Does Witchcraft Provide a Rational Foundation for Human Rights?

Over at Balkinization, Brian Tamanaha rejoins the conversation on the relationship between human rights and belief in God, responding to recent posts by Fr. Araujo and me.  An excerpt:

Rob and Father Araujo, it should be noted, are not taking the same position. Rob (like Perry) is arguing that religious belief alone, even false belief, provides a superior grounding for human rights, whereas Father Araujo identifies the superiority of religion for morality and human rights in the “objectivity that surrounds God’s existence.” Father Araujo, moreover, extends the argument beyond human rights to claim that the morality and moral code of religious believers is superior to “the atheist’s morality and moral code.”

In response to Father Araujo, I can only say that if God indeed exists (and if it is God’s will that humans have inherent dignity), then he is correct: human rights and morality have an objective existence. But the essential question, as always, is whether God exists—which he simply assumes.

In response to Rob’s argument that even a false belief in God provides a superior rational grounding for human rights, I offer a simple (and unoriginal) question: What if belief in God is like belief in witchcraft?

Believers in witchcraft can, to be sure, have an internally coherent belief system that amounts to a religion—and let’s also say that inherent human dignity and human rights and a deity are part of their witchcraft belief system. Would Perry and Rob assert that this belief system is “rational” and provides a superior foundation for human rights? Does not the “rationality” of the belief system hinge upon the truth of witchcraft (rather than merely belief in witchcraft) and upon the existence of their claimed deity?

If the answer to the latter question is “yes,” then (for the same reasons) the rationality and coherence of religious belief systems also rest on the truth of God’s existence, which has never been proven. Consequently, religion provides no more solid a rational foundation for human rights than any other ungrounded moral belief system.

My answer to Brian's question is yes, witchcraft could provide a rational basis for human rights if 1) living consistently with the claims of witchcraft required observance of human rights; and 2) the person in question believed that the claims of witchcraft are objectively true.  Let's assume that God does not exist, and that believers are deluded, while atheists see things as they truly are.  In my view, it is the fact of the delusion that still allows for the rational foundation of human rights.  I'm not equating "rational" with universally accessible and compelling; I'm focusing more on the rational relationship between an authentically held belief regarding our existence (not simply wishful thinking) and recognition of human rights.  Atheists know they are creating human rights; believers rationally follow the implications of reality (as they perceive it) to the unavoidable conclusion that humans naturally possess rights.

And again, to be clear, none of this is to suggest that religious voices should be privileged in human rights discourse or that non-religious voices are less legitimate or welcome.  It is simply to point out that religious voices bring a dimension to the conversation that is not easily replaced by a one-size-fits-all language that has been stripped of any sense that human dignity emanates from a source greater than ourselves.