Hi Platt, Steve: >> Can you give me a definition of "rights"? If so I might be able to >> better understand why you think they come from God.
Platt: > Rights that belong to the essential nature of man to which every > individual > is entitled, including the rights to life, liberty and property. Steve: The story I remember is that Jefferson had written that these truths are "sacred and undeniable" while Franklin argued that it would be better to say "self-evident" since these truths are not true because they are sacred, but rather we hold them to be sacred because they are true. Obviously his argument won over. I think that is the exactly the sort of shift I am talking about. Franklin was rejecting dogmatic belief in God-decreed truths in favor of beliefs based on intellectual quality. We don't lose what is sacred by getting rid of the idea of faith as the so-called virtue of believing without reason or evidence. We just give up calling things sacred just because some ancient magic book supposedly says what God thinks. You define rights with the need to have a God-creator granting rights and I think your definition is how many of the founding fathers thought about rights. I think that many of them would have seen Bush's comment about judges who know our rights come from God as a non sequitur. It doesn't really mean anything other than to give a wink and a nod to the evangelicals and say he will make sure his judges are pro-lifers. The effect though is that no one can question him about using such a litmus test since it is in bad taste to question anyone when they bring up God. I can see how life is part of the essential nature of man and that murdering someone is a violation of his rights. Liberty as a right is a tough one since a man must necessarily give up some liberty to live in a society as a citizen. I am not sure about property. How do you argue that property is part of the essential nature of man? >> Steve: >> The above suggests that rights come from the Founding Fathers and in >> how they defined rights of citizens. I think rights of citizens may >> be equivalent to responsibilities of government. If you know what the >> purpose of government is then you can say what the rights of citizens >> are. >> >> According to Northrop's book, the founding father's were influenced >> by Locke who argued that the only reason for people to give up some >> of their liberty and subject themselves to government is that they >> can't protect their private property (pursuit of happiness) for >> themselves. > Platt: > No doubt the Founding Father's were influenced by Locke who was a > Deist. > So were many of the Founding Fathers. Steve: So I have heard. You'd think that they were evangelical Christians to hear much of the rhetoric of the religious right. Do you consider yourself a Deist? >> Sam Harris: >> "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they >> are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much >> like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally >> give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults >> of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing >> fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject >> religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and >> nationalistic dogma run amok." > Platt: > Supported by a rationale as being "for the public good." Steve: In a liberal society, rationales can be criticized. Religious dogma we are told is above criticism since it is a matter of faith. Platt: > Incidentally, does > the current adoration of the Obama remind you of religious hero > worship? It > does me. Steve: Definitely. Is he a prophet or a politician? It doesn't bother me enough, however, to support Clinton over him and I don't think the Republicans deserve another minute in power. > Steve: >> The other point is that it is not only happiness but suffering that >> Harris says we need to consider in judging morality. Certainly >> religion continues to be a great source of suffering. > Platt: > Compared to the state as a source of suffering, religion is heaven. > Statists tend to forget that Communism and National Socialism were > responsible for over 125 million deaths in the last century. Steve: I still see this as a non sequitur. It is certainly not an argument that faith (as the idea that it is good to belief things without reason or evidence) really is a virtue. > >> In the MOQ the truth >> about whether or not their are gods is more morally important than >> how we >> feel about the answers. > > Truths in the MOQ are like paintings in a gallery whereby you choose > which > truths have more quality than others. Given the quality of the > political > philosophy of Locke and the Founding Fathers, I am not about to knock > religious belief as something we must dispense with outright. Like all > beliefs we should judge them according to how well they promote > individual > freedom. In the case of Locke and the Founding Fathers, quite a bit I > should think. Steve: I am not necessarily arguing that religion needs to be dispensed with. I am simply saying that beliefs must be evaluated based on intellectual quality rather than accepted on authority of magic books. If religion really is wroth anything (and I think it is) then there will be something of value left once dogma is rejected in favor if reason. Regards, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
