism is based at least partly on the belief that this is not true, and that itself a substantive belief just as much as saying it IS true.<br /><br />Secularism is always motivated by certain ideas about what is true and good. Secularism in the strongest sense, while claiming to be neutral, is really agnostic in practice, because it takes a "know-nothing" attitude towards non-naturalistic claims. Therefore, the only people who can truly and really embrace secularism to this extent are naturalists--atheists and agnostics. When religious people (and I mean here "True Believers" as Ian calls them) embrace secularism, it is actually something fundamentally different. For instance, Peter, you, as a Catholic, embrace toleration and religious freedom not for agnostic reasons but for practical reasons that make sense from your Catholic point of view. Your Catholic worldview provides you with certain beliefs about truth, goodness, and justice, and your secular ideals are an attempt to apply these Catholic beliefs and values to the civil sphere. A more robust secularism, of the kind that Ian lays out, would have to reject your motives as invalid because they are based on Catholicism and endorse these Catholic ideals over, say, Islamic ones.<br /><br />Of course, a more robust secularism is actually hypocritical and self-contradictory, for agnosticism itself is not neutral any more than Catholicism or Islam.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76657580062961437272013-08-07T12:37:57.428-04:002013-08-07T12:37:57.428-04:00What you call my loaded definition of neutrality i...What you call my loaded definition of neutrality is simply the two principles of modern secularism that Ian is attacking in the article:<br /><br />"The modern secular movement is committed to two main principles: (1) religions are welcome to participate in moral and political debate in the public sphere, so long as they use language and arguments that are at least in principle accessible to all participants in the public sphere; (2) the state may not endorse any one religious perspective over any other."<br /><br />#1 implies that there are ideas and arguments that are publicly accessible to all and others that are not. That is to say, there are ideas and arguments that are neutral between the worldviews of all and others that are sectarian and non-neutral. Ian rightly points out that this is fallacious, as all arguments and ideas are potentially accessible to all, in that all of them can be backed up by an attempt to present evidence--religious no less than secular. And, in another sense, no arguments, religious or secular, are accessible to all in that they all at some point posit ideas not shared by all people of all worldviews. In other words, secularism claims a neutrality it does not really have, and so is unprincipled.<br /><br />#2 is an obvious, straightforward claim to neutrality--the very "loaded' definition of neutrality that I am using. But it is fallacious because any set of laws, secular no less than religious, will end up endorsing and rejecting various people's worldview beliefs.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38532022371341562692013-08-07T03:30:28.048-04:002013-08-07T03:30:28.048-04:00Mark
>and yet secularism is, practically speaki...Mark<br />><i>and yet secularism is, practically speaking, founded on agnosticism</i><<br /><br />I am always impressed by your comments but on this occasion I will differ. Belief systems don't motivate secularism in general. What motivates it rather is the desire to find a practical accommodation for contending belief systems that does not limit democratic freedoms. In this sense it is unprincipled.<br /><br />However it is principled in another sense because the virtues of tolerance and fairness also motivate secularism. Some people seem to lose sight of this.<br /><br />Secularism is also motivated by a practical consideration. Assume for a moment there is no God(as most of you do) then where does that leave religion? Obviously then it is an extremely deep seated and persistent sociological phenomenon that is going to be around for the foreseeable future(it is not going away). In which case a democratic society must make practical adjustments that recognise this phenomena and accommodate it. Violating such a deep seated and persistent phenomenon does not make for a harmonious society.<br /><br />All of this is complicated by the fact that militant atheists have appropriated the word 'secularism' as a weasel word that acts as a front for their activities, creating the semantic confusion evident in some of the comments.labnuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12216731311329758699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82949397523967983512013-08-07T02:08:27.798-04:002013-08-07T02:08:27.798-04:00I'm trying to wrap my head around which half o...I'm trying to wrap my head around which half of my statement you think is a straw man or product of my imagination.<br /><br />Peter: "I embrace and welcome the legal aspects of a secular state."<br /><br />"This ethical void at the heart of secularism explains how they can proclaim tolerance while at the same time practising hostile intolerance of other people's religious beliefs."<br /><br />"In practice though, the people who proclaim secularism are often militant atheists intent on destroying religion. This is the contradiction which makes them hypocrites."<br /><br />Richard: "So you welcome the benefits of a way of thinking that you think is ill-founded."<br /><br />Peter: "That is wholly the product of your imagination. You seem intent on forcing a strawman argument on me."<br /><br />Um, wait, what?Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49031998048550673212013-08-07T01:52:08.254-04:002013-08-07T01:52:08.254-04:00You are missing the point. The issue I have with w...You are missing the point. The issue I have with what you are saying isn't about neutrality per se, it's with the loaded definition of neutrality that you are applying. To imply that secularism claims to be neutral as you define it is a straw man.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41555853235506926122013-08-07T01:47:29.641-04:002013-08-07T01:47:29.641-04:00Then explain why we can't demand that people o...Then explain why we can't demand that people of faith back up their claims with evidence. They seem to think they don't need to, that faith is sufficient. I think a willingness to put things on an empirical basis is a fair price of admission.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29766851010554530312013-08-06T22:59:45.704-04:002013-08-06T22:59:45.704-04:00Well, the Supremes themselves DID call secular hum...Well, the Supremes themselves DID call secular humanism a religion in Torcaso. <br /><br />But Torcaso ruled on secular humanism for different grounds than the circuit court did for atheism on Reed.<br /><br />That said, given that the justices, or the circuit court in Reed, weren't being asked to split religious hairs, not just legal ones, and also given that by the time of Reed, we have one Justice who's as nutty on civic religion as anything else (hint: he's one of the Catholics!), I wouldn't read much religion or philosophy, and not a hell of a lot of law, into Reed, other than to translate it into common English, in light of Torcaso, and say, the circuit court was finding atheism had protection as "freedom from religion."Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24968921712227546582013-08-06T20:07:50.530-04:002013-08-06T20:07:50.530-04:00"Sometimes a matter of great practical import..."Sometimes a matter of great practical import must override a matter of principle, however."<br /><br />In other words, one principle can trump another.<br /><br />Or one's principles aren't always well-thought-out.<br /><br />I have no problem with secularism, if it keeps the insane people complacent enough. The leading alternative in the last century was the USSR, and that didn't really turn out so well for the people who had to live there.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06294841118508802764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8912754170954607912013-08-06T17:01:21.306-04:002013-08-06T17:01:21.306-04:00The interesting thing is that for secularism to tr...The interesting thing is that for secularism to truly non-hypocritically avoid taking sides in worldview disputes, which is one of its central principle, it not only has to avoid taking sides with or against the various religions and atheism, but it also has to avoid siding with agnosticism--and yet secularism is, practically speaking, founded on agnosticism, for the whole idea of it is to take a "know-nothing" attitude towards religious claims. Thus, secularism violates secularism. This is just another way of making Ian's point about its unprincipled nature.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11793711881828711172013-08-06T16:23:57.292-04:002013-08-06T16:23:57.292-04:00It is true that the Supremes did not make a ruling...It is true that the Supremes did not make a ruling. However, they let stand the ruling of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This is what I quote.<br /><br />Given the way the American system of justice works, atheism has been ruled to be, in a specialized sense, a 'religion' for 'purposes of the First Amendment.'<br /><br />State-supported atheism is, consequently, ruled out by the Establishment Clause for the foreseeable future, as Ian correctly claims.<br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40141554198522566482013-08-06T15:26:54.417-04:002013-08-06T15:26:54.417-04:00Christian, I don't think you'll be able to...Christian, I don't think you'll be able to maintain any principled distinction between "first-order" conceptions and "second-order" conceptions. If your second-order conceptions oppose my first-order conceptions, then your conceptions are really based on some alternate set of first-order conceptions. To use my same-sex marriage example again, if I say that we shouldn't have legal recognition of ssm because God says not to, and you respond by saying that we should have it because it makes sense from some set of "second-order" principles (say, a desire not to restrict diversity unnecessarily), then your second-order principle contradicts my principle. Clearly, if I am right that God doesn't want us to legalize ssm, it would be foolish to do it, so your belief that it makes more practical sense to legalize it must be based on some kind of belief-foundation that contradicts mine (which might involve, for example, the claim that God isn't really opposed to ssm or that we can't know what God wants, etc.).<br /><br />Richard, the term "neutral" is an apt description of both of Mr. Polluck's two principles involved in secularism, especially the second. Secularism is unprincipled precisely because it claims to avoid taking sides when it really takes sides. In other words, it claims to be neutral when it is not.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36174570769348217592013-08-06T15:26:19.489-04:002013-08-06T15:26:19.489-04:00Peter, agreed. And, on different ends of the spect...Peter, agreed. And, on different ends of the spectrum, re politics, I've pointed out that not all atheists are liberals. For example, the great mythicist Robert Price is a paleoconservative who has, on his Facebook page, called for Obama to be impeached. That's another reason this "silencing" is pernicious. Who's setting the terms?Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81060287932645889382013-08-06T15:24:36.763-04:002013-08-06T15:24:36.763-04:00SCOTUS has never made a ruling. The (in)famous sta...SCOTUS has never made a ruling. The (in)famous statement about the Humanist Manifesto was in a footnote by an individual Justice.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.com