Mixing Religion and Politics

According to this study a narrow majority of Americans say

that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters

Setting aside whether there are indeed this many Americans that share this sentiment it is worth noting that those who adhere to this position are simply begging the question: Why should church members not share their views about “social and political matters”?

A rational approach for everyone, including Christians, is to use their worldview (i.e., ”the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it”) to inform their positions on all matters (including “social and political” ones).  Seen in this light the position that Christians should not share their view on “social and political” matters is at best special pleading spurious argumentation (e.g., why should Christians be held to a different standard than secular humanists) and at worst unjustified discrimination (e.g., with no foundation on which to discriminate against those who adhere to the position that they will use their theistic worldview to inform their position on public policy) against Christians.

On a side note, I think the world would be a better place if people from different worldviews (e.g., atheists, Christians, Mulsims, naturalists) could coolheadedly evaluate their worldviews in light of these tests:

1. Coherence Test: Is a particular worldview logically consistent?

An acceptable worldview will avoid “self-stultification,” but will have component parts that hang together as a coherent whole.

2. Mean Test: Is the worldview balanced between complexity and simplicity?

An acceptable worldview will be neither too simple (reductive fallacy) nor too complex (Ockham’s Razor). All things being equal, the simplest, most economical, and yet fully orbed worldview is to be preferred.

3. Explanatory Power and Scope Test: How well does a worldview explain reality (power), and how complete is the evidence in support of the view (scope)?

An acceptable worldview will explain reality and offer a breadth of evidence in support of its conclusions.

4. Correspondence Test: Does a particular worldview correspond with well-established, empirical facts?

An acceptable worldview will match with the observed world.

5. Verification Test: Can the central truth claims of the worldview be verified or falsified?

An acceptable worldview will make claims that can be tested and proven true or false.

6. Pragmatic Test: Does the worldview promote practical and workable consequences?

An acceptable worldview will be practical, workable, sensible, and therefore “externally livable.”

7. Existential Test: Does the worldview address the internal needs of humanity?

An acceptable worldview will account for the human need for meaning, purpose, and significance, and therefore be “internally livable.”

8. Competition Test: Can a worldview successfully compete in the marketplace of ideas?

An acceptable worldview will be able to respond to reasonable challenges, and offer a critique of competing worldviews.

9. Predictive Test: Can a worldview successfully anticipate future discoveries?