There have been posts questioning what kind of role Transhumanism should play in the political field. Let's hear your ideas for and against whether or not Transhumanism should promote the separation of church and state.

IMO, it's reasonable to expect that our leaders base policy only on theories that are supported by scientific evidence - a theory should not carry weight unless it is supported by evidence. Religious beliefs are theories without evidence. Competing religious theories are all equally invalidated in light of their lack of evidence - therefore we cannot show preference for one over another.

Shouldn't this be in the politics section of the forum? Hardly anyone posts things there. This is clearly a thread about politics so it follows-- whatever.

As an atheist in the US it occasionally bothers me that "In God We Trust" is on our money but I don't really sweat it that much. Of much more concern to me is when creationists try to skew local school board elections to promote their nonsense as science. I have no objection to the scholarly examination of biblical mythology. I just get irate when some people claim it's science.

I don't know all the details of how it is in other post-industrial countries but the US has a long history of making allowances for religious diversity. Because of this, people like me, atheists, agnostics, etc., have to occasionally accept that politic activity will be wasted on nonsense like nativity scenes outside state capitols, flag burning, freedom fries, creationism, abortion clinic shootings and such.

As an atheist in the States I'm rather happy with the current, general level of seperation. Details may irritate me but I think, overall, the country has the balance right. Jewish boys can wear yarmulkas in school. Muslim girls can wear scarves. Because of this, I can say I'm an atheist publicly and not get hauled away by a religious police force for re-education. The scientologists by attempt to sue me but I can expose their nonsense on the Web and mostly get away with it.

As a transhumanist, I am disappointed when religious hysteria slows down scientific research but, as long as I can state my own opinions about it and attempt to sway my representatives and vote. I am willing to accept the controversy even if it slows things down a bit. There are other post-industrial countries which aren't so picky about the stem cell issue so I don't worry about it much. If the US get's egg on its face so much the better--we desparately need a reality check these days!

Abolitionist:

IMO, it's reasonable to expect that our leaders base policy only on theories that are supported by scientific evidence - a theory should not carry weight unless it is supported by evidence.

Perhaps it is-- but you must first remember that the religious do believe that there is evidence to their claims,  and that the primary reason you do not accept their evidence is that you do not accept their claims in the first place.

 It's all well and good to speak of the intellectual superiority of the scientific paradigm... but it doesn't carry a lot of weight when you are a subscriber to that paradigm yourself. After all, you'd hardly take a fundamentalist Christian's-- let's say a Young Earth Creationist-- claims of intellectual superiority seriously, would you?

Abolitionist:

Competing religious theories are all equally invalidated in light of their lack of evidence - therefore we cannot show preference for one over another.

 All law is based on moral values, of one kind or another. All moral values are subjective opinions.

 We prefer one over another because we are more accustomed to it-- and like choosing between your favorite red shirt and your favorite blue shirt, because we have to choose something, regardless of whether or not it is objectively superior.
 

Mr. Farlops:

Because of this, people like me, atheists, agnostics, etc., have to occasionally accept that politic activity will be wasted on nonsense like ... abortion clinic shootings and such.

 This is not explicitly a religious issue, and I wouldn't call it "political nonsense"; the debate over abortion (when it is intelligent enough to be dignified by the term) touches on many of the most essential moral principles of our society-- human rights, the sanctity of life, parental obligations, and so forth.

 A lot of these issues raise questions that we, as transhumanists, must answer if we are to maintain a functional moral compass in the post-human world. That means that we must engage with people whose answers to those questions offend us, and those whose moral outlooks are completely alien to ours-- and it means that we must be able to make our answers to those questions more compelling than theirs.
 

Kori,

Granted. Now that I look at the entry I wrote early in the morning, I see that I wrote it poorly. Apologies.

Mr. Farlops:

people like me, atheists, agnostics, etc., have to occasionally accept that politic activity will be wasted on nonsense like nativity scenes outside state capitols, flag burning, freedom fries, creationism, abortion clinic shootings and such.

Details may irritate me but I think, overall, the country has the balance right.

I am disappointed when religious hysteria slows down scientific research but, as long as I can state my own opinions about it and attempt to sway my representatives and vote. I am willing to accept the controversy even if it slows things down a bit.

I agree their will be violations of church and state by various groups attempting to gain power - but the goal is to keep this from happening. If it is happening to such a degree as it is currently means that the system is not working and needs additional measures to ensure integrity. As of now, the separation of church and state is being violated.

The only viewpoint that we can base society on is the scientific one - the one that is verified objectively through the scientific process without corruption by various groups. Anything else is not the separation of church and state.

A society whose policies are not based upon theories backed up by objectively verifiable evidence is likely to not be very successful in general.

 

Korimyr the Rat:

you must first remember that the religious do believe that there is evidence to their claims, and that the primary reason you do not accept their evidence is that you do not accept their claims in the first place.

It's all well and good to speak of the intellectual superiority of the scientific paradigm... but it doesn't carry a lot of weight when you are a subscriber to that paradigm yourself.

Yes, they believe - as opposed to knowing. Believing in something means that you have not verified it as true - and therefore it should not provide the rationale for public policy that governs others (you listening dubya?)

Korimyr the Rat:

All law is based on moral values, of one kind or another. All moral values are subjective opinions.

We prefer one over another because we are more accustomed to it-- and like choosing between your favorite red shirt and your favorite blue shirt, because we have to choose something, regardless of whether or not it is objectively superior.

True, but this is different from the question of say whether or not a human consciousness exists in a blastocyte. In this case - we cannot say that a 'soul' exists in a blastocyte until we have proven that it does - anything else is not the separation of church and state.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsyfetaldev.html <- about blastocytes and human development

Religious fundamentalists should have to answer the question : What evidence do you have besides a feeling or book of religious theories. They maintain that a feeling or book is evidence sufficient enough to base public policy on - clearly we cannot allow for this type of verification.

The process of testing theories with objectively verifiable evidence leads to the correct view based upon the best available knowledge of the time. This is the way forward, a process of determining the truth that can lead to consensus. Subjective verification is not sufficient rigor to ensure truth that can be observed by all - it's simple, but difficult for a human to remember.

We must all accept that our beliefs are just theories without evidence in order to create a society we can all live in.

At the same time I think society would benefit from providing more motivation for individuals to test their unique theories in ways that are reasonable. The old religious theories still need to be proved as well... all have considerable weight against their validity these days.

Abolitionist:

I agree their will be violations of church and state by various groups attempting to gain power - but the goal is to keep this from happening. If it is happening to such a degree as it is currently means that the system is not working and needs additional measures to ensure integrity. As of now, the separation of church and state is being violated.

You and I disagree over whether the system is broken or not. Despite some controversy, and there has always been various religious controversies since the US was founded, I think the system is mostly okay. The challenges are within the ability of legal reform, voting and legal precident to handle. I don't think there is any need for global changes at all levels of government. I don't think there is any need for another constitutional amendment.

Abolitionist:

The only viewpoint that we can base society on is the scientific one....

The Social Darwinists, the Eugenicists, the Nazis and the Communists all claimed that their ideologies were scientifically verified. Biblical literalists claim that science proves the mythology in the Bible. Some Muslim scholars claim the Qur'an is scientifical verifiable. There are probably some Hindu scholars that claim the same for the Rig Veda. US Libertarians occasionally creep me out when they claim the same.

No thanks!

What I worry about when you make pronoucements like this, Ab, is that all too fallible people will then attempt to use science to justify their political actions. That opportunists will claim the mantle of scientific legitimacy for things that deserve nothing of the sort.

Premature announcements about evolutionary psychology aside, science isn't about political or social values. It can advise us over matters like environmental destruction, space exploration, engineering works, or energy policy but it shouldn't be used exclusively as a basis for all government.

Abolitionist:

Yes, they believe - as opposed to knowing. Believing in something means that you have not verified it as true...

Their beliefs are no less valid than yours. You keep mentioning "verified" knowledge... but you're talking about verifying knowledge according to the standards, and using the methods, that you accept. 

Abolitionist:

They maintain that a feeling or book is evidence sufficient enough to base public policy on - clearly we cannot allow for this type of verification.

 Clearly to you, perhaps. Your moral values-- the ones you base your notions of law upon-- were derived from subjective opinion, as well. After all... what's wrong with suffering? Why should humans be happy? Why should government attempt to be "rational" at all?

Abolitionist:

We must all accept that our beliefs are just theories without evidence in order to create a society we can all live in.

 Fair enough... but why would we want to create a society that all of us can live in? I can think of several people and groups of people that society would be better off without.

Mr. Farlops:

What I worry about when you make pronoucements like this, Ab, is that all too fallible people will then attempt to use science to justify their political actions. That opportunists will claim the mantle of scientific legitimacy for things that deserve nothing of the sort.

The thing to remember is that political actions are neither justified nor justifiable-- and that they do not require justification, except in the eyes of the people undertaking them. Political action is a function of power, and the only thing relevant to power is... more power. 

 

Mr. Farlops:

Premature announcements about evolutionary psychology aside, science isn't about political or social values.

 Well, that's the thing. Even with the wildest speculations about what evolutionary psychology can teach us... like all science, it can only teach us what is. Morality, social values, and even politics are all about what should be, and that's subjective. There's nothing in the Universe that can tell us what should be, except according to its own opinion or the opinion of the person observing it.

 Science is important because it gives us the tools we need to take what is, and transform it into our opinion of what should be.

 

Abolitionist, apparently you and I want to live in two seperate worlds. 

A society where all law is based on verified scientific fact and objective betterment in its strictest form wouldn't leave many options.  I envision a society where I wake up in the morning, eat dietary supplement number one in the mandated portion for my height and body weight, and ride the government operated ecologically sound transportation system to work.  Half way through the work day, I eat dietary supplement number two in the mandated portions for my height and body weight, then, at the end of the work day, I ride the government operated ecologically sound transportation system to the community leisure center.  At some point while at the leisure center(but only once), I'll eat dietary supplement number three in the mandated portion for my height and body weight, and at the end of the leisure period, I'll take the government operated ecologically sound transportation system to my residence where I'll promptly report to bed.

This may sound pretty extreme, but it's the logical conclusion of what you're promoting.  I like the fact that I can wake up at three in the morning, hop in my beat up 86 cutlass, go to the nearest diner, have chili cheese fries and a coke, go home, turn on HBO and fall back asleep on the couch. 

I much prefer a world wherein societies laws are based on public opinion rather than science.  Remember that public opinion is skewed by people's religious views.

Korimyr the Rat:

The thing to remember is that political actions are neither justified nor justifiable-- and that they do not require justification, except in the eyes of the people undertaking them. Political action is a function of power, and the only thing relevant to power is... more power.

Probably true but rather cynical, Orwell said it right? I'd rather we citizens held our governments accountable to higher ideals though. Perhaps it's doomed but I'd rather we try than resign ourselves in hopelessness.

Korimyr the Rat:

There's nothing in the Universe that can tell us what should be, except according to its own opinion or the opinion of the person observing it.

Largely I agree with your last few two paragraphs except, as I'm an atheist, I don't think the universe actually has an opinion. Societies and individuals do of course.

Mr. Farlops:

Probably true but rather cynical, Orwell said it right?

 Perhaps he did, but I am not deliberately quoting him.
 

Mr. Farlops:

I'd rather we citizens held our governments accountable to higher ideals though. Perhaps it's doomed but I'd rather we try than resign ourselves in hopelessness.

 My attitude and my philosophy isn't about resignation or hopelessness-- far from it-- but an understanding that if we want something "better", it's up to us to create it, using the same tools and many of the same methods used by the people who created the world we live in now.

 So many of the world's problems are caused by powerful men who have a noble vision of the world-- but no understanding of how to acheive it.

And I concur.

Mr. Farlops:

You and I disagree over whether the system is broken or not. Despite some controversy, and there has always been various religious controversies since the US was founded, I think the system is mostly okay. The challenges are within the ability of legal reform, voting and legal precident to handle. I don't think there is any need for global changes at all levels of government. I don't think there is any need for another constitutional amendment.

why not? people are suffering - thus the system needs improving

Abolitionist:

The Social Darwinists, the Eugenicists, the Nazis and the Communists all claimed that their ideologies were scientifically verified. Biblical literalists claim that science proves the mythology in the Bible. Some Muslim scholars claim the Qur'an is scientifical verifiable. There are probably some Hindu scholars that claim the same for the Rig Veda. US Libertarians occasionally creep me out when they claim the same.

No thanks!

What I worry about when you make pronoucements like this, Ab, is that all too fallible people will then attempt to use science to justify their political actions. That opportunists will claim the mantle of scientific legitimacy for things that deserve nothing of the sort.

Premature announcements about evolutionary psychology aside, science isn't about political or social values. It can advise us over matters like environmental destruction, space exploration, engineering works, or energy policy but it shouldn't be used exclusively as a basis for all government.

Sure, Darwinians are stupid and selfish by design and will corrupt anything for their own ends including the scientific [process of verification]. Computers do a much better job of testing theories and verifying information without distortion.

 In the here and now the best we can do is promote rigorous scientific debate.