hal@finney.org wrote:
>
> Ron H. writes:
> > In a message dated 9/21/00 8:03:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hal@finney.org
> > writes: << Okay, but you started off with this stuff about being created by
> > God who gave us rights. >>
> >
> > Hal,
> > Given that we know the Washington, Jefferson and many others were
> > somewhat indifferent to organized religion was that phrasing literal or just
> > exhoratory?
>
> My point was that we should respect the reasoning of Washington,
> Jefferson, etc. only if it makes sense to us. Just because they were
> Great Men whom we were taught to worship in state-sponsored schools is
> no reason to give special credence to what they say.
>
We give credence to what they say because of the stature of their ideas
and the type of country those ideas gave birth to. The cynical view
above is quite irrelevant.
> Forrest began by writing, "The reason for an armed populace is very,
> very fundamental:" and then he quoted the Declaration of Independence,
> which starts off by talking about God and how our rights come from him.
>
That is really irrelevant. The argument for any rights must come from a
grounded argument for rights in general and for what rights human
beings have by virtue of being human beings, the type of creatures we
are, in particular. That the founders included God in their documents
says more about the times they lived in than about the validity or
invalidity of what they believed are fundamental human rights.
> Why should we, who by and large reject theism, pay attention to a document
> which has this as the foundation? Whatever the authors thought about
> God and organized religion, if they base their theory of natural rights
> on the principle that we are endowed with them by our Creator with a
> capital C, they aren't going to convince me.
>
Irrelevant.
> Arguments from authority are always suspect. Arguments from authorities
> whom we are taught practically to worship are especially so. And when
> those authorities base their philosophies on positions which I find
> abhorrent, the arguments are virtually useless.
>
If you do not bother to think about the underlying concepts and whether
they can be reasonably validated without God premises then this is so.
But that would be quite unimaginative and intellectually lazy.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:40 MDT