Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

[henry quirk]

You're not really opposed to Article 18, or the 1st, or any codification.

You oppose the principles undergirdin' those codifications. You oppose natural rights.

You don't believe a person, any person, any-where or -when, has an absolute moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. You believe a person's life, liberty, and property are subject to oversight by the finer clay. Folks like yourself, in other words.

How are you any different from the scores of dictators, tyrants, inquisitors, slavers, and (perhaps less malign, but equally troublesome) garden-variety buttinskys who have, and still do, plague free men?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C. S. Lewis

[BigMike]

You're not really opposed to Article 18, or the 1st, or any codification.

You oppose the principles undergirdin' those codifications. You oppose natural rights.

You don't believe a person, any person, any-where or -when, has an absolute moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. You believe a person's life, liberty, and property are subject to oversight by the finer clay. Folks like yourself, in other words.

How are you any different from the scores of dictators, tyrants, inquisitors, slavers, and (perhaps less malign, but equally troublesome) garden-variety buttinskys who have, and still do, plague free men?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C. S. Lewis

Ah, Henry—always with the poetic punch. But let’s step out of the fog and into the firelight for a minute.

You're right that I reject the principle behind Article 18. And yes, I absolutely challenge the mythology of “natural rights.” Why? Because rights don’t grow on trees. They’re not found in nature like berries or boulders. They’re human constructs—agreed-upon protections we carve out from the chaos of cause and effect. Useful? Often. Sacred? Never.

And no, I don’t think anyone has an absolute moral claim to anything—not their property, not their liberty, not even their own unexamined opinions—if those claims come at the expense of truth, harm reduction, or the collective good. That’s not tyranny. That’s grown-up governance in a deterministic universe. In a world without free will, we’re not “owners” of our minds or choices—we’re products of conditions. The goal isn’t domination; it’s damage control.

And let’s talk about that quote you love so much. C.S. Lewis warned of moral busybodies—but what are religious institutions if not moral busybodies with pulpits and political clout? What is “faith-based legislation” if not tyranny disguised as virtue?

Here’s the difference between me and the tyrants you mentioned: I’m not claiming divine right. I’m not demanding blind obedience. I’m asking for accountability to evidence, not subservience to me. I don’t want to control what people believe privately—I want to stop shielding harmful, unfounded beliefs from critique just because they’re old or popular.

So no, I’m not the finer clay. I’m just asking that the kiln be turned off before it fires another generation of delusion into law.

[henry quirk]

rights don’t grow on trees

And they aren't granted by the State. Rights inhere in persons. And you and yours want to violate those rights, violate the holders of those rights. For our own good.

In a world without free will, we’re not “owners” of our minds or choices—we’re products of conditions.

How unfortunate for you, then: we are, each of us, free wills, and we are, each of us, the owners of our, and no one else's, lives, liberties, and properties. And that, by way of universal intuition and poor codification, is what leads to civilization. That is the fence that makes for good neighbors. It's not enough, though, for you and yours, that we should merely punish measurable violations of life, liberty, and property and leave that first, best property -- what's between the ears -- alone. No, you and yours must squash the very idea of life, liberty, and property; squash the very idea a person holds an exclusive right to his own (to himself, even); squash the idea of personhood. You and yours want access to the interior of a person. You'd remake him, from the inside, in your own image. For his own good.

It's clear the answer to...

How are you any different from the scores of dictators, tyrants, inquisitors, slavers, and (perhaps less malign, but equally troublesome) garden-variety buttinskys who have, and still do, plague free men?

...is: you're not.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -F. Bastiat

[ThinkOfOne]

You're absolutely right to press on this—because clarity matters when we’re talking about foundational issues like this. And yes, let’s clean up the confusion here.

I’m not claiming that religion caused all delusion. What I’m saying is that religion is the most socially entrenched and legally protected version of the deeper problem: the normalization of belief without evidence. It's not the root of the tree—it's the oldest and thickest branch, the one society waters and shields from the axe, even when it's rotting.

You’re correct: if religion vanished tomorrow, the human tendency toward cognitive bias, tribalism, and motivated reasoning would still be here. Anti-vax conspiracies don’t need scripture. Flat-Earth theories don’t need a priest. But here’s the crucial distinction: we don't give those other delusions institutional reverence, legal immunity, or mandatory respect. We don’t fund them with tax exemptions. We don’t let them run schools or shape laws—at least not openly.

Religion, uniquely, is a cultural training ground for accepting unprovable claims as virtuous. And once that epistemological muscle is trained—once we’re told it’s good and noble to believe things “on faith,” without evidence—then yes, we’re wide open to every QAnon, climate-denial, pseudoscience parasite that comes along. Religion didn't invent the bug, but it absolutely weakens the immune system.

So you're right: the root cause is psychological—how human brains handle uncertainty and narrative. But religion is the mechanism that makes the disease respectable. That’s why Article 18 matters. It's not about banning thought—it's about refusing to legally privilege institutionalized delusion.

Religion isn't the whole problem. But it's the gateway drug. And Article 18 keeps it legal.

Religion, uniquely, is a cultural training ground for accepting unprovable claims as virtuous. And once that epistemological muscle is trained—once we’re told it’s good and noble to believe things “on faith,” without evidence—then yes, we’re wide open to every QAnon, climate-denial, pseudoscience parasite that comes along.

From what I can tell, that "epistemological muscle" doesn't need to be trained. It arrives that way "out of the box", so to speak. That said, it needs to be "untrained". Also, there are other systems of belief/thought that serve to strengthen that "muscle" as well.

Let's try this.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

From <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights>

Following is an altered version of Article 18 with Article 19 left unaltered.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and beliefs; this right includes freedom to change his beliefs, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his beliefs in teaching, practice and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I still see the same problems in granting those rights without qualifications.

Yes—exactly. That’s the crux of it. Belief “out of the box” is a feature of human cognition. We come wired for narrative, for agency detection, for pattern over-perception. It’s adaptive in the evolutionary sense—but deeply vulnerable in the modern one. So yes, the muscle is there from the start… but systems like religion train us to overuse it and never question the strain.

Your revision to Article 18 is definitely cleaner—dropping “religion” in favor of “beliefs” levels the playing field. But like you said, the danger isn’t just in the wording. It’s in the unqualified permission to “manifest” beliefs without any check on their truth value or consequences. We don’t grant that kind of carte blanche to anything else in civilized life.

Now, that brings us to the ticking time bomb in the room: freedom of speech. Article 19. Everyone’s sacred cow. But if there’s no such thing as free will—if thoughts and speech are outcomes of causality, not autonomous moral choices—then what, exactly, are we protecting with “freedom of speech”?

Because if our minds aren’t free, then neither is our speech. It’s all downstream from causes we didn’t choose: culture, language, trauma, propaganda. The right to “freely express” an unchosen, possibly false belief starts to look less like liberty—and more like noise protected for its own sake. And that makes Article 19 just as suspect as Article 18.

So yes, the UDHR needs a hard rethink. Not just a word swap—but a philosophical overhaul that accounts for the reality of determinism and the consequences of protecting unfiltered output from unfree minds.

Not sure if you fully understood some of the points.

1) "accepting unprovable claims as virtuous" is what's there "out of the box".
2) "accepting unprovable claims as virtuous" can and needs to be "untrained".
3) Religion is NOT "uniquely...a cultural training ground" for ""accepting unprovable claims as virtuous".

Now, that brings us to the ticking time bomb in the room: freedom of speech. Article 19. Everyone’s sacred cow.

Yes. Like "religion", "freedom of speech" is also a "sacred cow". A freedom that must preclude lies, disinformation, and even misinformation. Freedom of speech should be protected, but with limitations.

But if there’s no such thing as free will—if thoughts and speech are outcomes of causality, not autonomous moral choices—then what, exactly, are we protecting with “freedom of speech”?

Because if our minds aren’t free, then neither is our speech. It’s all downstream from causes we didn’t choose: culture, language, trauma, propaganda. The right to “freely express” an unchosen, possibly false belief starts to look less like liberty—and more like noise protected for its own sake. And that makes Article 19 just as suspect as Article 18.

So yes, the UDHR needs a hard rethink. Not just a word swap—but a philosophical overhaul that accounts for the reality of determinism and the consequences of protecting unfiltered output from unfree minds.?

From what I seen, the science just isn't there to necessarily support the "reality of determinism". This seems to be a delusion of yours

For the sake of argument, let's say that there is "free will". Wouldn't "free minds" also need to be "protected".

[godelian]

Let’s stop pretending. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not noble. It’s not progressive. It’s not enlightened. It is a legal enshrinement of mass delusion—a global permission slip for humans to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how ignorant, dangerous, or outright false, and demand respect for it.

It’s the reason a child can be taught that hell awaits them for thinking critically. It’s the reason grown adults can mutilate genitals in the name of a god and call it “culture.” It’s why religious institutions can hoard wealth, obstruct science, and indoctrinate billions—with impunity.

We don’t give legal protection to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or schizophrenic delusions. But slap the word “religion” on any irrational belief system and suddenly it’s sacred. It’s protected. It’s untouchable. That is insanity, institutionalized.

Freedom of thought is one thing. But freedom to teach lies, manipulate minds, and sow conflict under the banner of “religion” is not a right—it’s a societal rot. Article 18 is a coward’s clause, shielding dogma from accountability.

It’s time we stop coddling mythology and start defending reality. Article 18 has to go—before it drags the rest of us down with it.

Laws only matter to the extent that they get enforced. So, the issue is about enforcement.

That is where Islam has a massive competitive advantage. The two billion Muslims are known to have the most violent enforcers on the planet.

Furthermore, you always need a mechanism to keep replacing the dead bodies.

In other words, the men have to be good at blowing off the legs of the enemy while the women have to be good at pumping out babies.

Seriously, I absolutely welcome the conflict. A good carnage would certainly reset things a bit. We are talking too much and not doing enough. So, bring it on already!

I always side with the winners. May the best win!

[Skepdick]

But if there’s no such thing as free will—if thoughts and speech are outcomes of causality, not autonomous moral choices—then what, exactly, are we protecting with “freedom of speech”?

As per Articles 18 and 19 what we are protecting is the freedom to believe and say that you have no freedom; at the exact same time we are protecting the freedom of somebody else to believe and say a contrary metaphysical belief.

What we are protecting is the collective right to say and believe either one of those things without some pompous philosopher-idiot dehumanizing you; and demanding your head for it because of some idiotic notion like "truth".

From there it trivially follows that what we are really protecting is the right to choose what one believes; which is effectively the same as believing in free will; however you can't really say this without being dragged back onto the Merry-Go-Round.

There is NO pragmatic, philosophical, scientific or other methodology which can resolve the free will debate.
The stand-off will remain - the conflict is eternal.

The moment someone declares their metaphysical position to be objectively true and uses that as grounds to dismiss others as deluded, irrational, or <insert any other pejorative here>, they've crossed a line. They have weaponized metaphysical certainty and are abusing it against others.

Such sub-humans will even play victim and insist they are being dehumanized; when in fact they've simply dehumanized themselves.
You know that meme where you put the stick in your own bicycle wheel and then blame others? Just like that.

The real value isn't in resolving the free will debate but in maintaining the space where it can remain unresolved - where people can hold contradictory positions without being metaphysically excommunicated; or dehumanized.

With all that said we are back to Voltaire... I know you are deluded and wrong in denying your free will; but I will defend your right to believe that delusion!

When pluralism (of any form!) disappears - when we are permitted only one form of thinking, speaking and being - then free will disappears too!

The answer to the question "do we have free will?" is, in fact "only as long as we can meaningfully disagree about whether we have free will."
Any enforced consensus becomes the real enemy of freedom, regardless of which philosophical position wins the enforcement battle.

[Skepdick]

I always side with the winners. May the best win!

That's the strategy of every loser.

[Belinda]

You're not really opposed to Article 18, or the 1st, or any codification.

You oppose the principles undergirdin' those codifications. You oppose natural rights.

You don't believe a person, any person, any-where or -when, has an absolute moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. You believe a person's life, liberty, and property are subject to oversight by the finer clay. Folks like yourself, in other words.

How are you any different from the scores of dictators, tyrants, inquisitors, slavers, and (perhaps less malign, but equally troublesome) garden-variety buttinskys who have, and still do, plague free men?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C. S. Lewis

Ah, Henry—always with the poetic punch. But let’s step out of the fog and into the firelight for a minute.

You're right that I reject the principle behind Article 18. And yes, I absolutely challenge the mythology of “natural rights.” Why? Because rights don’t grow on trees. They’re not found in nature like berries or boulders. They’re human constructs—agreed-upon protections we carve out from the chaos of cause and effect. Useful? Often. Sacred? Never.

And no, I don’t think anyone has an absolute moral claim to anything—not their property, not their liberty, not even their own unexamined opinions—if those claims come at the expense of truth, harm reduction, or the collective good. That’s not tyranny. That’s grown-up governance in a deterministic universe. In a world without free will, we’re not “owners” of our minds or choices—we’re products of conditions. The goal isn’t domination; it’s damage control.

And let’s talk about that quote you love so much. C.S. Lewis warned of moral busybodies—but what are religious institutions if not moral busybodies with pulpits and political clout? What is “faith-based legislation” if not tyranny disguised as virtue?

Here’s the difference between me and the tyrants you mentioned: I’m not claiming divine right. I’m not demanding blind obedience. I’m asking for accountability to evidence, not subservience to me. I don’t want to control what people believe privately—I want to stop shielding harmful, unfounded beliefs from critique just because they’re old or popular.

So no, I’m not the finer clay. I’m just asking that the kiln be turned off before it fires another generation of delusion into law.

Does religious delusion have to be turned off by any authority , even a benign authority like the United Nations?
I submit that people are capable of reason and will prefer a reasonable religion.
True, the social need for religions is to provide a code of law for social control. And a reasonable religion can provide a code of law which is not authorised by any supernatural authority, but by democracy plus arts education.
Even the foundation myth of how Muhammad received the Koran from Gabriel makes sense as metaphor. And Christian myths are easy to interpret metaphorically ----most arts graduates and many social science graduates do so already.

[Belinda]

But if there’s no such thing as free will—if thoughts and speech are outcomes of causality, not autonomous moral choices—then what, exactly, are we protecting with “freedom of speech”?

As per Articles 18 and 19 what we are protecting is the freedom to believe and say that you have no freedom; at the exact same time we are protecting the freedom of somebody else to believe and say a contrary metaphysical belief.

What we are protecting is the collective right to say and believe either one of those things without some pompous philosopher-idiot dehumanizing you; and demanding your head for it because of some idiotic notion like "truth".

From there it trivially follows that what we are really protecting is the right to choose what one believes; which is effectively the same as believing in free will; however you can't really say this without being dragged back onto the Merry-Go-Round.

There is NO pragmatic, philosophical, scientific or other methodology which can resolve the free will debate.
The stand-off will remain - the conflict is eternal.

The moment someone declares their metaphysical position to be objectively true and uses that as grounds to dismiss others as deluded, irrational, or <insert any other pejorative here>, they've crossed a line. They have weaponized metaphysical certainty and are abusing it against others.

Such sub-humans will even play victim and insist they are being dehumanized; when in fact they've simply dehumanized themselves.
You know that meme where you put the stick in your own bicycle wheel and then blame others? Just like that.

The real value isn't in resolving the free will debate but in maintaining the space where it can remain unresolved - where people can hold contradictory positions without being metaphysically excommunicated; or dehumanized.

With all that said we are back to Voltaire... I know you are deluded and wrong in denying your free will; but I will defend your right to believe that delusion!

When pluralism (of any form!) disappears - when we are permitted only one form of thinking, speaking and being - then free will disappears too!

The answer to the question "do we have free will?" is, in fact "only as long as we can meaningfully disagree about whether we have free will."
Any enforced consensus becomes the real enemy of freedom, regardless of which philosophical position wins the enforcement battle.

Skepdick, your post is hard to read because you keep saying "free Will" when you mean freedom of thought and speech . (By " free will" philosophers mean some rather mysterious entity or function which is absolutely contrary to causal determinism--------another topic).

Otherwise I agree with your democratic point of view.

[Skepdick]

Does religious delusion have to be turned off by any authority , even a benign authority like the United Nations?
I submit that people are capable of reason and will prefer a reasonable religion.
True, the social need for religions is to provide a code of law for social control. And a reasonable religion can provide a code of law which is not authorised by any supernatural authority, but by democracy plus arts education.
Even the foundation myth of how Muhammad received the Koran from Gabriel makes sense as metaphor. And Christian myths are easy to interpret metaphorically ----most arts graduates and many social science graduates do so already.

The recursive problem never goes away.

Any dogma/prescription which can function as a form of social control could be deemed "religion". The mere distinction between "reasonable" (desirable thought patterns) and "unreasonable" (undesirable thought patterns) becomes normative and therefore operates in service of social control.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, your post is hard to read because you keep saying "free Will" when you mean freedom of thought and speech .

Let me quote Zhuangzi....

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

So once you grasp what I mean by "freedom" (multiple options to choose from - multiple ways of thinking and speaking); then there's little difference between free will and willing to choose your beliefs; and willing to choose the words with which you express those beliefs.

Soon as you understand that this is what I mean as the bare minimum of "free will"; and soon as you recognize that everyone has it - you can forget the words.

Regardless of what we call it, the thing we're trying to protect is the same: the social conditions that allow for genuine intellectual diversity and choice. Whether you call it "free will," "freedom of thought," or something else, the practical requirements are identical.

And if Totalitarians (like BigMike) ever succeed in making everyone think speak and the same way; if we ever attain this Western notion of monolithic Truth that nobody can ever disagree with - free will would be dead.

[Belinda]

Does religious delusion have to be turned off by any authority , even a benign authority like the United Nations?
I submit that people are capable of reason and will prefer a reasonable religion.
True, the social need for religions is to provide a code of law for social control. And a reasonable religion can provide a code of law which is not authorised by any supernatural authority, but by democracy plus arts education.
Even the foundation myth of how Muhammad received the Koran from Gabriel makes sense as metaphor. And Christian myths are easy to interpret metaphorically ----most arts graduates and many social science graduates do so already.

The recursive problem never goes away.

Any dogma/prescription which can function as a form of social control could be deemed "religion". The mere distinction between "reasonable" (desirable thought patterns) and "unreasonable" (undesirable thought patterns) becomes normative and therefore operates in service of social control.

But arts are open to cultural change!
Only under dictatorial regimes are arts regulated and certain 'undesirable' thought patterns proscribed. Artists have died to protect openness.

Religion is not only a set of codified laws, it's also a means to self expression, and also a means to express and act out ethnic rituals.

[Skepdick]

But arts are open to cultural change!
Only under dictatorial regimes are arts regulated and certain 'undesirable' thought patterns proscribed. Artists have died to protect openness.

Religion is not only a set of codified laws, it's also a means to self expression, and also a means to express and act out ethnic rituals.

Well, of course... and monolithic Truth (the eternal pursuit of Western Philosophy) is precisely the instrument of dictatorial regimes.

If we ever attain this Western notion of monolithic Truth that nobody can ever disagree with - free will would be effectively dead.
Which is to say that soon as everybody recognizes and agrees that Free Will is Ultimately True beyond any doubt and with absolute certainty - then you can be absolute certain that Free Will no longer exists.

The genie simply refuses to go into the bottle...

[Belinda]

Skepdick, your post is hard to read because you keep saying "free Will" when you mean freedom of thought and speech .

Let me quote Zhuangzi....

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

So once you grasp what I mean by "freedom" (multiple options to choose from - multiple ways of thinking and speaking); then there's little difference between free will and willing to choose your beliefs; and willing to choose the words with which you express those beliefs.

Soon as you understand that this is what I mean as the bare minimum of "free will"; and soon as you recognize that everyone has it - you can forget the words.

Regardless of what we call it, the thing we're trying to protect is the same: the social conditions that allow for genuine intellectual diversity and choice. Whether you call it "free will," "freedom of thought," or something else, the practical requirements are identical.

And if Totalitarians (like BigMike) ever succeed in making everyone think speak and the same way; if we ever attain this Western notion of monolithic Truth that nobody can ever disagree with - free will would be dead.

But voluntary choice is determined or not according to whether one is a determinist or a free willist. Voluntarism does not support free will .

I choose to not forget the explicit wording and the lexicon of philosophers!

Did you never learn that professional jargons are useful?

Big Mike supports reason , which I suppose you may call "monolithic". To give pride of place to reason puts one in good company of not only scientists but also poets, and philosophers.

[Skepdick]

But voluntary choice is determined or not according to whether one is a determinist or a free willist. Voluntarism does not support free will .

Your freedom lies precisely in the plurality - the ability to make either argument; or hold either belief.

I choose to not forget the explicit wording and the lexicon of philosophers!

You can choose to be a philosophical purist. Or not.
You can insist on precise terminology. Or not.
You can argue for determinism or free will. Or neither.
You can reject or accept different frameworks.

Imagine you had no choice on any of the above... Then you certainly wouldn't have any freedom.