Whilst not strictly on the Infidel theme, I think this is a significant development; a new publication by Anthony Brown called the Retreat of Reason.
Britain is sinking into a pit of politically correct self-delusion, a former apology of itself.
Read more at DrunkenBlogging
3 comments:
I’ll have to read the sizable PDF; it looks good. I noticed an article today on the same topic on FPM. He has written another good book to consider on the topic.
I like the approach of both these authors. For too long the left has proclaimed that the right is rooted in faith and dogma, not reason. However, it has been the left that has taken greatest leave of their senses. I’ve been meaning to write some comments on this but I’m glad others are doing it instead.
I agree with you Jason, that much of conservative thinking is rooted in reason. However, I think the deepest principles of conservative thinking are matters of faith. The idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights is a matter of faith.
How do we deny that?
I ask you because I know you are very reasonable, and because, if I am not mistaken, you do not believe in God.
Do you think it is possible to come to believe in inalienable, absolute rights completely through reason?
I don't know. It seems not to me.
I hope it is clear that I am not, in the least trying to instigate anything here, and that my question is purely in the spirit of inquiry.
Yes, most certainly. Actually, I’ve written about it on my blog. In summary, I hold that rights are required to facilitate a social order where man may be free to use his mind to the fullest in order to survive and flourish. Human life, in the fullest sense, requires rights.
But in that link I didn’t consider the religious point of view, let me explore that here.
Now, there are two distinct ways a religious person might consider rights (or ethical principles) as given from God. One is through the fact that God created man and anything we discover about our nature using reason and observation is a discovery of God’s law. Thus, being endowed with rights is like being endowed with a mind or the human body that we have. In this case, when it is said that we are endowed by “nature and nature’s God” we may mean that God create the universe and anything in it is what it is by his design. It’s is also similar to how a religious person who is a physical scientist might say that by examining nature he is discovering the laws that God created.
There’s a second line of thinking that believes rights are not in our nature but something in addition that we have to be told. Rights (and ethics) are stipulated by God and there is nothing in reality that can confirm them, let alone derive them. This has become popular since David Hume advocated the “naturalistic fallacy” whereby he claimed that facts can’t give rise to values (or virtues.) Contemporary secularists have become relativists/subjectivists as a result (unlike the great Hellenic philosopher Aristotle.)
But does anyone really believe the pure “stipulated” origin or ethics and rights? Does anyone say “well, killing and pillaging are wrong because we were told so otherwise we wouldn’t have any clue?” I think most people don’t believe that the only reason these things are wrong is because God say so. In addition, does trust and honesty not suggest itself by the need to live with others? I suggest that the theists who believe the first manner of endowment, that God created man with a given nature and gave him a mind to figure out that nature, tend to have an additional basis, beyond scripture, with which to seek confirmation of what makes sense in human relationships. And, of course, they have common ground with the non-religious who are willing to accept evidence, reason, and the wisdom of proven tradition.
My thesis is that this naturalism arose with religious toleration by no mere coincidence. And peaceful societies based on reason instead of force were facilitated by the optimism of the human ability to reason and secure knowledge. This was a long process that was started by Aquinas’ belief that there is no conflict between reason (Aristotle) and faith (Jesus) and culminated in the Anglo-American Enlightenment.
What do you think about that?
Post a Comment