President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

But one can make a pretty reasonable empirical argument to disabuse me of that notion. In fact, at our next town hall meeting, I count on you to do so.

But what's the empirical argument for or against a miraculous Christ? Or an infallible Pope? Or a politics based on the Quran?

 

Have a great church, my friend!

 

Religion is not of God.

Religion is of man.

Given that, why do you have a problem dismissing religion-based political opinions?

 

Again, I can make an evidence-based argument against communism as an economic or political system.

What's my empirical argument against the Ten Commandments?

 

Dobbs.

 

Science only informs the prediction in the study.

What's informed by religion - or whatever informs your value system - is that a reduction in cholera cases is a good thing because it saves lives and misery.

Science in itself is not a moral system.

 

If progressivism agrees with your opinion, then it won't be dismissed. If progressivism doesn't agree, it will be dismissed.

The common denominator in both scenarios is progressivism. When Jesus fits the ideology, progressives use Jesus - even claim Jesus as their own. When Jesus doesn't fit the ideology, well, that's the part zealots made up because religion.

Progressives would like religious believers to think progressivism is applying some sort of objective assessment tool to the world and soberly judging utility.

But they're not and it isn't. Progressivism is a belief system unto itself, and can be treated as such.

 

In this case it's a simple cost/benefit analysis.

It's less expensive to prevent cholera than it is to treat it. As a member of the community you can vote for it up or down on that basis alone.

Has nothing to do with an abstract or faith-based or philosophically absolute "good."

 

Nah.

Would there be moral and ethical imperatives in a world without Jesus? Without Buddha? Without religion?

Certainly.

 

Just that. Point that out. Argue against it.
And the idea that people holding any point of view will be always swayed by empirical arguments is a bit naive. Are you going to sway a vegan by pointing out that animal protein was the reason the human brain developed? A libertarian will always say a policy failed because it wasn't fully free.

And there are policy arguments that aren't resolved by empirical arguments. Those arguments require value judgements and religion should not be an excluding factor in thosr arguments.

 

Sure it does, because of your assumption that treatment is the alternative to prevention. It's one alternative - and certainly the moral one absent prevention - but not the only one.

 

In the sense that you view religion as an invention? Of course there would.

But then you've got to ask the question: From where do moral and ethical imperatives come? And how do we know which ones are right?