[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
This isn't religion taken to extremes, this is the definition of belief.
Yes, it is religion taken to extremes, and you know it. If all belief in religion was equally extreme, or blind, or whatever you'd like to call it, then there'd be no difference between Jainism and the Westboro Baptist Church. There'd also be no difference between Unitarians and Westboro Baptist, or between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims, etc. Surely you can see how absurd this is.
The people who are trying to establish laws and policies according to religions beliefs often are extremists
Sure, if they're advocating for extreme policies. And I agree, when religious extremists hide behind their holy book in order to justify advocating for/passing laws that hurt people, it's immoral, irrational and wrong. Of course, the same could be said for the anti-vax or anti-GMO extremists who point to their twisted version of science in order to justify denying people access to vital medicine and food, yet nobody ever points to them as evidence that science should not have any influence at all on society.
All I've been saying from the beginning, though, is that there are examples throughout history where we've looked to religion as the inspiration for policies that aren't extreme and have had a positive impact on society. For instance, the very Constitution and republican form of government that allow us to even have this debate about American politics were directly inspired by religion and likely wouldn't exist without religion, at least not in this present form. I'll grant you that these types of policies have become fewer and farther between in today's world, but it's still unfair to discount the fact that many of our most important institutions didn't come from scientists or militant atheists, they came from the church.
Frankly, if a law works and has a positive impact on society, I don't care whether it was inspired by religion, atheism, science, or a fucking acid trip, as long as it delivers results. Judging public policy primarily on its intentions and the process as opposed to the results is what got us a towering national debt and an unsustainable welfare-warfare state. It's time to get back to reals over feels.
[–] Kurplow ago (edited ago)
Boise, I had to walk away and come back later, just to make sure you were really making this argument. I have been saying that public policy needs to be decided upon as the result of rational, reasoned discussion. You are taking a stance in opposition to this. Therefore, you are at the very least arguing that it is sometimes okay for irrationality to be at the heart of public policy. To that, I simply say: if a policy is good there ought to be good reasons to support it. Let's unpack this last comment of yours...
I can, but that isn't what I said at all--making it absurd both as a statement and as a response to my espoused position. First, you can't compare Jainism to the Westboro Baptist Church. Compare the Lutheran church down the street to the WBC if you like, but Jainism is too far removed (a Jain who was an extremest would simply be radically passive, and non-violent, for starters). Second, you're not honestly engaging with my position, what I said was that you were pretending that people who believe in souls, an afterlife, or a personal god are extremists. They are not. This is a commonplace, socially acceptable level of belief in nonsense. I go on to assert that this kind of belief is a problem, because you need nothing else to support bad policy on irrational grounds. As soon as you have faith, you have unmoored yourself from reality and are fit for manipulation by those that would use religion to entrench their temporal power.
So, yes, extremists exist (I affirmed so in the comment you were replying to). Moreover, I affirmed that there are varying degrees of religiosity. However, any belief in anything supernatural is a problem in public discourse. You seem to be asserting the existence of "religious" people who don't hold these beliefs. I have no quarrel with these people who call themselves Christian but hold none of the requisite beliefs to do so. However, they are atheists, by the very definition of the word. They may be atheists who call themselves otherwise, motivated by community and social costs--but they are not theists, and are therefore atheists.
I'm glad we can, occasionally, agree. I must push back on this, though. I will argue that when religious people in general--extremist or not--hide behind their holy book in order to justify advocating for/passing laws in general, it's immoral, irrational and wrong, regardless of the consequences. At this point, I add that anyone who is trying to use science to advocate for positions not supported by evidence and reason is not actually using science, by definition.
That doesn't mean we must do so now. We know much more now than ever before.
The Constitution was written by men fleeing oppressive, religious fascism and their own atheism is often suggested if not evident from their speech and personal correspondences. The Constitution affirms no religion, and the two times religion is mentioned are equally well interpreted as establishing freedom from the yoke and lash of religion. Bottom-up forms of government predate all modern, monotheistic religions. None of this matters to my point, however, as my being wrong on these matters, even entirely, would give us no cause to entertain irrational arguments today.
Granted, but this does not call for any change to my position. Decisions are best made rationally, now that we have a significant understanding of the world that baffled our superstitious ancestors. It might be useful to admit at this point that religion was often the only game in town, and that it tolerated no other.
You argue here for a consequential view of public policies, but you are thinking about evaluating a policy in retrospect. What about the policy decisions we must make today, or tomorrow? Are you really suggesting we should listen to whatever irrational nonsense believers bring to the table on the off chance it might have a positive outcome? I hope not. I will say again, if a policy is good there ought to be good reasons to support it. If there are good reasons to support it, we need no bad reasons. If there are only bad reasons to support it, it is not likely to be good policy.
Expected results are part of the rational process. If policies were enacted without due regard to their consequences, this was a failure to have rational discourse, not evidence for the inefficacy of rationality.
This last sentence is a sad attempt to usurp my position and pretend it is your own. I have advocated in this conversation for a strict reliance on what is real and logically arguable. You'll find it hard to find arguments that I have made from emotion. You have advocated for maintaining religious doctrine as a basis for public policy. Why, though, might you be so ardently defending irrationality as a basis for policy?