Godless Delusion :- Need Help!

[joeantony]

Hi,

I just finished reading the book Godless Delusion by Kennet Hesley. It is an amazing book that all catholics who have no clue how to stand firm infront of an atheist argument.

I do not know if anyone who read this book will help me here or not.

This book explain the natural law, about the existence of right and wrong. The things that we already know without being taught by anyone, like killing another human being is wrong and sense of justice etc. I completely agree and believe all that is true. But i had to face a question from a friend who don’t share the same catholic faith that how can that natural law ( that killing another human being is wrong) be different for a Cannibal ? For a Cannibal it is not wrong at all. If the cannibals had the same law written in their hearts isn’t it unnatural that all the cannibals do the same (eating humans) without exceptions and remorse ?

It got me thinking, how will i kill that argument? I am sure there is an answer but I do not know what is the answer . Please correct me if my understanding Cannibalism is wrong . All that I know about cannibalism is through wikipedia.

Joe

 

[Jonesboy]

Hi,

I just finished reading the book Godless Delusion by Kennet Hesley. It is an amazing book that all catholics who have no clue how to stand firm infront of an atheist argument.

I do not know if anyone who read this book will help me here or not.

This book explain the natural law, about the existence of right and wrong. The things that we already know without being taught by anyone, like killing another human being is wrong and sense of justice etc. I completely agree and believe all that is true. But i had to face a question from a friend who don’t share the same catholic faith that how can that natural law ( that killing another human being is wrong) be different for a Cannibal ? For a Cannibal it is not wrong at all. If the cannibals had the same law written in their hearts isn’t it unnatural that all the cannibals do the same (eating humans) without exceptions and remorse ?

It got me thinking, how will i kill that argument? I am sure there is an answer but I do not know what is the answer . Please correct me if my understanding Cannibalism is wrong . All that I know about cannibalism is through wikipedia.

Joe

Cannabilism is usually a war practice that involves the transference of spirit.

Modern day cannibals can experience remorse. They are human after all. The law is written in everyone’s hearts. Bad people have been turned away from it.

The arguments of the atheist I have always found flimsy and rebuttable.

 

[joeantony]

Cannabilism is usually a war practice that involves the transference of spirit.

Modern day cannibals can experience remorse. They are human after all. The law is written in everyone’s hearts. Bad people have been turned away from it.

The arguments of the atheist I have always found flimsy and rebuttable.

Jonesboy,

They are surely human. Also we are talking about the practice of eating another human. There are tribes who eat another human being. How do we know if they feel guilty at all? Isn’t it impossible for everybody in a tribe to be cannibals if at all they all have the same natural law like rest of the human race ? When a tribe or different tribes do not have a second opinion about the morality of eating another human being, how can we claim that they also have the same natural law ( that rest of the human race has) written in their hearts ? If they have the same natural law how can they be so unilaterally ignorant about it?
Joe

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Jonesboy,

How do we know if they feel guilty at all? If they have the same natural law how can they be so unilaterally ignorant about it?
Joe

I think that we are working under an assumption that cannibals were cannibals from the start, that there was never a phase when these tribes did not eat human flesh. From a variety of anthropological and sociological studies we have learned that cultural practices develop over time. I suspect that cannibalism developed as well, and over time it became the socially acceptable form of behaviour in those societies. Natural law thus got perverted. We can compare this hypothetical scenario to contemporary issues regarding human sexuality in the western world. We used to follow the natural law and people knew wrong from right. Today, however, sexual ‘morals’ have departed from the natural law and many practices are considered to be ok by a number of people. If an outsider was to study our civilisation, like we study tribes where cannibalism was acceptable, they could also conclude that we never knew about the natural law, that it was not written on our hearts. (this is under the assumption that they only focused on this period of time, without any knowledge of historical developments within western societies).But as we know, that is not the case: we have departed from it and embraced practices contrary to the natural law. I believe the same principle applies to cannibalism as well.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I agree with Contra Mundum’s response. Social structure can and does overwhelm what is inherent in human nature. As another example, in the Modern west, we regularly purchase consumables that are made in ways that destroy the environment and other societies and other individuals’ lives, yet feel no remorse about it because the consequences are so far removed from the immediate action (i.e., purchasing the product and using it). Thus, I think invoking cannibalism is a poor argument.

 

[StOwen]

Natural law is not a set of rules like the ten commandments. Although someone may feel no remorse for killing a stranger, they would hopefully feel remorse for causing the death of ones they love.

 

[TFK_Emery]

I think that we are working under an assumption that cannibals were cannibals from the start, that there was never a phase when these tribes did not eat human flesh. From a variety of anthropological and sociological studies we have learned that cultural practices develop over time. I suspect that cannibalism developed as well, and over time it became the socially acceptable form of behaviour in those societies. Natural law thus got perverted. We can compare this hypothetical scenario to contemporary issues regarding human sexuality in the western world. We used to follow the natural law and people knew wrong from right. Today, however, sexual ‘morals’ have departed from the natural law and many practices are considered to be ok by a number of people.

Actually, breaking Church laws on sexual practices isn’t that new. Polygamy was the norm for much of human history. Homosexual/bisexual relationships weren’t uncommon in many older civilizations. Premarital sex from non-aristocrats wasn’t taken very seriously in medieval times. Heck, child prostitution was common in the Victorian era. Not saying that makes it right, just that it’s not just our modern society.

Natural Law, while written on everybody’s hearts, isn’t something we know instinctively; it is something we discover. Being unaware of the laws of physics doesn’t invalidate its existence. Same goes for Natural Law. People will, if raised in the right environment, have remorse after breaking the Natural Law, but the Law can be erased, at least temporarily, from a person’s heart due to the conditions of their environment.

 

[Prophesy]

This may be an interesting take on cannibalism:

“There they were fastened to stakes and tortured to death by scalping, mock baptism using boiling water, fire, necklaces of red hot hatchets and mutilation. According to Catholic tradition, Brébeuf did not make a single outcry while he was being tortured and he astounded the Iroquois, who later cut out his heart and ate it in hopes of gaining his courage.”

Perhaps not a complete covering, but even in a community of cannibals, the murder of innocent members of the same village wouldn’t be taken lightly either I’m sure.

-Prophesy

 

[sw85]

Hi,

I just finished reading the book Godless Delusion by Kennet Hesley. It is an amazing book that all catholics who have no clue how to stand firm infront of an atheist argument.

I do not know if anyone who read this book will help me here or not.

This book explain the natural law, about the existence of right and wrong. The things that we already know without being taught by anyone, like killing another human being is wrong and sense of justice etc. I completely agree and believe all that is true. But i had to face a question from a friend who don’t share the same catholic faith that how can that natural law ( that killing another human being is wrong) be different for a Cannibal ? For a Cannibal it is not wrong at all. If the cannibals had the same law written in their hearts isn’t it unnatural that all the cannibals do the same (eating humans) without exceptions and remorse ?

It got me thinking, how will i kill that argument? I am sure there is an answer but I do not know what is the answer . Please correct me if my understanding Cannibalism is wrong . All that I know about cannibalism is through wikipedia.

Joe

Hello Joe,

It appears that your friend misapprehends the nature of natural law, and this perhaps explains your trouble refuting the argument.

Natural law is not merely moral intuition. For one thing, moral intuition is informed partly by cultural mores, and as our present society suggests, those cultural mores can be degraded, corrupt, and evil. Although is true that there is moral intuition and that it is often accurate (hence why people feel innate disgust while contemplating, say, an act of bestiality), it is sometimes unreliable, as well.

Rather, natural law is the necessary moral system arising from human nature. It is rooted in teleology: that is, a consideration of the ends or goals toward which our natures point. We have eyes that we might see; sexual organs that we might procreate; reason to discern the truth and will to act in accordance with it.

Now if our forms point toward an end, it is good that we should live accordingly. The “goodness” of a triangle hinges on how well it instantiates the essence of triangularity (it is closed, it has three straight lines, and its angles sum to 180 degrees); this is simply an objective fact arising from nature. Likewise, it is good that people seek to more fully instantiate the essence of human nature.

Because it is good to act in accordance with natural law, it follows that anything which prevents a person from doing so is evil – and this of course includes the right to life, which cannibalism violates.

Hope that helps!

 

[JDaniel]

Hi,

I just finished reading the book Godless Delusion by Kennet Hesley. It is an amazing book that all catholics who have no clue how to stand firm infront of an atheist argument.

I do not know if anyone who read this book will help me here or not.

This book explain the natural law, about the existence of right and wrong. The things that we already know without being taught by anyone, like killing another human being is wrong and sense of justice etc. I completely agree and believe all that is true. But i had to face a question from a friend who don’t share the same catholic faith that how can that natural law ( that killing another human being is wrong) be different for a Cannibal ? For a Cannibal it is not wrong at all. If the cannibals had the same law written in their hearts isn’t it unnatural that all the cannibals do the same (eating humans) without exceptions and remorse ?

It got me thinking, how will i kill that argument? I am sure there is an answer but I do not know what is the answer . Please correct me if my understanding Cannibalism is wrong . All that I know about cannibalism is through wikipedia.

Joe

Joe:

Remind the atheist that a tribe does not wake up one morning to discover that they are all of the same mind, and suddenly, on-the-spot, make a decision to eat their neighbors. An individual or group is driven to cannibalism. At various times and/or places food might not have been available in quantities sufficient to keep the tribe, or individual, alive. Elsewhere, one or more individuals might have happenstanced across a situation that could best be described as opportunity-waiting. The men had just won a battle and were hungry. A dead or dying enemy combatant had fallen onto a fire, the cooking meat had an enticing aroma, and the rest is history, as we say.

Ultimately, the point is whether or not individuals recognize within themselves an inherent discomfort for eating a neighbor. Why, for instance, do humans invariably feel discomfort at even the idea of eating man’s best friend? That’s not to say that dogs have never been eaten, in some societies, but that in areas of the world where there is not a scarcity of food, or else the practice does not take on some sort of cultic excitement, dogs are not eaten. And they’re dogs: all the more inherent discomfort at the idea of eating humans.

So, there’s an ancient (or more recent) reason for such a practice. Further, we don’t see large societies participating in cannibalism. It is generally small, fairly secluded groups, and that itself should tell us something. In the wild, it is aberrancy. All things being equal, when a man decides to steal something, he is submitting to that same aberrancy. He is vigorously overcoming normalcy, his built-in dynamic that propels him to avoid a behavior that is perceived as harmful to another.

Also, we know that the first time is always the toughest for the aberrant: the more times the same (or, like) crime is committed, the easier it becomes. What does that show? Again, it shows an innate dynamic that we have little choice but to attribute to a Natural Law of some sort. It is grossly insufficient to say that “we learned it (from our family, peers, neighbors, society at large),” because we tend to sense that queasiness a priori, upon our initial encounter (thought or deed) with the not-right behavior.

God bless,
jd

 

[Jocko_VT]

Why, for instance, do humans invariably feel discomfort at even the idea of eating man’s best friend? That’s not to say that dogs have never been eaten, in some societies, but that in areas of the world where there is not a scarcity of food, or else the practice does not take on some sort of cultic excitement, dogs are not eaten.

I’d avoid the dog argument with your friend who thinks cannibalism is proof of the non-existence of a “natural law.” Dog is commonly eaten around the world today as a normal part of the diet (i.e., even when there’s no scarcity of food nor for “cultic” reasons).

 

[JDaniel]

I’d avoid the dog argument with your friend who thinks cannibalism is proof of the non-existence of a “natural law.” Dog is commonly eaten around the world today as a normal part of the diet (i.e., even when there’s no scarcity of food nor for “cultic” reasons).

Jocko:

Very true. I tend to always think that the participants on this forum live in the US, or Great Britain, or Canada. I forget that this thing is world wide. Thanks for the correction.

God bless,
jd

 

[Saburo]

The cannibals of New Guinea I have read about express surprise at the notion that they are killing and eating human beings. They believe they are killing an evil spirit who has taken over the body of a human, and said body is no longer human. Why they believe this is simple superstition and ignorance of the causes of disease and death. In any case, it could be their best friend’s body which is thought to have been “taken over” by the spirit, but he is no longer human and must be eaten for the spirit to be rendered harmless. It’s a pretty inconvenient system. Someone dies of an infection, so someone else gets killed and eaten to make sure no one else dies of an infection. The cannibals’ surprise at the accusation of killing humans indicates natural law is written on their hearts. From their point of view, killing humans is wrong, but killing a malevolent spirit and eating it is no different than us killing a dangerous bear and eating it before it eats us. We would not feel we are killing a human being when our target is clearly a bear, and neither do they when their target is simply an evil spirit.

I read of another tribe who admitted to hunting, killing, and eating the brain of their enemies. I’m not sure it’s so easy to argue for natural law in this case, but these people did feel that eating the brain was an obligation to ensure that their enemy lived on in them. Maybe that convinced them that they weren’t really killing. It’s not as if having natural law written on one’s heart means it can’t be ignored.

Don’t get the idea that I enjoy reading about cannibalism. My dentist has an ancient National Geographic collection on scrolls and a couple of women’s magazines whose entire staffs could probably be eaten, and nobody would notice.

 

[JDaniel]

The cannibals of New Guinea I have read about express surprise at the notion that they are killing and eating human beings. They believe they are killing an evil spirit who has taken over the body of a human, and said body is no longer human. Why they believe this is simple superstition and ignorance of the causes of disease and death. In any case, it could be their best friend’s body which is thought to have been “taken over” by the spirit, but he is no longer human and must be eaten for the spirit to be rendered harmless. It’s a pretty inconvenient system. Someone dies of an infection, so someone else gets killed and eaten to make sure no one else dies of an infection. The cannibals’ surprise at the accusation of killing humans indicates natural law is written on their hearts. From their point of view, killing humans is wrong, but killing a malevolent spirit and eating it is no different than us killing a dangerous bear and eating it before it eats us. We would not feel we are killing a human being when our target is clearly a bear, and neither do they when their target is simply an evil spirit.

I read of another tribe who admitted to hunting, killing, and eating the brain of their enemies. I’m not sure it’s so easy to argue for natural law in this case, but these people did feel that eating the brain was an obligation to ensure that their enemy lived on in them. Maybe that convinced them that they weren’t really killing. It’s not as if having natural law written on one’s heart means it can’t be ignored.

Don’t get the idea that I enjoy reading about cannibalism. My dentist has an ancient National Geographic collection on scrolls and a couple of women’s magazines whose entire staffs could probably be eaten, and nobody would notice.

Well, Saburo, you have to admit your entire post is a tad self-confessional! First you tell us about an article you read. Then you tell us about another article, on the same subject - cannibalism - that you read. Then, you protest (too much, I think) that you are not into cannibalism. Then, you tell us you like to visit dentist’s offices to find your materials, not to mention coming up with mitigation for the eventual disappearance of the article writers! Sort of an escalating meander into the strange and bazaar, wouldn’t you say?

God bless,
jd

 

[jochoa]

how can that natural law ( that killing another human being is wrong) be different for a Cannibal ?

Although natural law is equally applicable to all, a complete understanding of the law and great amounts of insight into the mind of the accused is required to properly judge the quality, or lack thereof, of sin.
Please read the following principles of the Church and share your thoughts.

1. CCC #1849 - How do you understand Sin, based on CCC #1849?
2. CCC #1471 - How do understand indulgence, based on CCC #1471?
3. [CCC #1471"]CCC #1472](http://books.google.com/books?id=rEGcXz8GT3sC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA370#v=onepage&q&f=false) - How do understand punishment, in particular, “…punishments must not be conceived as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin,” based on CCC #1472?

When attempting to evaluate the quality of “wrongdoing” and its necessary punishment, given any humanly understanding of the Natural Law:

1. Trust in Jesus word:
   James 4:11-12 ESV

Thank you greatly for such a thought-provoking question and helping me find greater understanding to the Catholic Faith! I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and may peace be with you.

 

[joeantony]

Hello Joe,

It appears that your friend misapprehends the nature of natural law, and this perhaps explains your trouble refuting the argument.

Natural law is not merely moral intuition. For one thing, moral intuition is informed partly by cultural mores, and as our present society suggests, those cultural mores can be degraded, corrupt, and evil. Although is true that there is moral intuition and that it is often accurate (hence why people feel innate disgust while contemplating, say, an act of bestiality), it is sometimes unreliable, as well.

Rather, natural law is the necessary moral system arising from human nature. It is rooted in teleology: that is, a consideration of the ends or goals toward which our natures point. We have eyes that we might see; sexual organs that we might procreate; reason to discern the truth and will to act in accordance with it.

Now if our forms point toward an end, it is good that we should live accordingly. The “goodness” of a triangle hinges on how well it instantiates the essence of triangularity (it is closed, it has three straight lines, and its angles sum to 180 degrees); this is simply an objective fact arising from nature. Likewise, it is good that people seek to more fully instantiate the essence of human nature.

Because it is good to act in accordance with natural law, it follows that anything which prevents a person from doing so is evil – and this of course includes the right to life, which cannibalism violates.

Hope that helps!

Hi,

You sound like Mr Hesley , the author of the book.

I completely agree with you. And all that you said resonate the book Godless Delusion. My intention is not to claim that natural law doesn’t exist. I know it is true and it exists. But I have this slight difficulty in completely understanding the “nature” of the natural; law when that allows the whole cannibals to violate it. How can the natural law be denied, ignored and not acted up on by the whole ( cannibals) ?

Am i clear at all for you ?
Joe

 

[sw85]

Hi,

You sound like Mr Hesley , the author of the book.

I completely agree with you. And all that you said resonate the book Godless Delusion. My intention is not to claim that natural law doesn’t exist. I know it is true and it exists. But I have this slight difficulty in completely understanding the “nature” of the natural; law when that allows the whole cannibals to violate it. How can the natural law be denied, ignored and not acted up on by the whole ( cannibals) ?

Am i clear at all for you ?
Joe

Well, it is not “law” in the legal sense of the word – that is, something which is publicized and which everyone is obligated to obey on pain of punishment.

It is similar to “law” in the scientific sense of the word, that is, a natural observation of the way things tend to behave. When I set a stone on a slope and it begins to roll downhill, I can assume it’s because of gravitation. That is, it’s not that the slope suddenly remembered that it ought to go down the hill, merely that that’s what it does – that’s what gravitation is.

Of course it not perfectly applicable to us because we have free will and are free to disregard the laws of our own nature.

So I suppose to answer your question, it is the case that natural law is universal because we all share in the common essence of the human person. It is not universal, however, because it is universally known. To discern natural law requires reason (or a tradition that has already discerned it, which Catholics are blessed to have); and as the degenerate state of modern culture shows us, not all people are willing to exercise their reason.

 

[joeantony]

Joe:

Remind the atheist that a tribe does not wake up one morning to discover that they are all of the same mind, and suddenly, on-the-spot, make a decision to eat their neighbors. An individual or group is driven to cannibalism. At various times and/or places food might not have been available in quantities sufficient to keep the tribe, or individual, alive. Elsewhere, one or more individuals might have happenstanced across a situation that could best be described as opportunity-waiting. The men had just won a battle and were hungry. A dead or dying enemy combatant had fallen onto a fire, the cooking meat had an enticing aroma, and the rest is history, as we say.

Ultimately, the point is whether or not individuals recognize within themselves an inherent discomfort for eating a neighbor. Why, for instance, do humans invariably feel discomfort at even the idea of eating man’s best friend? That’s not to say that dogs have never been eaten, in some societies, but that in areas of the world where there is not a scarcity of food, or else the practice does not take on some sort of cultic excitement, dogs are not eaten. And they’re dogs: all the more inherent discomfort at the idea of eating humans.

So, there’s an ancient (or more recent) reason for such a practice. Further, we don’t see large societies participating in cannibalism. It is generally small, fairly secluded groups, and that itself should tell us something. In the wild, it is aberrancy. All things being equal, when a man decides to steal something, he is submitting to that same aberrancy. He is vigorously overcoming normalcy, his built-in dynamic that propels him to avoid a behavior that is perceived as harmful to another.

Also, we know that the first time is always the toughest for the aberrant: the more times the same (or, like) crime is committed, the easier it becomes. What does that show? Again, it shows an innate dynamic that we have little choice but to attribute to a Natural Law of some sort. It is grossly insufficient to say that “we learned it (from our family, peers, neighbors, society at large),” because we tend to sense that queasiness a priori, upon our initial encounter (thought or deed) with the not-right behavior.

God bless,
jd

Hi jd,

Thank you for the post. I am not sure if I can put across my trouble with this topic clearly here.

First of all, I have no problem with the “dog” example . There are lots of things that each one of us are ignorant about !

Also I am not contesting the fact that natural law exist. It is just that I understand the natural law as a universal, basic sense of right and wrong, justice etc are same for all humanity. The reason being , no matter which civilisation or culture one belongs to the purpose and meaning of the life created is same as the creator is same. Then How can the natural law be different from culture to culture ? ( Yes , it can be impaired due to many reasons) If the natural law is universal, how can a cannibalistic tribe in one place or in different distant places be cannibalistic without anyone challenging the probably impaired conventional wisdom ? How can the natural law which is something that a human must find and perceive using reason or logic or anything else be lost in such a untraceable distance in their hearts ? If Natural law can be lost in anyone’s heart, themn how that can be a “Natural Law” ?

Well, I am sorry If I don’t make sense to you at all !
Joe

 

[joeantony]

Well, it is not “law” in the legal sense of the word – that is, something which is publicized and which everyone is obligated to obey on pain of punishment.

It is similar to “law” in the scientific sense of the word, that is, a natural observation of the way things tend to behave. When I set a stone on a slope and it begins to roll downhill, I can assume it’s because of gravitation. That is, it’s not that the slope suddenly remembered that it ought to go down the hill, merely that that’s what it does – that’s what gravitation is.

Of course it not perfectly applicable to us because we have free will and are free to disregard the laws of our own nature.

So I suppose to answer your question, it is the case that natural law is universal because we all share in the common essence of the human person. It is not universal, however, because it is universally known. To discern natural law requires reason (or a tradition that has already discerned it, which Catholics are blessed to have); and as the degenerate state of modern culture shows us, not all people are willing to exercise their reason.

This make sense… Thanks!
Joe

 

[JDaniel]

Also I am not contesting the fact that natural law exist. It is just that I understand the natural law as a universal, basic sense of right and wrong, justice etc are same for all humanity.

Joe:

In a sense, they are. But, one has to admit that some societies do not translate the natural law the same way, so it is probably not as universal as we would prefer. In fact it might be reinterpreted from time to time and place to place, but certainly not developed, in the sense that it is subject to a Darwinian style evolution. For example, in old Japan, hara-kiri was an acceptable form of punishment for many things including a violation of honor, such as a dishonor to the emperor. In old America, such a violation of honor was not regarded with such significance. But, at least the underpinning of moral law was present, in Japanese culture. The ritual was an trans-actual suicide, a sort of battle wounding after which the penitent’s second would decapitate him.

So, it would seem that every precaution was taken to make the act morally righteous by first, its ordering by superiors, second, by its feigning of suicide, and, third, by its ultimate execution by a friendly second. Thus, while we would consider it a violation of the natural rights of man (natural law), the Japanese also recognized the need to render it moral for both the governor and the governed.

The problem, then, is in man’s interpretive selections. And, we must always remember, while man constantly strives for perfection, he cannot ever find it here (on earth).

The reason being , no matter which civilisation or culture one belongs to the purpose and meaning of the life created is same as the creator is same. Then How can the natural law be different from culture to culture ? ( Yes , it can be impaired due to many reasons) If the natural law is universal, how can a cannibalistic tribe in one place or in different distant places be cannibalistic without anyone challenging the probably impaired conventional wisdom ?

Well, we don’t know its history in those places. It is quite possible (and probable) that it was challenged, but, the challenges did not stand up. “Mob mentality” can cause the aberration of primordial right thinking. Mis-perception can cause the same thing. Fear, the same thing. Unless we know the precise history, we just don’t know.

How can the natural law which is something that a human must find and perceive using reason or logic or anything else be lost in such a untraceable distance in their hearts ? If Natural law can be lost in anyone’s heart, then how that can be a “Natural Law” ?

As I implied, it may not be lost. It may simply be analogous to falling down stairs. Occasionally people can’t stop themselves until they hit the bottom no matter how how much effort they put into it.

Furthermore, remember that the natural law is the natural law for all or most people. We are imperfect creatures. If a few people by whatever hook or crook find themselves outside of it, that does not annihilate it.

God bless,
jd