No one does have natural rights. They have social rights. Did early homo sapiens talk about habeus corpus, freedom of speech, etc.? No. These are concepts that have been created by the evolution of society. Nor are social rights uniformly self-evident to all different cultures. In many Asian societies, for example, group rights and filial responsibility traditionally take precedence over individual rights.
Of course not. Natural rights or inalienable rights are functions of the human person and are
INDEPENDENT OF POSITIVE LAW. And precisely because of its nature can we declare
UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
If an objective reality does exist, then is it not impossible for all religions to be equally true and valid?
Of course not. An objective reality may be percieved by an infinitely many ways as there are infinitely many points of view. And your subjective perception of it does not change its objective nature.
We agree, then, that logic and mathematics are the surest sources of knowledge.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, yes.
I would suggest that direct sensory observation is less sure, but generally dependable. How would you rank "faith" as a way of knowing?
No. Sensory observation is dependable only when conducted under rigorous conditions. And even then, they hold only within its specific domain of inquiry.
I don't think it's possible to logically disprove any religious doctrine. But it seemed like you were claiming that one could logically prove them, which is also impossible.
Of course not. It is entirely possible to disprove the converse of a proposition. The relationship of the truth value of a proposition and its converse can be known throught the operation of logic.
If conscience trumps the authority of the church, then is the church necessary at all? Could we not rely solely on our consciences?
It is entirely possible for a conscience to be defective in the same way that an entirely logical conclusion may come from an entirely counter-intuitive premise.
The teaching authority of the church is there to supplement one's conscience. The church claims authority in ethical matters, not in matters of the natural sciences. And even if the church wished to speak definitively on any matter of ethics, it is simply impossible since ethical questions arise from unique circumstances.
That is why the teachings of the church, embodied in encyclicals, proceed like a philosophical dissertation. It is there for anyone who wish to make a personal judgement as objective as is humanly possible.
Essentially, any claim to knowledge must be able to answer the question: "How do you know?" In logic and mathematics, the answer is deduction. In science, the answer is observation and experimentation. What is religion's answer? I won't attempt to debate your claim that the existence of "God" is self-evident. But how do you proceed from that "axiom" to knowledge of God's characteristics, intentions, and moral dicta?
Posteriori reasoning -- that the nature of the cause may be gleaned from the nature of its effect.
This isn't aomething new since science makes use of it abudantly.
For example -- we know that the universe is expanding. We know of no other scientific quantity capable of doing this. We therefore hypothesize the existence of the cosmological constant or dark energy. We infer its nature from what we can observe from its effect -- that it is the most abundant part of the cosmological fluid, it has a negative equation of state, that it is incapable of transfering energy through radiation, it interacts with matter and energy ONLY through gravity or the geometry of space-time, it is collisionless, etc. etc.
I
'd also like to point out that you probably differ from most religious people in affording equal validity to other religions. Neither would the Catholic church agree with you.
No. The recent pope, jp2 said as much in his book, crossing the threshold of hope. He said that the biggest stumbling block to unity among people of faith is the view that concentrates on DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMON GROUNDS. And the fact is, there are more common grounds than there are differences to begin with. He then outlines the relationship of the catholic church with other christian denominations and the rest of the major religions of the world.
I have to give you props for being so open-minded. But why should all religions be more valid than not having one at all?
You are asking if it is more valid to join a church than not join a church? I never said anything of this sort. Your religion is your right of thought. If that right runs counter to all of organized religion in existence today, then why should you join.
My harshest criticisms are reserved to the atheist, who contradicts something that is so self-evident and against all facts and logic.
