And that's fine. But it also shows that it would not be true if we imagined that human rights cannot be rationally explained. They can. It all simply depends on the premise in question.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:15 pm It is not possible to believe in, "rights," in the social/political sense, without resorting to some kind of appeal to the supernatural or mystical, as Locke's, your, and even Jefferson's arguments prove. It's your choice and I have no objection to that. I just do not agree.
It's not the conclusion you draw from the premise you base your belief on, it's your premise I disagree with.
However, before we pass over this point too quickly, it's not actually true that belief in God, and hence, belief in rights, depends on "some kind of appeal to the supernatural or mystical." Those considerations are indeed involved, at some level. But they are not the only route available to Theists.
And, as you will no doubt know, there are naturalistic arguments for the existence of God, and therefore, there are naturalistic rationales for "human rights" as well. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Design, the Historical Arguments, and so on, all depend on empirical evidence, and all point to the existence of the Creator, without primarily referring to the supernatural. The whole field of such arguments is called "Natural Theology."
But I presume you also reject the naturalistic arguments for God, such as the mathematical or design arguments, correct?