Should rights be granted by God or by men?

[quatona]

Violations of rights and fights for rights are not prima facie evidence of divine impotence any more than they are of government impotence.

They prove the statement "God given rights are protected eternally" (as made by the OP) wrong.
You seem to confirm my point: when it comes to "rights being granted/protected" it´s the result of human action and human institutions, not the making of gods.

Nor is present lack of or delayed enforcement sufficient to conclude that enforcement will never occur, especially in the divine case.

Which, of course, doesn´t mean that my rights are granted/protected at a point when they aren´t.

Granted, failures seem ubiquitous and discouraging, but one needs to distinguish between fairness at law and fairness in enforcement. Real failures of enforcement are not necessarily an argument for what the law ought to say. Shall we declare murder is legal or religiously acceptable because it occurs?

Or otherwise, what are you proposing will solve injustice?

I didn´t mean to make any proposal of that sort. I just checked the accuracy of a statement.

 

[Look Up]

They prove the statement "God given rights are protected eternally" (as made by the OP) wrong.
You seem to confirm my point: when it comes to "rights being granted/protected" it´s the result of human action and human institutions, not the making of gods.

Unfortunately I don't know what "God given rights are protected eternally" means, but your following tentative conclusion from my previous post ignores divine causality both through use of humans (which I had mentioned) and what may be undetectable to humans or unrecorded by humans or just little-known. Paucity of evidence to us is not proof of absence. ... And unfortunately bad news (of the media sort) tends to get more traction than good news (of rights upheld, in this case), so we must reckon with the possibility that our emotions and views are a bit skewed by media.

Which, of course, doesn´t mean that my rights are granted/protected at a point when they aren´t.

This is frustrating to any victim. The question is what to do and think about it.

I didn´t mean to make any proposal of that sort [i.e., proposals to solve injustice]. I just checked the accuracy of a statement.

Why must a "conclusive" consensus of theists be reached on all that constitutes divine rights (the exact and total list) before theists can derive value from a discussion on the value of claims to divinely given rights in social settings? In other words I am not sure you "checked the accuracy of a statement" (or in context, question).

Granted however, there are many impotent (or malevolent) gods and governments that receive worship and obedience, and much injustice and violations of rights occurs. And the solution often seems to be the null set: there is no justice (or rather justice seems sporadic or incomplete). But at least a theism that says there is such a thing as a theistically-rooted system of right and wrong holds promise of meaning and significance to human life. If ethics were purely arbitrary, what would be the point of posting on this thread, for example, unless we are merely yielding to our animal pleasures and instincts in doing so?

At least a theistic system that promises future justice holds us accountable and gives some hope and meaning. I did not say it was easy, though. I have my doubts and doubt that if I experienced some of the horrible things that happen in this world that I would maintain my sanity or faith.

But even given the worst case scenario of what I could experience, what better worldview is there? A world in which there is no meaning? Where justice and injustice is pure fiction, pure fantasy? (E.g., "So you've been raped and abused. What of it? It does not mean anything more than rocks floating in space.") Or a world in which crime ultimately pays, in which injustice wins? What else?

I know of no easy solution. The world is not an easy place to be. I am left with a sort of "pick your poison" choice between difficult options. I have made my choice, and I presume you have made your different one. If you have a better alternative, why merely criticize? Why not propose a better replacement? Or if claims to human rights as coming from God has an upside (given certain caveats and clarifications such as I have previously argued here), why not admit it?

 

[quatona]

Unfortunately I don't know what "God given rights are protected eternally" means

I do not really have an idea what that´s supposed to mean, either.
I was - from the context of the OP - assuming that it was pointing to some practical, noticeable difference between the state when a right is "granted and protected by God" and a state when there isn´t such a right (or where it isn´t "granted or protected by God", and where this difference isn´t merely of theoretical, academic or theological nature.
This assumption seems to be substantiated also by the question "should rights be granted by God or man?" (indicating that this is for us to decide or choose).

Whatever. A theoretical/academic/theological right is of no interest to me, and of no practical relevance whatsoever. The rights that have an noticeable effect are the rights that we can make use of (and I was somewhat assuming that this was meant by "granted" or "protected").
Rights are "granted and protected" (or denied) in that meaning by exclusively by humans for humans - no matter whether these rights have been declared by God or by humans. And this exactly is what your arguments confirm (in that you say it´s up to us to put God-given rights into action).
IOW: when I practically and noticeably have and can claim a right this is always the result of human making (no matter whether this right may possibly be declared by God or not). It´s humans who grant, protect and deny it to me. Thus, the question "should rights be granted by...?" is obsolete (unless the person asking were asking whether God is wrong in not granting and protecting those rights he allegedly declared us to have): the answer is: humans are the ones who do it or don´t do it, God demonstrably is not.

 

[Look Up]

Whatever. A theoretical/academic/theological right is of no interest to me, and of no practical relevance whatsoever.

You are welcome to your views and I wish you well. Your post still ignores much of the challenges I mentioned. It also still ignores the consequences of your expressed views per my previous comments. But if you are satisfied with atheism, a mere negative response to the theistic question posed at the head of this thread would seem redundant, and I have to wonder what's the point indeed.

 

[bricklayer]

The US Constitution says our rights come from God, not men. This distinction seems trite but I think there is a good reason why it should be said that rights come from God and not men. If rights come from God then those rights are protected eternally. If they come from men, well, then they can be taken away by men. Since most people are theists of one kind or another, isn't it a good idea for us to make human rights a God-granted issue rather than a secular humanist area?

The constitution does not grant rights; it sets the long ago disregarded scope and role of government. As with all reasoning, the reasoning that went into the constitution was presuppositional. The presuppositions upon which the constitution was founded were established in the declaration.

To consider anything that comes from other people a right, one must fundamentally redefine a right. Such a redefinition fundamentally redefines the US.

We are endowed by God with certain and unalienable rights.
We are endowed by each other with uncertain and alienable entitlements.

 

[The Nihilist]

The constitution does not grant rights; it sets the long ago disregarded scope and role of government. As with all reasoning, the reasoning that went into the constitution was presuppositional. The presuppositions upon which the constitution was founded were established in the declaration.

To consider anything that comes from other people a right, one must fundamentally redefine a right. Such a redefinition fundamentally redefines the US.

We are endowed by God with certain and unalienable rights.
We are endowed by each other with uncertain and alienable entitlements.

Horse poo. Why else would the First Amendment and first commandment be at such odds?

 

[quatona]

You are welcome to your views and I wish you well. Your post still ignores much of the challenges I mentioned.

Well, I made a particular point in my first post, and I am willing to defend it. That doesn´t include taking each and every unrelated challenge that somebody later poses to me.

It also still ignores the consequences of your expressed views per my previous comments.

Arguments from consequence? Consequences of what?
I am merely pointing out what we observe to be the case. Don´t shoot the messenger.

But if you are satisfied with atheism, a mere negative response to the theistic question posed at the head of this thread would seem redundant, and I have to wonder what's the point indeed.

This question is not redundant for the reason that I am an atheist (and nowhere in my argument "God doesn´t exist" showed up as a premise.

Moreso, when I used the terms and phrases from original post, it was you said you didn´t even understand what they meant. So you apparently would have to have a word with the original poster. As far as the OP is concerned, I think (and tried to show) that it is not posing a theistic question but an implicitly atheistic or antitheistic or misotheistic question. From a theistic perspective (or at least I have been told so numerous times) it is not permissible to tell God what to do. Yet, the entire OP is circled around the question what God should do or not. It´s not my question - it´s the implicit question of the OP. Don´t shoot me for pointing this out.

To me it´s a problem that you seem to work from the erroneouos assumption that I want to attack your God or prove that God doesn´t exist, or criticize God, or show that God is impotent or whatever. All this is not my point nor my motivation.

And I am not sure I understand why you insist on controversy where, in my understanding, we agree in essential things.
E.g. you said

Violations of rights and fights for rights are not prima facie evidence of divine impotence any more than they are of government impotence. Nor is present lack of or delayed enforcement sufficient to conclude that enforcement will never occur, especially in the divine case.

If I am reading this correctly you are saying here that God (although having edicted or declared our rights) leaves humanity to its own devices when it comes to granting and protecting these rights. This was exactly my point.

I notice that a right is granted and protected when I can make use of that right. Let´s, e.g. take the "right of free speech". I know it´s granted and protected when I (and everybody else) can speak freely without being silenced or censored. Whilst, when this is not the case the right (although possibly declared and edicted) is not granted/protected.

What I understand you saying above is: 'When you want a right to be granted and protected, don´t rely on God to do that. It´s not God´s job, it´s the goverments job." And again: That was and is exactly my point.

As for your elaborations on "hope and meaning" provided by the prospect on eternal punishment in the afterlife: That may be some sort of consolace, it does, however, not change anything about the fact that certain rights aren´t granted and protected right now.

The rest of your post appears to digress from the actual question at hand, and stray more into the area of asking "Does God exist?" or "Is it better to believe in a God or not?". Which I never meant to discuss here, and which aren´t the OP questions.

If you feel there is a substantial point in your posts that pertains to the question at hand but that I ignored or overlooked, I explicitly invite you to repeat or quote it, so I can address it.

 

[bricklayer]

What's the point in responding to one that calls themself "nihilist"?

A most self-defeating screen name.

 

[The Nihilist]

What's the point in responding to one that calls themself "nihilist"?

A most self-defeating screen name.

To answer your question, though, because it's as impolite for you to dismiss my opinions as it is for me to dismiss yours.

 

[GrumpGrump]

What's the point in responding to one that calls themself "nihilist"?

A most self-defeating screen name.

I spy an ad hominem!

Try an actual argument.

 

[Incariol]

The US Constitution says our rights come from God, not men.

Where?

 

[JustMeSee]

Good points. You are right about me getting my documents mixed up. Sorry about that and thank you for correcting me.

The basic idea though, is do we want to appeal to a higher authority than men for what are basic human rights.

Your Bible condones slavery. So, no we should not turn to your God. (For many reasons.)

 

[someguy14]

Try an actual argument.

That isn't very nice.

 

[variant]

That isn't very nice.

Neither is dismissive ad-hominem.

 

[BleedingHeart]

What's the point in responding to one that calls themself "nihilist"?

A most self-defeating screen name.

Sounds like somebody just ran out of ammo.

 

[bricklayer]

One might ask the same about trying to teach a blue collar worker about philosophy. To answer your question, though, because it's as impolite for you to dismiss my opinions as it is for me to dismiss yours.

Come on now; I respond to your ideas. I respond to the ideas I agree with and the ideas I don't agree with. I do not respond to the people I disagree with. I fail as all men do, but I try not to go like that.

Unless I'm mistaken, a nihilist holds that truth cannot be known.
Given that, discussing ideas with a nihilist is, by definition, pointless. Nothing can be built upon, because each idea may or may not be true.
To be honest, all along, I thought you were being ironic having that name in a place where people discuss ideas - kinda like a big guy named tiny.
I thought the name rather clever myself.

 

[The Nihilist]

Come on now; I respond to your ideas. I respond to the ideas I agree with and the ideas I don't agree with. I do not respond to the people I disagree with. I fail as all men do, but I try not to go like that.

Unless I'm mistaken, a nihilist holds that truth cannot be known.
Given that, discussing ideas with a nihilist is, by definition, pointless. Nothing can be built upon, because each idea may or may not be true.
To be honest, all along, I thought you were being ironic having that name in a place where people discuss ideas - kinda like a big guy named tiny.
I thought the name rather clever myself.

Hahaha, thank you. I'm sorry I misread your intention and was spiteful about it.

 

[Wally Cleaver]

God ftw...mosaic..etc..

 

[Look Up]

If you feel there is a substantial point in your posts that pertains to the question at hand but that I ignored or overlooked, I explicitly invite you to repeat or quote it, so I can address it.

I think we have points of agreement, in other ways we are still a bit like ships passing each other in the dark. In any event the progress of our discourse up to this point does not persuade me that continuation at this juncture would profit either of us, and probably we both have other matters crying for attention. Time to move on, at least for the present.

 

[jayem]

Getting back to the OP, the question was if rights should be considered God-given, rather than man-created. Which is essentially a restatement of the old question about whether people behave better towards each other if they believe in a supernatural authority. By my reading of history, I just don't see it. For all of the good that has been inspired by devotion to a diety (and there has undoubtedly been much) there has also been tyrrany, persecution, enslavement, and war justified by doing God's will. And maybe more. At least it's a wash. IMO, our best hope for respecting human rights is to use our reason. To acknowlege the social contract. The happiest, most productive, and stablest societies are those where people have certain rights, and are generally free to be themselves and do their own thing. And to enjoy such rights ourselves, we must respect them for others. We base this on a scientific understanding of human psychology, and rational, enlightened self-interest. And not on ancient beliefs and superstitions.