Monday, June 18, 2007


Supposing we live in a closed system, a purely natural world, what in nature tells us all men are born with equal rights? Nature, on the contrary, seems to show us quite a different view of man. Deformities, mental retardation, and simple things like size difference show us that no one is born equal. The natural abilities of a midget woman and a seven foot Kenyan man are vastly different. How then, does a purely natural system give we humans any reason to believe in equal rights? If we have merely evolved from animals, why do the principles of 'survival of the fittest' vanish from our minds?

The seven foot Kenyan man is bigger and much stronger than the midget woman. Why would it be wrong for him to capture her, rape her, and claim her as his personal possession? If we are but highly evolved animals then the Kenyan man is using his reason, intellect, and strength to make a decision based on what he wants. Who are we, as fellow evolved animals, to tell him what he desires is wrong? "She has rights!" some may cry. Yes, but why? She was born smaller and weaker than him. Why can't we conclude that a stronger person has more rights based solely on the fact that they are strong? Nature doesn't give us any reason to believe every human has equal rights. A closed natural system can only lead to no rights and no equality, ending in barbaric or sophisticated 'survival of the fittest'. The man who claims there is no supernatural, that we live in a closed natural system, and also claims that humans have equal rights must take reasons and philosophies about the existence of man from outside his closed natural system. This is pure and indefensible contradiction of thought and practice.

How then, would this same man defend and hold to belief in human dignity? Why does life have value? Why is molesting and murdering a child wrong? What in a closed natural system gives self attesting proof that mankind has dignity? In a close naturalistic system we are highly evolved animals, but still animals. A lion may see fit to eat and slaughter his young. How do animals, highly evolved or not, suddenly deem that this is wrong? And not just wrong, but punishable and condemning?

A father, in a closed natural system, is free to do whatever he pleases with his children. They are his offspring, are they not? They are his, if you will, creation. In a closed natural system, what is the difference between destroying a created house and a created infant? Are they not simply the result of my actions? And therefore subject to my decision whether or not to allow them to exist? To hold to naturalism while also clinging to human dignity is also an indefensible contradiction of thought and practice.

No comments: