Some religious communities argue that public policy is best decided by their own members,
on the grounds that collaborating with those reasoning from secular or “worldly” perspectives
will only foment error about how society should be run. But I argue that epistemology instead
recommends fostering disagreement among a plurality of religious and secular worldviews.
Inter-worldview disagreement over public policy can challenge our unquestioned
assumptions, deliver evidence we would likely have missed, and expose us to new epistemic
alternatives; when done respectfully, it can also combat epistemically problematic biases and
groupthink. I address two objections that members of a politically active religious community
might raise: one that inter-worldview disagreement about public policy is not needed because
one’s own beliefs are already true, and another that it is not needed because one’s own beliefforming
processes are divinely guided.