There is a discussion among political theorists on whether religious liberty should be taken as special, or just another aspect of some standard liberty like personal autonomy.
Here’s an interesting line of thought. If God exists, then religious liberty is extremely objectively important, indeed infinitely important. Now maybe a secular state should not presuppose that God exists. There are strong philosophical arguments on both sides, and while I think the ones on the side of theism are conclusive, that is a controversial claim. However, on the basis of the arguments, it seems that even a secular state should think that it is a very serious possibility that God exists, with a probability around 1/2. But if there is a probability around 1/2 that religious liberty is infinitely important, then the religious liberty is special.
Alex
ReplyDeleteA secular state should not think anything that is that controversial. It might think that it is a serious possibility, but it might also think that it is not a serious possibility.
You don't think that there is a 1/2 possibility that God doesn't exist, so why should anyone think there is a 1/2 possibility that God exists? And which God exactly?
You probably think that the arguments for the Catholic God are conclusive, but other Christian theists will probably not agree and I happen to think that the chance of this God existing is exactly 0.
What a secular state should not do, however, is grant a (religious) organisation the "liberty" to impose its view unto others. The state should not grant a church the right to forbid homosexuals couples to have a civil marriage, e.g.
ReplyDeleteIs it obvious that, if God exists, religious liberty is of infinite importance? Having the beliefs and engaging in the practices that will yield infinite rewards, assuming there are any, is of infinite importance. But what's the relationship between that and religious liberty such that religious liberty takes on that infinite importance. (Surely a confessional state that believed it knew the correct beliefs and practices wouldn't take religious liberty to share in their infinite importance.)
Clifton: Not standing in the way of citizens fulfilling infinitely important duties seems of infinite importance. I suppose one needs the Anselmian claim that duties to God are of infinite weight.
ReplyDeleteWalker: I suppose the God of perfect being theology or something like that. A more precise description: a being towards whom we would have duties of infinite weight.
Right, but a confessional state suppressing heresy would take itself to be aiding, rather than hindering, the fulfillment of those duties.
ReplyDeleteAnd I suppose a secular state would be agnostic as to whether, in allowing or prohibiting any given creed or practice, it was aiding or hindering the fulfillment of those duties.
ReplyDeleteAlex
ReplyDeleteI don't think the probability of that kind of God is scrutable. I personally don't think it's anywhere close to 1/2, but there is no way to tell.
Clifton:
ReplyDeleteYeah, a confessional state might think that. By definition, a secular state couldn't do that.
But what it might well be a good idea for a *secular* state to do is to make it easier for people to be religious, in all religions that have a decent chance of truth.
Alex
ReplyDeleteA simple rule of thumb would be that states should make it easier for people to be whatever they want to be. Of course this is in theory. There are several practical difficulties with this that will have to be overcome.
That's a different rule of thumb than what one gets from the Pascal's Wager argument. The PW argument would suggest specially favoring religiosity, independently of people's desires.
ReplyDeleteAlex
ReplyDeleteReligion or religiosity is not independent of people's desires.
Some people want to be religious in oneway , other want to be religious in another way, and still others do not want to be religious.
All those people have the right to freedom. And religious freedom is nothing special, it's simply a matter of opinion. It would be special if there was conclusive evidence for a certain religion.
Sometimes people are religious because they think the religion is true, and are not happy about the evidence pointing that way. They may not *want* to be religious, but still think it is the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteAlex
ReplyDeleteAnd sometimes people are not religious because they think the religion is not true, and are not happy about the evidence pointing that way.
When I first realized that religion, in my case Catholic religion, was false, I wasn't happy at all. But I accepted it eventually. The point is that religious freedom should not be treated as different from other forms of freedom, because treating it as special implies discrimination against people who don't share the religion.