|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 22, 2015 18:18:21 GMT -5
I guess I'm fussy about mere words and stuff, but I'm not an atheist. And secularism is a political-governance position. "Miltiant" is one of those slippery, emotive words that demands some kind of calibration before it's taken seriously--"compared to what?" would be one proper question.
John: "Bas[ing] . . . governance on objective truths--not your personal beliefs" isn't quite the same thing as "disallowing religious belief from participating" in a democratic polity. And there are plenty of examples, historical and contemporary, of what a polity governed primarily by religious beliefs and rules looks like (Calvinist Geneva, contemporary Iran).
(Sorry not to gin up an insult, but it takes all my energy just to remain rational in the presence of such starchy-knickered puppy-devourers.)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 22, 2015 18:35:33 GMT -5
John: "Bas[ing] . . . governance on objective truths--not your personal beliefs" isn't quite the same thing as "disallowing religious belief from participating" in a democratic polity. Sure it is. When the US is "government of, by, and for the people", by definition Tyson's wish is counter to that. He either concludes that he can form a coalition that will rule without participation by anyone religious, or he is demanding a non-democratic government.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jul 22, 2015 18:53:25 GMT -5
"starchy-knickered puppy-devourers"
I'm using that one.
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Jul 22, 2015 18:55:28 GMT -5
Yeah, that was good.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jul 22, 2015 18:58:19 GMT -5
I guess I'm fussy about mere words and stuff, but I'm not an atheist. And secularism is a political-governance position. "Miltiant" is one of those slippery, emotive words that demands some kind of calibration before it's taken seriously--"compared to what?" would be one proper question. John: "Bas[ing] . . . governance on objective truths--not your personal beliefs" isn't quite the same thing as "disallowing religious belief from participating" in a democratic polity. And there are plenty of examples, historical and contemporary, of what a polity governed primarily by religious beliefs and rules looks like (Calvinist Geneva, contemporary Iran). (Sorry not to gin up an insult, but it takes all my energy just to remain rational in the presence of such starchy-knickered puppy-devourers.) "Puppy devourer"? You had to bring Obama into this?
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 22, 2015 19:28:49 GMT -5
SO! Popcorn! Who wants popcorn? Can we eat it in your new car?
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jul 22, 2015 19:54:44 GMT -5
... "government of, by, and for the people", ... I only want to note that Dough thinks that that guy was one of the three worst presidents in history.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 22, 2015 20:03:46 GMT -5
John, don't make me bust out my epistemology gear. Any heterogeneous democratic (that is, open, participatory, non-feudal/aristocratic/oligarchic) polity is going to have protocols that determine exactly which truths are, if not self-evident, at least capable of testing and validation by something other than appeal to revelation or a supernatural order of reality.
Initially, certain working propositions might be determined to be untestable (e.g., "all people are created equal," "men and women should be equal before the law,") and some actions might be judged impermissable even for a nominally free, consenting adult (no selling oneself into slavery). Such basic principles and propositions are givens, but once they are agreed upon, the rest of the rule-set needs to be based on what anybody can establish with ordinary human senses, their instrumental extensions, and the data-processing protocols that we now call science. Appeals to religious belief by themselves ought not to have any standing in the setting of public policy, even if a majority of citizens are believers. Religious belief and practice remain in the private sphere. Law and policy are public. And when push comes to shove, appeals to the supernatural ought to be trumped by a secular, materialist understanding of the operations of the world.
If that's less than perfect democracy, then so be it. It beats governance by mullahs or bishops or L. Ron Hubbard.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 22, 2015 20:04:00 GMT -5
SO! Popcorn! Who wants popcorn? Can we eat it in your new car? NOW you've crossed a line! MODERATOR!
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jul 22, 2015 20:48:54 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure how we got from a bizarre, inherently funny video into a discussion of religion and government.
Oh, wait. Because you're all a bunch of obstreperous, bipolar, malodorous dickwads.
Ooh. I like that one. Almost pythonesque.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 22, 2015 21:45:33 GMT -5
Get thee to a nunnery, Rick.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jul 22, 2015 21:57:34 GMT -5
Get thee to a nunnery, Rick. Ooh. Do they have good parties?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 22, 2015 23:06:40 GMT -5
Did Bill get a new car? What make and model? What happened to the old one?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 22, 2015 23:13:03 GMT -5
Never mind.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 23, 2015 5:08:44 GMT -5
John, don't make me bust out my epistemology gear. Any heterogeneous democratic (that is, open, participatory, non-feudal/aristocratic/oligarchic) polity is going to have protocols that determine exactly which truths are, if not self-evident, at least capable of testing and validation by something other than appeal to revelation or a supernatural order of reality. Initially, certain working propositions might be determined to be untestable (e.g., "all people are created equal," "men and women should be equal before the law,") and some actions might be judged impermissable even for a nominally free, consenting adult (no selling oneself into slavery). Such basic principles and propositions are givens, but once they are agreed upon, the rest of the rule-set needs to be based on what anybody can establish with ordinary human senses, their instrumental extensions, and the data-processing protocols that we now call science. Appeals to religious belief by themselves ought not to have any standing in the setting of public policy, even if a majority of citizens are believers. Religious belief and practice remain in the private sphere. Law and policy are public. And when push comes to shove, appeals to the supernatural ought to be trumped by a secular, materialist understanding of the operations of the world. If that's less than perfect democracy, then so be it. It beats governance by mullahs or bishops or L. Ron Hubbard. You're making my argument for me and against Tyson. Welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 23, 2015 8:44:54 GMT -5
"starchy-knickered puppy-devourers" I'm using that one. Band name?
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Jul 23, 2015 9:25:12 GMT -5
I love it as a band name. Good thinking, Marshall.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Jul 23, 2015 10:00:36 GMT -5
Better.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 23, 2015 10:10:58 GMT -5
No, John, I'm suggesting that a chemically-pure, frictionless sense of "democracy" doesn't work any better than the ideal-conditions strictures in physics textbooks. If "democracy" means an absolute majority-rules process, then a 50%-plus-one (or a plurality in a multi-sided debate) can mean we all might have to live under sharia law or the Baltimore Catechism or whatever the heirs of L. Ron can concoct. In an actual heterogenous democratic polity, it would mean that non-believers have to live within the behavioral limits of whatever a majority/plurality of supernaturalist believers care to assert--something we tried for a very long time before the courts started to dismantle blue laws, anti-contraception laws, and the rest of the Christianity-is-normative stuff I grew up with. Look at the fun Israel has trying to officially accommodate the several flavors of Judaism included in the explicitly Jewish state. The ultra-orthodox have been known to insist that their protocols govern behavior even in the public portions of their neighborhoods (look up "Mea Shearim"). And, of course, the Law of Return is bound up with theological notions of who is or is not a Jew.
What I am in fact asserting is that the model of democracy you are offering is unrealistic for any actual heterogenous population. It is a kind of straw man. What Tyson (or the Tyson-labeled meme) asserts is that a polity needs an epistemological foundation accessible to everyone--not one that depends on acceptance of private and subjective unprovables or unfalsifiables. All I am doing is pointing out the level at which some set of unfalsifiables inevitably must be asserted--thus formulas such as "all men are created equal." (And note that this verbal formulation smuggles in some crypto-religious thinking with "created.")
Every system of propositions includes propositions which cannot be proved within that system (Gödel and all that*). In designing a system of governance, we have to be careful what on which unprovables we choose to build our edifice, and to keep them to a minimum. In practical matters, epistemology precedes metaphysics.
* Our teacher and friend John Gardner used to say, "Systems spin free."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 23, 2015 10:36:13 GMT -5
Every system of propositions includes propositions which cannot be proved within that system (Gödel and all that*). Exactly. So take that up with Tyson. I agree with you. He doesn't.
|
|