I think you bring up a good point about the fine tuning argument, but I also get the impression you misunderstand it. The fine tuning argument is used in natural theology to argue for the probability of a “creative force” or God that doesn’t rely on any divine revelation. It doesn’t (and can’t) say anything about immortal souls. In fact, many deists use the fine tuning argument to argue for a deistic God who doesn’t interfere with nature at all, but simply set it up and let (reality or simulation) “run.”

The way I find the fine tuning argument the most clear is using Bayes rule. For instance, say we want to estimate the joint probability P(intelligent life exists, universe supports intelligent life). I admit it seems ad hoc to define the joint probability this way initially, but doing so allows us to write P(intelligent life exists, universe supports intelligent life) = P(intelligent life exists|universe supports intelligent life)*P(universe supports intelligent life).

Now, P(intelligent life exists|universe supports intelligent life) is basically the anthropic principle. We can only observe life permitting universes, so we can estimate this as close to 1. However how can we even begin to determine the a priori probability P(universe supports intelligent life)?

If this is the only universe out there, it seems very unlikely that it should support intelligent life. This is because most probabilistic arguments reduce to uniform distributions in a “base case” (I.e. imagine a uniform distribution of any choice for the value of the constant of gravity, the mass of the electron, etc). If you can make an argument that allows more chances to increase (such as a multiverse, each with different properties of natural laws), or an expanding and collapsing universe with different constants each time (not sure how this would work, but let’s assume it holds), then you can argue against the fine tuning argument.

If you increase the number of universe “draws,” you avoid the fine tuning argument because improbable events are more likely to occur with repeated trials. However, the fine tuning argument still holds weight, and this is because despite the possibility of other/repeated universes, we still have yet to observe any of them. Leslie’s firing squad argues that even if this is the only universe we can observe, we should still be surprised to be alive. This argument only holds strength if indeed this is the only universe we can observe.

In the end, we don’t (and probably won’t ever) have access to the a priori probability P(universe supports intelligent life) or knowledge about the number of “trials” the universe takes (what evidence would even demonstrate this?), at least not in this life. As a result, the fine tuning argument, as well as alternative explanations such as the multiverse hypothesis, are all viable philosophical conjectures. We really don’t have a good way of arbitrating between these different possible scenarios. For Theism, however, the fine tuning argument can be used in conjunction with other arguments like the Kalam to create a more compelling case. My guess is this is the route apologists use (if I was an apologist, it would certainly be the route I would take).

If one takes a coherentist approach to epistemology, the fine tuning argument holds weight as a “piece” of an argument for God.

I appreciate both of your perspectives, thanks.

I understand why the government has a desire to be involved in marriage because married couples tend to not be stable, law abiding citizens and often have children which they would also want to promote for financial reasons. I also understand why they would want to discourage transactional marriages like green card marriages for a fee (where someone abroad pays someone at home to marry them so they get citizenship).

I actually think homosexual marriages may be more stable or have a higher “success” (i.e. less diverse) rate than heterosexual marriages, I’ll try to see if I can find data on it. My guess is because people have to go through more hoops and social barriers for a homosexual marriage, they may be more serious about it than the average heterosexual couple (pure speculation).

I tend to take a very Christian view of marriage, in the sense that I see it as a lifelong commitment to another person, not just “we’ll keep going until we don’t feel this way anymore, and then we’ll divorce”.


Homosexual marriage, child marriage, polygamy, are all extending or changing the "traditional" view of marriage, which in Western culture (and it seems many other cultures around the world too too) was between a man and one woman (and not incestuous). Polygamy may even be more traditional than monogamy in early societies, but Christianity did away with polygamy in the west.

I don't think marriage was ever historically about two people "loving each other". I see marriage as an evolutionary adaptation to protect women and children (forcing men to take care of women). Men can easily have sex with many females, whereas the cost of being pregnant for women is much higher. Hence why I think many cultures find sex outside of marriage taboo-a man can get a woman pregnant and then leave very easily, whereas a woman cannot. Forcing promiscuous men to "settle down" and make a commitment with one person seems like it would be advantageous to many societies.

Now, with birth control (and the fact that women can now work and hold property), we don't really "need" marriage the way societies used to. Hence we see marriage redefined in a romantic way in terms of personal choice and "love", perhaps a result of the individualism from the enlightenment. If a brother and sister want to have sex now, they can use birth control without having to worry about inbred offspring. Will incestuous marriage be decriminalized in the future? Who knows


I wonder about this too; I think the definition of marriage has changed a lot over even the past century.

Thanks for your perspective, this makes a lot of sense and is a good answer. As you said I think what the government (and what most people think) is best described as a “civil union,” as religions have the freedom to say and deem what they don’t think is “true marriage.”

I agree that Marriage tends to be a more religious term. Even the etymology of matrimony comes from mātrimōnium which is a combination of “mother” (matria) and monium (obligation) from Latin. This makes sense with many religious traditions such as the Catholic Church which sees the main “purpose” of marriage being having children.

If incest and sex with minors are legalized, then while I imagine most Protestant and Catholic Churches will still refuse to consider these “marriages”, the government will likely have to protect it too for much of the same reasoning.

There’s lots of interesting work like Theistic Evolution, things like that that try to synthesize natural selection with the idea of a transcendent creator.

Evolution is a broad category and even most young earth creationists don’t doubt evolution happens on a micro scale. It’s when the model becomes stretched to macro evolution that creationists tend to disagree (though whether theistic evolution or intelligent design fall under creationism is an interesting debate, and depends what you mean by creationism).

Natural selection is not the same as naturalism (although both are compatible and often complement each other, though there are some issues with naturalism in my view). Natural selection doesn’t account for biogenesis because it already assumes a cell’s ability to replicate. My guess is theistic accounts for the origin of life probably involve probabilistic arguments about cells and DNA. A highly cited chemist at my university gave a talk about how unlikely biogenesis is under naturalism and I found it pretty compelling to be honest.

The problem is it’s very difficult for us to know or replicate the initial conditions that life began, so pretty much any theory, naturalistic or not, is basically pure speculation. One of my favorites is that the building blocks for life originated on mars, very interesting theory, and not entirely unreasonable as it sounds in my view.

I do appreciate the quality control here. I’ve been using the site less recently because I’ve been encountering low quality posts, insults, extreme partisanship, and general stuff that doesn’t belong in a philosophy forum (arguments that wouldn’t stand in a philosophy 101 class in high school or college)

I was looking for an online philosophy forum where people took philosophical methodology seriously, and I wasn’t finding it from some groups on facebook. I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of avoiding fallacies, basic stuff like that. Of course it doesn’t mean people have to get banned, they can be warned, have it explained why their argument is inappropriate, etc. But at the end of the day posts that discourage sincere contributors from engaging will hurt the quality of the forum in the long run. I applaud the mods for, in my view, trying to make this forum a place where philosophy can happen.

Do you think genocides have always been wrong or that they were right sometimes even though they are wrong now?

I'm one of those people (along with Augustine, Aquinas) who thinks the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one. Some atheists (like Alexander Rosenberg) seem to think it poses a problem for objective morality as a whole, even without theism (See The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions).

If God exists and is a utilitarian (or at least in part a utilitarian), then to me it seems fine for him to order killing a group of people. After all, he can see the consequences of this and perhaps it brings a greater good to the world. In fact, this same line of reasoning is used by non-omniscient utilitarians all the time:

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them... This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

-Sam Harris

I find it odd that people often use this argument against theism, and then adopt an ethical position that seems to condones killing or genocide more than the theistic-based morality they abandoned.
Personally, I think Harris's argument is sound under pure utilitarianism (although I don't like it). Maybe that's why I'm not a utilitarian.

To be fair, I've never personally met a theist who has said that God/gods is/are a mystery. Most (usually Christians) argue that one can come to know God personally. Deists, following neoplatonism, along with Stoics argue God can be "known" through our use of reason (i.e. reason is the way we become like the gods)

I agree that avoiding harming others is indeed straightforward and practical, and I think it serves as a good guide for our own behavior. The issue I see is when trying to convince other people that they should agree with us and not harm other people. Plenty of people are sexist, racist, etc, and while they realize their actions cause harm to another group of people, they simply do not care (in the same way I realize I don't care that my eating of a steak has likely harmed a cow).

When I say "harming humans is wrong," I want this statement to express an ethical statement that is "true" in the sense that it goes beyond my personal preferences for what "right" and "wrong" is and refers to an objective fact about the universe. If emotivism is true and all ethical statements are just expressions of feeling or attitude, rather than assertions or reports of anything, then convincing people of my meta-ethical viewpoint amounts to manipulation. If emotivism is true, I cannot give people good reasons for following what I deem ethical behavior because, despite how I may feel, the underlying justification for my ethical propositions does not exist. Therefore, trying to change peoples' ethical viewpoint on what is "right" or "wrong," or what forms of harm I think they should care about, amounts to treating them as means to my own personal ends.

In other words, say someone's actions harm a group of people, I show them how their actions cause harm, and they respond with "why should I care?" Under emotivism, I cannot give them good reasons for why they should care. Me saying they should do anything is a teleological claim that I must either be willing to justify, or admit that I am lying to them and trying to manipulate their behavior. If moral facts exist (i.e. harming other humans is objectively wrong and this is a fact of the universe), then I can give them a good reason for why they should care-they are wrong or mistaken about how they should behave or treat other people. In other words, with moral realism, we can talk about when someone's moral sense is "faulty" in the same way we may argue someone's vision or hearing is faulty when not functioning "properly." But of course, we need to define and justify what "properly" is and means for humans.

I don't need God to act "morally" in the sense that I think plenty of people who don't believe in God act morally. But personally, I need God as an explanation (or justification) to why objective moral values exist and that our faculties (rational and emotional) correspond to the existence of these values. It may be strange to say but JL Mackie (and his argument from queerness) actually pushed me towards theism as an explanation to why our moral intuitions could track true or false statements.

Personally, I'm committed to moral realism. And this led me to theism, or the belief that God exists to explain moral realism. Of course, there are those who become moral anti-realists because they realize that moral realism may require theistic belief, and theism is "too high of a price" to pay for moral realism. The moral arguments for the existence of God are the most compelling to me.

The point is that societies have to choose which of these attributes we will privilege and what we do about the ones we think are unhelpful. This process is not scientific and relies upon intersubjective agreement and ongoing dialogue

Yeah, this is how I see it too. Hopefully there are some basic principles most people can agree on, and then build a society off of these principles that is able to reinforce them.

Indeed! Luke 6:31 has "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them."
A masochistic rapists dream, no doubt, but none of the more easily twisted versions worry me.
The golden rule is an excellent humanist/socialist mission statement imo

Couldn’t agree more with this. I’ve found the Golden Rule (and it’s variants like the categorical imperitive) to be excellent guides or “starting points” for behavior.

I think the point of the Golden Rule is to take a charitable interpretation. It acts as a good starting point for how to treat someone when you don’t know how they themselves want to be treated. If you know they’d rather be treated differently in certain circumstances, then obviously, you want to treat them the way *they* want to be treated as you’d want them to treat you the way *you* want to be treated. So I’d argue it works on a higher order as well.

Christians, Humanists, Buddhists, etc have a lot of common ground in this area.

Valuing human life relies upon a presupposition that harming people is wrong. If a person needs reasons for this, perhaps they need psychological help rather than philosophy? We are a social species that seems to be hard wired for empathy and cooperation.

The issue I think is that while we are indeed “hard wired” for empathy and compassion, this doesn’t tell us why someone who isn’t hard wired for empathy and compassion (or someone who is racist, sexist, etc) is “wrong.” The fact that natural selection tends to generally choose people who are empathetic and cooperative thing doesn’t mean people who deviate from this view need to be corrected.

For instance, someone could make the argument (as I’m sure it’s been made in the past) that due to natural selection, we are hard wired for heterosexuality and reproduction. However, to me, it doesn’t follow that homosexuality is necessarily a pathology. Likewise, if most people are generally hard wired for empathy and cooperations, while others are not, we cannot say they are “wrong” unless we can justify it.

If a red state with a majority of people who are against abortion, isn't that democratic?
— Judaka
Fundamental human rights should not be up for debate, full stop

Both sides think they have the moral high ground in this debate, and are protecting human rights. Unfortunately, I don’t think either side will be happy with a statewide vote, which despite maybe being a better compromise of democracy is desired.

Of course, if democracy was desired, I don’t think most people would have wanted Roe v Wade to pass in the first place, as it protected 2nd trimester abortions which less than 40% of the population thought should be legal.

Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to only allow abortions when rape is involved, and this is because people may falsely accuse others of rape in order to get an abortion. I realize this is a more pragmatic argument. Does this mean rape needs to be asserted, proved in court, etc?

Furthermore, I don’t know if many pro-life people would agree either; it doesn’t matter if the person is raped or not, abortion is still killing.

I think a closely related concept are things like human rights/natural rights. What does it mean to be born with “human rights” and who gets to decide what these rights are?
I think traditionally, people (especially from a religious perspective) value life, especially human life, over material things. As a result, the argument is people are “worthy” of life by virtue of being born, as they have immeasurable value to God. Of course, from a secular perspective, this argument can be rejected, and hence secular morality systems like utilitarianism allow the designation of a “value” to human life (be it monetary, etc).
Personally, I think our idea of “deserving” comes down to some sort of transaction. Somebody deserves something because they have either done something for us that we deem it appropriate to “reward” them, or we hope that by rewarding them, we will get something in return in the future.

Doesn't matter how controversial suicide is I think is a respectful act which reflects individualism. We have to respect when someone decides to end their life and not condemn it

One of the tricky things here is individualism itself is a very western idea, influenced a lot by Judeo-Christian ideas.

For many religions, life is sacred and as a result, suicide is a denial of this.

Perhaps one could make an argument in places like Japan where space was limited suicide was more condoned for this reason. But I think the explanation of honor and bringing honor to your family makes more sense.

The interesting thing here is that the main people arguing these cases (admissions, etc) are Asians, as they are claimed to be overrepresented, even more than Whites. As a result, I feel like many Asians (which typically vote democratic) will begin voting more conservative because they feel these sorts of policies and quotas hurt them and are targeted at them. In many cases, this is true. My guess is the supreme court's conservative leaning will say these admissions are discriminatory. Whether the federal government can regulate it is another question. But for public schools that are federally funded, I think they may be able to withhold funding or do something that way.

I do a lot of STEM teaching, outreach, etc. Honestly, much of this work to get more women and minorities in STEM (if this is indeed the goal) has to happen earlier. Even high school is too late in many cases. I'm for trying to find the best talent and give everyone and equal chance, but in my opinion, affirmative action goes too far and ends up hurting the people it is trying to help.

To put things in perspective, Prop 16 (to repeal Prop 209, which made the UC admissions system race blind in 1996) was on the ballot in California. It was shot down by more of a margin than prop 209 originally passed by in 1996. This is California we are talking about. Its complicated-the voters care about equity in some sense, but also care a lot about merit and seem to not like quotas. I think we are starting to see the pendulum swing the other way-people are more aware of discrimination, racism, etc, but they feel that some of these policies take it too far.

This is one of those issues where I think both sides make good points (similar to the abortion debate), and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives on it.

I’d chime in to say the US isn’t a direct democracy and wasn’t designed to be either. The founding fathers were wary of the common man’s ability to vote and wanted to protect citizens from the “tyranny of the majority.”obviously if people don’t have trust in the voting system then the whole thing falls apart. But I personally don’t see a lot of reason to worry-at the end of the day I think most people will reason their way through and we will see Hagel’s dielectric at work.


Yeah, that’s how I see it too

I don't want to derail this thread too much, but

This brings up a more general moral principle.. How much leeway does one give those who possess a lot of information about X?...My guess is his contribution to the field of knowledge in general would give him a pass.

Is an excellent question. In my view, Einstein could have still contributed by submitting papers, as his work and theories can still be appreciated even without having to deal with him personally. But we certainly draw a line even in these cases-brilliant professors who sexually assault their students, for instance will get fired regardless of how "good" their work is. In an online philosophy forum, where the quality of discussion is in part affected by the language people use (especially if such language can affect whether people want to engage, the quality of their engagement, etc), I don't think its unreasonable to ask people to be mindful of how they interact with each other. Furthermore, there are plenty of ways to word specific sentiments or express disagreements that don't come off as bigoted, fallacious, assholeish etc. There's a clear difference between saying

Group X are mindless shells of humans

and

In my experience, Group X has a tendency towards Y behavior due to Z

Note how one facilitates conversation, debate, and understanding (which I would hope is the point of posting) and the other doesn't. In my opinion, allowing blatant disregard for the rules of logic, fallacies, and common decency (I realize this is a fuzzy term) will hurt the quality of any philosophical community.

Some of you put up with him because he expressed what you yourselves felt

This bothers me. If it is fine to put up with bigoted language as long as we "agree" with it, in my opinion, we have no right to criticize others for standing by when someone says something racist, sexist, etc. In this case, popular bigotry gets a free pass because more people "feel" the same way and agree with the sentiment.

He's a smart guy, no doubt. But that kind of rhetoric is not conducive to anything, outside of getting people mad....

I agree. While I didn’t appreciate his anti-theistic posting and general rhetoric, I figured it was something I’d just ignore.

Whether it was ban worthy is outside of my jurisdiction. Probably not an easy call to make.

I think it’s possible to both sin knowingly and unknowingly. The standard position by most Christian and Catholic Churches is more similar to that of Natural Law. That is, we can come to know what both God’s will is with reference to reason and emotion. If either of these are faulty, I think the argument is we can sin unknowingly. However we can also sin if we “know” what the right thing to do is and yet choose to do otherwise. Of course, moral disagreement does pose a problem here.

St. Thomas argues that because human beings have reason, and because reason is a spark of the divine (see image of God), all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any created object, meaning all humans are fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no human can remove

If you’re making a larger claim about objective moral values or facts in and of themselves (I.e. if there are moral facts, how would we come to know them; see Mackie’s argument from Queerness), of course, this is not a problem unique for theistic morality in general. In fact, I think secular morality struggles more with this than theistic-based morality. Without a clear telos, the idea of “right” or “wrong” goes out the window.

I think you both have a good point. Indeed

Jesus said pray in private. We know the agenda of those who pray in public--nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus.

I think it's totally fair to say what the praying coach was doing had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, the legal system cannot (and perhaps should not) allow or disallow speech on the basis of its consistency or obedience to the religious teachings each member claims to represent.

I do think it is fair for outsiders (and insiders) to point out when people are being inconsistent with a specific political or religious doctrine (and sometimes, they can see it with a clearer eye than those inside the community). However

The secular constitution gives religious people the freedom to "practice their religion in accordance with their conscience" and this trumps every objection from outsiders

is the status of the law. And honestly, I think this is how it should be.

For instance, I personally abhor the Westboro Baptist Church; I think they totally misrepresent Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. But I will advocate for their right to speak, as I too would want to be free from censorship if I was in their position. I'd rather let them just go around and look like idiots (no offense to any WBC members) then allow the government to say what views people are allowed to express. I have yet to hear a good principle for why they should be legally silenced beyond me not liking what they have to say.

Creationism? How did that get mentioned?


I agree with most of Tom's sentiment, but I think he misses the point, which is that for some of these evangelicals, praying is a public expression of part of their identity. When he claims

The true desire is not prayer, but evangelism

perhaps I'd agree, but how is this any different than the teacher taking a knee during the national anthem, or putting up flags/using political slogans during the game to "evangelize" a political message? Of course, the difference is it is religious speech. But I think people make a good point when they argue if the government protects certain kinds of 1st amendment rights, even for educators, then religious speech shouldn't be an exception.

...what they are doing is pretending that the only possible way for them to pray privately is to hijack the microphone publicly

This isn't the argument the Kennedy side is making (indeed he was offered a place to pray in private, and refused). He wasn't given or hijacking a microphone-if he was, this case would have been easy. The issue is balancing the 1st amendment's freedom of expression with the establishment clause of the constitution. Some would argue any religious speech by a teacher or coach on campus is a violation of the establishment clause. Others argue the silencing of such speech, (with an implication that there is a "correct" way to express one's religion) is a violation of the 1st amendment and/or the establishment clause.

Indeed, the US Department of Education's stance on these sorts of issues is

...students have the right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from discrimination, but that does not include the right to have a captive audience listen or compel other students to participate

When looking at the similarities between this and people kneeling during the national anthem (https://mclellan.law.msu.edu/questions/kneeling-during-national-anthem)

[Heckler's Veto] Speech is not considered a substantial disruption if those that hear it cause their own disruption as a result. As long as the speech itself isn’t causing the disruption, it will be protected, regardless of how other people react to it

Don't misunderstand me, I do think there should be limits on what types of expression are considered coercive or manipulative, especially by public school educators. I just don't think religious expression should have any special place among it, one way or another. You almost need one of those disclaimers "the views expressed by this teacher/coach are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the entities they represent"

I think it’s a bit more technical. I can’t imagine anyone arguing that he was praying “alone” as other students clearly and visually joined him. The question becomes, is it considered coercive if he told his students, “Hey, after the game, I’m going to be praying at the 50 yard line. You’re welcome to join if you want.” I’d argue no. If he said “I’m praying at the 50 yard line, I expect you to be there,” then yes, absolutely.

If the issue is decided by whether students or not choose (by their own free will) to join him, this means the government can choose to limit his speech based on actions outside of his control. To me, this doesn’t make sense (i.e. “you’re allowed to pray as long as no students join. If they choose to, then we can fire you.”)

Obviously, outside of school he’s free to do what he wants in public, post on social media, etc. If he was to pray during the classroom, or in the locker room (as he did but stopped), it is seen as more coercive as it’s more of an “opt-out” if you don’t want to do it than “opt in.”

If the issue is whether or not some students felt coerced, then this means 1st amendment expression can be limited based on someone’s testimony about how they felt. Now this becomes a bit trickier-if a student claims they felt coerced to take part in this prayer, do we respond by asking the coach to change his behavior, firing him if he doesn’t change his behavior, etc? And if another student says “if the school rules that he cannot pray on the 50 yard line, I too will feel coerced not to pray during school,” which now means we have a conundrum as mentioned. I tend to favor speech over comfort in many cases, so personally, I’d say unless a good number of students felt coerced, or there was data to show that by not participating, the complaining student was given less playtime, I think it’s unfair to fire the coach or infringe on his rights to free speech. With that being said, the complaining students discomfort shouldn’t be ignored and I certainly think the complaint makes the case much more complicated. The problem to me is the legal precedent it would set-does one person’s discomfort or concern allow restrictions on the expression of another?

The legal issue in this case is whether he was representing himself when he is kneeling or praying on the field, or whether he is representing the school/federal government in advocating for a specific religion when doing so. Of course, this is balanced with the claim that firing him for continuing to do so is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment (promoting nonreligion over religion). With that being said, if he is representing the school/government when praying, I think a similar claim about the establishment clause could be argued in the other direction (promoting whatever religion he is).

I agree; in fact the more options there are, the better. I'm sure there are people who are either resistant to religion or have had a bad experience so secular alternatives are certainly welcome.

With that being said I've seen (as I'm sure you have) studies that have shown religious-based recovery programs being more effective than secular based ones. It could be that the people in these studies are already familiar with the language based on their upbringing, who knows. Its great that we live in a time where people can choose what resonates with them. If it's someone who's atheist, they should probably look into one of the secular programs, and if they're religious, they can look into either secular or faith based.

This is a good point. Many recovery programs (AA) along with groups like Boy Scouts have references to a "higher power" or some idea of "god/God," though it is open to interpretation. At what point does it become coercive?

I know some (secular) therapists who think a belief in moral nihilism is problematic, so they (in some way) think having a "higher power" is a necessary part of the recovery process. The word "god" or "God" can mean different things to different people, so I don't personally think it's worth trying to stop people from saying it.

When I was younger, I used to wonder why the word "God" was on the dollar/pledge of allegiance, etc, and it used to bother me, even as a Christian. I think I understand it better now, the more I know about history and philosophy.

All this is to say, the meaning of prayer and even the word "g/God" can mean different things to different people. We can't even really agree on what a "religion" is, so trying to regulate speech from a shaky foundation is going to give fuzzy results.

Exactly.

I imagine the people supporting the coach see him as someone like Rosa Parks, practicing civil disobedience in the face of losing his job to stand up for what he thinks is the right thing to do. I may not agree with his methods, but I respect the sentiment (as soon as someone tells me I shouldn't say or do something, I sometimes want to do it even more). It all feels very American, being football and all. One of my more conservative (agnostic) friends claims this wouldn't have been an issue to the left if the man was Muslim.

This is true. But effect prong of the Lemon Test (Lemon v Kurtzman) states

The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion

and the entanglement prong states

The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion

So it seems up to interpretation whether allowing the coach to pray with students is indoctrination, or if firing him is infringing upon his first amendment rights.

It seems to me that the court is saying that religious speech in classrooms must be (perhaps explicitly) coercive in order to be unconstitutional (see here).

I don't think this is the end of the separation of church and state. Perhaps it is a backlash to secularization.

I don't disagree that it is unprofessional. In fact, I'd go farther and say if Kennedy is a Christian, it is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 6:6). The question is whether or not Kennedy should legally be allowed to make himself look like an idiot (or crusader, depending on who you ask) on the field.

Take a similar incident, where a teacher in Texas was put on paid leave (same as Kennedy) for having BLM and LGBTQ posters in her virtual classroom https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/26/texas-teacher-black-lives-matter-LGBTQ/ after parents complained (She was offered her job back, but declined). Are teachers allowed to make political statements in the classroom but not religious ones? What differentiates religious speech/expression from political speech/expression?

John Polm testified that he later became aware of a parent's complaint that his son 'felt compelled to participate' in Kennedy's religious activity, even though he was an atheist, because 'he felt he wouldn't get to play as much if he didn't participate.'” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 991 F.3d 1004, 1011 (9th Cir. 2021)

However we can imagine a religious student who hears of this case and feels coerced not to pray during school because he sees the ruling as hostile to prayer, and has a similar complaint to his firing. This, to me, is why it is an excellent case for the court-it helps establish principles for when teachers/coaches are representing the government and when they are themselves individuals.

I agree; the issue comes down to whether students were coerced into participating/ostracized for not participating. And it seems like the facts from either side tell a very different story, making it difficult to get a clear picture of what is going on.

The way Gorsuch saw it in his writing

There is no indication in the record...that anyone expressed any coercion concerns to the District about the quiet, postgame prayers that Mr. Kennedy asked to continue and that led to his suspension [distinguishing it from cases] in which this Court has found prayer involving public schools to be problematically coercive

Sanford Levinson said in an interview (before the ruling was announced)

If you accept the district’s view of what was going on this, I think the coach’s actions would have been viewed as potentially coercive. And you’ve got cases that certainly support that. But it will be interesting to see if my predicted majority decision simply says that former Justice Kennedy, who wrote the decision and was the swing vote in the in the Rhode Island case, was wrong and that as long as the coach isn’t saying explicitly, ‘you must say this prayer,’ but he’s instead only asking ‘who wants to come pray on the 50-yard line,’ that’s not coercive

I hadn't ever thought of an evolutionary debunking argument against reason itself, but I think you present a good case for it. I posted here a while back about the metaphysics of reason/logic (what "reasons" do we have to trust reason?), which got me thinking about this, albeit in a tangential way. I do think the theist has a strong answer to this question that the naturalist does not, which is that we were born into a universe that is rationally intelligible, and through our use of reason we can understand it. In fact, while typing this, I found this quote from the IEP:

Aquinas [influenced by Plato and, perhaps even more so, Aristotle] and others grounded the scholastic synthesis of knowledge in the view that truth, morality, and God himself could be known by reason because the divine will itself is guided by reason. What is reasonable is therefore what is true and right.

My guess is Kant had something similar to say about reason.

I think maybe this is where foundationalism comes in with saying we need to have properly basic beliefs to avoid infinite regress, with perhaps a trust in the process of reason being one of those.

Perhaps. But even so, does that mean the government has (or should have) the right to intervene in these cases?

I agree, especially about the part about church and state being separated (and I imagine most Americans would as well, religious and non-religious).

However, depending on the way you look at it, the government limiting the way people express their religion could be seen as infringing on the separation of church and state. Or them not restricting religious speech could be seen as implicitly advocating for a certain religion too. This is why the case itself gets a bit technical-i.e. were other students participating, was it during sponsored school hours, etc.

I think with a more conservative court, both Dobbs v Jackson and Kennedy v Bremerton (which you brought up) tell a similar story of reducing the federal government's power to intervene or bend the constitution as much.

As you mentioned, most Americans support the legality of abortions (though it does vary by state). So what would be the political reason of overturning Roe v Wade? It could be that they want the left to have to propose a constitutional amendment that they assume will hurt their voting party. Or it could be that, as Tate mentioned, they thought the ruling of Roe v Wade was unconstitutional, and, regardless if people agree with the ends of overturning it, it does not justify using the constitution that way (in the court's eyes of course).

I wonder if you're familiar with Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism. He follows a similar line of reasoning as you do, though he makes a probabilistic case.

Some people (I'm not super familiar with their argument) argue that theism also suffers from an issue of circularity and regress. I'm not sure I follow their argument, so I can't comment on that side.

A forum member here made a good argument that naturalism assumes a metaphysic, so it isn't a full metaphysical stance; I'll see if I can find it.

If the 2014 age-specific abortion rates prevail, 24% of women aged 15 to 44 years in that year will have an abortion by age 45 years

Wow, that’s actually a lot more people having abortions than I would have expected. Pretty surprising to me.

1. Abortion ought be afforded to those women who choose it in certain circumstances.
2. The US Constitution doesn't speak to that right.
You can believe in 1 and 2 at the same time.

This is how I see it as well. The Supreme Court isn’t explicitly “restricting” abortion rights by overturning Roe v Wade (although this is the effect of allow states to make their own laws). Politically and legally, it comes down to peoples’ belief in how rigid or flexible the constitution “should be” in making or enforcing law on a federal level. Not only do we want the laws to reflect our opinion, but we also want the justification to be sound as well, as this sets a legal precedent for further laws and decisions.

In the evangelical community, those who take a very literal interpretation of the Bible may also take a very literal and textual interpretation of the constitution.

However, an “elastic” constitution that is open to more interpretation means it is easy to bend when liberals *or* conservatives have a majority in the senate, Supreme Court, etc. A more rigid or literal one may be more difficult to amend and take more legal “inertia” to make changes, potentially keeping things from swinging far left or right too quickly, but also delaying quick reactions to changing technology or loopholes.

For instance, if the liberty clause allows the federal government to use the 14th amendment to restrict states’ rights blocking abortion, then could a conservative senate majority use the 14th amendment to impose a federal ban on abortion because it restricts the unborn baby’s right to liberty or life in the constitution?

For your first question, the court was able to overturn Roe v Wade because the reasoning behind it was (in their eyes) legally dubious and arguably unconstitutional. Roe v Wade’s legal precedent used a “right to privacy” based on an extension of the 14th amendment’s “liberty” clause. However, this was not super explicit. If the federal government wants to protect abortion, my guess is a constitutional amendment would be necessary (or some way to keep states from receiving federal funding if they interfere).

In the court’s opinion

One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.

I don’t think SCOTUS’s reasoning had anything explicitly to do with pro-life/pro-choice, simply that this “implied” right to privacy was a misuse of the 14th amendment and an overreach of the federal government/court at the time. After all, once could also argue that abortion violates an unborn child’s right to life as well.

The main question is when life deserves moral consideration. For pro-life, this seems to often be at the moment of conception or some time early after that (I don’t see a lot of protests about Plan B for instance). In particular, this is for human life, not any sentient life in general. For pro-choice, it’s unclear and varies among people. But in any case, to me it seems ridiculous to allow abortions right up to the moment of birth, especially if the fetus/baby’s life can be saved.

I’m curious if anyone who knows a bit about law thinks if there is a solid legal foundation/case that could be made for the federal government’s protection of access to abortion, outside of an explicit constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, a lot of what I see online is “I’m angry at the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v Wade which will reduce access to abortion in some/many states” not “I want federal rights guaranteeing access to abortion, how can this be legally codified”

I read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind which makes a case for why conservatives may have an advantage over liberals when it comes to many peoples' moral thinking. Great book that I totally recommend, despite me having issues with some of the later parts. His argument is conservatives understand moral psychology better than liberals and, based on moral foundation theory, appeal to more moral principles than just harm and fairness (which include loyalty, authority, sanctity). As a result, his argument are conservatives have a much more inclusive "flavor" that naturally/evolutionarily appeals to more people.

I think of politics in terms of Hagal's dialectic, so for every swing in one direction, we have opposing motion. So in that case, yes, I think the left does have a "chance" in politics, but it may have to adapt to appeal to people. In the US, I predict that many democrats are getting "fed up" with what they consider to be a hostile takeover by far-loeft progressives. This is why I think minorities will start voting more conservative (indeed something we are starting to see in Texas). The parties will have to change, as they have done before, to adapt and appeal to a changing voter base. For instance, the "right" is becoming less religiously monolithic in the US.

I agree. At the end of the day, most people care more about the economy than ideological issues, especially one like abortion that doesn't really affect that many people (most people who don't want children will use contraception I'd imagine than have to go through the process of getting an abortion; I can't really imagine anyone "wanting" or being excited to get abortion).

I can imagine Republicans will blame Democrats for trying to shift the focus away from their "failure" handling the economy/inflation. Maybe they have a good argument, maybe not.

Considering how state majorities differ on their views on the legality of abortion, perhaps leaving it to the states is a good course of action.

The thing that bothers me is the obvious straw man arguments on both sides, especially the left which I am exposed to more given my age and demographic. I agree with the SCOTUS that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was legally dubious (RBG said so herself; perhaps this is part of the reason the left is so angry with her currently). If the federal government wants to protect abortion, my guess is a constitutional amendment would be necessary (or some way to keep states from receiving federal funding if they interfere).

Am I worried for the country? No. The legal system did exactly the job it was designed to do, regardless of whether I "like" the outcome. If it is an issue that bugs the public enough, they will vote on it and change course. I'm so fortunate to have food on the table, a job, a car, A/C so I can spend my time thinking about an issue like this instead of worrying about my next meal. Helps me put things in perspective.

"Adapting ideas from Judaism" -- 77% of your religious cannon is Judaism. It is what Christ was/is and what he was reacting against in his teachings

Ahh yes, I realize I was being too loose with words in this case. Even Jesus is quoted as saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17). Saying Christianity "adopted" Ideas from Judaism is misleading. Some christians may say it "completes" it (I'd argue this is more rhetoric, but I understand the point), but it certainly doesn't nullify it in the traditional sense despite amending prevailing interpretations at the time.

In fact, the ethical tenets of Humanism, and those of Christianity, were borrowed from ancient pagan philosophy. I've always been baffled by those who maintain, wrongly, that Judeo-Christian values are the product of those two Abrahamic religions. — Ciceronianus

I think its fair to say Judeo-Christain values are a product (of the tradition) of the two Abrahamic religions. After all, these particular values are written down in the religious texts in Judaism and Christianity that have clearly and directly influenced the ethical tenants of the west. Bringing it back to the original topic, you can also argue that Judeo-Christain traditions/values themselves are "borrowed" from ancient pagan philosophy. But I think this is a very difficult claim to support-how can you establish whether Jesus, NT or OT writers directly engaged with pagan philosophy, other than similarities in content (especially since the writers of the synoptic gospels were anonymous)?

Who knows, during Jesus's life before he started his public ministry he may have gone and studied pagan philosophy (once again, I'd argue this would be pure speculation, but perhaps a good case could be made for it). But in my opinion even if this was established wouldn't mean that Judeo-Christian values are somehow not a product of the Abrahamic religions. To me, this would establish them in a lineage of ideas similar to how Hagal influenced Kant who influenced Kierkegaard.

I think a good case could be made for early Christianity adapting ideas (thus a "stew") from Cynicism, Stoicism, and Judaism (Stoicism in particular because Paul's writings draw on Stoic terms and ideas). In today's time, it even includes pieces of Aristotelianism, Platonism, (a very good fit IMO) and existentialism.

Considering how most historians date Philostratus's writing of the Life of Apollonius to around 220-225 AD, and the synoptic gospels being dated from 60-110 (with Pauline writings probably even earlier), its more likely that the story of Jesus (and perhaps its circulation among pegan audiences) influenced Apollonius than the other way around.