PhilGoetz comments on Rationality Quotes Thread October 2015 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: elharo 03 October 2015 01:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (265)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 16 November 2015 05:35:07AM *  -1 points [-]

To you, and to Phil Goetz, a moral belief implies an imperative to make everyone conform to it, had one only the power to do so.

Richard, this is not what I believe, but rather what Lewis almost certainly believed, as evidenced by how all Christians, everywhere, throughout all history up to Lewis' time, have behaved. It would be an astonishing coincidence if the one Christian we were talking about were the one secretly willing to grant religious freedom to non-Christians.

(Yes, religious freedom includes the right to polygamy and prostitution.)

In fact I have several times explicitly stated the same thing you wrote here, as a critique of Eliezer's outline of CEV, which assume (without even noticing it) that a moral belief implies an imperative to propagate itself.

Comment author: CCC 16 November 2015 07:20:25AM 1 point [-]

It would be an astonishing coincidence if the one Christian we were talking about were the one secretly willing to grant religious freedom to non-Christians.

I believe, at this point, that it might be helpful to quote from "Dignitatis Humanae", an official Vatican document on the subject of religious freedom:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.

To elaborate slightly:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Now, I'm not saying that all denominations of Christianity have an equally strong stance in favour of religious freedom (I've heard about some extremely militant modern Protestant groups, particularly in America). But this is strong evidence that there is a rather large group of Catholics who do believe in the idea of religious freedom; and if Lewis had done so as well, then he would hardly be alone in this stance.

(Dignitatis Humanae was published about two years after Lewis' death)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 17 November 2015 07:59:39AM *  0 points [-]

And yet the Catholic Church and its members still work to ban birth-control in countries where it thinks that's possible.

I don't care what they say they do. I care what they do.

Comment author: CCC 17 November 2015 09:12:55AM 3 points [-]

I don't see what that has to do with religious freedom. They're not stopping anyone from being muslim, or protestant, or atheist.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 16 November 2015 12:55:54PM 2 points [-]

Richard, this is not what I believe, but rather what Lewis almost certainly believed, as evidenced by how all Christians, everywhere, throughout all history up to Lewis' time, have behaved.

I prefer to determine what Lewis almost certainly believed by looking at what he certainly wrote. The very quote that started this discussion is explicitly saying the opposite.

Besides, it's nearly five hundred years since the Thirty Years War knocked the stuffing out of Christian proselytisation by the sword, and the imperative to force people into belief, or at least practice, has been declining ever since. Further history here.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 17 November 2015 08:04:10AM 0 points [-]

The fact that they no longer tell people to convert or die does not mean they grant freedom of religion. I'm not aware of any society with a Christian majority that has ever refrained from enforcing its moral rules on the rest of its society. I am aware of probably hundreds, if I added them up, throughout history, that have done so. Find me a dozen counterexamples and I'll listen.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 November 2015 09:08:32AM 2 points [-]

From talking about C.S. Lewis, the conversation has now floated up to the outer edges of the atmosphere.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 21 November 2015 01:46:00PM *  0 points [-]

The United States currently has a Christian majority. And to the best of my knowledge, a large majority of people in charge of the government in all Western countries are currently Christians. That is certainly true of the present Supreme Court in the United States which legalized gay marriage, which is currently composed of six Catholics and three Jews.

If being majority Christian means being tyrannical, the USA is currently a tyranny, and so is every other Western country.

In which case what does this have to do with C.S. Lewis?

Comment author: Jiro 22 November 2015 03:43:48AM 0 points [-]

.If being majority Christian means being tyrannical, the USA is currently a tyranny, and so is every other Western country.

The US is majority Christian, but not majority alieving-Christians.

Comment author: EHeller 22 November 2015 04:26:40AM 1 point [-]

I don't think that is true? There is a huge contingent of evangelicals (last I checked, a bit under half of Americans believe in creationism), it only takes a few non-creationist but religious Christians to get to a majority.

Comment author: Jiro 22 November 2015 10:27:57AM -1 points [-]

Whether someone is an alieving Christian can be hard to determine because of where you set your threshhold--typically people act as though some things about Christianity are true but not others. But entirelyuseless brought it up in the context of the people who run the government and I think it's exceptionally clear that most of them aren't. I certainly doubt that the members of the Supreme Court who voted for gay marriage are either evangelicals or religious Christians.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 22 November 2015 02:17:12PM 4 points [-]

Christianity is not a unified body of doctrine, and a very plausible explanation for why people typically "act as though some things about Christianity are true but not others" is that they in fact believe that some things are true but not others.

Comment author: Jiro 22 November 2015 06:37:39PM *  0 points [-]

That's the inverse of "no true Scotsman". "No true Scotsman" refers to the situation where you arbitrarily exclude people who you don't want to count as members of a class, by saying "that isn't really Christian". In this case, you can arbitrarily include people who you do want to count, by saying that any non-Christian things about them aren't really non-Christian.

Then every Christian can count as a religious Christian.

Comment author: Tem42 22 November 2015 04:41:40PM 0 points [-]

I think you are missing a critical point -- most people seriously don't care about the age of the Earth, at all. So if you ask someone "did God create the Earth in its present form", you are not identifying whether or not someone is a young Earth creationist, but simply giving the prompt "do you believe in God enough to say 'yes' on a random survey?"

One survey found that 25% of Americans don't know that the Earth orbits the sun. This seems like a non-religious question to me, and thus I am willing to take it as a general indicator of 'how much Americans care about basic science'. So I would split that 42% into two groups: 'Americans who strongly believe that God created the Universe in its present form' = 17% (ish), 'Americans who guessed wrong and/or would like to weakly signal that they are Christians' = 25% (ish).

Most people just don't care enough to alieve about science. However, I suspect that more people do care enough to alieve about politics, and are willing to base their political ingroup on religion.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 26 November 2015 07:16:55AM 2 points [-]

Yes, most Christian societies have laws against murder, then again so do most non-Christian societies.

Comment author: gjm 28 November 2015 07:02:05PM 1 point [-]

I assume Phil means that Christian-majority societies have tended to enforce not only Christian rules that are widely shared among non-Christians, but also Christian rules that are not. Phil, would you care to clarify?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 30 November 2015 03:25:42AM 3 points [-]

I assume Phil means that Christian-majority societies have tended to enforce not only Christian rules that are widely shared among non-Christians, but also Christian rules that are not.

Well, all the examples cited in this thread are also widely shared among non-Christians.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 30 November 2015 09:09:45AM 0 points [-]

Among examples of rules not widely shared among non-Christians that are enforced in present-day western countries, off the top of my head I can think of the ban on selling alcohol on Good Friday in Ireland, and bans on certain types of stem cell research in various countries. There probably are many more that don't immediately spring to my mind.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 November 2015 09:40:47AM *  2 points [-]

Among examples of rules not widely shared among non-Christians that are enforced in present-day western countries, off the top of my head I can think of the ban on selling alcohol on Good Friday in Ireland

One could hardly come up with a worse example of a Christian-only prohibition. Alcohol is religiously forbidden to Moslems, and in some Moslem countries, legally forbidden on every day of the year, not just the selling of it, but the drinking. The punishment is flogging, or death for persistent offenders.

ETA: Ah, you said Western countries, which currently excludes all the Moslem states. But the Moslem populations of the West still have the religious prohibition.

Comment author: gjm 30 November 2015 04:28:14PM -1 points [-]

Why's that relevant? The point (unless I'm misunderstanding badly) is that the ban is there because some Christians wanted it to be, that the great majority of the non-Christian population would likely prefer it not to be there, and that this is therefore an example of a Christian rule being enforced on people who are not Christians.

The fact that a small fraction of the non-Christian population might be happy enough for the rule to be there is irrelevant. If there were a law requiring everyone to go to church on Sundays there would probably be as large a fraction of the non-Christian population in favour; it would still (obviously, no?) be an example of a Christian rule being enforced on people who are not Christians.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 November 2015 05:57:26PM 2 points [-]

If there were a law requiring everyone to go to church on Sundays

There have been such laws in the past, but is impossible for there to be such a law in the present day. There aren't enough Christians to pass it or enforce it. Such laws were made when everyone was Christian. With increasing secularisation they fall away. Sunday trading, sale of alcohol on holy days, laws against the wrong sort of Christian and all non-Christians: in the countries of Christian traditions these have mostly disappeared. To point to a minor historical relic like the banning of alcohol sales on one day of the year (a ban with many loopholes in it) is not a good example of Christians imposing their rules on non-Christians.

Especially since alcohol is not even forbidden to Christians, whatever the day of the year.

Comment author: Jiro 30 November 2015 10:15:08PM 0 points [-]

"Prohibits alcohol on Good Friday" means "specifically prohibits alcohol on Good Friday". Prohibiting it as a subset of a generic prohibition on all alcohol doesn't count.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 December 2015 12:41:05AM 2 points [-]

"Prohibits alcohol on Good Friday" means "specifically prohibits alcohol on Good Friday".

Which is a sliver of a prohibition. And even that got trumped by commercial lobbying by pubs on a Good Friday when there was a big football match.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 30 November 2015 02:15:48PM *  0 points [-]

The alcohol rule is not enforcing a Christian rule on non-Christians, since neither Christians nor Catholics have a rule against buying alcohol on Good Friday. That law (which I only know about from this comment) is specifically Irish. It is not banning something for everyone which is against the rules for some; it is banning something for everyone which normally would not be against anyone's rules.

(Which does not mean there are no cases of Christians enforcing specifically Christian rules on non-Christians; there are likely cases like that.)

Comment author: gjm 30 November 2015 04:20:40PM 2 points [-]

It certainly is enforcing a Christian rule on non-Christians. "Christian rule" here means not "rule found in the Bible" or "rule adhered to by at least 40% of Christians" or anything like that but "rule wanted only by Christians, for specifically Christianity-related reasons".

The only plausible reason to forbid buying alcohol on Good Friday in particular is that among Christians Good Friday is a solemn holy day on which drunkenness would be exceptionally inappropriate.

(Other hypothetical things that I think would be "Christian rules" in the relevant sense, just to make sure my point is clear: A rule forbidding anyone to speak ill of any canonized Christian saint. A rule forbidding commercial transactions on Sundays. A rule obliging everyone to attend at least one service in an Anglican church every Sunday. None of these is regarded as obligatory by most Christians. Any of them, if made into law, would be an obvious example of Christians imposing Christianity-specific obligations on others. That the obligations aren't readily derivable consequences of Christianity as such makes this worse if anything, not better.)

Comment author: entirelyuseless 30 November 2015 08:05:18PM *  2 points [-]

I agree with you on all the facts here, but I still don't think talking about this as Christians enforcing a Christian rule on non-Christians is a good way to think about it.

At least parts of Italy have a law against stores being open on Easter Sunday, although they are allowed to be open on other Sundays. You could say that they are enforcing a rule which simply has Christian motivations on non-Christians, and you would be right in a certain way, but I think wrong in a more important way. The real reason for the law is to make sure that employees can be at home celebrating Easter instead of working that day. The vast majority of those employees are Catholics, and even most of the non-Catholics have Catholic relatives, and would probably appreciate the day off as well.

And really this kind of discussion has very little to do with religion in general: you might as well say that laws against public nudity are enforcing special rules on people who believe it is ok to go around naked. The reason why some places have such laws is not a religious reason; it is because many people find it offensive. Of course it is true that societies where most people belong to a religion are going to have some laws that in some way are based on that religion. That does not tend to show that religious societies are especially tyrannical.

Comment author: Lumifer 30 November 2015 07:06:20PM 0 points [-]

Among examples of rules not widely shared among non-Christians that are enforced in present-day western countries

The first thing that pops into my head is monogamy.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 03 December 2015 11:04:46PM 1 point [-]

That was a Greco-Roman idea the Christianity inherited.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 December 2015 02:59:17AM 0 points [-]

Not just inherited. In Christianity marriage is a sacrament, as opposed to a convention of social arrangement.

Comment author: Jiro 30 November 2015 10:06:44PM *  0 points [-]

Sunday blue laws (bans on selling alcohol in the USA on Sundays.)

Heterosexual-only marriage.

I suppose having Christmas be a Federal holiday technically counts as well.

Comment author: g_pepper 01 December 2015 12:16:21AM 2 points [-]

Heterosexual-only marriage

I don't think that the notion of limiting marriage to couples that are not of the same gender is exclusively a Christian concept. Until fairly recently, I don't think that government recognition of same-sex marriage has been common even among jurisdictions that are not predominantly Christian. And, even today, it is hardly the case that same-sex marriage is forbidden only in countries with a majority Christian population.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 03 December 2015 11:09:59PM 1 point [-]

I can think of the ban on selling alcohol on Good Friday in Ireland

Lot's of societies have laws banning conducting of various types of business on major holidays.

Comment author: gjm 30 November 2015 10:47:31AM 1 point [-]

Much less widely than the prohibition on murder.