Last week at the local Socrates Cafe meeting, a very good question was raised for discussion: whether science or religion were the more arrogant in nature. In the end, the group more or less concluded that in their pure, spiritual forms, both science and religion are not arrogant. However, we live in a politically charged society, and both science and religion are social institutions. So, they can’t help but become political; and politics seem to inspire arrogance.

Whenever people get together to assert joint interests, whether as a political party or a labor union or a social activist group, a collection of reasonable and humble individuals often start asserting and believing positions about their righteousness and the wrongness of all who oppose them which go beyond what they might have concluded in isolation. There’s just something about the group dynamic, about the reinforcement dynamic of people interacting in groups.

Thru this “echo chamber amplification” effect, religious people become absolutely certain that their god exists exactly as they would have it, and everyone who believes differently is not only wrong, but is dangerous. Something not unlike this also goes on amidst scientists, who start making prescriptions regarding politics and metaphysics that go well beyond the boundaries of their empirical evidence.

This all makes me wonder if the golden rules of religion and science could ever be realized on a political basis. The religious golden rule is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The scientific golden rule is “act according to the undeniable facts and evidence”. Too often, politics are used to do unto other people in ways very different from what the political interests in question would seek for themselves; and also to obtain results that clearly contradict undeniable evidence regarding their bona fides. People acting on their own, dealing directly with other people acting on their own, are often able to act according to the golden rules (especially when there are genetic bonds, i.e. in family groups). But as soon as two or more are gathered in the name of a common interest or belief against an opposing interest, well . . .

Is there any way of coming up with a workable political system (including our social and economic systems, which in the end are also political) where these golden rules would have more of a chance? Our basic political presumptions revolve around representative democracy, rule by law, regulated capitalism, regulated free market economies, competition and occasional cooperation. Perhaps these presumptions are the best we can do, given human group dynamics. I’ve thought a lot about the question of just how we should get along in this world of ours throughout the course of my life. Just when I think I had an answer, the human race would reveal some new capacity to twist the intent of that what I would prescribe.

So for now, I just don’t have an answer as to how we should live politically. The golden rules should certainly be applied on an individual basis; people do seem capable of that. But as to group situations, well . . . about the only thing I can suggest is a general personal skepticism regarding group dynamics. I.e., religious people, Democrats, Tea Party followers, union members, feminist activists, etc. should all ask themselves – how do I know that what we are demanding and asserting is truly right? Is our position really the “best for all” position, the just position; or are we pushing for something to benefit us, without sufficient concern for unwarranted harm to others? A little more “group skepticism” in this highly political world of ours might truly be a healthy thing.

Perhaps that even applies to the Socrates Cafe group! Albeit, that group operates with a fairly robust level of philosophical skepticism, with a minimal quotient of arrogance. All groups should be as open and questioning as they are! The world would be a more golden place.