dk

dk: Since Malthus wrote his doctrine, "population increases in a geometric ratio, while the means of subsistence increases in an arithmetic ratio." on economics, and Darwin wrote “Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", economics, population, and Human Rights , from a secular perspective have been inextricably tethered. My point is relevant because Malthus and Darwin are essential planks of secularism.

1. Celsus: "Without God" what happens?
   dk: If God exists then providence follows God’s word (act), not man’s progress. In a plural world the Creator is the unmoved mover or the alpha and omega. God creates the world, then created man with free will, potential (in his image) and dominion over the world, but not autonomy. Without autonomy people can only participate in their destiny, they don’t control providence. So without God, it happens that providence follows people.
2. Celsus: Does it follow that "all things become commodities"?
   dk: Does it follow from what? It doesn’t follow God, but concepts. If all rational things are real & visa versa, then people are commodities. Why? Because if everything is rational, then any particular thing is but one aspect of a monistic unified reality.
   Q1: How can one thing differ from another in a monistic reality,
   A1: They can only differ by nothing, so any two things are essentially the same thing.
   Conclusion: Everything is a commodity.
3. Celsus: Where is your evidence for this?
   dk: All I can do is offer a rational explanation. If you want authoritative source read Nietzsche or Marx.
4. Celsus: Where does the notion of "sacred alter [sic] of progress" come from?
   dk: In a materialistic world progress is applied science, so science becomes a metaphorical holy grail. or sacred alter.
5. Celsus: Your own perception of humanists, or from humanists? What evidence do you have to support this?
   dk: Humanists are people that try to perfect themselves by studying classic forms of art, languages, music, literature, dance and architecture.
6. Celsus: Second sentence: "secularism in any pure form" - what does that mean?
   dk: By pure I mean like pure gold, as opposed to 14 caret gold. So pure secularism has Zero tolerance for religious imagery, content or speech in the public square.
7. Celsus: Is this your own straw man or a real definition?
   dk: From Webster, secularism: Date: 1851: : indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations:.

P.P.S. After your last reply to me, may I ask, have you met Amos? You two will get along just fine. I don't debate with him because he has exactly the same knack at pulling non sequiturs out of a hat as you do. But at least he's fun to read.
dk: I’m not sure who Amos is. To be frank, it seems to me you find disagreement non sequitur or a strawman. I quite frankly find the caricature a form of denial. From a secular perspective the 10 commandments are nonsense, but in reality the protection of religious liberty is a hotly contested issue. A reasonable discussion on the topic requires a comparative analysis from both perspectives.

99Percent

dk: This has obviously been disproven. Wasn't Malthus who predicted that at the rate of human population growth the Earth will run out of resources in a few decades back in the early 18th century?

Its pretty clear that we humans continually find new ways to exponentiate resources too. Otherwise we would have still remain at the population levels of a couple a hundred years ago fighting madly over the few resources nature "gives" us.

Celsus

Sorry dk, but I have neither the time nor inclination to reply to something that long, with such poorly constructed arguments, most of which are hardly on topic. Pick one post of yours, start a new thread, and I'll reply to it. From the looks of it, you are trying to straitjacket secularism and humanism into your extreme definitions, and if you really must have your straw men, so be it.

Joel

brighid

In an attempt to bring this thread on track: For those who disagree or agree with the morality of the SPECIFIC tenants of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, please address them point by point and present a specific argument. Please use supporting evidence to address your SPECIFIC claim, not simply arguments against secular humanism, etc. If you so wish to critique secular humanism, et al please do so in another thread. If you wish to discuss the very specific issues put forth by scigirl please adhere to the aforementioned standard.

Brighid
Moderator Hat ON!

dk

I agree, ass directional vectors Malthus and Darwin doctrines add up to a psychology of deprivation that denies to me and mine the good my neighbor possesses.

lpetrich

I'd like to see dk do a blow-by-blow analysis of that UN declaration -- to see him analyze it, clause by clause.

He ought to follow the link to it, copy it into his favorite text editor, and add his comments to each of its clauses.

For my part, I think that most of it is OK, though some parts of it may be impractical, like guaranteed employment for all (Article 23).

The Bible, however, loses rather badly. For example, several parts of it express blatant ethnic bigotry, such as the story of the incestuous origin of the Ammonites and the Moabites (the result of what Lot's daughters did to him), commands of genocide against the people already living in the Promised Land, and Jesus Christ once calling gentiles "dogs".

In fact, some other parts of the Bible may be interpreted as protests againt such bigotry, like the Book of Ruth (Moabites are people, too), the Book of Jonah (Assyrians are people, too), and the story of the Good Samaritan (Samaritans are people, too).

Also, would anyone want to read to their children the story of what happened to Noah when he got drunk? The story of what Lot's daughters did to him to father the Ammonites and the Moabites? The Song of Solomon?

By contrast, the UN's Declaration contains no such content.

Celsus

Hi dk,

Just to address a reasonable attempt at staying on topic:
Are you, aware of theories of institutional change? Basically, it is the theory that institutions are subject to evolutionary mechanisms like artificial and natural selection. If we take that approach, then just as humans have their roots among fish, then the UN DoHR has its roots in Judeo-Christian ethics. My point is, both the statutes and the methods for determining the statutes are unrecognisable from those of the Mosaic code. Perhaps there is greater resemblence in the Justinian one (I'm not very familiar with it). However, the evolution of institutions is a fascinating history, worth studying.

Here are some excellent resources:

Eggertsson, T. (1990) Economic Behaviour and Institutions, Cambridge University Press
Hodgson, G. (2001) How Economics Forgot History: The Problems of Historical Specifity in Social Science, London: Routledge - I'm currently reading this one, and it's excellent!
North, D. (1973) The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History, Cambridge University Press
North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press

Do start a new thread.

Joel

lpetrich

Here are Rome's Twelve Tables, or at least, what survives of those ~450-BCE laws. And here is an introduction to Roman law; the Roman Empire had been home to the first systematic legal scholars.

Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis was strongly based on the earlier legal work in the Empire, at least according to most discussions of it I've seen. However, some Biblical and ecclesiastical law may also be present; Justinian had forbidden "sodomy" on the ground that it supposedly causes earthquakes, famines, pestilences, and the destruction of cities (Novellae 77, ~538 CE). That last part seems like a reference to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

dk

lpetrich: I'd like to see dk do a blow-by-blow analysis of that UN declaration -- to see him analyze it, clause by clause.
He ought to follow the link to it, copy it into his favorite text editor, and add his comments to each of its clauses.
dk: I like both the idea and text of the UN DIoHR. In fact I applaud it as a milestone that subscribes nations to moral law as the bases of a lasting peace. That said the moral authority of UN DIoHR signed on to in 1948 has largely been eroded by the Cold War and the modern secular state. I think a blow by blow of evaluation of the charter impractical because of the scope. I think the DIoHR flushes out important economic, social and political issues in a troubled world.

lpetrich: For my part, I think that most of it is OK, though some parts of it may be impractical, like guaranteed employment for all (Article 23).
The Bible, however, loses rather badly. For example, several parts of it express blatant ethnic bigotry, such as the story of the incestuous origin of the Ammonites and the Moabites (the result of what Lot's daughters did to him), commands of genocide against the people already living in the Promised Land, and Jesus Christ once calling gentiles "dogs".
In fact, some other parts of the Bible may be interpreted as protests againt such bigotry, like the Book of Ruth (Moabites are people, too), the Book of Jonah (Assyrians are people, too), and the story of the Good Samaritan (Samaritans are people, too).
dk: I think you make a good point. The Jews, Moslems and Christians each interpret the 10 Commandments differently, sect by sect. For example just amongst Christians several interpretations have evolved from “once saved always saved” and “by Faith alone”. I think it is clear that neither the Bible nor the 10 Commandments address grave concern about religious liberty.

lpetrich: Also, would anyone want to read to their children the story of what happened to Noah when he got drunk? The story of what Lot's daughters did to him to father the Ammonites and the Moabites? The Song of Solomon?
dk: The patriarchs of the Bible include, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. Adam, Noah, and Abraham were unbound by the Mosaic Law and the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (L&D) because they didn’t exist. L&D were written by Moses in response to the Golden Calf at Sinai and Sin of Baal Peor, so it was the corruption of the 11 tribes that placed them under the authority (tyranny) of the Levite Priests. King David for all his virtues murdered a loyal soldier to steal his wife, and Jesus railed against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Priests of his day. I think a lot of the Biblical context still applies today, as much as demagogues and tyrants would like peoples to believe modern leaders have evolved beyond such rabid abuses of power. I suppose my point is that whatever the UN DIoHR meant in 1948, it means something else today. So to provide a blow by blow account, necessitates a list of abuses perpetuated by the UN. I’m not sure what Article 23 was intended to mean in 1948, but in 2000 the guaranteed right of employment at a wage of 25 cent/day creates an underclass of people called the working poor.

dk

Joel: Are you, aware of theories of institutional change? Basically, it is the theory that institutions are subject to evolutionary mechanisms like artificial and natural selection. If we take that approach, then just as humans have their roots among fish, then the UN DoHR has its roots in Judeo-Christian ethics. My point is, both the statutes and the methods for determining the statutes are unrecognisable from those of the Mosaic code. Perhaps there is greater resemblence in the Justinian one (I'm not very familiar with it). However, the evolution of institutions is a fascinating history, worth studying.
dk: I agree from an institutional perspective, and substantiate my view from a Biblical perspective. Lu 5:37 “And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.” The ideas of law and justice are interpreted, embellished and ordered by institutions bound by the principle of stare decisis i.e. that it is necessary to abide by former precedents when the same points arise again in litigation. Trying to pour new laws from old institutions is a bust. I think the New World gave a new meaning to Western Civilization precisely because it embodied new institutions with new ideas about law. Whatever we may personally think about the communist or fascist institutions conceived and constituted in the 20th Century they, embodied new ideas with new institutions. I submit that ideas, concepts and structures are timeless, but institutions exist in a constant state of flux. Moderates describe this as a pendulum that rocks between conservative and liberal interpretations, where radicals on either side justify revolution as the only sufficient means to reform corrupt institutions. I fall into the camp of pragmatists that score progress in terms of problems solved and problems unsolved. I tend to reject the idea of evolution as meaningful because the theory rationalizes change as progressive and problems as systemic. I’d say it is fascinating to examine what becomes of institutions overtime. I would say most human institutions, in time, become the opposite of the ideas, forms and structures upon which they were conceived and dedicated.

Appreciate the refrerences.