You sound like you have been liberally educated at a modern university...

Much of European history derives from the authoritarian governments that predated the modern nation state. The mixing of authoritarian governmental theory with Christian theology can be a difficult mix, to be sure. It is so very easy to forget that the duty of a leader is to serve--"He who is first shall be last." Most leaders act in the exact opposite manner and pervert Christian doctrine to support that behavior.

As far as where human rights concepts come from, let me quote Prof. John A. Sterling of the Law and Liberty Foundation and Elizabeth City State University:

"Human rights: a freedom to which one is entitled by virtue of being created in the image of God- a right of personhood. Human rights are greater than the power of government and so cannot be taken by government.

Natural rights: As commonly used, synonymous with “human rights” ".

Any rights derived from human conduct can be abridged; rights given by God cannot to be taken by human action. Anyone who relies upon a human state to "give" them rights should be forewarned....

I would suggest Cathloic theologian Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century did much to further the concept of fundamental human rights that later grew into the natural law concepts of the post-Renaissance era. Aquinas was indebted, among other influences, to the Bible, to Augustine, and to Aristotle.

Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

I don't believe this question to be loaded. I understand how it might be construed this way but I disagree. Speaking philosophically, Christianity (along with many other faiths) will claim that all mankind is deserving of the "human rights" enjoyed by a small minority until recently. Christianity will also claim that these rights are inalienable (i.e., unable to be taken away) as they have been bestowed / endorsed by a supreme being in favor of their global acceptance. That these rights are inalienable provides the underpinning for pursuing these rights for all despite any objection.

As is questioned, how does an atheist justify philosophically the belief that all mankind is deserving of these human rights? A Christian will claim authority from God. An atheist will claim authority from whom?

A few caveats are in order. For starters, this should not yet be a debate about the atrocities of the world's religions over the ages. These examples only illustrate how religious peoples have refused to accept a global interpretation of human rights - hardly an argument against the principals (or philosophy) of Christiainity.

Secondly, listing the development of human rights over the ages (with or without the Christian influence) is not an argument about an atheist's philosophy on authority. It is simply a descriptive chronology of our evolving acceptance of human rights. The question is still yet to be answered convincingly.

Finally (and perhaps most important), a discussion of these "hard-to-nail-down" human rights should be primarily confined to those rights that we all seek to bring to fruition. It is not ironic that the finest principles of Christianity coincide with those of the secular world. A Christian will claim that all are spiritually enlivened by the same supreme being whether this is acknowledged or not. Arguing about my own person Christian beliefs (beliefs that should not be hoisted upon those who would disagree) is not germane to the topic at hand. These similarities should be celebrated and discussed. Nonetheless, the question remains unanswered by those in the secular camp -

From whence do you claim your authority regards to the acceptance of human rights for all?

But Christianity has not historically claimed that all mankind is deserving of the same level of "human rights". Not even in the Bible, the basis for the Christian faith. Surely you aren't suggesting that speech freedom and any modern concept of liberty as we know it today are tauted in any religion?

You seem to be arguing that religion was simply practiced incorrectly for centuries, but now that we recognize others as human beings, religion offers freedom of speech and liberty to all. Not true. The theme of religion is subservience (to a higher power), and ultimate salvation for that subservience. Not freedom of speech or any conception of "liberty" as it is practiced in modern society. Treating people overall unabusively? For some religions, yes (as has been mentioned, some religions revere animals too), but not "liberty" in any sense of the word, and certainly not equality. Under what authority does it come from? It is a (modern) human, conditioned social construct.

In many cases those 'authoritarian governments' WERE the Church. I know it is standard to claim today that everyone who passed before was just 'wrong', and that al those previous leaders chose to betray the church and so on, but that doesn't hold water. Firstly that claim would have us believe that since day one and for 95% of the last 2000 years, every leader chose to ignore, or subvert the true meaning' of the Religion. That seems... unlikely. Secondly, you are correct, there are passages (quoted here by some) which appear to be in direct opposition to their actions throughout history. But then again, there are other passages which seem to justify their actions completely. The fact is that the Bible contains many messages, and they simply chose to follow different ones, just as today some passages are carefully ignored. I submit its not the Church that changed society, but rather a changing society that forced the Church to change and keep up.


Now you make a good point, one I alluded to previously: some of the Great men who DID act to advance what would eventually be considered Human Rights were religious and came from the Churhc, Aquinas being a perfect example. But in the end, these voices, however enlightened, didn't change anything. It would be like (Please forgive the politically loaded example) saying a single voice in the Bush Jr administration who speaks out against misdeeds, but is ignored by the administration, somehow absolves the administration of all wrongdoing. That absolves the Voice, but frankly, further condemns the ionstitution that ignores it. The history of the Church is not a history of God, it is simply a history of the Churh, and few institutions in human history have done more to retard, prevent or violate what we now consider to be Human rights as much as this one.


The central argument here is that the idea of respect for man comes from the Bible, but in fact such concepts long predate the Bible, and existed in human society before the Bible, and the Bible is just their latest iteration, one completely ignored by the Church for about 1900 years. Even this 'origin' concept is flawed, as the best parts of the word can be traced back further through human history, and did not originate with this one book.


(I am forced to say again, just to be clear, this sounds like I am brutalising religion, I am not, in another thread I will happily speak of its virtues, but in THIS context, one cannot draw a practical link between Christian religion and Human rights, in fact exactly the opposite: I submit society developed Human rights ONLY once it had become secularised enough to break from Church doctrine)



I disagree. Can one seriously debate the merits and flaws of Communism without discussing how it has been practically applied throught history? Can one seriously discuss the merits and flaws of fascism without discussing how it has been applied throughout human history?

I am afraid one cannot divorce the supposed philosophy of the Church from the history of the Church. If one tries, then the question has to follow: how can any religious group, dedicated above all to obeying the word of God (pretty much the definition of religion) supposedly completely disobey, disregard, in fact act in direct opposition to that word for almost all of the last 2000 years? In the context of the current debate, that of Human rights, the reality is few to no institutions have acted in direct opposition to the development of what we now call human rights as much as the Church (certain enlightened individuals aside). The history of the Church is the history of the Church. Pretending it isn't relevant to its teachings is impossible.


As a final comment, allow me to add that some of the quotes here regarding human rights in the Bible do not mean what thay are quoted to mean. It is fine to say that the Bible says all men, regardless of class or religion, are one under God, but considering the Bible also endorses class divisions and slavery, as well as marking a clear line between men and women, the latter being strictly inferior. The message there is that being one under God does NOT mean you are necessarily equal, or to be treated equal in this world.


Obviously, in defence of religion and the Church, the Bible and religion are living documents, and interpretation and priority of passages change to reflect the times. Christianity is today is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, and nothing again like it was 500 years ago. But the point of the thread is that for the most part, the Church does not LEAD changes in society towards human equality and rights, rather it follows, often very reluctanatly.

Human rights as we have them today are a secular and humanist ideal, based on logic and reason, rather than on the ever changing interpretation of the 2000-year-old words of God.

Vanguard

Please read this link. Appeal to authority - logical fallacy

For the purposes of this thread - given that we cannot, under forum rules, really explore whether the authority of your preferred deity really does confer legitimacy on human rights, since that would be a theological and not a political discussion - it does not matter where the authority for human rights comes from, since if your contention is that only the source of an idea confers validity upon it, you are making a fallacious argument.

In other words, just because I, as a functional atheist, cannot justify to your satisfaction why I hold human rights to be important because you do not see any authority behind my claim, it does not invalidate my belief in them.

If they have validity, it has to be derived from the validity that they intrinsically have, and not from where they arise.

I will focus almost solely on Christianity since I know relatively little about any other faith perspective.

I am not sure where the principles of Christianity argue in the public realm that freedom of speech should be subdued (substantively beyond what any secularist would expect) or where liberty would be denied to all. Please offer some examples of this.

Are you asking under what authority does "liberty" come from? Assuming you are, who's "(modern) human, conditioned social consruct" are you referencing? Certainly not all of mankind's.



You have argued quite well for what happens when power is combined with divine mandate. You have no argument from me there. Please remember though that the pronouncements of Jesus (assuming only a Christian perspective and no other faith perspectives) regards to how to treat your fellowman were delivered 2000+ yrs ago. That religious institutions wandered from that ideal (and still do) is no argument against its philosophy.



Again, much of the Bible delves into the perspectives of many of its adherents. Much of which Christianity no longer espouses. Christ's humanitarian message however has essentially not changed. Also, I did not suggest that Christianity "leads" changes in society - only that Christ's message (if followed as close to the standard as he intended) is still the standard by which all other perspectives should follow.



IMHO, it is a "secular and humanist ideal" that finds its seeds and ultimate fruition in divinity whether recognized as such or not.



Julian - It would be a philosophical discussion. This philosophy posits that he who "invents" the game decides the rules of the game. In this way, only the source of these ideas can confer validity upon them. As an example, if I paint a picture then the picture represents what I say it is because I said it. You may disagree with me but it does not change the reality of what it represents. Suggesting that this is a logical fallacy (i.e., appeal to authority) is illogical.


I have never asked you nor anyone else to justify to my satisfaction why you hold "human rights to be important". This was never contemplated in the opening thread. I accept that you consider them to be important much as I do. You are also correct when you say that though you see no authority behind your claim it does not invalidate your belief in them. Again, "your belief in them" was never contemplated.

I believe you enter tricky waters when you claim validity based on their intrinsic value. Julian please, who's intrinsic value do you speak of?

I probably will bow out of this now. There isn't much I can say here without turning this into a religious debate and throwing out Bible verses....the first thing that comes to mind is, "you have to be kidding me". SLAVERY is condoned in the Bible. Women are told by Paul to shut up in public, don't ask questions, just ask your husband for understanding. The ten commandments portray servants, children and wives as property. I could go on and on. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that promotes free speech or freedom...God cursed Sodom And Gamora for the behavior of the inhabitants, there was the big flood (another punishment for bad behavior), Lot's wife was turned to salt for simply looking back, Job's entire family was destroyed like garbage because he didn't obey...I'm not seeing a lot of freedom here.



Western freedom, for the most part. The kind of thing that only can happen when, to point to the elephant in the room, religion and state are separate. I think the Christian church has done many good things. Its (true) believers tend to be very good and charitable people...more charitable than average, in my experience. There is joy, hope, kindness. But this isn't some sort of "freedom pass". Believers are expected to act a certain way, and they want others to do so too. It's an inherent part of the belief system. I want people to act in a way that validates and doesn't compromise my belief system. In a free society, religion is undermined. Far more atheists and agnostics can be found in western societies for this reason.

So in other words, if the interpretation of the bible is human, how can you claim authority from a divine power? What makes your interpretation "divine" but not mine?



How about the Crusades? Sure you can talk about what Christ did, but remember the bible is the word of "god" and in the bible slavery is OK. You can't simply ignore some parts like many do now a days and point out other parts. You also cannot seperate history for your personal interpretation of what you believe should be ignored.

I think it's ironic people that believe in a list of ten things that you cannot do but if you do any one of them you will goto a place of eternal torture, torment, burning, screaming, pain and fire then turn around and talk about how "human rights" come's from the same source. Oh you will be forever tormented that you cannot even imagine if you envy your neighboors car, such "good" thinking and the ultimate bedrock of human rights there.



Relatively little about other faiths. This seems to be the painful truth for many christians. I remember talking to one of my co-workers about this, she said that her mom used to tell her that if she didn't goto church that she would become a pagan. I then asked her what is wrong with that? She gave me the blank stare of ignorance, because the facts are that christianity adopted many rituals from the pagans, such as sunday gatherings, many holidays, sacrament and many other things. Paganism IMO is much more logical than christianity, I think paganism was the religion that humans used to start explaining logically the things around them then christianity came in as a way for people in power to control people, ever wonder why the most popular bible is "the king james version"?

I know what she had been told though, the same thing that I was told that pagans are evil satan worshipers when in fact satan worshipers have more ideals in common with christianity than paganism because most pagans dont even believe in satan and are more like hippy tree hugger types than "evil" devil worshippers.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

Anyways im with Mrs. P this will just get more into religous debating so I will simply bow out of this thread.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

It is the philosophy of men, is it not? I mean for anyone, like myself, who rejects the ideal of a Christian god we then assume that all foundations of philosophy come from man and are creations of the human mind and free will. I believe that intrinsically man is born desiring freedom and equality that it is in fact part of the human condition.


2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

A great amount of what we believe today in regards to the relationship of man and the state was not invented by the Christian god. How ever did man justify these things before Christianity? Even today we see state reconciliation with these fundamentals without the requirement of or enshrinement of a Supreme Being.

Perhaps the question should be asked of also the secular state, not just the lowly atheist.

Mrs. Pigpen - I cannot defend all of the outrageous accounts found in the Old & New Testament. I will concede that point now. What this has to do with Christ's message (and hence, the "philosophy" of Christianity) remains unclear though. If you insist on exploring scripture in an effort to unearth this it would be more helpful if we stuck to His instruction. Playing this "whisper down the lane" game with Christ's message is folly. Stick to the source. Bringing to light how millions of people have misconstrued this message is a commentary on the shortcomings of the human condition not on the veracity of His words.



You should not confuse the expectations placed on voluntary participants with expectations placed on those who do not espouse those beliefs. Suggesting that because the "members only" golf club requires shoes and shirts is not a commentary on how that club is no advocate of liberty. There are inumerous contexts where I am faced with a decision to curtail my "liberties" just as you are. The difference is that this is a choice we make and is not compelled by a human source.




Vampiel - What about Christ's message are we in disagreement about? Many a secularist accepts His humanitarian stance. Suffice to say that I do not accept literally everything that is stated in the Bible. How does that detract from Christ's message?



Sorry V, too much of an extended rant. I can't begin to respond to all of you own personal conjecture and feelings about paganism and the like. If you were told some of things you claimed to have been told I am sorry for your experience. That has not been mine nor does it represent the philosophy of Christianity.

By the way, what is it with this "uh-oh, we're talking about religion again"? Everyone's responses to me on
this thread have been reasonably respectful. I suspect that something verging on the traumatic has happened before I came? Look, if we cannot talk about the philosophy of Christianity for fear that someone may lose their bowels over it then we are indeed in a sad place. Nonetheless, my faith tells me to honor anyone's desire to bow out (you know, that inalienable right stuff )

We say this because America's Debate does not accept religious topics, and responses are starting to really delve into that category, in which case the thread will have to close.

recommends DebatingChristianity.com for such in-depth, and civil discussions.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

There are things of life that I want for myself and mine that are so strong and important that I call them sacred. And, being sacred, they require equal reciprocity for all, so become "Human Rights".

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

I don't wish to speak for atheists (or anyother belief system other than the answer to 1) above. A concept of sacredness needs no more structure than itself, and can be part of atheism I think. (Oops! I think I just spoke for atheists! But, I think I must let it stand!)