Hey! I want a refund! :)

I understand, but to me it seems that confounding divine law with natural law—and God-given rights for natural rights—is unnecessary and can potentially be a dangerous path to tread.

Natural law can be understood using the scientific method—reason, rationality, and empirical observation. But by what means may we understand divine law? Perhaps by faith, scripture, or revelation? And then what prevents our descent into barbarism and human sacrifice? Is it not reason, rationality, and empirical observation? Or perhaps the scriptures and revelations of our God have led us on a more enlightened path, and hence our faith is correctly placed? But then are there not implicit processes of reason and rationality underlying our choice of faith? Have we not empirically observed that human sacrifices are an ineffectual means of increasing the fecundity of our lands?

Perhaps our ability to think scientifically is a gift from God, but is faith in God actually necessary in order to use this gift effectively? I would argue that it is not, and in support of my argument I would cite the scientific contributions of atheists such as Richard Dawkins, whose work in the field of evolutionary biology has led to important advances in modern medicine which have saved lives and improved our quality of living.

My point is that our faculties of perception, reason, and rationality can operate independently of our belief in God. Whether or not God has given us those faculties is a separate argument. Regardless, we can use those faculties to understand our world, and on this understanding we can base our system of ethics, which constitutes the foundation of a just political system. And indeed, a very compelling case can be made for the role of freedom, property rights, meritocracy, etc. in human advancement—with or without reference to God. And in my view, this case is weakened by unnecessarily confounding it with arguments for or against religious belief.