All Human Rights are "Religious Fundamentalism"
February 1, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
I woke up Saturday morning to my radio alarm clock blaring the claim that opposition to embryonic stem cell research is merely “religious fundamentalism.” After I groaned and pulled the covers up over my head (who wants to start off the day like that?), it struck me that there's actually a lot of truth to that statement–more truth, in fact, than even the radio talk show host would be willing to admit.
What “fundamentalist” idea was the host objecting to? Not the idea that an embryo is human–a simple DNA test can prove that in a moment. No, he was objecting to the religious idea that all human beings, regardless of their physical characteristics, abilities, or stage of life, have value and rights. He's right that this view can only be sustained in a religious context.
Consider the basis for our freedoms and rights in this country as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
If there is a God who created us in His image, then there is an intrinsic value that we all hold equally merely by being human. This is the unshakable bedrock of all human rights–the kind of rights no one can question or take away.
But what if there is no God? In what sense would all humans be equal? For the materialist (one who believes that the physical world is all there is), there's no such thing as intrinsic value for anything, let alone humans. Value and meaning are what we create for ourselves. The value of any thing (or person) is granted by society and must be determined on some other basis rather than a universal dignity given by God. The society that rejects the idea of God-given value creates for itself the standard of qualifications a person must meet before he or she is worthy of rights. Some who have not believed in the intrinsic value of all human beings have been generous in their granting of rights; some have decided that skin color, or religion, or disabilities determine the value of a human being. For example,
If materialism is true, then the granting of rights is completely arbitrary and dependent upon whomever is able to gain the most power. Hopefully, if our society embraces materialist ideas to the point where the old “religious fundamentalism” disappears, the people in power will be kind enough to imagine we're all worthy of “rights”; but if it's truly up to them, I wouldn't count on it.
Related posts:
- We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights
- The Wedge
- Justice Stevens Agnostic about Existence of "Bill of Rights"
- Maybe Religion is Okay After All
- Irrelevant Characteristics
- Brothers and Sisters, Why So Cynical?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Ethics, Main Page, Philosophy, Religion (General)
content rss
February 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am
I couldn't agree more Amy (though an interesting side discussion might involve the epistemology of how folks come to grasp this basic truth about our equality, but I think my sidebar suggestion quota is full atm).
I would also like to bring in a relevant quote or point from a person of historical significance. It's a commonplace that the point of view you espouse here is extremely rare in the academy, as opposed to the views put forth by Singer. While most academics don't take their reasoning as far as Singer does, they don't exactly denounce him either (and he is, at the least, consistent).
But there is a great exception recently from Columbia professor Jeremy Waldron whose latest book is entitled, God, Locke, and Equality. Most folks probably know Jefferson borrowed some crucial parts of the Declaration from Locke. Waldron, unquestionably a leading contemporary political theorist and expert on Locke, makes the case in this book that Locke believed that only a belief in God can act as the foundation for true human equality (we are all “God's workmanship”, Locke wrote in the 2nd treatise).
What's shocking is not so much that interpretation of Locke, but that Waldron goes on to say that he thinks Locke is correct. Needless to say, this has brought to the table a viewpoint that had for decades been dismissed as superstitious baggage.
Which is all to say that, not surprisingly, Amy's musings here are on the cutting edge of the best contemporary thinking going on in the academy.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:58 am
Micah, as always, thanks for the insight. I'm not as educated in philosophy as I'd like to be, so I do like getting the background information on these ideas–where they came from and where they're going.
“Waldron goes on to say that he thinks Locke is correct.”
He thinks Locke is correct that the existence of human equality depends on the existence of God? Or that Locke was correct that there is a God who endows us with rights?
February 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
“He thinks Locke is correct that the existence of human equality depends on the existence of God? Or that Locke was correct that there is a God who endows us with rights?”
Both.
Though in the book he does not attempt to make this case. That he thinks there's a case to be made, made ripples. If he takes it up in his next book I'll be following closely.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I'm guessing moral intuition might be a big factor, though to be honest I need to browse through the book again and see what Waldron says. I think one of the points Waldron is trying to make, both diplomatically and intelligently, is that we need to rethink what it would mean for humans to really have equality. In other words, true equality needs a higher bar than the arbitrary assigning of equality that you criticize in your post.
I wonder if Waldron has started with a belief in equality and it has led him back to God, but that's pure speculation. Locke, on the other hand, speaks of both reason and revelation as sources of our knowledge of human equality (though there are some scholars who think all of his talk of God and religion is merely a smokescreen).
As for pointing out the ripples, that's a tougher one as these folks don't blog much. I witnessed first-hand some of the debate over this at a conference here that had Waldron and his critics battling it out, and there was also a Review of Politics issue that had a symposium on this sort of stuff, but alas those are tougher to get online unless you have a university connection (i.e. I can dl a PDF but I can't link to anything).
I take it back, there are a few places, a friendly review here, a more critical review from a socialist website here, etc. I found these on google. I can't find a lot of published reviews online yet from the academic presses.
Anyone looking into it, though, should be forewarned that the Waldron stuff gets into the nitty gritty of Locke scholarship, some of which will seem arcane for folks just getting into it. And Locke is not unproblematic from an orthodox Christian view for these matters either. But I've gone on long enough.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Thanks, Micah.
“there are some scholars who think all of his talk of God and religion is merely a smokescreen”
A smokescreen for what? Just a way to back up equality because he likes the idea?
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Micah, I have to add that it was absolutely fascinating to read responses to Waldron's work through Catholic and then through socialist eyes–what seemed important to them, how they interpreted it, etc.
This, I thought was interesting (from the socialist site):
“In John Locke
February 4th, 2006 at 8:11 am
There is an influential school of political philosphy who roughly follow the thinking and example of Leo Strauss. They are a varied bunch, even among themselves with various emphases and angles. One of the themes that they have in common, however, is a belief that there are “great questions” that have been with us since the Greeks, and that the great thinkers have been sort of in a conversation with each other about these things.
This isn't really all that controversial for most people, though there's a competing school (the Cambridge school) that thinks that a “great conversation” is a myth. But that's another story. Anyway, the more controversial theme of many Straussians is that they look for an esoteric meaning beneath the exoteric meaning, i.e. the really careful reader will be able to discern what a great thinker is saying between the lines.
Part of their rationale is that in times past great philosophers couldn't say outright what they really meant for fear of political authorities. Socrates' execution would be a chief example. So the truly great thinkers give a more mundane teaching that everyone gets, and hide a truly profound teaching within the mundane teaching. There's something to this, I would agree, as sometimes we can see pretty clearly that a theorist didn't really mean what they wrote (Rousseau could be very pious-sounding at times, as could Hobbes, but no one thinks they were sincere orthodox believers).
What's this have to do with Locke? The standard Straussian line on Locke is that deep down he's really Hobbes. All he cares about is peace and stability, but whereas Hobbes' attempt to make this possible (Leviathan, De Cive, etc). was too harsh and not subtle enough to have a good effect, Locke dresses up the value of survival with other nice sentiments such as life, liberty, and property, Christianity, etc.
So he doesn't really care about equality, he cares about avoiding a non-violent death. The other stuff is a smokescreen to keep him safe, and if it works for some of the masses (keeping them content with a sorry lot in life), so much the better.
Some Straussians really think this is the right way to read Locke, and they can provide powerful arguments for it. Others, I'm afraid, seem to have the sort of attitude that says: 1. So-and-so is a great philosopher. 2. Great philosophers can't possibly believe this religion nonsense, and thus 3. their religious writings must be a smokescreen.
This may be more of an answer than you wanted . . .
February 4th, 2006 at 8:17 am
I agree that we as Christians can differentiate between our equality as being made in the imago dei and yet still hold different roles. The socialist can't seem to grasp that inequality need not mean that there cannot be hierarchy.
That said, the view that Locke is taking apart in the 1st Treatise (we all read the 2nd treatise if we read Locke at all in our undergrad), is the notion that kings get their right to rule from God's grant of power to Adam (Filmer is the most powerful exponent of this view then). Locke eviscerates this argument using Scripture and logic.
February 4th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Micah, no, this is great. There's so much I don't know! Thanks for explaining.