Maverick Philosopher Bill Vallicella, a friend of this site (and its ancestor since 2004), posted recently about the source of rights in God, saying things about argumentation that loomed larger for me than any conclusion he drew about rights and their derivation.
Conservatives [Bill writes] regularly say that our rights come from God, not from the state. It is true that they do not come from the state. But if they come from God, then their existence is as questionable as the existence of God. Now discussions with leftists are not likely to lead anywhere; but they certainly won’t lead anywhere if we invoke premises leftists are sure to reject. The Left has always been reliably anti-religion and atheist, and so there is no chance of reaching them if we insist that rights come from God. So from a practical point of view, we should not bring up God in attempts to find common ground with leftists. It suffices to say that our rights are natural, not conventional. We could say that the right to life, say, is just there, inscribed in the nature of things, and leave it at that. Why wave a red flag before a leftist bull who suspects theists of being closet theocrats?
What “common ground” is there between the atheist and the theist? If I understand Bill correctly, it consists in a key worldview concession that the theist allegedly must make to the atheist if there is to be conversation.
For the Biblical theist, the “common ground” between him and his atheist dialogic partner is they’re both divine image-bearers (Genesis 1:26). The one acknowledges that status, the other suppresses it.
I’ve argued elsewhere (e.g., here, here and here) that God’s existence grounds intellectual exigency itself. This exigency or “demandingness”—the fruit of the Light that enlightens everyone coming into the world (John 1:9)—generates questioning (including how to negotiate the aporetic tetrad about rights and God’s existence in Bill’s post). It is therefore incoherent to question God’s existence.[1] The same goes for questioning anything dependent on it (e.g., mutual obligations and the rights they generate).
When arguing with an atheist, one never has to “insist” that rights come from God; one need only ask for a satisfactory foundation for them, alternative to the Biblical worldview.
Let him take his pick. (I would ask the same question of a theist who seeks so-called “neutral” common ground.) Does he retort that a foundation isn’t necessary? Then he’s being arbitrary. Game over.
God has ordained that qua created image-bearers, we are in mutual obligation to each other in various ways. For example, he has forbidden His image-bearers to commit murder; therefore, all image-bearers have a right to their lives.
But there’s a kicker: they’re also obligated to shed the blood of murderers, that is, to “alienate” their supposedly inalienable right to life. The execution of murderers is not itself murder.[2]
As for the “practical point of view,” let’s not forget the practical matter of winning the debate. If there’s no chance of “reaching” someone with the argument you want to make, however, perhaps there’s no point in arguing with him.
My question is: why would a theist want to make an argument that gives the game away by acquiescing in the atheist’s “neutral” posturing?[3]
I am not sanguine [Bill continues] about the prospects of fruitful discussion with leftists, but we ought to make the effort since talking with is better than shooting at.
Even the ethical preference Bill expresses here presupposes an unargued-for foundation. My deliberation about whether I need to “shoot” someone is independent of my assessment of his ability or willingness to follow my argument. If he is threatening me or mine with unprovoked violence, I am within my God-given rights to shoot him as within my (no less God-given) epistemic rights to refute him.[4]
Notes
[1] Even the intelligibility of “The God of the Bible does not exist” depends on that God’s existence. “Antitheism presupposes theism.” Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology. Let q stand for “the Biblical God exists.” The transcendental argument (TA) for q holds that not only (if p then q), but also (if not-p then q). Transcendental in that it “transcends” any particular content for p. The vindication of this TA is indirect: no alternative to the Biblical worldview survives scrutiny. That worldview also grounds this TA.
[2] Genesis 9:6. Atheist philosopher George Smith disagrees with God. Rationalistically, and in my view arbitrarily, Smith maintains that everyone, including murderers, have an inalienable right to life. George H. Smith, “A Killer’s Right to Life,” Liberty 10, no. 2 (November 1996). For a critique of his philosophical foundation, which is essentially Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, see my 2019 Atheism Analyzed.
[3] To hear how practical this approach to arguing with an atheist can be, listen to Greg Bahnsen’s 1991 radio discussion with George Smith and his 1982 formal debate with rationalist Gordon Stein.
[4] Bill has engaged the approach to apologetics promoted on this site. See my “Bill Vallicella on Cornelius Van Til: An open mind and heart,” January 23, 2019.