It’s a truth universally acknowledged that, at least in the U.S., and certainly in Canada, the government defers far more to religious beliefs than to philosophical ones. There are Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (but no philosophical ones); when there was a military draft you could get a conscientious objector exemption if you were religious, but not if your objections were philosophical or moral (I got exempted because chaplains testified that my objections to war were quasi-religious); and many states will exculpate you if you injure your children by refusing to get them medical care on religious grounds, but not if you do exactly the same thing on philosophical grounds.
Further, as the following figure from CNN shows, 48 of the 50 US states allow exemption from required school vaccination on religious grounds, but only 20 states on philosophical grounds alone:
Now I understand why the First Amendment guarantees people the right to practice their beliefs without interference, even if those beliefs, as in the case of Kim Davis, keep her from doing part of her job. But why religion and not philosophy?
After all, one can argue that philosophical beliefs have a stronger claim on legal recognition, or at least on public “respect,” than do religious beliefs. First, most people get their religion via accidents of birth. If you’re born in Utah, you’re likely to be a Mormon, a Muslim if born in Saudi Arabia, and a Christian if born in Mississippi. That, of course, means those beliefs weren’t arrived at by reason but by cultural inheritance.
Further, in many cases (but not all), people arrive at philosophical positions through introspection, doubt, and questioning. That is, they pick a philosophy by considering alternatives. This is rarely the case for religion, as John Loftus emphasizes in his writings on the “outsider test for faith“. Secular systems of ethics, for example, are often accepted only after a long process of reason and cogitation, as opposed to religious ethics, which are often taken on faith because they supposedly derive from God’s will or from scripture. (Of course whatever views you adopt in the end are all determined by your genes and environment, but what I’m arguing here is that there’s no reason to privilege religion over philosophy.)
Finally, philosophical views are often held just as tenaciously, and considered just as integral a part of a person’s “worldview”, as are religious beliefs. Think of pacifists and animal-rights activists.
It seems to me, then, that most government accommodations to religion could also be extended to philosophy. Now I’m not saying that they should: whether Kim Davis opposed gay marriage because she was a Christian or because that violated some philosophical view (NOT LIKELY in any case), she should be forced to do her job. Likewise, all children should be vaccinated before attending public school, regardless of their philosophical or religious views. (Medical exemptions, as in the case of immunodeficiency, are of course fine.)
But there is one difference—something Lawrence Krauss touched on his his New Yorker piece. I’d rather have those with philosophical views try to impose them on me through government than those with religious views. For, at least in principle, philosophy is open to rational debate, while religion, as Lawrence noted, is not.
Readers should weigh in below, as I really would like to know why religion is put on a pedestal in the U.S. while equally sincere philosophical views are not.
Could it be that our elected officials are more “religious” in seeing one true way, than philosophical?
Philosophy leads to atheism, hence it’s bad.
Or, worse, leads to thinking. Which I guess leads to atheism. OK, with you.
Because describing yourself as a person of faith gives social status, so politicians will do everything they can to preserve religion in society. If religion loses its ‘special’ status – or worse: fades away – then politicians and pastors and priests all lose social status.
Why religion and not philosophy? Because historically religion took precedence over philosophy. If you had any objections, you were convicted of blasphemy. Laws almost always follow developments in society, they never lead. As society secularizes, laws will change.
I agree, except I think power is a bigger driver than social status. Social status is often, imo, a result of power. People who lose power, such as politicians who lose elections, lose social status. When the loss of power looks inevitable, people stop conferring the same level of social status on someone.
sub
Sorry Jerry, but I must demur. No it does not! Religious freedom is the right to hold and express *beliefs*, it is really a variant of freedom of *speech*.
Religious freedom does not entail freedom to *act* on those beliefs. Specifically, it does not grant a religious person the right to do something that a non-religious person would not have.
Indeed, the First Amendment actually prohibits that. If a religious person had greater freedom of action than a non-religious person, then such laws would be an establishment of religion, and thus unconstitutional.
(Which is why “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” are blatantly unconstitutional; as argued here.)
Church-State separation means that everyone should be equal under the law, regardless of their religious or philosophical beliefs, and that means that such beliefs must neither advance nor detract from whether someone is free to do something or not.
I also disagree with that sentence. Kim Davis is a government employee. Allowing her not to do her job in the name of “religious freedom” is an ‘own goal’ – it would actually allow Davis to impose her religious beliefs and practices on everyone in the county, thus resulting in a loss of “religious freedom.”
Yes, agreed!
Very interesting.
The simple answer is that people are selfish and enact rules/standards of behavior that will tend to benefit themselves. Since most people are religious, the social norms of behavior favor the religious.
A more complicated answer is that most people believe in God and that, at some level, God is taken to trump our own reason, including our own laws. In the past this view made itself felt through laws that overtly promoted a religious sect, which carried on through to religious wars. In the present couple of hundred years, the Christian sects have engaged in a detente where most agree not to try to impose themselves on others by force, which in practice translates into a generic deference to other’s “religious beliefs”.
In most people’s world view there is simply no place for “reasoned morals”. In fact, most people equate reasoning with an unfeeling and calculating disposition, with a willingness to send millions to the gas chamber if doing so was somehow “calculated” to be for some sufficiently valuable purpose. Reasoning is also seen as unstable, as being bendable to the occasion (e.g. suddenly discovering one’s pacifism at the outbreak of war), whereas religious beliefs are (supposedly) written down for all time and so invariable, and religious affiliation is often determined with ceremony and overt signs over time. Also, while someone’s religion might disagree with yours, it’s still an identifiable group of people (Quakers, or Baptists, say) who hold a particular belief, with presumable some group way of coming up with their beliefs, which I think people find more comforting than every person working things out for themselves with the potential for even more diversity of opinion than exists within religion.
I don’t disagree with what you’ve written, but I seriously doubt that most people believe in god. My view, from inside a christian church as a youth, was that most people believe in the profession of faith, but, what people say they believe and how they act has a very wide divergence. Most xtians do not act as if they believe in god. And most churches of my acquaintance require a mere “confession” of faith, and disregard how people act. I also saw a tremendous peer pressure to not express doubt and to simply say the magic words, whether truly believed or not. No one was interested, when I was there, in hearing what I actually thought about the questions. Just say the words, and you’ll be “saved”.
Yes, I think you’re right.
But…they believe that they believe, and that’s really not much better than earnestly believing. I wrote a comment on the previous thread about how many theists live 99% of their lives essentially as atheists, but they’re always sure to bring their theistic 1% into the voting booth with them. They feel that when important societal issues come up, that’s when they need to dig their theist flag out of their mind’s storage area.
Tradition, tradition, tradition.
Ironically, it comes partially out of a tradition of tolerance.
The religions have much better public relations operations than the philosophical schools. Just compare the membership of the Roman Catholic cult with that of the Second Revised Sacrament of the Platonic Order of Neo Aristotelians of the Perfect Triangle, Springfield.
b&
I think the privilege that religion has in this case is a practical matter based on the lessons of history. Precisely because religious differences are so intractable, and people in Europe got tired of killing each other those differences, they finally said, screw it, everyone gets to keep their own religious beliefs. Because philosophical beliefs can be discussed, they never got this privileged status.
I think it is just that there were too few survivors of the Platonic Wars and the Great Münchhausen Trilemma Crusades to form, among those who grew tired of the struggle, a tradition of deference to other’s philosophical positions.
Bingo. Philosophical tolerance is a matter of respect, religious tolerance is a matter of life or death. I’m not sure this justifies a double standard going forward, but it’s worth some caution.
“Readers should weigh in below, as I really would like to know why religion is put on a pedestal in the U.S. while equally sincere philosophical views are not.”
My opinion, FWIW
I think it’s complex. Partly I think it’s due to history -religion has had a political and social hegemony (here in the U.S. anyay) for so long that it has a kind of cultural and legislative inertia. It is excused in a “knee-jerk” kind of way.
Also, for reasons that escape me, it is seen to have more legitmacy than philosophy, an intellectual discipline which, truth be told, is often viewed by the “lay public” with suspicion if not outright hostility.
But mostly I just don’t think much thought is given to this kind of legislation. Mostly they seem to me to be reaction to lobbying efforts rather than through deliberation.
>>It’s a truth universally acknowledged that, at least in the U.S. (and certainly in Canada), the government defers far more to religious beliefs than to philosophical ones.<<<
——————
And in India too.
Because of vote bank. You don't want to alienate your voters – because they will ditch you and vote for opposition.
In my experience, the average person is unaware of the existence of the area of study known as Philosophy.
Perhaps if more people understood something of Philosophy less people would be blinded by religion and would be less likely to put religion on a pedestal? Would that that time would come soon.
I got my undergraduate degree from a catholic university in which philosophy was a required part of the core curriculum—everyone had to take it. I could have easily graduated from a secular university without ever being exposed to philosophy. In addition, the youth minister at my non-catholic church introduced me to the work of Martin Buber and other “ground of being” philosophs. As a result, I don’t see the hard distinction between philosophy and religion that many seem to see. IMHO metaphysics is just as bankrupt as religion as far as any intellectual justification. I would rather draw the lines between rational/empirical/probabilistic and emotional/dogmatic than between religion and philosophy.
There is a lot of work on *secular* metaphysics, for example by the late D. M. Armstrong, which is in my view a good “innoculation” against the religious stuff.
I just read the wiki on him… thanks for pointing me to an interesting philosopher. I will try to get some of his work from the library this weekend. His Theory of Mind in particular looks interesting.
There was a case in 1996 in which a vegan bus driver in Orange County, CA was fired because he refused to hand out coupons for free hamburgers. He prevailed in a lawsuit against his employer as well as in discrimination complaint with the EEOC. According to the commission’s finding, the firing violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because Anderson’s beliefs, although not directly religious, were held “with the strength of traditional religious views.” Here’s the LA times article from the time: http://goo.gl/cDZndK
Interesting to note that the bus driver’s lawyer was Gloria Allred, the fairly famous civil rights attorney.
Just the other side of the coin as to why it’s OK to call someone an idiot for supporting Donald Trump, but not when they believe in talking snakes or raising from the dead.
Tradition. People think that having a faith based belief is not only justified but also a good thing versus one that is simply justified through logic and reason.
Religious beliefs are also immune to criticism. This makes them appear stronger. Reason, on the other hand, can lead to a variety of solutions, not all of them equally justified. That circumstances appears aesthetically unpleasant to religious people. Americans, in this sense, prefer answers rather than asking hard questions.
“…those beliefs weren’t arrived at by reason but by cultural inheritance.”
Precisely. As others have pointed out, there is a historical process involved. The guarantee of religious freedom is precisely an attempt to allow different, inimical cultures to co-exist. It is not an attempt to elevate a true culture of reason to prominence. A culture of reason, as much as we may hope for and try to exemplify one, is necessarily anti-democratic. There are clearly better reasons for some competing policy choices than for others. While religious persons probably feel there are “better reasons” for their faith than for other faiths, there is no objective truth to this. Religion gets special treatment precisely because it is cultural inheritance, not reasoned policy.
There should be no legal distinction between religion and philosophy. Untill your relgion or your philosophy starts significantly affecting other people’s rights, the government should simply stay the hell out.
Do you really?
The way in which you wrote this post seems to indicate that you are not actually curious. Your entire question is grounded on the idea that religious people are thoughtless idiots. So of course you arrive at your conclusion: religion should not be privileged because thoughtless idiocy should not be privileged.
I could try answering the question seriously. I am a law professor and one of my areas of interest is church-state relations and the First Amendment. But then again I am religious, and you wouldn’t be inclined to hear from someone whom you consider a thoughtless idiot. (I wonder if the fact that I converted from atheism to Christianity at age 30 would make me a greater or lesser idiot in your eyes.)
In fact, yes, I was curious, and wanted to see what readers say. Your paranoia about what I think about religion (no, they’re not all thoughtless idiots, though they believe stuff without evidence), combined with your palpable rudeness and unfounded assumption about my question, are, sadly, characteristic of many believers. I have found many like you who get really touchy when I write a fairly un-strident post like this one. Note that I did not use the word “idiot”
Anyway, there are multiple Roolz violations here, so I urge you to frequent blogs where you don’t have to be rude because everyone is a Christian. I would have thought that Christians would have the spirit of charity instead of meanness, but there you go. . .
The way in which you wrote this comment seems to indicate that you are not really a professor. Teachers are usually used to answering surly or “smart” questions with thoughtful responses designed to draw the students into a genuine discussion. Educators who deal with the ignorant know that there are a variety of techniques which help move focus onto ideas, and off of preconceptions, which don’t raise hackles.
Announcing to the class at large that hey, look here, we have a bozo who shouldn’t be in class — or asking the student to take this dime, call his mother, and tell her he’s never ever going to be a lawyer — just looks like some power-hungry control-freak grandstanding and posturing for his own gratification.
Not that I’m judging or anything.
I re-read Jerry’s post before replying to you, and I still couldn’t see the implication of “thoughtless idiocy,” and I still didn’t get the impression Jerry wasn’t really interested in the answer.
I would think someone in your position would be well placed to give an answer, and I would’ve liked to hear it. Even if you assume we’re not going to be receptive to your opinion, it would have been a good opportunity to show us we’re wrong about the ability of the religious to engage in reasoned debate.
I would ask that you come back and let us know what you think. Or do you, like most commenters here, think the privileging of religious thought is indefensible? Perhaps, given your own beliefs, you’re unwilling to say so, thus your “best form of defence is attack” response above.
(And yes, I can spell. I’m from NZ. I write English, not American.)
I’m actually more interested in his “I wonder if the fact that I converted from atheism to Christianity at age 30” statement; which of course was baiting us, but still…
“I would ask that you come back and let us know what you think.”
They can’t–they’ve been banned from the site. That’s why you don’t hear much in the way of dissenting viewpoints in these comments.
Quite the contrary…go look up any post on this site regarding free will and you will see much dissent and debate on both sides of the issue. Jerry does not ban people for their opinions, he bans them for presenting them in an uncivilized manner. And this is precisely the reason that this is the only place on the Internet that I actually look forward to reading the comments and I am rarely disappointed in the quality. If you’d like to see religious dissenting views, go look up a post from a few years ago that Jerry did on Edward Feser…plenty of dissent, no banning.
You should check out Brian Leiter’s book, Why Tolerate Religion? I actually just started it myself and it addresses this very issue from a legal standpoint. I’m only a few chapters in, but it is a very thoughtful examination.
What’s his conclusion?
I may be opening a can of worms here, but is it possible that at least part of the reason is the greater likelihood of resistance, even violent resistance? It is worth noting that those secular beliefs which are associated with violence (Marxism, Fascism, etc.) are also the best organized, and the most like religion in a number of other ways.
I, too, am a conscientious objector but for me it was determined on moral and ethical grounds. The qualifying determination was changed by the Supreme Court around 1971 or so. I was granted 1-O status in the summer of 1972, ordered to report to Goodwill Industries in Flint, MI that fall and thus began my two years of alternate civilian service.
I was in the same group. I started preparing my case well over a year in advance, and at that time (1970), the rules were religious. I graduated in 1971 and got 1-O status after that. But I was in the same class as you, I think, and you should have been released from your two years of service by the judgment in Coyne et al. v. Nixon et al.
Funny you should mention that. I actually got fired from Goodwill in the spring of 1974 because, of all things, for smoking pot on the job. I just couldn’t take any of that crap seriously. I did contact the SSS to see what my next step was since I did not finish the 2 years. They sent me a letter ending my obligation to my country. I considered the time spent a total waste of almost 2 years of my life. But it beat going to prison or in the military.
Religion derives from hierarchical authority, submission to a central unitary viewpoint. Philosophy derives from a multitude of truths that are beyond the sovereignty (and autocracy) of authority. I think this is why law privileges religion which inhabits the same collective moral ground ruled over by a similar collective authority. Philosophy is just too anarchistic and might lead to conclusions at conflict with systems of authority and power.
well said
OTOH, I’ve always thought of politics as basically just applied philosophy, and we let politics dictate most of our law, so essentially we do privilege philosophy, in the broad sense.
I think politics is the merger of philosophy (rationality) and belief (emotional) – the point at which our differences face each other. So yes at that point philisop[hy gets a hearing but emotion dominates – to the point of being the potential to use force.
It does all seem to come into the mix in politics when we debate ‘what is to be done’. Until then philosophy (rationality) and religion (collective emotion/mythos) do not reach such a concerted fervour.
Down here in Panamá religion still remains well above philosophical thinking. I guess the same apllies all the way south from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego. We have been unable to rid our societies from the influence (impositioned) of the Catholic Church brought to the new world by the spaniards during colonial times. Something is changing, however, when a few students attending catholic schools are questioning their religion teachers on the logic of believing in creationism. In the other hand, priests are helping youngsters out of drugs, gangs, and other form of crimes. This can be understood by the conditions in which these kids grow, mainly no opportunities, no education, no guidance. They ‘turn to their holy father’ and become better citizens. The question is: could philosophy, logic, reason have the same effect on this vulnerable group of our society?
I think the advantage religion has in this context is it’s organized. The Church has the infrastructure and is already established in the community. It’s not, imo, that the Church can’t do good things – they clearly can. It’s the consequences of that, that are the problem.
For example, because of helping a lot of kids get out of gangs, which the government doesn’t have the resources to do, they don’t want to upset the Church. So it gets benefits and privileges others don’t, including failure to prosecute priests who break the law.
In one word: identity. One’s religion is supposed to identify who and what you are in the same way race or nationality does. When push comes to shove, a relationship with “God” is supposed to be impervious to reason because it is basic and fundamental to how we understand ourselves. The sacred is, quite literally, sacred. That’s what makes it sacred.
I think this approach helps lead to a kind of lowering of responsibility and expectations of the religious. It’s as if they were children whose simple little hopes and dreams need to be cherished and protected, not put up for analysis and debate. They may have reasons or not, but they don’t need to give reasons for why they believe what they believe. It’s enough that their innocent faith is innocent and faith. How sweet. How enviable.
Don’t ask too much of the Little People. Their childish wisdom and desire to submit to something Higher places them not only above reproach, but above the debate table where the poor grown ups have to sit.
A very astute analysis.
I agree, although it really only pushes the question one level back: why is religion afforded the status of identity while philosophy isn’t (in the main)?
As I wrote below, I think at least part of the answer to this further question is that religion (for some reason that needs to be explained at yet another level back) is something the vast majority grow up with. It’s reinforced in people day by day beginning before they can really even understand the concept. Philosophy doesn’t get this treatment.
(That is, religion-as-identity is reinforced.)
It’s also the misguided notion that religion makes you a good person. So, if you are a “little person”, you need religion to keep you well behaved.
Therefore, the religious are seen as better people than the non religious and religion as seen as a good thing. Philosophy isn’t religion so it’s no different than any other area of thought that isn’t religion.
It has to do with the First Amendment. It would be great if it had said, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or philosophy,…”
Philosophers are generally educated or at least have the ability to defend their positions, as such they can seem to be superior to the average person .
Unquestionable religious opinions allow people to be correct without having to justify themselves, thus allowing everyone to be right no matter their ability to reason.
If I had to guess I would say it’s because philosophy has no sartorial requirements. If you want to be taken seriously by our species, you need to require or forbid the wearing of certain articles of clothing.
Philosophy also doesn’t have any songs and there is little in the way pf pageantry. So, if philosophy wants our species to grant it the same privileges as religion, it needs to start requiring and/or forbidding the wearing of certain articles of clothing, wrap itself up in some shiny robes and get Mozart to help write the score.
Ah, yes. The Argument from Silly Hats.
In Carlin I trust
Great link! 😀
Maybe part of the explanation is that religion is such a societal establishment and is such a visible part of most people’s lives that it’s tempting to view religion as a legitimate reason for this or that exemption whereas philosophy might be viewed as a “slippery slope”, ie, a carte blanche for opting out if anything.
I know, I know, religion already is that carte blanche, but I think many people miss that for the reasons I already gave. Religion is grandfathered in as a legitimate basis for a sincere worldview because people grow up with religion. Not as many people grow up studying Epicurus, Hume, Kant, Rawls, etc.
Of course given how often people confuse their belief and interpretation of God with God itself, religion may be placed on a higher level because GOD is not accountable to others.
… and there you have it.
Without faith, nothing is sincere. To the faithful (using “faithful” as a contemptuous insult).
Dr. Coyne,
I am reminded of this quote from Luc Ferry: “If religions can be defined as ‘doctrines of salvation’, the great philosophies can also be defined as doctrines of salvation (but without the help of God).”
One might ask what the costs are for the philosopher who acts against his conscience, doing what he does not think he should do… How can the consequences compare for him vs. the theist, who at times, in certain circumstances, *must* obey God rather than men… That person’s soul may be at stake.
I suggest there will always be religious persons who have this going on and will resist persons telling them they should think otherwise. Hopefully, we can live with their religion….
+Nathan
Another advantage of philosophical objections is that as the result of introspection and thought they are more likely to be internally consistent.
It drives me nuts that Kim Davis is all high and mighty over not allowing gays to marry, when homosexuality does not even break a commandment. The book of Mark clearly states that a person who divorces and remarries is committing adultry and thus is daily breaking one of 10 commandments. One presumes that these 10 are the most important rules in the Bible, since many of the others are simply forgotten by most believers.
At the very least, Kim Davis should have been denying marriage licenses to anyone who is divorced, and she herself should not have remarried.
This is not really a ‘why’ but it seems to me another case where the equality promised in the Constitution takes a while to really get adopted. The elimination of slavery, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, these things all took time. SCOTUS’ 20th century rulings on the first amendment seem to give every indication that sincerely held philosophical beliefs deserve all the protection of the first amendment’s religion clauses. But there is a lag between this ‘in principle’ determination and the in practice implementation of it. I’m optimistic however; I think we’re probably only a generation or less away from full equivalence.
The privileged status of religion goes well back into American history. Indeed, it was privileged from the founding of most of the colonies. American readers of this site probably learned in elementary school (at least I did almost 60 years ago) that America during the colonial period was a haven for the religiously persecuted in Europe. Of course, the purpose of this interpretation was to indoctrinate young children with the notion that America was a great place for close to two centuries before the United States was formally established by the Revolution. This interpretation is correct as far as it goes, but it leaves out an essential element. Those groups seeking religious freedom, such as the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony, quickly established theocracies and denied religious freedom within their boundaries to groups with different religious views. Roger Williams of Rhode Island was an exception because he practiced religious toleration. He was not very popular with his neighbors.
These theocracies eventually gave way to toleration of other religions as the colonies became swamped with people belonging to many different sects. Of course, Catholicism remained unpopular except in Maryland, which was founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore (1605-1675). By the time of the drafting of the Constitution, religious freedom was a necessity for the country to survive because chaos would ensue if one sect was favored over the multitude of others. Thus, religion has always had a special place in American history. Even though the United States at its founding was undoubtedly overwhelming populated by Christians of various sorts, the government created by the Constitution was clearly secular, not Christian as the faithists would have you believe. This is exemplified by Article VI of the Constitution which states in part:
“The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the Members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall be ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The key phrase is “no religious test.”
In addition, the first amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion also states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
So, in summary, religion in the United States has always been very important (in some periods more influential than others) and privileged, but it was not the intent of the Founders that it should play a significant role in the operation of the secular government that it established. This is something the religious right-wing fails to understand. Thomas Jefferson did understand this.
“why religion is put on a pedestal in the U.S.”
An attempt,
we have a believing brain, religion used this propensity to establish it’s foothold in the mindset and mainstream of everybody’s business. Entrenched to almost being the law of the land(s) only a King or a Queen or sitting god endorsed ruler could defy it’s word and only then with a little manipulation.. out with that one, in with the new programme or a new priest with a head.
Centuries of religious abuse has conditioned us to behave like we all have Stockholm Syndrome, no room for dissension, we’re watching you.
So we find the mega religions, in Catholicism they are modifying their position, keep in step to maintain this dominance, (we are nice people too) have had the inside running to all our affairs and granted auto immunity, by force if need be, depending where you live, with it’s own status of the higher power (illusion) which we by now, an enforced believing brain attach ourselves too.
Religion has made outstanding strides to suppress any independent thought in the mainstream of life over time and they have had a good run and unfortunately, and of course, still have.
When the cracks did appear there was no cohesion, momentum faulted.
So I conclude it is historical dominance that rules and a lagging failure to adjust to religion’s demise at the hands of science (I secretly like to think it’s a big boot.)why philosophy does not get any weight and dominated by religious considerations.
Philosophy has done some niche filling but not until religion is relegated to just above zero (for the absolute nutters) will it take it’s rightful place, whatever that is, and there will be no need for a privilege card.
To give an exemption to a law generally applicable otherwise to those who profess a conflict between their religious belief and the application of that law, is irrational because it gives unearned and undue privilege to irrationality over rationality. This is due to the fact that at the heart of any religion (as commonly thought of, I believe, as entailing some belief in the supernatural) is irrationality. If irrationality is not at the heart of a belief system, that belief system is philosophy or other thought structure, not religious belief as I intend to refer here (if you have some belief you consider both religious and based on pure evidence and reason, bully for you—that’s not religion as I define it here for my purposes).
How is such privilege not “respecting the establishment of religion”?
Most people “inherit” their religion. Even those who choose a religion do so in an ethnic context, and, for that reason, it’s not completely their choice.
Religion really isn’t a choice.
A philosophy, on the other hand, is something someone reasons their way into accepting. It’s viewed as part of free will.
In this regard, religious belief is a right for the same reason that race is. Even if people “choose” their faith, the premise is that something bigger holds the other end of the contract. As the Christians would say, god chose them. And they just answered. The entire idea of religion implies a lack of free will. Every act of so-called religious morality is coerced. It’s a compulsion given the mandate from something higher. This sort of power difference would never fly with an IRB :–)
Religions are protected because they are instantiations of ethnic relics.
Everyone in this comment section has very valid points, but I would like to raise another possibility. Many people in the United States are born into believing in comfort. Religion is popular in this country because, not only are people with religious backgrounds looked more favorably upon, but it is also a form of comfort. For instance, if I questioned a religious person’s religious views, I wouldn’t be surprised if he or she told me to shut up, because if I were to question his or her beliefs, he or she would take that as an immediate denial of whatever they believe to exist.
And this is the issue: too many people believe in comfort. Our culture endorses comfort and does not endorse thought. Many buy into what the culture is saying and try to suppress their sorrows and issues into mindless consumerism and religion, instead of actually thinking about the issue at hand and trying to come up with a reasonable solution. Furthermore, Friedrich Niethzsche stated that religion suppresses the issue rather than solves it.
Philosophy, however, endorses thought. It forces people to think about their issues and question their convictions, which a lot of people shy away from. People want a blueprint on how to live their lives; religion being one of these blueprints. In short, philosophy takes away the comfort and replaces it with truth, and I think we can all think of a few people who hate the truth. Once people stop pursuing these comforts and blueprints, philosophy can gain the respect and recognition that it deserves, but until then, we, as rational truth-seekers, must teach those who pursue comfort to think more for themselves, and not what others say.
Neither should be given an exemption. Taken to the extreme, 100% of laws could be ignored by 100% of the population simply by everyone stating that they sincerely disagree with the law they are breaking.
Sure, but that’s the slippery slope argument and it isn’t very good. Empirically, allowing 16-year-olds to participate in communion doesn’t lead to society allowing religiously-motivated murder. We seem somewhat capable of drawing a distinction between reasonable accommodation and unreasonable. There will always be disagreements about what counts as reasonable vs. unreasonable and there will always be some bad examples, but after 300 years of ‘reasonable accommodation’ in law and practice we, as an entire society, haven’t actually slipped down that slope. So I doubt we’re going to slip down it tomorrow.
That’s a fair point. My comment was hastily written and I was focusing more on the absurdity of laws in general if we have exceptions based on subjective opinion and no evidence. Of course, it’s silly in practice to suggest that we’d get anywhere near everyone just deciding to philosophically object to anything resulting in anarchy, but I would argue that we are sliding at least a little bit down that slope. We are having disease outbreaks because people are not vaccinating their children and often getting away with it based on a religious objection.
The example of a 16-year old drinking Communion wine is actually bypassed in many states by laws stating that underage people can drink so long as they have the consent of their parent, or they meet any of the other accepted criteria listed in the above link.
I am in general more accepting of laws written with specific criteria for exemption, such as the drinking law above, than I am with the notion that laws can be challenged based on religious beliefs in general. The reason we have largely not fallen down the slope, as you point out, is that we try to think about valid exceptions. Of course, we can’t think of them all and that’s why judges have jobs. Our valid exceptions are not always well thought out either, as the line between an exception which only affects the individual and an exception having ill effects on society has started to blur.
Our country was founded on religious freedom due to oppression. It’s our cement foundation.
With philosophical ideals, 3 people could have 3 philosophies, and all 3 could be wrong. Nations are not founded or maintained on philosophy, they are done so on principle. Many of said principles are based in our religion. Although it’s so cluttered now to even diet.
philosophy asks questions, religion gives answers (but not to the questions philosophy asks).
It’s because religious views are stricter less fluid, everyone could Philosophically go with “I don’t believe in this, because I don’t feel like it today” religion is harder to fake it demands participation involvement in a community a holding to a strict dogma essentially philosophy doesn’t offer that metric for a government to judge an individual’s values on.
But let’s not overlook secularism, which is, fundamentally, a philosophy about how to coexist and run society without religious constraints. As I mentioned previously, I’ve always thought of politics as applied philosophy. In that sense, being a liberal, progressive, conservative, Green, Democrat, Republican, etc., are all philosophical stances and ones that are in fact privileged in our culture. We just seldom think of them in that way.
Religion is organized. Philosophers are not. And this gives religion the ability to lobby, raise funds, etc.
Religions are organized. Philosophers are not. Organizations lobby.
You identified the reason why religion is privileged yourself in this sentence: “philosophy is open to rational debate, while religion is not.”
Religious believers don’t hold their beliefs rationally, so they’re not open to rational debate. They’re incapable of questioning or modifying many of their beliefs without contradicting their faith–something which may be tantamount in their view to jeopardizing their eternal reward. The very non-rationality of their views puts those views beyond the purview of civilized discourse, dispute or amendment.
It’s closely analogous to the reason why young children and teenagers get different treatment from their parents for similar behavior: because the teenagers are old enough to know better. With maturity comes responsibility. Religion is essentially a form of widespread and socially acceptable intellectual immaturity, and is therefore given special accommodation.
(This reasoning isn’t overt, of course, though as more people are becoming non-religious that may change.)
Makes sense. Religions have a central organising and power amassing function. Philosophies are questioning and subversive to any attempt to coalesce. Thus in the same way that the political right finds it much easier to get people marching together than the political left can, religion has a force to it, and force must be heard
I’ve said before in this space that anyone who wants a “philosophical exception” is okay with me as long as they have a PhD in Philosophy.