Atheists: Do you buy into Natural Law?

Question

Natural Law, the philosophical concept under which this nation was founded (and the source of "unalienable rights") depends on a higher power; namely a God that set into order Nature and the rights which we derive from her. This concept was furthered by John Locke who had a profound influence on the founders, and established that life, liberty and property (i.e. the pursuit of happiness) are endowed by the "Creator".

Given that Western Democracy is completely dependent on this concept and therefore an acceptance of theism, how does the typical atheist justify an acceptance of western democracy? Or do atheists simply reject this concept (which may explain their political left-leaning tendencies and affinity for communism/socialism)?

For the non-American: Sorry, by "this nation", I am referring to the US.

Mojo: Wow. You went from "affinity" to "="? I think you may have lost your mojo.

tawaen, Incarnatrix of Evil: It's also based on various other philosophies, but is completely dependent on theism as it requires a supernatural creator of law that transcends man.

Rance D: Actually, Christians do believe in a Heavenly King, but not necessarily an earthly king. More recently (i.e. the past several hundred years), various Christian figures argued against the political rights of kings being derived from God. In essence, Christianity can go either way, but neoclassical philosophy endorses democracy.

thebigm57: That makes little sense given that Natural Law, in part, protects people from "the people".

evolvedkw: Which are you suggesting? That this nation was not founded based on principles of Natural Law or that Natural Law is not dependent on a theistic worldview?

gary 7 infiltrator - AM: Note that I did say "theism" and not "Christianity". However, deism is a subset of theism. In other words, all deists are theists, but not all theists are deists. In fact, some deists are Christians nad, in fact, most deists in the 18th century were Christians.

Answer 1

i dont-there is no such thing as a natural law-as for our rights they are but one vote away from being gone-any rights that a person has last only as long as you are willing to fight for them----i dont think i would come under any tendency of communism or socialism but you might be able to label me an anarchist---just my thoughts-smile and enjoy the day

Answer 2

I can't speak for all atheists - only myself.

In some ways I do and in some ways I don't buy into Natural Law. I'm familiar with it, and most of Locke's writings. Essentially Natural Law is a deist view (which is in keeping with the deist beliefs of many of the Founding Fathers). Most atheists have no problem per se with the idea of a deist god - we don't know yet what touched off the Big Bang; it could well have been something that we presently define as "supernatural." Most atheists are only opposed to the idea of personal gods - the kind like the God of the Bible that hear our thoughts, judge us, and consciously make things happen on Earth. Natural Law has nothing to do with that kind of god.

Locke's assertion was that we're all human and that the fact that we're all here together as a result of the "Creator's" actions made us equals. I don't recall that he ever referred to the Creator in any terms that were not obviously deistic.

In any case, as an atheist I am happy to accept western democracy (when its weaknesses aren't being abused by the people in power) because it makes sense. Giving every adult person who hasn't committed a serious offense against society the chance to make his or her voice heard is sensible. It's the closest to fair that we can get (hypothetically). Most atheists are all about fairness. We believe that we only get one life, so we're usually inclined to make this one life the nicest it can be, as far as we are able. Treating others fairly is part of that.

Socialism is also attractive on a purely philosophical level. While I like democracy, my husband is strongly in favor of socialism. It's another version of social fairness - one that can have less flaws in some ways than democracy (and more flaws in other ways). I'm comfortable in a democratic society, but I would be comfortable enough in a socialist one that we are strongly considering becoming Canadian citizens in the near future. We're still on the fence about that.

Anyway, to sum up, Natural Law is essentially deistic and few atheists have a problem with deism (although we don't really believe in it, most of us). At any rate, even our idea of western democracy, based on deistic Natural Law, has changed much over the years since our country was founded - as we've gained more *non-religious* knowledge of the world. Women and back people vote now - that sure was not possible when the Founding Fathers wrote all that stuff about how we were ALL endowed by the "Creator." :)

Edited to add: There is a BIG, BIG, BIG difference between "theism" and "deism." The asker needs to educate him/herself on the difference between the two before considering this question again, methinks.

Answer 3

All words and wording are open to interpertation...like the Bible there are sections in the book store that attempt to answer the same question(s) about what the founding fathers meant.

Having studied Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin in great depth (three of the most influential founders) it's apparent they meant the following: The higher power you speak of is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The Creator(s) are those who established the democratic framework under which we can enjoy such freedoms.

All of our founding fathers were somewhat religious though many questioned faith and as such were sinners. It's a good thing they had the willingness and fortitude to question matters of faith otherwise we'd have Christian Law (which we do to some extent) and our nation would be as brutal as Iran. PEACE!

Answer 4

I don't think I ever became an atheist. It was sort of a process of realizing that when thinking logically I never would have believed in a god. My mother was a Catholic fundie. Very crazy. Said Jesus told her things etc. She didn't save for me to go to college because she thought the second coming was going to be the year 2000. I remember her crying and saying "Mother Mary lied to me!" when fireballs didn't launch down from the skies. I mostly had lots of questions no one could answer. Like how do we know there is a god. Why did the Church say something would send you to hell, but then change it's mind. Why does god make people gay, then send them to hell for it. Why does he punish for things that aren't wrong. Just lots of contradictions and unanswered questions. It just got to a point where I didn't personally believe anything in the religion, and I felt like it was a contradiction to be in a religion that I had so many opposing beliefs to. I was sort of a deist with no religion for a bit, then I felt more agnostic, now I'm feeling more atheist. It's hard being indoctrinated because your brain networks are set up to believe in hoo ha. And it's hard to get over the emotional stuff that's been fed to you. For a while I wanted there to be a god, but I said you know, wanting one doesn't change the fact there is zero evidence for there being one. It's defiantly been a journey that I'm still on. Just brought on by the fact that I questioned things, I wanted answers and I wanted to the truth no matter what the truth was.

Answer 5

I always find it quite interesting when people argue that this country was founded upon Christianity given that Christians DO NOT believe in democracy. Christians believe in a king. Most Christians pray for the return of their "Lord" and king, Jesus Christ. Given this fact, how can we call it a true democratic society? I have sworn no alliegiance to a king and am therefore more in line with the concept of democracy than ANY Christian.

Answer 6

Actually, it isn't completely dependent on theism. That's just your bias showing. (No one said the creator had to be a supernatural person casting judgement at everyone. It could be anything, and my creators are my parents.) Have a nice day!

Edit: No, actually our laws are not dependent on Natural Law. We don't depend on laws that transcend man. Human rights (the foundation of our country) depend on basic morality, which is socialized. (If you don't believe me, look up the evolution of morals.)

Answer 7

"Natural Law, the philosophical concept under which this nation was founded (and the source of "unalienable rights") depends on a higher power; namely a God that set into order Nature and the rights which we derive from her."

Wrong, and since you begin from a complete incorrect and totally biased position this has no merit at all.

Answer 8

Well yes, but I totally disagree that implies a creator. In fact I see it as implying there isn't one. Since there are natural laws it makes the concept of god redundant.

Answer 9

There is no other law. America is not run by common law as it used to be. We now suffer under the weight of political manufactured crap to appease the simple minded in power in politics and religion.

Answer 10

You have twisted it a bit. I believe that we choose to give each person rights. It has nothing to do with a higher power except that someone decided to assign it to a god.