wonder why the "noble" concept of human rights has not evolved in regions lacking belief in a creator ? surfer
Still, let's give Jem an opportunity to respond. Jem, I just had a flick through my King James but I'm having a bit of trouble finding any reference to "inalienable rights". In fact, I keep bumping into a smattering of _restrictions_ on my freedom, but I'm sure it's in there somewhere. Be a good man and point it out, will you? I, Trader, that's one cool name dude. Very Asimov. Now _there_ was a visionary. That's what this world needs, VISIONARIES. If we're to ever live up to our great, almost limitless, potential, as a species we need VISIONARIES. Scientific visionaries. Not religious crackpots. We live in a _HOSTILE UNIVERSE_. No amount of prayer is going to change that. Only SCIENCE can provide us with the ways and means to prolong our species' existance on this planet, and, perhaps, beyond it. Get that? S C I E N C E. It is quite likely that we will have to _fundamentally change_ what it means to be "human". What with all likely advancements in nanotechnology, molecular biology, robotics, cryogenics etc. We _cannot afford_ to let religious cavemen prevent us from realizing this great destiny with their primitive charges of our actions being "against god"!
SHREWD DUDE IS SUPER KEWL IN MY BOOK! HIGH FIVE DUDE!! GIVE EM HELL! [Surf, alan parsons? never did dig them man, sorry. ]
Whether you believe in a creator or not. Is not the point. Whether there is a creator is not the point. The point is that because people believed in God inalienable rights were born. (Read about John Locke.) It been a long time since I read my history but when the calls for liberty were sounding, they made appeals to peoples belief in Jesus and his teachings regarding the dignity of human beings. It was this religious concept that freed the world. Whether there is God or not is secondary. In fact some the leaders may not have believed in God. But Christians were rallied to support inalienable rights, freedoms, (including the freedom of religion), dignity and democracy. So the thread started by saying religion should be done away with so that science can advance. My point is that it is religion also gave him freedom to say it should be done away with. For a more recent understanding of liberty and Christianity. I reference you to the start of the end of communism in Poland and the Pope.
You might also want to wonder why it hasn't in regions that do. Like, er, you might have heard of the "Middle East"? Or, um, India? Or Africa. Or South East Asia. Or... get it? In any case, wonder no longer. Just answer: are you, or are you not, able to comprehend that the concept of rights can stand on its own two feet with or with without a "creator"? Take your brain off auto-pilot for a second and imagine there is no creator. It's not too difficult to imagine human beings developing the concept all on their own, is it? Even if there is a creator, why care what it wants or says anyway? Or is this "creator" you're imagining -- make no mistake, that's all you're doing -- something closer to.... "God"? It is, right?
I think it's much more accurate to say that inalienable rights were born _in spite_ of existing religious practices. Afterall, we have thousands of years of history to prove that no religion had ever been built on a foundation of human rights. It's interesting, don't you think, that while, as you say, Christians supported the right to freedom of religion, this same right is expressly denied by the God they worship? The point is that because people believed in God inalienable rights were born. Much more accurate to say that inalienable rights were developed by people who just happened to believe in God. The fact that people went on to claim those rights "come from God" is not unusual at all; the very same thing had already happened with morality. (We witness the same phenomenon today, when athletes and musicians and disaster survivors "praise God" for much more trifling matters, as if he is made it happen.) I think it's fair to say religious people will go along with anything if they can be convinced that it's in line with their religious system. See the suicide bombers from the middle east, for example.
Interesting to read what Jefferson had to say about these rights. "The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Georgetown Republicans, 1809. ME 16:349 "Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441 "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134 "Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376 Although at the time these were written the use of God did not refer to a God of a specific religion, rather more the concept of nature. Back to the original post, I think religion and scientific progress usually do well together. However, there are "fundies" who are out to push us back to the days of Tribal Laws where tribal leaders defined what learning was acceptable. Now, instead of the tribal council, they get elected and try to take over shool boards and rally behind or support elections that send to DC candidates who look favorably upon either their ideas or their ability to rally supporters not to mention campaign contributions to promote their agenda. But I think that Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's wife) hits the nail on the head with this comment: " Why are people afraid of science?" " D: The complexity and jargon are daunting, and the knowledge has been horribly misapplied. We have weapons of mass destruction because of our fledgling knowledge of science. Furthermore, the Western religious tradition is based on a fear of knowledge. It goes right back to Prometheus and to the Garden of Eden, to Godâs threat that if we partake of the tree of knowledge, we will know only misery and death. So we keep one thing in our heads that says, yes, our cell phones work, our TVs work because of science, but we keep an infantile, geocentric view of the universe locked within our hearts." Q&A Session DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 11 | November 2003 DS
What price religion? I ask what price science... How much do we have to pay for it Danny Boy? I'm all for science, but when an enitire race is so consumed with material growth that everything else is forgotten -- in the end is it worth it? We can send 4 men to walk on the moon, but most men on this planet haven't figured out how to walk accross the street and greet their neighbors. We have seventeen year old hookers in the Burbs of LA that solicit sex in the malls not to survive, but to buy the latest clothes at that very same mall. Kids don't want to take the time to read Dostoevsky or Joyce, they want MTV's Kribs. This race is quickly becoming as spiritualy bankrupt as the medium I am using to communicare this message. The bible didn't create the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Dresden and prayer isn't the only thing the Bible preached, it preached love. Their has to be a balance to all this. IMO, you people who preach science over all else are just as bad as the religious zealots. Whats gonna get us first Danny, a nuke or Jehovah witness? And don't start with the "look what the muslims did to WTC", because if you truly believe that religion was their sole motive, then you not only sound like Gekko with your science above all else, absolute claims, and incredibly annoying caps, but you might very well have his level of understanding too. With all this said, you won't find my ass preaching about some invisible guy in the sky who has a list of 10 things you can't do or else you will burn in hell. I don't subscribe to any cults, be it science, religion or cash. I just try to strive for clarity amidst all this clutter. I'm just trying to see both sides my man in an attempt to see the whole... PEACE to you my friend...
fear of knowledge ?? what a bogus statement. why then is the "christian" west at the forefront of tech, science and knowledge in general ?? it is due to the biblical precept of dominating nature that allowed the west to thrive while the other religious regions wallow in primitivism. the christian view is that man rules the earth, man is made in the image of god hence individual rights and no COW worship like in india.LOL ! wake up, man. the pure science model has been tried in the USSR and red china---it has failed. what don't you understand ? you qoute the wife of your fallen hero, it sounds like she is trying to turn science into a religion. she has no clue as to the real reason of the west's success. it is a combination of faith and rationalism that works best. each has its place, your pure science is lacking. face it.... best, surfer