Uh, no. Survival of the fittest is a natural process that leads to the fittest for a given environmental niche, not necessarily the strongest, brightest, etc. Hitler wanted the opposite of that. Hitler wanted to subvert natural selection and do what people had done with plants and animals for millenia--artificial selection.
Perhaps God? No self-respecting atheist would say God endowed us with inalienable rights.
I never said God did. But are you saying that an atheist cannot use Chamberlin's multiple working hypotheses? What other scientific methods would you deny me based on my beliefs? I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese, but I have no problem entertaining the hypothesis.
Perhaps the Universe endowed us with inalienable rights? How in the world (pun intended) did it do that? The Universe is an inanimate object, a location.
And if you go out on a sunny day without sunscreen, that inanimate object will endow you with a sunburn. Inanimate doesn't mean inert and idle.
And did they suddenly come into existence with humans or did all prior life forms have inalienable rights too?
Rights as a concept is a human construct that can encompass non-human entities. That the concept is a human construct doesn't mean humans created them, any more than the idea of "freedom" means that all animals were tied to stakes until humans arrived.
Because my questions were directed at atheists and because atheists would eliminate God as a possible answer, your post is not entirely responsive and thus far doesn’t, I think, promote a meaningful debate.
Your minor premise is flawed.
Peace, A.
Truth and Justice, G. :-)
We really cannot speak of "unalienable" rights if man is the grantor of those rights. All we can speak of are alienable rights. What man's law gives can be rescinded by man. The Framers understood this. Which is why the Declaration of Independence states that we have our unalienable human rights as grants of our Creator. Because they are divine grants, man cannot rescind them.
Do you have any problem with this, Gondring? Do you think the Framers were foolish men?
If man can grant rights to non-human entities, e.g., apes (as recently happened in Italy I believe), then what do rights actually mean? What is a "right?"
Do you believe you have a soul? Do you think there is such a thing as human nature?
Just wondering....
Actually, reduced to its essence, natural selection is viewed as the elimination of inferior individuals, to wit: "Because of the importance of variation, natural selection should be considered a two-step process: the production of abundant variation is followed by the elimination of inferior individuals." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July 2000, p.68).
Maybe he didn't fully appreciate the niche part, but Hitler clearly understood the idea of eliminating inferior individuals, as he viewed necessity or as evidenced by their inability to effectively withstand him.
I never said God did [endow us with inalienable rights]
When you said We are endowed with our rights by our Creator, whatever that is...perhaps God, I thought you were acknowleding the possibility. If you weren't, I misunderstood in replying Perhaps God?
But are you saying that an atheist cannot use Chamberlin's multiple working hypotheses? . . I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese, but I have no problem entertaining the hypothesis.
Chamberlin, a geologist as you know, introdcued his multiple working hypotheses approach to guard against what he called the ease with which a hypothesis becomes a controlling idea. In a search for what the moon's made of, green cheese is an entertaining hypothesis, a straw man if you will, but not a serious hypothesis in a serious pursuit of knowledge.
The same is true when an atheist, someone who says there is no God, posits God as an alternative hypothesis for the source of inalienable rights: S/he is willing to entertain the idea of sake of argument, but Chamberlain's approach does nothing to guard against the ease with which God as an alternative hypothesis is simply offered for entertainment's sake. Let me ask you, if you were convinced God existed, would you belief in and follow Him?
[I]f you go out on a sunny day without sunscreen, that inanimate object will endow you with a sunburn.
I understand cause and effect; a sunburn is a reaction. Are you saying inalienable rights are somehow a reaction to the Universe? We're talking here not about a reaction, but an endowment, that is, a granting or bestowing of inalienable rights. This sunburn example is tautologically appealing, but it doesn't explain how the Universe endows humans with inalienable rights.
Rights as a concept is a human construct that can encompass non-human entities. That the concept is a human construct doesn't mean humans created them,
A human construct is the understanding that we build of ourselves, the world, and the way the two work and relate. Rights as a concept then is the understanding humans build of themselves, etc. However, to then say that human understanding of rights as a concept does not mean humans created the rights begs the question: Who or what did; who or what created inalienable rights? And that's really the question that started this exchange.
Your minor premise is flawed.
The minor premise, of course, is that atheists would eliminate God as a possible answer to the question of from where inalienable right come. Even under Chamberlin's multiple hypotheses, an atheist can consider God as a possible source of inalienable rights BUT until you show me an atheist who firmly believes the Creator God of the Universe is the source of mankind's inalienable rights to the exclusion of all other sources and remains a firmly committed atheist, I will stand by my premise that atheists, because they are atheists, would elimiante God as a possible answer to the question.
Peace, A.