Balkinization: Good God! At Least We Hope So

Good God! At Least We Hope So

I wanted to add one small thought to the discussion Brian Tamanaha and others have been having over whether belief in God is necessary to, helpful to, or irrelevant to belief in human rights. Much turns on the sort of God one believes in and what that God asks of human beings. If, for example, one's God teaches that members of the true faith are morally superior to other members of other faiths, then belief in religion will not necessarily conduce to universal human rights. Quite the contrary, it might conduce to policies of conquest, forced conversion, or systematic oppression. Similarly, if one believes that members of other faiths are entitled only to lesser rights by virtue of their faith, for example the status of Jews under the Papal states, or the special protected status of Jews and Christians as dhimmi under Muslim law, strong belief in God will not necessarily ground universal human rights. Rather, religious belief may justify various forms of differential treatment. And then of course, there is the question of equality between men and women. Some types of belief in God promote equality between the sexes, but, historically many more have promoted the opposite view.

That is to say, the thesis has assumed that belief in God is good for human rights because God himself approves of universal human rights, religious tolerance, and human equality. But that is not generally true of what people thought God wanted historically, even within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Throughout most of human history, God (and different gods) have been remarkably partial, at least if we credit the moral and political beliefs of people who professed to believe most fervently in Him throughout the ages, and who justified their practices based on their belief in Him.

For religion to ground universal human rights in the very attractive way that the previous discussion has assumed, that religion must be of a very special sort, and, I would suggest, it must be of a form that arises most commonly following the Enlightenment, when older versions of religious belief were repeatedly questioned and reshaped by religious strife, political necessity, the rise of modern secular institutions, and the growth of science; these historical phenomena-- and not simply belief in God per se-- led to increasing religious tolerance between sects and increasingly capacious and generalized conceptions of human liberty and human equality. That is to say, the sort of belief in God that most strongly undergirds the discourse of universal human rights as we understand it today is the sort of belief in God that has been chastened by and reshaped by several centuries of modernity, secularism, and religious skepticism.

I am sure that God, watching down from heaven, is no doubt amused by the irony of this development. But, as we know, He works, and always has worked, in mysterious ways.

Posted 9:22 PM by JB [link]

Comments:

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 10:15 PM

That was the truly insidious aspect of Hume's refutation of the Argument from Design -- even if one *concedes* the argument, what kind of God does it get you?

In a word, Cleanthes, a man, who follows your hypothesis, is able, perhaps, to assert, or conjecture, that the universe, sometime, arose from something like design: but beyond that position he cannot ascertain one single circumstance, and is left afterwards to fix every point of his theology, by the utmost licence of fancy and hypothesis. This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant Deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance: it is the work only of some dependent, inferior deity; and is the object of derision to his superiors: it is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force, which it received from him.

Thus, the Design argument is not so much refuted, as irrelevant to any interesting discussion about God -- because, as Hume knew, our wish for God is moral, not metaphysical, in origin and hope.

# posted by

Anderson : 10:46 PM

So, kind of the open market theory of religion. So long as no sect or denomination has a monopoly on the practice of religion, they have more reason to preach tolerance and allow the practice of other faiths.

That was certainly Madison's argument (speaking at the VA ratification convention):

“Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of [denominations] which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society; for where there is such a variety of [denominations], there cannot be a majority of any one [denomination] to oppress and persecute the rest.”

He made a similar point in Federalist 51.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:54 PM

Prof. Balkin:

For religion to ground universal human rights in the very attractive way that the previous discussion has assumed, that religion must be of a very special sort, and, I would suggest, it must be of a form that arises most commonly following the Enlightenment, when older versions of religious belief were repeatedly questioned and reshaped by religious strife, political necessity, the rise of modern secular institutions, and the growth of science; these historical phenomena-- and not simply belief in God per se-- led to increasing religious tolerance between sects and increasingly capacious and generalized conceptions of human liberty and human equality.

One (admittedly recent) faith that puts a strong emphasis on complete equality of the sexes, the lack of discord between faith and science, complete and universal education, etc. is the Baha'i. Of course, for their trouble, their leader was banished and imprisoned, and they have been persecuted.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:13 AM

Anderson:

That was the truly insidious aspect of Hume's refutation of the Argument from Design -- even if one *concedes* the argument, what kind of God does it get you?

As J.B.S. Haldane put it, one with "an inordinate fondness for beetles." (see here, at the bottom).

;-)

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:19 AM

"or the special protected status of Jews and Christians as dhimmi under Muslim law,"

That's a phrase which should never, ever see the light of day without sneer quotes around "protected".

# posted by

Brett : 6:41 AM

"or the special protected status of Jews and Christians as dhimmi under Muslim law,"

This is a prime example of how men professing faith in God willfully ignore the teachings of God and replace them with their own law. The Quran teaches that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are to be respected and not to be persecuted.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:20 AM

This is a prime example of how men professing faith in God willfully ignore the teachings of God and replace them with their own law.

(Don't forgive me, Marty [not Feldman, either], for I know what I do...)

Oh, I can think of other examples. IOL, "W".

Now back on the wagon....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:16 AM

It certainly took long enough for someone to make this painfully obvious point. I would have made it days ago, except that, for some reason, I have to sign up for a new google account each time I want to post.

# posted by

CJColucci : 11:41 AM

Mr. Field:

Why replace the word Madison used ("sects")?

# posted by

Charles : 12:24 PM

I recently read an interesting Note: Paul W. Kaufman, Disbelieving Nonbelievers: Atheism, Competence, and Credibility in the Turn of the Century American Courtroom, 15 Yale J.L. & Human. 395 (2003).

Kaufman covers in great detail the historical exclusion of atheist testimony in court (which most states finally put an end to around the mid 1800s). Even some courts that permitted atheist testimony permitted their impeachment on religious grounds.

What seemed remarkable to me was how the bigoted rationale for excluding atheists echoes so closely rationale for arguing that the religious possess a greater claim to morality than do atheists.

"The theory held that, since they did not fear the retribution of any god at all, they could not be trusted to tell the truth. Thus, in the early common law, the atheist was excluded because he did not fear the judgment of God, and the defendant was excluded because everyone feared the judgment of man." 15 Yale J.L. & Human. at 412.

The rationale is admittedly cruder than anything raised by Perry or by those presently discussing the matter here and elsewhere, but grounded in the same elitism. Because atheists don't believe in God they owe no allegiance to authority and are thus morally untethered.

As Brian alluded to his original post, there is now considerable evidence suggesting that belief and faith have no bearing on morality. In the face of that, arguments to the contrary, in my opinion, are manifestations of fear ('my faith may not be special after all') ironically dressed up in postmodernism in order to melt distinctions between faith in a concrete creator and 'faith' in reason. But for an adherent to lose faith triggers grave moral consequences. How can an adherent truly argue outside that box?

# posted by

scott pilutik : 12:56 PM

Why replace the word Madison used ("sects")?

I cut-and-pasted the quote from something I had previously written. The audience for the other writing might have taken the word "sect" as having a pejorative connotation which it did not have in Madison's day. While the posters here wouldn't have had that problem, I was too lazy to change it back.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:02 PM

So: Why can't an atheist's [false] belief that his moral position is well-grounded be as uplifting as a theist's is that the source of his moral position comes from [a factually non-existent] God?

# posted by

Theophylact : 1:14 PM

Besides, the real problem with "sects" is trying to pronounce it distinctly from "sex."

The Madison quote reads well either way, however.

# posted by

Anderson : 1:39 PM

Thanks for the explanation : )

# posted by

Charles : 2:05 PM

Mark,

Thanks for the reference; I tend to absorb ideas for long periods of time before I synthesize my personal opinions--I must have read that about 20 years ago, and it never came forward until my response to this post

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 2:15 PM

CJColucci,

I've had the same problem just today...

# posted by

Jay J : 3:12 PM

Thanks for the reference; I tend to absorb ideas for long periods of time before I synthesize my personal opinions--I must have read that about 20 years ago, and it never came forward until my response to this post

I'm sometimes amazed at my insight until I remember "oh, yeah -- I read that there."

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:32 PM

[Full Disclosure: I believe in God. More particularly, I'm a deacon in my local congregation (Disciples of Christ, if anybody cares).]

Adherents of religion should never argue that belief in God somehow provides a superior basis for supporting human rights. Even if you believe it, you need to recognize that making it publicly is playing into the hands of those who would deny basic human rights to atheists. You're just providing fodder for intolerant religious bigots (whom you'll soon discover will be after you next).

I would recommend that, if you are religious and believe that your religion is the basis for your belief in human rights (as I do), then shut up about it and go do something useful, like joining the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

# posted by

William Ockham : 4:00 PM

William Ockham:

Thanks for the ecumenical advice. Even though you turn right around and suggest a divisive membership drive: why is the lesser-included torture off limits if (hypothetically in your case) capital punishment is not? Does government beareth not the sword in vain, but as the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil?

# posted by

Charles : 4:35 PM

Mark,

It's all been said and done before (regardless of various attempts to deny the lessons of history). Truly original ideas are rare: Shakespeare stole most of his plots, but put them together in an unsurpassed fashion, most technology advances are now incremental changes. Of course, they also thought that in 15th century Genoa, 18th century Britain, and 1st century Rome, and some of the changes since then have been revolutionary. Still, synthesis (merging ideas, and matching existing ideas to different situations) and analysis (detecting patterns) seem to be the trends of the future.

A good book on that is "Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge.

Ok, enough OT.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 5:27 PM

charles,

I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't see anything divisive about what I said. As it happens, I oppose torture, capital punishment, and war for the same reason. I take the command to love my enemies seriously.

That being said, I'm more than happy to work with people who having differing opinions on capital punishment and war in the effort to eliminate torture around the world, but especially the torture being done in my name by the US government. I brought up NRCAT mostly to remind other religious folks that it is not, by and large, the atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers that are perpetuating the most egregious violations of human rights today, here, in my country.

# posted by

William Ockham : 5:45 PM

Well "Deacon" Ockham, if you have no clue what could possibly be divisive about claiming that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales etc., are "perpetuating the most egregious violations of human rights today, here, in my country" while actual terrorists are out there actually beheading Americans, I don't think you will ever be able to understand my questions either.

Have a nice day though : )

# posted by

Charles : 6:11 PM

I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 4:37 PM