= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1254)
So I was in the process of replying saying that there was potentially an issue here of definitions, but thinking about this more, other definitions I can think of seem about equivalent. So, operating under that definition, one could have a theocracy where for example people said "there's no risk of error, but the deity in charge likes free will a lot, to the point where as long as they aren't in the process of actively resisting the divine government, they are free to damn themselves" or something equivalent.
If that's really the dogma of this (extremely hypothetical) religion, why is it important that the government be religiously based?
Traditionally, religions wanted a slice (or more) of political power to (a) avoid persecution and (b) implement their preferred policies. If (a) is not already resolved, this religion is in no position to argue about what the nation would look like if it were in charge.
I agree. The extreme length which I needed to go to construct a religion which even might have some chance of this is a strong argument that theocracies just won't act this way. I suppose they could have a commandment in their holy text "run the government", but this is clearly an extreme stretch.