Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

People should be free to believe what they want. But they should not be free to inflict the strictures of their beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.

I tend to agree. But be aware of what you're saying here.

Democracy, where unfettered by notions of moral rights, is a mechanism for the majority to "inflict the strictures of their beliefs on" the minority who do not share those beliefs.

So do I take it that you believe in such moral rights ? That there are laws that a duly-elected democratic government should not pass (because they infringe on individual rights of those in a minority) ? "Inalienable" rights which are prior to and indepent of the decisions of government ?

Is there a philosophical difference between belief in such invisible and unprovable rights and belief in invisible and unprovable duties ? Or between duties that theists believe in and duties that atheists believe in ?

Interesting questions! I have no useful or constructive answers to offer, so I offer none and nothing. But I look forward to seeing the responses to your words...

[Lagayascienza]

People should be free to believe what they want. But they should not be free to inflict the strictures of their beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.

I tend to agree. But be aware of what you're saying here.

Democracy, where unfettered by notions of moral rights, is a mechanism for the majority to "inflict the strictures of their beliefs on" the minority who do not share those beliefs.

So do I take it that you believe in such moral rights ? That there are laws that a duly-elected democratic government should not pass (because they infringe on individual rights of those in a minority) ? "Inalienable" rights which are prior to and indepent of the decisions of government ?

Is there a philosophical difference between belief in such invisible and unprovable rights and belief in invisible and unprovable duties ? Or between duties that theists believe in and duties that atheists believe in ?

It is not clear to me what you mean by “moral rights” so I can’t address that.

What I can say is that I believe that democracy, which requires freedom of speech, is the best way to govern ourselves. In particular, I believe in secular democracy whereby there is a constitutional separation of church and state. This means that no government can institute a state religion and no one can be denied any official position based on membership of a religion, or based on having no religion at all. That is good.

In my own country, the Australian Constitution guarantees freedom of and from religion. But that does not prevent people electing members of parliament who have religious agendas. I don’t know how this problem can be addressed except by changing the Constitution so that laws based in religion may not be introduced to parliament. That is highly unlikely to happen as the Constitution here is viewed as a quasi-sacred document which people are loath to change. Fortunately, abortion is freely available in Australia. However, religious schools still get government funding which I vehemently disagree with. They get funding to teach nonsense with my tax dollars. Schools should be for teaching and learning what is true and not for indoctrinating kids with supernatural mumbo jumbo. If parents want that sort of "education" for there kids let them pay for it themselves.

[Good_Egg]

It is not clear to me what you mean by “moral rights” so I can’t address that.

Cop-out ?
Moral rights are to right/wrong as legal rights are to legal/illegal.

What I can say is that I believe that democracy

The question was whether you believe in tyranny-of-the-majority democracy in which anything is justified if enough people vote for it, or in democracy within and subordinate to a framework of individual rights.

I believe in secular democracy whereby there is a constitutional separation of church and state. This means that no government can institute a state religion and no one can be denied any official position based on membership of a religion, or based on having no religion at all.

A secular state is one in which all religious beliefs are a private matter. Where the state takes no side between competing theisms or between theism and atheism, but remains neutral.

Where schools may teach materialism or any other worldview as they see fit. Where all competing views on the point in human development where human rights should begin are recognised, rather than dismissing those of theists.

It's not clear that you do believe in a secular state; some of your words suggest that you would prefer an atheist state. One in which having a theist agenda is an automatic disqualification.

Schools should be for teaching and learning what is true and not for indoctrinating kids with supernatural mumbo jumbo.

And where people disagree what is true ?

Noting that you say "should". As if your view were a morally-right answer rather than merely a personal preference

[Lagayascienza]

I believe in secular democracy whereby there is a constitutional separation of church and state. This means that no government can institute a state religion and no one can be denied any official position based on membership of a religion, or based on having no religion at all.

A secular state is one in which all religious beliefs are a private matter. Where the state takes no side between competing theisms or between theism and atheism, but remains neutral.

Well, that might be part of your notion of a secular state. I was alluding to a clauses in the US and Australian Constitutions which are written in terms similar to those I have used in my response. I too believe religion should be private matter and not a matter for governments.

Where schools may teach materialism or any other worldview as they see fit. Where all competing views on the point in human development where human rights should begin are recognised, rather than dismissing those of theists.

I did not say that theists views should be dismissed. I said merely that I do not want to pay for religious schools. I have no problem with students learning about religious views in any schools. However, I do have a problem religious doctrines being taught as truth.

It's not clear that you do believe in a secular state; some of your words suggest that you would prefer an atheist state. One in which having a theist agenda is an automatic disqualification.

I want neither a theist or an atheist state. I say only that governments should keep out of the religion business and that religions should stay out of the business of government.

Schools should be for teaching and learning what is true and not for indoctrinating kids with supernatural mumbo jumbo.

And where people disagree what is true ?

Here are a few examples of things that are true:

Light travels at 300,000k/s in a vacuum,
The square root of 25 = 5,
According to historical sources, Julius Ceasare crossed the Rubicon in 49BC,
Murder is illegal in Australia.

Some examples of things that are not true:

Jesus died, then came back to life before ascending bodily into heaven
The immaculate conception
Transubstantiation whereby at holy communion bread and wine are miraculously transformed so that you literally eat the body of Christ and drink his blood.

With the best will in the world, none of these can be true. They are impossible.

Noting that you say "should". As if your view were a morally-right answer rather than merely a personal preference

Yes, I did say “should”. Children should be taught what is true and they should not be taught what is not true. I did not say that this was morally anything, but I believe it is a morally defensible position.

[Fried Egg]

Looks like you've confused me once again with Good_Egg!

[Lagayascienza]

Aghhh! Sorry about that. Eggs all look the same to me at first glance. I must look more closely for the differences.

[Pattern-chaser]

The question was whether you believe in tyranny-of-the-majority democracy in which anything is justified if enough people vote for it, or in democracy within and subordinate to a framework of individual rights.

I note that I am interrupting in the middle of a more complicated discussion. But something stopped me as I read your post. Here, you seem to be referring to something I didn't expect.

For I think democracy is the dictatorship of the majority; that's what it is. Whereas democracy, constrained and modified by "a framework of individual rights", becomes something else, doesn't it? Not democracy any more, but ... a sort of Libertarian version of democracy? Democracy, of itself, has almost no connection to individual rights, does it?

[Good_Egg]

We've been scrambled again...

[Good_Egg]

For I think democracy is the dictatorship of the majority; that's what it is. Whereas democracy, constrained and modified by "a framework of individual rights", becomes something else, doesn't it? Not democracy any more, but ... a sort of Libertarian version of democracy? Democracy, of itself, has almost no connection to individual rights, does it?

Wikipedia distinguishes "liberal democracy" from "illiberal democracy".

So yes, there is no necessary connection between democratic forms and liberal (in the classic sense) values.

But you and I and Lagaya and Sy and all of us in our anglosphere societies have grown up in a liberal democracy; that's what we know and are used to.

But - as an observation on use of language - I suggest that many in our societies refer to such a system as "democracy" without the qualifying adjective.

The Wiki article suggests that there used to be (maybe half a lifetime ago?) a widespread belief that the processes of democracy would naturally lead to a western-style liberal democracy. That this was the destination at the "end of history". Twenty-first century experience has tended to disprove that belief.

I'd suggest that across history, most societies have been governed in accordance with the tradition of the tribe. That democratic, monarchic, and other forms get their legitimacy from local tradition, and that whilst a monarch may appear to have unconstrained power, they are in practice constrained by tradition.

But leftist political thought tends to see tradition as an enemy to be overcome, and disparages it.

So that today we live in a society where many people desire and value our liberal democracy, but don't value the tradition and the classic-liberal values that maintain it.

Hence when Lagaya (or anyone else) says he believes in democracy, I often seek clarification.

In this case, I'm asking whether Lagaya believes in democracy as a good in itself, even when it is used to impose the religion of the majority on everyone else ? Or whether what he actually believes in (as I do) is liberty ? Which includes freedom of religion. And which democracy - uncoupled from liberal tradition - can in some circumstances threaten.

[Lagayascienza]

Good_Egg, democracy, IMO, is a good only insofar as it is better than all other forms of government we’ve tried. It is better for four main reasons. Firstly, democracy enfranchises the masses in the political life of a nation. This is just and fair. Secondly, democracy allows the electorate to get rid of bad or ineffectual governments by voting in new ones. Thirdly, democracy provides for the peaceful and orderly transition of power from old governments to newly elected governments. And fourthly, democracy, particularly secular democracy with its separation of church and state, requires freedom of speech which I take to be a good in itself.

In a constitutional democracy such as those in Australia and elsewhere, if the electorate votes for a government composed mainly of religious conservatives, non-religious people like me are protected by constitutional arrangements that forbid the institution of a state religion and which forbid any religious test being applied to the holding of any governmental office. I may not like conservative religious governments but, as an atheist, I think the Constitution affords me enough protection - I am free to speak out against such governments, I’m free to vote against such governments and I am free to persuade other electors to do the same. And very importantly, change to the Constitution can only come about through the will of the electorate expressed in a referendum and not by any legislation any government might want to pass. Only the people can change the Constitution and not a government.

A secular democracy, and constitutional arrangements that allow freedom of speech and the right to vote governments in and out, is probably the best we humans can do. Theocracies, absolute monarchies and dictatorships would not suit me at all. I value too highly the right to take nothing on authority and the freedom to question anything, including religion.

[Pattern-chaser]

For I think democracy is the dictatorship of the majority; that's what it is. Whereas democracy, constrained and modified by "a framework of individual rights", becomes something else, doesn't it? Not democracy any more, but ... a sort of Libertarian version of democracy? Democracy, of itself, has almost no connection to individual rights, does it?

Wikipedia distinguishes "liberal democracy" from "illiberal democracy".

I can't see this. Perhaps I read the wrong part of the Wikipedia page, or the wrong page? This seems to be the main page:

Today, the dominant form of democracy is representative democracy, where citizens elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy. Most democracies apply in most cases majority rule, but in some cases plurality rule, supermajority rule or consensus rule are applied. They serve the crucial purpose of inclusiveness and broader legitimacy on sensitive issues—counterbalancing majoritarianism—and therefore mostly take precedence on a constitutional level. In the common variant of liberal democracy, the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but a constitution and supreme court limit the majority and protect the minority.

That seems pretty much what I said, a simple extension of the everyday definition, democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, doesn't it?

Democracy is not (yet another) vehicle to promote Libertarian politics, IMO.

[Good_Egg]

Good_Egg, democracy, IMO, is a good only insofar as it is better than all other forms of government we’ve tried. It is better for four main reasons... ...fourthly, democracy, particularly secular democracy with its separation of church and state, requires freedom of speech which I take to be a good in itself.

I agree with much of this. What I'd question is your fourth point.

Does democracy, of itself, deliver the good of freedom of speech ? Or are there a range of systems and cultures, all involving voting and hence democratic, which offer different levels of freedom of speech ? Such that it is meaningful and non-contradictory to prefer a liberal monarchy to an illiberal democracy ?

It seems like you're too hung up on religion as we know it, on the failings of some flavours of Christianity. On religions as theistic belief-systems rather than as belief-systems that people hold religiously. That's atheist bias...

Can you not envisage a society where any official who publicly questions the doctrines of Gaianism - such as the moral duty not to do anything that might contribute to climate change - gets hounded from office ?

In a constitutional democracy such as those in Australia and elsewhere, if the electorate votes for a government composed mainly of religious conservatives, non-religious people like me are protected by constitutional arrangements that forbid the institution of a state religion and which forbid any religious test being applied to the holding of any governmental office. I may not like conservative religious governments but, as an atheist, I think the Constitution affords me enough protection - I am free to speak out against such governments, I’m free to vote against such governments and I am free to persuade other electors to do the same.

The difference between Australia and the UK being that your written constitution sets out exactly what freedoms you have. Maybe...

[Sy Borg]

Whether to run a society based on democracy or religion is a different question. That's always a question of balance - each ideology has its moderate and extreme versions. Whatever, that refers to religion's administrative aspects but the OP is really about personal belief. The OP is unconvinced by theistic arguments, largely based on the problem of evil:

I have qualms with the inconsistency of the text in terms of morality, its lack of precision in its word and internal inconsistency. However, I could attribute these issues to human error IF we can resolve the problem of evil.

... One issue I have with all religions is Divine Hiddenness. That's a big issue. Where are these gods that used to appear and perform miracles 1500+ years ago?

I would appreciate discussing other arguments such as the Kalam, Ontological, Watchmaker, Fine-Tuning and any other arguments that support the existence of God. I'm so far unconvinced by all of them because the versions I've encountered are all logically flawed, so please share the strongest versions of the arguments with me. I'm open to change my view.

Consider the possibilities:

1. There are no deities

2. The deity of your religion is true but all the other religions are wrong

3. The deity or conception of some other religion is true, with all other religions being wrong

4. A deity exists, but all religions are wrong about it

5. A deity exists and all religions capture aspects of it.

I lean towards #5, based on a couple of peak experiences - for me, belief is personal, and my personal experiences have told me that something more interesting is happening than base materialism.

#1 and #4 would not surprise. #1, because my experiences are not conclusive proof. I've been wrong before, so why not here? If #4 is true then reality is much richer than we realise that we cannot even imagine it. That seems feasible to me, as per JBS Haldane's quote.

#2 and #3 seem unlikely. Using the prevalence of child molestation and exploitation of positions of authority and trust as yardsticks, no religion stands out as imbuing special qualities of character in its members. None could prevent their flocks from straying to some of the darkest places possible.

[Lagayascienza]

That's an interesting list, Sy Borg. None of the five can be disproved. But then, neither can fortune-telling, ghosts, astrology, etc. Yes, there are those peak experiences which both you and I have had. But must those experiences be accounted for by the existence of a deity? Could they not eventually be explained for by, say, neuroscience?

#1 seems most likely to me. I cannot prove that there is no deity, but if there were some intelligence that controls the universe, it does not seem to care about us. Suffering befalls the good and the innocent just as it befalls on the evil and the guilty. I see no “triple-O” deity in that. No theodicy successfully accounts for evil in the world. Six million people are worked, starved and gassed to death. A tsunami wipes out 250,000 people in a day. Priests and pastors molest untold thousands of children. Where is god? The god of religion seems to be no more than a god shaped hole - just wishful thinking?

[Sy Borg]

I don't think my main peak experience can be explained away by neuroscience, though I've tried. The feeling of all-encompassing unconditional love and absolute understanding was truly bizarre, utterly unlike anything else I've known. I think I slipped between realms, or something haha.

Add tales of NDEs and I reckon something else is probably going on. The weight of evidence is too strong IMO. You have to disregard a lot to retain materialism. I appreciate that witness testimony is about as highly regarded as a fart in a lift, but that's because it's someone else. When it's you, there's less of a trust issue. I'm pretty grounded. I don't see things or imagine things, and not for want of trying when I was young :)

I don't expect anyone else to accept my testimony any more than I believe others' fanciful notions. It's a personal, entirely subjective matter.

Re: the problem of evil. Based on the biggest peak experience, my sense was that suffering isn't a concern to, um, the universe because suffering is temporal and, in end, everyone will be just fine, just as people so often report after an NDE. When they are revived they often say they no longer fear death. Thus, the universe only cares about suffering in the sense that some of its constituents (hopefully) care.

If I was forced to make a bet, I'd place it on there being something else going on beyond the physical, other dimensions or whatever ... but I'd not be confident.