The editorial discusses Pascal's Wager, but this struck me:
quote:For the record, Pascal was a Christian. He offered up his wager to persuade nonbelievers to believe. In France, it apparently didn’t work. Only 17 percent of the French agree with John Adams’s assertion that belief in God is necessary to make proper moral choices, according to a recent poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. Fifty-seven percent of Americans do.
This means that I, for example, could never run for high public office (not that I had any plans). My opinions, works, whatever legislation I worked on, the number of people I helped, none of that would matter because I didn't parrot the correct religious line to trip the "he's OK" button in voters' heads.
Some people, religious or not, would, of course, vote for or against me solely on my merits -- Hatrack is certainly self-selecting for intelligent people -- but for a staggering amount of American voters I believe my non-belief would immediately disqualify me as a worthy candidate.
That's just depressing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I get the sense that America is becoming less religious with each successive generation. I'm not sure what the cause is, but my guess is that the trend will continue.
So while we'd never get an atheist president elected now, I think we might have one in my lifetime.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not never. Just not right now. Look at the bright side, Chris! Give it ten years and we may have a shot.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I'm more apatheist than atheist - atheism takes too much work - and I have plenty of things in my past that could be used to ruin me for public office before they ever got to the God thing. But still.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm thinking more like 20, Javert - but I agree with the sentiment.
Unfortunately, people often vote with their gut or with their biases, rather than through any actual, logical evaulation of the candidates.
It will take longer than a decade for the majority of voters' "gut reaction" and "bias" to non-Christian (let alone atheist) candidates to fade.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it could happen in about three election cycles. Maybe that's a little short, but it's good to hope for something. I'm not atheistic, but I would personally find it rather dissapointing if that kind of statistic lasted into my middle age.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Unfortunately, people often vote with their gut or with their biases, rather than through any actual, logical evaulation of the candidates.
I do this, too. I'm not voting for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and was created in seven days. How can I trust that guy to be in charge of my country? I mean, I remember questioning the creation story when I was 11 years old.
I guess that makes me part of the problem.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Economist just ran a short article on this topic, America's Atheists: Believe it or not. One interesting piece of data was that almost 30 million people claimed "no religion" in the American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, which is double the number in 1991. Although "no religion" is not the equivalent of atheism, I do think there's a developing secular trend, similar to what's happened in Europe.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm saying, JT, is that people don't always vote for the "best candidate" - but often for the most palatable one.
This could be the better speaker, the more attractive candidate, the younger/older candidate, the candidate who shares their religion, the candidate who did/did not serve in the military, etc.
Their stances on various issues are often secondary, or tertiary, or worse.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not voting for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and was created in seven days. How can I trust that guy to be in charge of my country? I mean, I remember questioning the creation story when I was 11 years old.
I remember questioning it that early or earlier myself, but I don't think that the age of a when a question occurs has much bearing on whether or not I'll judge as unfit somebody who ended up with a different answer than the one I decided on.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not voting for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and was created in seven days. How can I trust that guy to be in charge of my country? I mean, I remember questioning the creation story when I was 11 years old.
I remember questioning it that early or earlier myself, but I don't think that the age of a when a question occurs has much bearing on whether or not I'll judge as unfit somebody who ended up with a different answer than the one I decided on.
I agree. There are certain questions that I can see both sides thinking they have the right answer. That's great -- I have no problem with someone coming to a different conclusion so long as (as far as I can determine) that conclusion is plausible.
Creationist and bible literalists aren't drawing what I consider to be plausible conclusions from the available evidence. That doesn't mean they're bad people, or that I dislike them. Just that, as a rule, I'm not voting for someone who's either delusional, willfully ignorant, or has criminally bad logical reasoning skills.*
And why, FC, would you get the idea that I only vote for atheists? I've never voted for an atheist.
*I want to expand on this paragraph a bit, because I don't want any of the theists here that I'm friends with to get the wrong idea. As far as personal relationships go, I don't think what anyone else believes is anyone's business but their own. But it definitely comes into play in an election, because it could and likely will have a big effect on how that person will act if elected. And how the president acts will likely have a big effect on all of our lives.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now, I agree that an atheist candidate has little or no chance of being elected. However, there are many possible and probable future events that could render one's position on God irrelevant. A dollar collapse and depression, for example, could send people scrambling for someone who understands monetary policy, or even someone who promises a new New Deal. When we other issues to deal with, immediate hardship issues, the God question could fade.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone agreed with me on every other issue and was an atheist, and the other person disagreed with me on pretty much everything else but was not, the atheism would not prevent me from voting the issues.
P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, okay, I see. You're talking about literalist beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
Gotcha. Misread on my part.
I think there is a shade of difference, though, in the "I rule out this person because they believe X, Y, and Z" and "I rule out this person because they carry this label".
Basically, you're ruling out people you feel to have extremist views that ignore science - not ruling them out because of their belief in a religion in general.
I tend rule out extremists, myself - if they close your mind to options in one area, it makes it more likely they will do so in another area. This does not just apply to religion, though.
For instance, I wouldn't rule out someone who was a Christian. I would rule out Ken Phelps or Jack Chick - because he's an extremist nut job, though, not because of his Christian status.
I think we're in agreement on that.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, during the Reagan era, who could have imagined we would elect and consider electing confessed drug users? Things can change pretty fast. Prior to Reagan, had we had any divorced presidents?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score.
Why couldn't an atheist be sincere on the abortion issue?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really care what the candidates personal beliefs are as long as he (universal he, not ruling out potential for female candidates) does believe in freedom of religion and won't tell me how or what to believe. So long as I personally enjoy the right to worship how I please, I don't care what the president is doing on Sunday morning.
As for could an atheist get elected, I would venture to guess some already have. I don't doubt that there are people who've been president who only claimed to be of a particular faith in order to be electable (no, not thinking of anyone in particular, just playing the odds that it's likely happened). What's worse? Someone open and honest about his beliefs or someone who will lie to get in power? I think I might appreciate honesty.
Then again, honesty and politician don't go together very well. But I might just be in a really cynical mood.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: As far as personal relationships go, I don't think what anyone else believes is anyone's business but their own. But it definitely comes into play in an election, because it could and likely will have a big effect on how that person will act if elected. And how the president acts will likely have a big effect on all of our lives.
I can understand not voting for someone, for example, if they believe that the world will definitely end within the next 50 years, and therefore there's no need to plan for a future beyond that.
If someone believed that the earth is under 10,000 years old because of the conclusions of bad creationist "science", I can understand the objection, as it gives you a glimpse on how they'll interpret science in the future. Likewise if because they believe that since evolution didn't happen the way scientists think, all medical science that uses Darwinist assumptions is wrong.
But just because someone believes that the earth is young doesn't mean that they also believe those other things. I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd think that what a candidate believes is an important indicator of what sort of judgement that candidate has. Therefore, I don't think it is irrational to factor a candidate's religion into one's decision over whether or not to vote for that candidate. However, I do think it is irrational to make that the only factor, or even the most important factor.
I think an atheist can get elected - but I think in order to do so, he or she would need to be the clearly superior candidate in other major aspects.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But just because someone believes that the earth is young doesn't mean that they also believe those other things. I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable.
It basically says that, when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
And everyone has the right to have that belief. But I would be hard pressed to vote for someone who thinks that way.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It basically says that, when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
It says that they did that in one instance.
It's not like everybody who believes the earth is under 10K years old also believes that PI is equal to 3.0.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But just because someone believes that the earth is young doesn't mean that they also believe those other things. I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable. [/QB]
If someone believes the earth is young, then he either is grossly misinformed about science (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country), or is very bad at logical reasoning and argumentation (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country). The person must've come to his conclusion somehow, and all possible ways he might have come to that conclusion are, in my opinion, evidence that he should not be president.
So, I too would immediately disqualify any candidate from my ballot who says they believe in the Bible's literal truth or are a Creationist/Young Earther.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score."
I don't think a pro-choice position is required for atheism.
And Belle, you're right. I should have said that I couldn't run as a professed atheist and win. I could always lie.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Therefore, I don't think it is irrational to factor a candidate's religion into one's decision over whether or not to vote for that candidate. However, I do think it is irrational to make that the only factor, or even the most important factor.
Wow. I agree with Tres again.
Maybe by the end of 2008, I'll have to count the amount of times that's happened on *two* hands. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that old Tom Jefferson was an atheist. He might have believed in something that managed to get the whole universe started, but nothing more than that. So, basically, about the same level of atheism that Hume was at, and maybe slightly to the right of Dawkins (if far left is absolutely no chance anything supernatural-y exists, and far right is the religion X's texts are all literally true).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone believes the earth is young, then he either is grossly misinformed about science (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country), or is very bad at logical reasoning and argumentation (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country).
Nope. Those are not the only two options.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know they aren't - which is why I also said
quote:The person must've come to his conclusion somehow, and all possible ways he might have come to that conclusion are, in my opinion, evidence that he should not be president.
I do think they're the two main ones however, which is why I highlighted them in my post. If you want to come up with different reasons, I'd be glad to hear them.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score."
I don't think a pro-choice position is required for atheism. ...
Eh, you may be right. After all, a life-from-conception stance is not required in my religion, and yet that is what I support.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of pro-life atheists. Google "pro-life atheist" for many more.
When you believe that this life is the only one anyone will ever have, the desire to make sure everyone gets that life makes sense.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score."
I don't think a pro-choice position is required for atheism.
True, in college a good friend of mine was an atheist, and was very pro life. He actually thought that it made more sense for atheists to be pro life than Christians. He such a thing as a soul existed then logically it would come into play at birth. He had this whole argument why this was so, but I'll not get into that now. Of course, to him all of this was hypothetical, since he said such a thing doesn't exist.
He said to an atheist there is no dividing line between a fetus and a baby. Since there is no "magic" associated with birth, a fetus is as much a living being as a baby. He said he could understand the age of viability argument, saying that it was not life until the point where some have been able to live outside the womb (I think this was 22 weeks). However, he still argued against all abortion saying that just because something is defenseless and can't live on its own, doesn't mean it is not life.
*shrug* I guess this is a little off track, but the mention of atheists on abortion just reminded me of on of Allen's rants.
As for voting based on religion, I think it is logical to vote for someone who shares beliefs with you. For a many Christian's, faith is an important part of their life. It makes sense for to want someone who shares that with you to lead the country. If someone does not agree with a group, I can see that group being worried that as a president the candidate would limit the rights of that group. Along those same lines, I think it would make sense for an atheist to vote against a candidate that is openly religious.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's Peter Stark, a Democrat who is indeed from San Francisco. So far, he's the only one who has openly admitted to having no belief in God.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable.
It wouldn't. But we don't live in a vacuum, and I believe that past behavior is one of the best indicators of future behavior.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing any one specific thing, but in this particular case (as I said earlier and as Jhai has expanded on) the blind devotion to something that defies all logical explanation tells me some valuable things about the believer's decision-making process. And those things make me uneasy enough that I wouldn't vote for them.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Also, during the Reagan era, who could have imagined we would elect and consider electing confessed drug users? Things can change pretty fast. Prior to Reagan, had we had any divorced presidents?
Andrew Jackson married a woman who had not previously officially divorced her husband and that caused an uproar with the Jeffersonian Republicans.
We've had several presidents who married more then once, but Reagan is still the only president who has been divorced.
Buchanan was the only president to have never been married either before or after office.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there have been many presidents who were atheists, just none that openly admitted it.
I'd doubt either of the Clinton's, deep down, actually believe in God. I have no real evidence, and of course both would rigidly deny it if asked, but I think that they claim belief in order to be "electable".
Being an atheist myself, I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing. Just like I wouldn't fault a gay man for pretending to be straight to run for office, I don't fault skeptics for pretending to have faith. It's sad, but I don't consider it immoral. I'd probably do the same if I was planning on running for office.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Andrew Jackson married a woman who had not previously officially divorced her husband and that caused an uproar with the Jeffersonian Republicans.
Was that it? I thought it was just an uproar that she had been divorced at all. Now I've got to go research it.
Oh, well, it appears you're right. I guess telling them you're divorced when you're not is one way to get back at that estranged spouse.
quote:Andrew Jackson married a woman who had not previously officially divorced her husband and that caused an uproar with the Jeffersonian Republicans.
Was that it? I thought it was just an uproar that she had been divorced at all. Now I've got to go research it.
They were for all practical purposes divorced but because they had not gone through official channels, namely because he abandoned her, Jackson's opponents drummed it up to sound as if he had kidnapped another man's wife and taken advantage of her. They frequently called her a bigamist.
It's believed she suffered from depression and all the uproar made her very sick. She died very soon after he won the presidency and Jackson never forgave his critics for it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The Economist just ran a short article on this topic, America's Atheists: Believe it or not. One interesting piece of data was that almost 30 million people claimed "no religion" in the American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, which is double the number in 1991. Although "no religion" is not the equivalent of atheism, I do think there's a developing secular trend, similar to what's happened in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The Economist just ran a short article on this topic, America's Atheists: Believe it or not. One interesting piece of data was that almost 30 million people claimed "no religion" in the American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, which is double the number in 1991. Although "no religion" is not the equivalent of atheism, I do think there's a developing secular trend, similar to what's happened in Europe.
Thank god.
Wow I almost failed to catch the irony in that statement. *Knocks on head*
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: "when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
And everyone has the right to have that belief."
I realize that people have freedom of speech and are entitled to their opinions, but it never-the-less infuriates me that ANYONE would hold this belief. If on a given point (the value of pi? as an overused example) science and scripture contradict, and you choose to go with scripture, rather than with provable and supportable science... I simply cannot take you seriously, or at least understand you, and anyone falling in this category is summarily dismissed from my consideration of who to vote for.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally think it's impossible for scripture and science to be contradictory towards each other- scripture is God's revelation to mankind. And so is creation.
Creation reveals God and therefore cannot be against what is written in scripture. When they disagree I believe that we are either interpreting scripture badly or that science is lacking (or of course it is a specific breaking of the rules of the physical universe because of the intervention of God aka a miracle).
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although, when the future of the Human race is at stake I would think that religion must take a back seat.
Not only that, even without a global crisis there is still separation between church and state. Religion has absolutly zero place in government. It's sickening how the boarder between these two worlds has been pecked away and abused by both the clergy and the politicians.
Of course in reality there is no boarder between politics and organized religion...which is why the Constitution tried to separate them. Western civilization (mostly America) is forgeting the horrible wars fought in the 17th century (and many other centuries) over a fly's hair difference in dogma. And of course while these wars were fought in the name of religion they were actually about power and wealth (as all wars are).
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
