> The enlightenment concept of individual “natural rights” arose in the context of Christianity "Natural rights" arose out of the natural law tradition, which

> The enlightenment concept of individual “natural rights” arose in the context of Christianity "Natural rights" arose out of the natural law tradition, which is often said to have first been clearly expressed by Aquinas. But Aquinas drew heavily on pagan ancient Greek thinkers (especially Aristotle), and also Islamic and Jewish philosophy. Even though it arose in a Christian context, it was never essentially Christian, I think it is better viewed as part of the classical Western philosophical tradition which transcends the boundaries between ancient Paganism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Indeed, Aquinas' views on this have a lot of overlap with those of the Māturīdī school of Sunni theology. And even though Aquinas was a Christian (indeed, a Catholic monk and priest), his theories about "natural law" are not inherently theistic. He claims that every natural being (all animals and plants, even inanimate natural objects such as rocks or stars) has an essence, a nature – and that, in the case of human beings, our essence/nature implies the existence of certain objective moral rights and duties. Of course, Aquinas believes that God created that essence/nature, and that it is somehow a limited reflection of God's essence/nature – but those further theistic claims are not essential to his natural law theory as such. A person could rationally believe in a human essence/nature, and that ethics can be objectively grounded in it, without believing in God. Hence, the real problem with contemporary naturalist atheism, is not its atheism as such, it is its anti-essentialism, the rejection of the Platonic/Aristotelian idea of a really existent human nature. > I think you need some notion of a supernatural order—maybe it looks quite different from Christianity or Islam—for the concept of rights to make sense Buddhists traditionally ground ethics in the Buddhist dharma, which is asserted to be timeless, eternal. The natural-vs-supernatural distinction is a Western concept which is alien to traditional Buddhism, but traditional Buddhist accounts of "dharma" are very hard to square with modern naturalism. Of course, there are some contemporary Buddhists who will try, but they end up producing something which has significant differences from Buddhism as it was traditionally understood. But, Buddhists also reject any concept of any ultimate God – Buddhism traditionally accepts the polytheistic gods of Hinduism as real, but views them as finite, limited, mortal entities – and hence they are atheists with respect to the ultimate God of the Abrahamic religions. > If you really believe that we’re meatbags and experiencing various chemical interactions as consciousness, what’s the basis for saying that bag of meat has “rights?” I agree. But my point is, the ethical difficulties of that viewpoint are due to its naturalism/materialism/physicalism, rather than its atheism per se.