Another comment I want to memorialize in the main text

[morsefan]

The thing about discussions about "human rights" (let us now bow down and worship at the altar!) is there actually is something called the law of human rights that has content. There are procedures for unpacking questions like "What is or should be recognized as a human right?" "Who has authority to enforce a human right and when?" "How do we know

Comments

[morsefan]

BTW -- the word "theist" is a pet peeve of mine. I just won't indulge the one-digit percent of those in the U.S. who deny any possibility of God in order to make the fact that they are atheism seem "equivalent" to believing in God. Moreover, to talk about Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and the myriad of others under one umbrella drains the word of any meaning anyway

I not asking where the legal/moral authority of human rights documents come from. I'm clear on that -- though your opinion would be interesting. The legal authority comes from consent (like 100 percent consent) to them, which is frayed for a huge set of political reasons we need not belabor. The moral authority -- which one might hope would explain why they got legal authority in the first place is a more interesting question. They exist by the nature of our humanity, our personhood, given by . . . . Now, where that leads will collapse into theology. Can they be approached from a secular perspective? Of course -- and I would add that much of what is "Catholic social teaching" is informed by secular notions so it's not as though faith and reason are easily compartmentalized. I suspect most intellectually honest folks who don't start out believing in God will, if they ever get so far unpacking all this stuff (and life is short!), have a hard time denying God based on what they find when they get there, but again, that is not an issue we have to agree on for purposes of this discussion.

I am not sure what you mean by the "natural law theory of morality." Problem: the word "natural law" is used by almost everyone to mean everything. And I'm flumoxed by this: It's just a substantive claim that, e.g., humans or parts of humans or other parts of the world have these robust functions, and I find it both dubious and unhelpful. The fact that you disagree isn't enough for me.

I haven't raised an abortion debate and don't want to. I merely ranked my own priorities for my own interests as to human rights. No argument that an unborn child is not a fully formed human being deserving of all protections of the law and human rights will get far on this journal, however.

Well, in the first place, the theist has no better answer than the atheist merely in virtue of her theism. No one has come anywhere near finding a shred of evidence for the truth of theism, or anywhere near defending it from the several decisive versions of the Problem of Evil.

I understand that the atheist lacks evidence of the existence of God. But believers have plenty. We feel it in the core of our being. We know it. Given how many of us there are and the quality of scholarship on that issue over the eyars, that's pretty powerful. I sense atheists choose to ignore that overwhelming evidence because it louses up their "no-God" theory, but that does not mean there is "no" evidence.

Well, in the first place, the theist has no better answer than the atheist merely in virtue of her theism.

I'm thinking I must be missing the point of your arguments, because they've got lots of big words in them, but this feels like shootin' rats in a barrel. The believer in God absolutely has a better answer than the atheist: the dynamism and wisdom that comes from recognizing a full objective truth revealed both in reason and faith. So, for example, the atheist always approaches the issue with one hand tied behind his back because he denies all possible sources of wisdom.