BAT - A Third Swing

I posted a sequel to my original Blog Against Theocracy post, to better describe my view and to make good use of some of my writing from the comments section. This final post is again an edited formulation of some of my responses from that original discussion.



Concerning the marketplace of ideas, or the table of reasoned discussion and rational discourse where the comparison of different ideas occurs, here is an analogy that should shed light on my thinking. If two ideas about a subject are competing, one supported solely by religious faith, and the other not, it won't always be necessarily true that the non-religious idea should win. Suppose the subject is environmental responsibility, and the religious person believes that the Spirit Of The Earth would have us take care of the planet, while the non-religious person thinks we should pillage and consume simply because his mother says so. If we investigated both sets of reasoning, we may in the end find that both are irrational, but in such a case the religious person's reasoning will still come as superior to the non-religious person's, if only because it is more developed and actually results in empirical positive benefit to the world at large.

The bad news for both individuals would be if a third person showed up whose reasoning had its basis in empirical observations and claims backed by facts, without any commitment to unreasonable and untestable dogma or superstition. This third person's conclusions may work well with those of the devout Spirit Of The Earth follower, but anybody with a concern for beliefs being reflective of reality will of course see that the third person's reasoning is superior, and perhaps more importantly a better tool for convincing others to also protect the environment.

In my view, the situation isn't really reason vs. "non-reason" or something like that. It's that many views may show up at the table, all bearing reasons. Some of the reasoning will be good, some of it completely ridiculous, and shades in between. It is this comparison, this critical evaluation of the proffered reasoning, that civilization as we know it has been involved in, to varying degrees of success, for several thousand years.

So, if a hypothetical theocrat were to ask, "what is the difference between your thinking and reasoning, and mine?" ...Well, I might answer like so: my thinking and reasoning is based on empirical investigation of the facts, and a concern for the well-being and happiness of all people. So, if the hypothetical theocratic supporter is arguing with me over his belief that women should be marginalized and treated as lesser, or even as property, with his foundation for such being his blind adherence to his holy book....what will we find? Will it truly be a mystery how my thinking and reasoning differs from his? First, we'll find that even a skin-deep survey of science will support me while damaging him, while a more extensive investigation of reality will only further help my case while hindering his. Second, we'll find that it's almost absurdly obvious whose view and reasoning actually furthers the happiness and rights and freedom of all people.

The hypothetical theocrat might still continue to ask: "What’s the difference? Is it because I have a god and you don’t?" And they may even make a wild claim: "You have a god, and you serve it, promote it, and elevate it. Your god is ‘reason’."

But despite the questioning, the difference isn't in the god, and reason is not a god. Reason is not served ― it is used. Promotion and elevation of something does not a god make.

Almost everybody agrees that Christians would not want to be told how to live their life based on the faith-based precepts of a different religion. In practice, this obviously holds true. Christians don't even consider allowing other denominations or sects of Christianity to dictate to them how to live their life, let alone a whole other monotheism. But tell them the same thing ― that their faith has no business telling you what to do ― and some will loudly question why it is acceptable to tell them that their religious definition of right and wrong is invalid. But that's not what we're declaring invalid ― they can believe just about whatever they want. What is acceptable is telling a religious person that their spiritual beliefs are not valid means of defining right and wrong and forcing such faith-based beliefs on others. So, if a Christian (or any other religious person) wants to use their preferred holy book to tell them what is right and wrong about some specific moral issue, my personal opposition to theocracy and my support for SoC&S actually comes as defending that religious person's right to such belief. But it should also be obviously acceptable to disagree strongly with that same religious person when they move to force their holy book-based faith belief on others who do not share the same religious outlook.

So in the real world, if a Christian wants to use faith in their interpretation of the Bible to decide that drinking alcohol is sinful and wrong, they are free to. They are even free to not only believe such a thing, but to act on it, and thus refrain from drinking beer or wine. But what they cannot reasonably do is expect all others to be forced to act as if alcohol is sinful. First, others may understand the Bible differently (imagine that!), or perhaps certain others have a different holy book that is not understood to prohibit alcohol, or perhaps others do not make their decision about beer based on religious reasoning at all.

Lastly, the response I received on this point didn't actually deal with my main thrust. Namely, that Christians would not enjoy it if the dictates of a different religion told them how to live their life. It is confusing in the extreme that a person could agree with this, and then proceed to argue that they, as a Christian, should still be allowed to tell others, based solely on a faith that is not shared, how to live their life.

In my OP, I wrote that "…one of the great things about our country is that just because you have a religious belief about a certain subject, that doesn't mean that I have to believe it too." Why any reasonable person would object to this, I do not know. The response I received came in the form of three questions. 1) Doesn't my view force all religious people in the country to believe what I believe about the brain? 2) Am I calling for an abolishment of religious legislation, thus forcing others to believe as I do? 3) Even if others believe differently than I, won't they be "affected" or perhaps "oppressed" by my stance?

However, my answer to all three of these questions is: no.

First, people are free (within certain limits) to believe that they don't, or shouldn't, make decisions with the aid of their brain. But it would be entertaining to hear such a person try to explain how they believe such a thing, and the reasons for such belief, without making use of their reasoning mind.

Second, what I'm calling for is the abolition of religious bigotry and theocratic legislation. Religious people are of course still involved in the whole process of law and legislation, and if their faith inspires them to argue persuasively (and with good reasons) in favor of a new piece of legislation that helps people and does not of necessity revoke the rights and freedoms of others, that's great!

So, third, no, not everyone has to believe as I believe. To use an earlier example, a Christian is free to believe that beer is sinful, even though I believe otherwise. So long as I do not force them to drink, and they do not force me to abstain, neither one of us is compelled against our will to believe or act as the other does.

With these three things clearly in view, we of course find that there is no oppression. The position I outlined in my OP is an argument in direct support of the historic Foundations of our country, and is specifically designed to avoid oppression.

The objection was made that while my anti-theocratic stance didn't bear a "religious title," it somehow still managed to be "religious." It was claimed that if one is devoted to a view and seeks to uphold it, defend it, and live by it, then such a view is "religious." Of course, I don't think I can take this objection too seriously. Just because you label something "religious" doesn't make it so. Having a view that you defend and live by can be done without religion or religiosity. For example, I elevate Nintendo as my preferred brand of video game console, I do so to the exclusion of others (with the exception of my sinful love affair with Sega Dreamcast), my discourse about video games is such that I tell others of my preference and I seek to uphold my view that Nintendo is better,and my real-life decisions about what video games I play are greatly affected by my choice of allegiance to Nintendo. On top of that, there are thousands and thousands of people just like me. But I think in all seriousness we all know that such is not the makings of religion.

As to how a person might determine why religious reasons aren't valid while non-religious ones are, I say pick a topic. Say a person has religious reasons for opposing garden fertilizer. They are committed to their faith belief in garden fairies that exist invisibly beneath the dirt, and who if revered properly will bless the garden and grow healthy plants. Now imagine that you disagree with that person, and you make recourse to science, specifically the branch of biology called botany. Your empirical view of gardening is not religious, and here in reality land will actually result in testable garden success that will prove you correct, and the garden fairy view wrong. Is it surprising that we can clearly see which reasons work as valid? Should we be confused that the devout fairy gardener will find it impossible to get laws passed that outlaw garden fertilizer?

The situation seems to only get worse for the man of religiosity when he makes the additional claim that his reasons are based on a "holy book." Not only are his claims then completely subject to the wide-reaching scrutiny of literary criticism, history, and science, but it is also almost certain that the non-holy book reasons will be verifiable, based on reality, and pragmatically more effective. Take my above example about invisible fairies who live beneath the garden. Even if such gardening philosophy is based on a holy book that teaches all about the wonderful holiness of invisible garden fairies, we will almost certainly find that your non-religious preference for fertilizer and proper botanical practice wins out when both ideas are compared. Not only will you have better (and testable) reasons for your stance, but the reasoning you employ to make use of your reasons will be superior.

"Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use
of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, 'It is
a matter of faith, and above reason.'" - John Locke

BAT - A Second Swing

Some questions in the comments section of my Blog Against Theocracy post prompted me to respond at some length, expanding and clarifying my intended meaning. I ended up feeling that some of the responses I wrote were at least as good as, if not better than, the material contained in my original essay. Here, I'll reproduce a somewhat heavily edited and expanded version of some of the comments I wrote during that discussion (with most of it from rebuttal #11), streamlining them to read more like an essay. I'll finish up in a third post.

Sometimes, and perhaps often, when discussing ethical behavior or social norms or the rule of law with a particularly conservative Christian, you may find that suddenly something magical happens. It is as if the common ground of rational thought and mutual, consistently self-validating uniform experience....disappears. Poof, and all of the rigors of a decent public high school education seemingly vanish. You may state your observation that just as we've "figured out" sound principles of structural engineering, so have we as a society "figured out" what we do and don't want people to be doing, only to be responded to with an incredulous "how?!?"

Now, it's normally true that regular conversation, and a Xanga blog post devoted to describing the shortcomings of the theocratic mindset of a disturbingly large part of our country's voters, probably isn't the appropriate place to delve into the long history of law. But a quick answer might be: just like we've figured other stuff out. There's a lot of trial and error involved, and lots of investigating, experimenting, and discussion. You know, the normal ways of figuring stuff out. "We" (in the collective sense) figure it out, as well as "we" in an individual sense. We each figure out as children that we enjoy the benefits of sharing, and we wail and thrash in response to theft. We figure out, rather handily, that we enjoy being treated kindly while we dislike being punched by our red-faced toddler cohorts.

As to why things are wrong, in the context of my original essay this has to do with an individual's right to pursue freedom and happiness (right up to where such would infringe or eliminate the same right in another individual). A read through all of the Founding Documents would demonstrate similar reasoning. It also makes good plain common sense: if two (or more) people can agree that they each want to be free to pursue their desires, they can only truly agree insofar as they also agree to not exercise their own pursuit of freedom at the expense of the other(s). Or to rephrase, I can't agree with you that we both have the right to exercise our freedom, only to turn around and then suppress (or completely destroy) your freedom. In doing so I would actively demonstrate that I actually disagree with the proposition of our individual rights and freedoms. Furthermore, were I to proclaim a right to both my freedom and to the removal of yours, I would become an irrational hypocrite the second I complained about you suppressing or destroying my freedom.

Not only is such reasoning reflected in such documents as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but a survey of the history of civilization yields even more clarity.

One may be challenged as to how one would explain that stealing is wrong to a hypothetical jungle tribesman whose society "values" stealing as a means of survival, strength, and honor (or further, why one thinks right and wrong exist). But for my part, I'm pretty skeptical that such a tribesman exists. Second, even if one did, while it may be quite important to explain to him why stealing is wrong (at least in our society and culture), it will not be nearly as imperative to outline to him why right and wrong exist. If I can't get past the first task of discussion ? explaining to him that he cannot steal here ? he will end up arrested and jailed or deported, almost immediately.

However, the question to ask such a tribesman would be this: "What do you do when someone tries to steal from you?" It would prove impossible to remain consistent with his claim that stealing is a valued behavior and also tell me that he defends his belongings. His behavior ? defending belongings from theft ? would actually speak loudly about whether or not he really thinks stealing is wrong. It would also show his moral precept "stealing is good" to be irrational.

You may find that during conversations along these lines, the conservative or theocratic-sympathizer may react to your stance against religious legislating and bigoted political moralizing by demanding that you explain how right and wrong exist from a non-religious viewpoint. They might even be ready to toss out dozens of examples that they think you must grapple with.

But again, normal (i.e. somewhat short) conversation and blog discussions aren't always the best place to get into an interminably long discussion about ethics (or big long hypothetical lists of the situational application thereof). Suffice it to say that there are many ways to argue towards a system of right and wrong, and even moral absolutism if you so desire, both with and without recourse to religion.

During the comments discussion of my OP, questions were raised as to the applicability of my position, with cigarette smoking standing in as a test case of sorts. Using cigarettes as an example is salient, in that we see such discussions going on in public life today, in several places in the country (right here in Louisville, even). As such, it seems that answers aren't very difficult to determine (even if good application isn't always the case in different locations).

The "anti" group (in the example, a religious anti-smoking group) will almost certainly fail to outlaw smoking. But they will almost certainly succeed in limiting smoking in such ways as to end up with smokers keeping their own rights, and non-smokers keeping their right to breathe clean air. And, lucky enough, here in reality land we find this to be most often true. Virtually all public buildings in the country, including most private business buildings, are smoke-free. A large percentage of restaurants in the country are also smoke-free, with some cities banning almost all indoor smoking, except for individual's homes. We also find that under-age smoking is illegal, and that it is also illegal to sell (and to a certain extent, advertise) cigarettes to minors. Thus, we've preserved the freedom of both the smokers and the anti-smokers, and nobody is oppressed.

Perhaps a tad more interesting, it was then asked, "...So let's take the same religious group and have them say, "Our holy book says that inhaling smoke is wrong, it is a sin." They are being forced to "sin" by any smokers that walk by or light up in the same building as them..."

They might be forced to "sin" if somebody walks by them outside somewhere with a cigarette, but such will be the consequences of such a completely ridiculous holy book-based belief. They would also be "sinning" any time they were in the presence of running automobiles, campfires, incense, or bee keepers. Such an irrational belief will render it their responsibility to avoid such things.

We may imagine that such a religious person might claim to feel "oppressed" any time they find themselves out in public where smokers may be. We may further imagine that they would ask whose freedom is "more important," and who gets to make such a decision. However, I don't think they'd be being oppressed at all. So long as nobody forces them to enter a bar that allows smoking, or strong-arms them into standing right next to the public ash tray outside of the mall, no oppression is occurring. Their religious freedom is no more violated than a person who religiously disapproves of beverage alcohol has his faith violated by a liquor store. If he does not go into the store and he avoids imbibing, his religious belief is not oppressed.

You see, in these cases there is no problem of "whose freedom is more important." The freedom of both is important, and in both cases can be reasonably preserved by rational means.

It can be observed that "different groups of people...reason what is right and wrong based on different things. Things they observe, things they believe, things they read, or things they just "feel"." To this I say: Yes! This is why people are expected to give their reasoning. One group of people, based on observation, belief, literature, faith, or any combination of the four, may somehow "reason" that it is not wrong to rape. But is it really a matter of mystery that their reasons for approving of rape will be failures? Historically, our country has been occupied by startling amounts of people who agreed that slavery was okay and that women should not have been allowed to vote. There are probably still a surprising number of people who feel this way. When such ideas were met with other people with different ideas, we can easily see which side had the better reasons.

If you argue as I have here, you may be accused (as I was) of elevating reason as the means of determining what is right and wrong, or legal and illegal. My response then was that, yes, I have. Would a person really suggest that I use something other than my brain to make decisions, moral or otherwise? Certainly, it is correct to suggest that our ability to reason is influenced by outside factors, such as what we read or are entertained by. However, none of that changes that a person (regardless of whatever their influences are) must think in order to make a decision. If you don't bring reason to bear on a choice in front of you, then you won't be making a decision.

In the comments of the OP, I was challenged on my stance regarding the validity of certain theocratic ways of thinking and the resultant legislative efforts. To clarify, what I dismissed as worthless, or what became invalid, were the proposed theocratic rules themselves. The potential law, absent any good reasons behind it and which would openly discriminate based on religiosity alone, was what I dismissed.

So my question for the conservative Christian and straight-ticket Republican voter would be: do you think theocratic laws supported by religious adherence to certain exclusionary holy books would be a good idea in our society? When such proposed rules necessarily reflect a view of the world not shared by all religious people, let alone all people, in the country?

Because, after all, if one agrees with me that theocracy is a bad idea, yet finds fault with the reasons I've given for my opposition to it, that would tend to make me curious as to their reasons for opposing theocracy.

My OP was inaccurately characterized as having reasoned that reason is supreme because I said so. However, what I talked about was the insufficiency of solely religious reasons for proposing laws, the imperative to find good reasons for our laws, and I touched on religious discrimination being a (sometimes? often?) particularly nasty expression of certain beliefs. But I never said anything like "reason is supreme, because I say so!"

Though, it is instructive to note that one would be hard pressed to disagree that sound reasoning is the tool to use in making decisions, without recourse to one's own ability to reason and give reasons for such a stance. In other words, to use one's ability to reason to try and declare reason as insufficient or invalid would be clearly self-defeating.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, is like administering
medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine

Attention Republican Party

Dear GOP,

The cost of obtaining my vote has gone up. The new price requires rational and logical support for planks in the platform, and policies that are honest, accountable, and responsible.

My vote will no longer be obtained by appeals to neo-Fundamentalist values. I will not be swayed by a "pro-life" banner that contains mutually contradictory positions (anti-abortion but pro-death penalty and pro-war; anti-stem cell research but pro-invitro fertilization, et cetera). My vote will not be won by religiously-motivated "abstinance only" campaigns that have spent billions on an "education" program that has been proven (time and again) to be ineffective, and that often includes overt lying to children.

Furthermore, the trumpeting of conservative "family values" that represent nothing more than bigotry, thinly veiled oppression, fear, religiously-fueled discrimination, and hatred, will absolutely not convince me to vote in your favor.

I will no longer vote for a party who has shown repeatedly that it has no respect for scientific integrity.

My vote will not go to a party who's leadership has consistently engaged in illegal activities (secret military tribunals, unconstitutional wiretaps, blatant cruelty and torture and seemingly endless violations of the Geneva Conventions) and steadfastly refuses to admit to any wrong-doing. In fact, rather than own up to its deeds, the administration had instead asked for "clarity" in an attempt to re-write the rules and legalize the torture they've been caught doing. Such behavior is completely appalling and absolutely unacceptable.

Speaking of illegal activities... How many people in the current administration have been indicted now? Libby, Noe, Safavian, DeLay, and soon Frist, and others? My vote will not be had by any Republican who ignores or approves of such wide-ranging problems.

I will not vote for any candidates that engage in their party's new "strategy" of using name-calling and made-up-words to marginalize opposing views and obfuscate legitimate matters of importance. The new fad of using empty transitory slogans, one-liner (or recently, one-worder) epithets, and divisive polarizing rhetoric will simply not earn my vote, and should be recognized for what it is: childish and an obstacle to progress.

My vote will not be given to the party that repeatedly attempts to cancel programs that hold it accountable for its policies. Examples, such as trying to silence the SIPP because it proves an increase in US poverty, railroading the OSC by dispensing with whistleblower protection, and granting the Pentagon arbitrary immunity from the FOIA, are indicative of Orwellian government and should be exposed and decried, not tacitly approved of.

I will not vote for a party who's fiscal and economic policies have encouraged or caused one of the largest deficits in history (including a nearly 9 trillion dollar national debt), and promoted the enrichment of the rich. Furthermore, I will not vote in favor of an administration that seeks to increase spending on propaganda while cutting support for real reporting from PBS and NPR.

The above is a brief explanation of the many reasons I have for reconsidering how I spend my vote. It should be clear that even without considering the increasing problems and mistakes of the "war on terror" (and the administration-leaked NIE report that says invading Iraq has made terrorism worse), the reasons are plentiful. I would encourage others to think carefully and weigh the value of your vote, and join me in my resolve not to give that vote away for far too cheap a price.