A Debate: “Atheist”* Embraces Inalienable Rights But, Of Course, Clueless Re: Origin Of Such Rights
By John Lofton, Editor
The business card of Ed Buckner — who debates as an “atheist” — says he is “Southern Director” of the “Council For Secular Humanism.” Just exactly how many “Secular Humanists” there are in the South to direct, I do not know — probably not many, at least not many who are out-of-the-closet and in-your-face like Buckner.
In any event, I saw Buckner “debate” the egregious William Federer at Gary DeMar’s Christian Worldview Conference in Toccoca, Georgia — hometown of our friend and valiant Christian soldier Jim Rudd, head-honcho of Covenantnews.com. During this debate, Buckner got my attention by saying that even though he was an atheist, he, too, believed in “inalienable rights,” rights which the government cannot take away. Hmmmmm. Interesting, Ithought. So, the next morning I interviewed him as follows, with slight editing:
NATURE FALLEN, not normative and, thus, tells us nothing about what our ‘rights’ are.Q: I was very interested last night to hear you say, enthusiastically, you also believe in inalienable rights, rights which the government cannot take away. I believe in inalienable rights. I believe in them because I believe in the God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. How can you believe in inalienable rights? Where would inalienable rights come from [for you]?
A: Well, of course, I …am a counselor for secular humanism. I don’t therefore believe in God and I don’t therefore in fact think that our inalienable rights come from God, but I don’t think they come from government either. And I think it more dangerous to believe that they come from government than to believe that they come from God, even [being the] atheist that I am. I believe that they are inherent, they are natural and I actually think that’s pretty much what’s implied in the Declaration of Independence. The truth is, and it’s a dangerous thing, the fragile thing, [is that] we will have these rights only as long as we have a document, like the Constitution, and enough of a consensus so that we can’t eliminate these rights with super majorities.
Q: What is it about nature that tells us that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — How do you deduce that from nature?
A: Each individual being has desires and wants and certain abilities to fulfill natural desires and wants. As we look around us, we see that success for us as individuals depends on successful social arrangements as well. None of us can function on our own, so I think we have evolved, and I’m not talking about biological evolution help, but cultural evolution — have evolved these ideas and these values that make us realize that if we don’t — that it’s arrogant to believe that individuals should control other individuals.
It’s arrogant for any of us — whether we’re secular humanists, Christians, or anybody else — Muslims included, of course, to believe that we have the one true correct way and that therefore we have the right to interfere with somebody else’s belief or tell them what they have to believe. We disagree with each other on lots of things and there’s no good sound way to arrive at the truth on some of these very important issues.
‘GOLDEN RULE’ of Confucius NOT the same as what our Lord says.Well, I mean I know that if you accept the Bible as authoritative — then that is considered a good way, but first you have to get to accepting that the Bible is authoritative, and I don’t, so how do you convince me of the importance of not murdering somebody? Well you convince me, easily by saying look, you don’t want to be murdered. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now I know that’s the Christian formulation, but that principle has been with us long before Christianity, and even before Judaism — Confucius, and many, many other variations on the thing.
(Comment: Wrong. In “The Analects,” the third of the Confucian Four Books, Confucius says, in answer to queries from students: “What you do not want done to you, do not do to others.” Thus, Confucius’ statement is not the same “principle” of what our Lord says. The obvious difference is that the “Golden Rule” stated by Jesus requires positive actions of doing good to others.)
Q: But, of course, from where you stand there is no truth and there is no way to get to truth [from where you stand.] Do you believe there’s something that is true for everybody regardless of whether those people believe in it? If so, what is [this truth?]
A: Well, I think the material reality is in the fact that if I walk off the top of a building I’ll crash to the ground is true for everybody. The fact that we human beings are subjective and incapable of a full grasp of all truth at all time, does not keep the truth from being real.
Q: OK, let me narrow it down. Let’s return to inalienable rights — life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, things that you think are inalienable rights that the government can’t take away.
A: Well, governments over the course of human history and churches and other groups have attempted to take those things away and have succeeded — they’ve succeeded in taking away life — our government has done it in many ways, but not nearly as bad as — Stalin or Hitler or Mao Tse-tung or a lot of other leaders and a lot of other systems.
Q: But, that didn’t occur over night.
A: Freedom has not been won over night either. The American Constitutional system didn’t spring full blown from the mind of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. It developed over many generations — English Common Law.
Q: It came from about a thousand years of Christian History. I want to go back to these inalienable rights which the government cannot take away. You said they were inherent in nature. And I’m saying, when I look at nature, nature is fallen, you see all kinds of good things and bad things in nature. I don’t deduce any way of behaving or acting in nature so I don’t understand how you see that nature shows this, that we have a right that the government can’t take away? Where is that in nature?
A: Well, I think you do deduce in nature…that every human being not dedicated to eating is going to die and rather quickly.
Q: I’m sorry, let me make myself clear. I don’t see that nature tells me or anybody, that I have inalienable rights that the government can’t take away — that’s what I’m talking about. Where do you see that in nature?
INALIENABLE RIGHTS not from Constitution or ‘consensus’ but from God of the Bible, the only true God there is.A: Well, once it’s developed that far — that develops from along cultural evolution — starting with basic physical needs and social needs that human beings have. We agree on various things. We wind up agreeing at some point that individual rights make a difference, and that individuals should in fact have freedom, that we all gain as a society, but of course as individuals.
Q: But, if you look around the world there’s no such agreement whatsoever on what’s good or evil or right and wrong.
A: Oh, there’s plenty of agreement around the world, virtually any place you go. Anywhere in the world murder is considered to be immoral and unacceptable.
Q: But they disagree on what constitutes murder.
A: Oh, indeed they do, and that’s true amongst Christians too, and there are Christians who consider abortion murder, and I’m willing to bet that you are probably one of them. There are plenty of other Christians who don’t think abortion is murder. There is nothing in the Bible that considers that abortion is murder. These moral absolutes that I am told that Christians have seem not to be things that people say they are Christians agree on.
Q: Well, but you see you can’t do it that way because you’re not simply a Christian because you say you’re are a Christian. It tells us in the Scripture how to tell if someone is a Christian. A Christian is someone who believes and obeys the word of God. You aren’t just a Christian simply because you declare yourself to be one.
A: I’m not trying to say that you are a Christian just because you declare yourself to be one.
Q: You’re saying that all Christians disagree, and I’m saying some of those who say they are Christians are not Christians and that’s why they disagree.
A: Thomas Jefferson declared himself to be a Christian, and he said he did not believe in the atonement, he didn’t believe in the resurrection and he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, and therefore, should not be considered a Christian. So I’m not trying to say that it makes no difference and all you have to say is that you are a Christian and that makes you a Christian. I agree with you that there are some crucial things that make you a Christian or not a Christian.
Q: “If you love Me, you’ll obey My Commandments” is what Jesus says. That’s one test of a Christian — do they obey what God says?
A: Well, if it were only that simple, but you know it’s not.
Q: Apart from God, it’s impossible. But with God all things are possible.
A: But the problem comes with this part, what you were saying a minute ago, you just obey God’s commandments. But did God say that abortion was murder?
Q: Well, sure, the taking of innocent human life is murder. Is an unborn baby not human and growing?
A: I’m not trying to get into the abortion debate. [This would be a] much longer interview than I have time for.
Q: Is an unborn baby not human and growing?
PSSSSST, Ed! This is NOT a human being.A: An unborn baby is human, innocent and growing and I think sperm and eggs before they are joined are human, innocent and growing.
Q: How old are you? I’m 65.
A: Gosh you’re old. I’m 60.
Q: And you don’t know that an egg and a sperm separately are different from a conceived human being?
A: Of course I know that.
Q: Then why did you drag sperm and egg into it? They’re not human, they’re not a human being.
A: If I’m going to be serious, and I get to say what I want to say about me, then you are not going to make me say these statements. I didn’t say they were the same thing. I said they are human.
Q: They are not a human life. They are not a human being.
A: And you know this how?
Q: That sperm [by itself] is [not] a human being?
A: It’s not a human being.
Q: That’s what I’m talking about [a human being.] — an innocent human being inside of a woman is a baby that is innocent human life that is growing. You already said an unborn baby is an innocent human life that’s growing. So, what do you call it when an innocent human life is snuffed out? What do you call it? I call it murder.
A: So, if [someone’s] sperm is killed — those are human cells they are living. There’s no question that they are living. They’re human though — these are not dog cells.
Q: But I just asked you something that we agreed on. We agreed that an unborn baby is a human being and it’s innocent and it’s growing . And I said —.
A: We didn’t agree that it’s a human being.
Q: What else could it be if two humans made it?
A: I would just be so delighted to give you an answer, all right? But I kind of need you to hold that microphone in this direction for a minute or two if you want me to give an answer.
Q: But, you were moving away from the question of the unborn baby being an innocent human life, which it is. So, if you snuff out the unborn baby’s life, that is murder. What word would you use?
A: When a fetus that is human, but not yet a human being, I do not think that it is murder.
Q: Well, now you told me what you think it is not. Now, can you tell me what you think it is?
A: Fetuside. Is that a suitable word for you?
Q: Why do you suddenly lapse into Latin when you talk about the unborn baby.
A: Because I don’t think that it’s an unborn baby yet. I don’t want to agree with you when I don’t agree with you which is not a very smart thing for me to do. It’s harder than that.
Q: What’s the difference between an unborn baby and a fetus?
A: A fetus is a potential baby. It’s a —.
Q: Do you know what fetus means in Latin?
A: [No, I] don’t know what the literal translation of the word is, no.
Q: Well, it might be good to know [what a word means] before you use it.
A: Sir, I don’t think it will at all — if in fact the Latin word fetus does mean a fully developed one, then I don’t agree with that word and will have to find another one.
Q: Well it doesn’t mean unborn one. It just means small one, it just means small one. Why do you resist calling it an unborn baby?
A: Because it’s not an unborn baby.
Q: It’s unborn, it’s inside the mother’s womb is it not? It’s unborn.
A: These are semantic games, they really are silly, semantic games. When the, when does the soul, when does it become a —.
Q: I’m not talking about ensoulment — not talking about that. By the way —.
A: You just want to talk about what you want to talk about, is that right?
Q: I said I’m not talking about ensoulment. But you want to drag in some metaphysical argument when I’m talking about the being that’s inside a mother’s womb, the actual physical being that’s inside a mother’s womb.
A: I’m talking about the actual physical process. In my opinion, humanity, human beings, because we are biological beings, are part of a continuous process. And that part of the development of you — as a human being, started when your great-grandfather first had sex — not when your father did. And I don’t think that any place you break that chain is an arbitrary break in the chain. When I say arbitrary — I don’t mean there’s no grounds or no justification for which place you choose. I think it’s very important — I don’t think that this is mere academic games and I don’t think that it is of no importance, not very important, I think it is very important. But there are competing interests when you talk about whether a woman can control her own body and whether a baby has a right to live.
Q: It does have a right to live?
A: Yes, and if in fact a baby is born with terrible defects and so forth, I don’t think you have a right to say “oh, well that’s inconvenient I’ll cut it’s throat and be done with it”
Q: So a baby has a right to live.
A: Yes. You sound amazed; you ought to not be so quick to assume what they always think and not assume that it —.
Q: Does a baby have a right to live when it’s inside its mother’s womb?
A: Well, it’s not a baby then.
Q: Ah, of course not, it’s a fetus! Now, this is not semantics see. You’re very wrong. You said a minute ago that we’re like quibbling over semantics. It’s very important what the entity is that you are killing when you are killing it. It’s very important whether or not an unborn baby is a human being, whether it’s alive, and whether it is innocent. When does it become a baby? Only when it’s born?
A: [Abortion] is murder, right?
Q: The taking of innocent human life is the very definition of murder. That’s correct.
A: Therefore, you are in favor of capital punishment for mothers and doctors who perform abortions, am I right?
Q: I would not want to limit it to those people. I would say that anyone who commits murder should suffer the death penalty, yes.
A: I am not in favor of the death penalty, but I do agree that anyone who commits murder should suffer serious penalties. Now, so we’re in agreement on that, except what the penalty should be.
Q: Well, that’s not an insignificant agreement.
A: It’s a very significant agreement, and we also have a significant disagreement. We could spend hours talking about capital punishment as well.
Q: Well, let me ask you one more question about abortion, about what constitutes murder.
A: Well, let me make one point I’m wanting to make. When you start talking about what constitutes murder you have to have agreement on in the society. I don’t mean every individual. We have to have agreement as to what constitutes murder and we don’t have agreement that abortion is murder amongst Bible believing Christians. And I mean those people who say, and I have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth, that they believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for their sins, that they believe that they are following all of the commandments of God, including the command that says “Thou shall do no murder” because they don’t believe that it is murder. Now, are they right or wrong? Well, I’m not a god either, so I can’t give you any absolute answers to that.
HITLER DENOUNCED but he, too, was God-hating secular humanist.Q: What you said just a minute ago, is not true. If people in a society do not believe that a certain crime is murder and the Biblically prescribed procedure is the death penalty, that will not be enforced. But law does not come from the people in the society as you seem to think. You seem to think that some kind of agreement is necessary. By the way, to use that line of thinking, if you and I were sitting here in Nazi Germany, I was talking how we needed some law to stop the killing of the Jews, you would be telling me there’s no agreement on this. We can’t have such a law because there’s no agreement. But law doesn’t come from people. Law comes from God, and God’s Law is God’s Law whether people agree with it or not. You know, those inalienable rights, remember?
A: Well, if there is a God and He puts out laws then you are right. But, you are not right.
Q: Well, where does law come from?
A: I think the law does come from agreement and I think, unfortunately, it’s bad in some instances and we have societies with very bad laws, and Nazi Germany was certainly one of them.
Q: Well, where does the law come from? Who must agree to make it law?
A: Well, it’s not a simple minded thing, you know, [where] people vote and 61% say this and therefore that’s the law. I’m not trying to say that, it’s much more complicated. It’s a development of a consensus over not days or years, but over generations. The British Common Law developed over many generations….
Q: I’m sorry but I’m not getting it. So, law comes from people agreeing? By the way, when enough people agree does that make something right?
A: It does not.
Q: Well, then how do we know what’s right or wrong?
A: Well we don’t. We have to keep working at it, but it helps if you start —.
Q: (laughing, derisively) But, what is the “it” we’re working at?
A: Well, you can laugh at my answers, sir, I don’t care, I mean —.
Q: And I don’t care if you care if I laugh. But, how do we know what we’re working toward if we don’t know what right and wrong are? That’s what I’m asking.
A: Well, instead of laughing, you know, go ahead, go for it (the “it” I asked about). I understand, sir, that you believe that God has told you and that settles it and there’s no more discussion needed.
Q: Well, you would formally agree — would you not? — that if there is a God, and He says something, that would settle it, wouldn’t it?
A: You betcha. I don’t know why you asked to interview me. You’ve got a right to ask me, and I’ve got a right to turn you down or accept. And I accepted, but you don’t seem to have an interest in my point of view.
Q: Well, I do.
A: You don’t demonstrate an interest in my point of view,
Q: I don’t respect it, but I’m interested.
BUCKNER VAIN in his imaginings, wise in his own eyes; one for whom we should pray so that he will not be ‘without excuse’ before God.A: You didn’t demonstrate that. If you were interested in my point of view you would ask me a question and let me finish answering and trying to explain it. You might say well, now I don’t fully understand on this part, but you can disagree, I fully understand, I expected that. Do you, have you, do you think you understand well enough to tell what my opinion is, can you answer me back accurately what I think?
Q: No, I wouldn’t say so because you haven’t been specific enough. The most recent thing was when I asked you where does law come from? Well, you said, it comes from agreement over time, and then I said who exactly would agree and you said it is kind of complex to explain and then you said what if 61% of the people agreed, does that make something right, and you said no, and I asked you where do wrong and right come from and you said we don’t really know, we have to keep working toward it. But, of course, you have to know what something is before we can work toward it, don’t you?
A: Well, I think you can get closer and closer without knowing what the final absolute is. But I don’t really think there is such a thing as an absolute moral standard.
Q: You don’t? So you think in some cases murder might be okay?
A: In some cases killing might be okay, but I don’t think that killing and murder are the same thing.
Q: That’s why I asked you about murder. So, murder is always wrong?
A: Murder is always wrong by definition. If you are defining it as murder, then you’re defining it as murder, always something that is wrong. That’s circular but obviously true.
Q: What’s your authority for saying that by definition murder is always wrong? Who says so?
A: Says all of humanity over thousands of years. Moral standards have evolved and developed and changed, and they’ve changed amongst Christians of course, as well as amongst anybody. Christians in this part of the country were just really quick and easily able to defend human slavery and they brought their Bibles out and showed plenty of Bible verses that support human slavery and not condemn it, and they were of course correct about that. Slavery is immoral and it is immoral for all modern Christians, and it’s immoral for all modern free thinkers, but over all the generations of human history, it wasn’t considered immoral — in fact preachers in this part of the country told people that it was instituted by God, that it was a way to bring those terrible suffering savages from Africa here and giving them a chance at having their souls saved.
Q: Well, I think you have just given me an example of why your way of trying to find right and wrong, sort of deducing it from the mass of millions of people that have lived throughout history, doesn’t work. You just pointed out there’s all kinds of mixed opinions on everything. So, how does one deduce from that what’s right or wrong?
A: You are not guaranteed success, and you are certainly not guaranteed success if you say that God told you that whatever you believe. You believe slavery is right or you believe it’s wrong and then you add to that, well God told me that it is and it says so in this holy book — hey, that just gives folks more killing basis when they disagree with them so now they’re not arguing with something that’s arguable, they’re arguing about something that’s absolute that God told them that slavery was right.
Q: Well, the kind of slavery that’s in the Bible, I assume you know, is not the kind of slavery that was in this country.
A: I’m well aware that that’s what modern Christians say, but that is still not what Christians said in 1830 and 1840.
Q: Well, not all Christians. There were Christians on both sides of that fight…there were Christians on both sides of the slavery issue as far back as Augustine. And see that’s — if I may say so — one of your problems. You see a bunch of people claiming contradictory things, both sides claiming to be Christians. And, since you don’t believe the Bible, you don’t have a program to know the players [who the real Christians are.]
A: Well, if it’s the people who do know the Bible and who do know the players — they don’t agree with each other on all kinds of things, about whether it’s moral to go into Iraq and invade that country, about whether abortion, or taking a woman’s right to control her body is more important —.
Q: Well, I wish you wouldn’t say that because an abortion [involves what is] really not part of the woman’s body — it’s not her body that’s destroyed. In an abortion, there is another body, is there not, in a woman’s womb?
A: We’ve already had this dispute.
Q: Well, I continue to be fascinated by the fact that you appropriate [Christian] thoughts and ideas of inalienable rights, but then when I try to get you to be specific —.
A: On your thoughts and ideas, sir, I think inalienable rights are now American ideas,
Q: Well, yes, the Christian idea was the original American idea!
A: That’s correct, but I think that it’s much more likely that it came from Enlightenment sources and anti-Christian sources — or it was a combination of both. I think the fact that Christians value individuals as individuals is important.
Q: [As] images of God.
A: I think that’s been very important.
Q: But you don’t believe human beings are made in God’s image.
A: Well, obviously not. If I don’t believe there’s a God, I wouldn’t believe that human beings were made in this non-existent image….I have a suggestion, Mr. Lofton. Let’s schedule a debate, you and me….
Q: Well, I end by commending you on the fact that you believe in inalienable rights which government can’t take away, and I hope some day you’ll understand the true source of those rights, which is not history or the people.
A: Well I do believe in inalienable rights, and I sure as heck hope that we both continue to believe in them — whatever we think the source.
Q: But [unless, as is the case, such rights come from God], the words “inalienable rights” have no meaning. They are just hot air.
A: Well, let’s have a debate.
Q: I think we just did.
*There’s no such thing as an “atheist,” as St. Paul tells us in Romans 1:18ff. There are those who, by God’s grace, know there is a God — acknowledge Him, love Him, strive to obey Him. And there are those who know there is a God but they lie; they say He doesn’t exist. There is no one who really believes there is no God.
No comments:
Post a Comment