Help understanding this atheist view on Natural Law

[ahs]

I need help understanding what is being said here. I’m no philosopher and am kinda scratching my head on a coupe things. This began on the topic of whether Adam and Eve had free will or were coerced, and while I am sticking to that discussion until we’ve ironed it out, I want to be able to give a reasoned response to this as well.
(In the meantime, I asked that we not move the goal posts yet, and told him we can get to this later.)

I’ll put his statements in

quotes

and my own thoughts in between.

[Attempting to move the conversation to quality/quantity of choice] I would argue that the distinction between quality of choice and quantity of choice is a necessity for determining the availability of free will when dealing with a reality generator like God.

Why? Does quality or quantity of choice matter in determining free will if there isn’t a God?

That would be the scope and then I would need to justify the conclusion. My analogy was therefore premature. I am still on the hook to reconcile the contradictions you identified in my analogy but I think I jumped the gun in that direction for our discussion because it assumed agreement on a few things when no agreement was present. My bad.

[Relevant only to what we have discussed already.] Meh. It’s clear Adam and Eve made a choice, and that even had God’s warning been a “threat” to “coerce” them, it would still make absolutely no sense to say, “we felt threatened NOT to do something, so we felt we had no choice but to DO it.”. It’s clear that they made a choice of their own free will.

If the supernatural reality described in the Bible exist then it negates any hope of humans have of reconciling the natural laws ( such as the elusive Grand Unified Theories ) that run the universe: they simply would not exist.

You just said: If God is real, then natural law does not exist. Why do you believe that?

Laws of Physics can only be negated if they are not laws.

That doesn’t actually mean anything. I could say the opposite as well: “Laws can only be proven if they are laws.” I haven’t really said anything there that matters. It’s just a truism. But more to the point, what has that got to do with the existence of a Creator? If you are trying to use this as evidence that “if God is real, then natural laws don’t exist”, or vice versa, that’s circular logic, either way. You have not proven, or supported, the conclusion which is present in your premise.

Otherwise they are just temporary conditions that exist by Devine will; totally and unalterably a part of this being’s will rather than natural conditions which must exist due to natural laws. Any being that can generate reality can invalidate logic ( on which all said laws must stand ) by altering the predisposing conditions and thereby inducing a state of being which has no familiar or relatable outcome: a man in the cognitive state described of Adam, just as one example, before he ate the forbidden fruit. We are sacked before we take the job. : )

I’m honestly not sure what is being said here.

 

[Andre1000]

He mixes premises and argument up. The reasoning is also very unclear too me because he doesn’t show the reasoning at all and jumps to conclusions.

I have the feeling that he belives that natural law is like the laws of physics and cannot be violated. Therefore if natural laws exists then Adam could not violate this law like he cannot violate the laws of physics.

This would be a false understanding of the meaning of the word “law”.

 

[Bradski]

I think that part of what he is saying is that if God exists then nothing is natural. It all exists as a result of His divine will. That is, everything is supernatural.

As an example, a circle is not a naturally occurring shape but has been designed by God. Pi R squared equals the circumference of a circle because God wills it fo be so. If you’ve read Contact by Carl Sagan you might recognise that idea.

 

[Gorgias]

I think that part of what he is saying is that if God exists then nothing is natural. It all exists as a result of His divine will. That is, everything is supernatural.

I haven’t read the original thread, but that does seem to be the claim here. Yet, it doesn’t seem like a logically sound claim. It would seem to place unreasonable constraints on God. Rather, then, I think I would say that God supernaturally created a universe that abides by natural law. Another way to say it is that the universe has its own nature; it is that nature – including the physics by which it operates – that is its own law.

Now… could God supernaturally intervene and change the bases upon which the universe exists? Yes; that’s within the realm of His abilities. However, if He did that, then He’d negate the whole notion – it seems to me – of free will and the good things that it provides.

As an example, a circle is not a naturally occurring shape but has been designed by God. Pi R squared equals the circumference of a circle because God wills it fo be so. If you’ve read Contact by Carl Sagan you might recognise that idea.

No – God created the universe, which includes a number of circles. The observer who looks at these circles may come to the recognition that the circumference of the circles can be described by a particular formula. However, that doesn’t mean that we extend to “God’s will” all the descriptions of the physical universe.

 

[Gorgias]

Why? Does quality or quantity of choice matter in determining free will if there isn’t a God?

It depends on how ‘free will’ is defined. If it’s defined in terms of the ability to put into action those things one has chosen, then it seems the answer is ‘yes’. Yet, that seems to be a poor definition of ‘free will’, since we’re not talking about ‘will’ but about ‘action.’ No one in their right mind would posit that we’ve been granted complete freedom of action, in any circumstance. Yet, we claim that we can will certain things (aside from the question of whether we can actualize them).

 

[ahs]

I think that part of what he is saying is that if God exists then nothing is natural. It all exists as a result of His divine will. That is, everything is supernatural.

As an example, a circle is not a naturally occurring shape but has been designed by God. Pi R squared equals the circumference of a circle because God wills it fo be so. If you’ve read Contact by Carl Sagan you might recognise that idea.

That may very well be what he wants to say…though he may not know that he wants to say that.

 

[ahs]

It depends on how ‘free will’ is defined. If it’s defined in terms of the ability to put into action those things one has chosen, then it seems the answer is ‘yes’. Yet, that seems to be a poor definition of ‘free will’, since we’re not talking about ‘will’ but about ‘action.’ No one in their right mind would posit that we’ve been granted complete freedom of action, in any circumstance. Yet, we claim that we can will certain things (aside from the question of whether we can actualize them).

Interesting. I had not really considered what “free will” was going to be defined as.

His initial comment bringing that up was this (the response I gave will follow it…and I’ve tabled this part of it for now until a few questions get answered).

…would you say then that…the burden of the analogy is then this: to present a plausible situation in which “number of available choices” and “quality of available choices” are revealed to be relevant to the concept of free will?

I answered, “no, I wouldn’t think so; but I may be misunderstanding what you are asking. For “number of choices”, I would think it’s enough that we can “do” or “not do” something, and which of those we choose is an exercise of free will.
For “quality”, that would be subjective. How would one define “quality” in a way that would be meaningful?
I would say the burden of the analogy will eventually boil down to “why does it matter [free will, coercion, choices, how God set things up if He really exists]?”, which boils down further to “what is good/evil, and by what standard do we measure those?””

 

[Bradski]

Rather, then, I think I would say that God supernaturally created a universe that abides by natural law. Another way to say it is that the universe has its own nature; it is that nature – including the physics by which it operates – that is its own law.

I don’t see that. You can’t say that God created a universe that would obey natural laws because you therefore imply that there are laws that were already in existence that were not part of God’s creation but with which He had to comply . If God created everything, then that must include circles. Otherwise you have to say that there are things that exist that God did not create.

The best you can hope for is to say that God created what we describe as Natural Laws. But if they are created by God, then He cannot be restricted in how those laws operate. It cannot be, for example, that He had no choice as to the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its radius. It has a particular ratio because God decided it would.

Ipso facto, circles are supernatural.

 

[ahs]

I think that part of what he is saying is that if God exists then nothing is natural. It all exists as a result of His divine will. That is, everything is supernatural…

…If God created everything, then that must include circles. Otherwise you have to say that there are things that exist that God did not create. The best you can hope for is to say that God created what we describe as Natural Laws. But if they are created by God, then He cannot be restricted in how those laws operate. It cannot be, for example, that He had no choice as to the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its radius. It has a particular ratio because God decided it would.

Ipso facto, circles are supernatural.

I’m not seeing the problem there. This seems essentially like saying, “God willed there to be [whatever] that would abide by [whatever laws that He willed to be], including the ability for His creation (us) to act against His will if we choose to do so”. I don’t see the logical problem here unless we presuppose that a material existence is all we have. But the theistic model is not contained in a material existence.

You can’t say that God created a universe that would obey natural laws because you therefore imply that there are laws that were already in existence that were not part of God’s creation but with which He had to comply .

There’s no reason you could not logically believe that a Creator could create a natural law, and then choose to act (create, form, whatever) within the bounds of that natural law. This isn’t an issue from the theistic model. In fact, the theist would acknowledge that God does NOT limit Himself by the natural laws that govern us, via the miracles that have taken place. So, again, this is only a problem in an atheistic model.

I think I am starting to understand that last bit, then, as it links also to the other comments I already noted above, and I think he has it backwards:

If [God] exist, then it negates any hope of humans have of reconciling the natural laws ( such as the elusive Grand Unified Theories ) that run the universe: they simply would not exist.

There is no logical reason to believe that natural law would not exist with a Creator. This isn’t a problem for a Christian…not a reason for doubting God’s existence.

Otherwise they [natural laws/laws of physics] are just temporary conditions that exist by Devine will; totally and unalterably a part of this being’s will rather than natural conditions which must exist due to natural laws.

Why would you presume they are temporary if they are created by God? And why would that be a problem if they were? Only a viewpoint that assumes we only have a material existence would find that problematic.

Any being that can generate reality can invalidate logic ( on which all said laws must stand ) by altering the predisposing conditions and thereby inducing a state of being which has no familiar or relatable outcome:

Does the ability to do something equate to doing it? No. This isn’t a logical reason to disbelieve in a Creator.

…a man in the cognitive state described of Adam, just as one example, before he ate the forbidden fruit. We are sacked before we take the job. : )

So, you think that God altered a natural law or law of physics, or invalidated some logic, or altered a predisposing condition, or induced a state of being with no relatable outcome before Adam “ate the fruit”? Why do you believe that?

 

[Bradski]

There’s no reason you could not logically believe that a Creator could create a natural law, and then choose to act (create, form, whatever) within the bounds of that natural law. This isn’t an issue from the theistic model. In fact, the theist would acknowledge that God does NOT limit Himself by the natural laws that govern us, via the miracles that have taken place. So, again, this is only a problem in an atheistic model.

There is no logical reason to believe that natural law would not exist with a Creator. This isn’t a problem for a Christian…not a reason for doubting God’s existence.

The point that I am making is that nothing can really be described as natural if it is formed by supernatural means. Natural Law has been supernaturally ordained.

 

[inocente]

You just said: If God is real, then natural law does not exist. Why do you believe that?

Seems to me you and your friend may misunderstand what is meant by a law of nature. The OED defines it as: a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.

In other words laws of nature are our human interpretation of some orderliness we see in the world. They don’t exist as entities, they’re just a formal way by which we state that whenever there is X, we always observe Y. They’re how we state the order we see, whether we’re theist or atheist.

btw usually laws of nature are called the Physical Law, as Natural Law is the name of a system of ethics made famous by Aquinas.

 

[ahs]

The point that I am making is that nothing can really be described as natural if it is formed by supernatural means. Natural Law has been supernaturally ordained.

I’m still not seeing why he would find that to be problematic. (All of this ties into reasons he cannot believe in a Creator. ‘If there were a Creator, then [all this stuff] would have to be true, etc…’.
But I really don’t think that’s the point he’s making either. He gave an example (GUT model) and said “they [the laws that run the universe] would simply not exist”. It sounds to me more like he’s just he’s grasping at reasons to be an atheist. I’m going to go back through everything he and I have discussed, take what you guys have provided here, and see if I can summarize his view back to him and get a clearer picture of where he’s at.
The more he types, the more he sounds like a deist who just wants to jump off the “god-wagon”, but he can’t find a logical reason to do it…despite having told himself that he already has.

 

[ahs]

GOT IT!!

He sent me this clarification this morning letting me know what he meant by “quality” of free will. I mistook him to mean some objective goodness or poorness of a choice.

Here’s what he clarified:

Free will does not seem to me truly possible in the Christian paradigm, so I would say that without God free will has a better chance. But I am convinced we even agree on the qualities that must be present for free will to exist. Am I wrong?

I mentioned quality of choice as a component of free will, which you disagreed to, but perhaps I did not state this clearly enough. Having choices is not the same as being free to choose. That freedom, the freedom to choose, requires the following qualities, simultaneously as far as I know: 1) Each choice must be avoidable; 2) The future must not be known with certainty.

Choices lacking these properties are still choices, options to be considered, but they impede the conditions required for free will to emerge. Their quality is of such low value in this regard that they negate free will. So, that is why I say quality of choice matters.

 

[Rhubarb]

It sounds like this atheist in question doesn’t understand what ‘natural law’ means in the Catholic sense. Laws of physics aren’t ‘natural law’ in the same sense.

 

[ahs]

It sounds like this atheist in question doesn’t understand what ‘natural law’ means in the Catholic sense. Laws of physics aren’t ‘natural law’ in the same sense.

That may be, but it ended up just a side-bar anyway. His main objection to theism is that “free will and God are mutually exclusive”, but this was hinged on his own definition and qualities of free will (specifically, quality #2, “freedom to choose, requires… the future must not be known with certainty”)…

I explained that his argument against theism, on this basis, couldn’t logically hold because 1) he’s rejecting theism based on a non-theistic definition of free will and 2) there are actually some theists that deny free will (Calvin’s “double predestination”, for example). He’d either be using a strawman, or he’d have to admit that he really doesn’t believe in free will to begin with, making his point moot.

 

[John_Martin]

All laws come from a “law-giver”, from a governor of a society or of a people. Laws are never isolated rules or statutes, but are for ordering of a social organism. Laws are always published to the people, so that they know what is required of them morally in the society.

The reason that a law-giver or governor has for giving laws is to make good citizens of the society, so that the society and individuals can thrive and grow. The “natural law” fits this understanding, even though it is “inscribed on our hearts”.

Why is this moral law needed? It is because of our human nature – not that we are wicked, but our nature is that we are capable of many things, thinking many contrary things, choosing many opposite things, doing a variety of actions that are not pre-determined. This is the freedom God gave us in making us rational animals. But he also, then gave us the ability to learn what is good for us and what is not good (this is not the same as the “knowledge of good and evil” in that tree in Eden – that tree was about knowing without reasoning, knowing the way angels and devils know, not about learning to know as humans learn). God put in us, the power of knowing, our intellect, and of reasoning what was good or not, and the power of will, where we love or desire what we recognize as good or desirable.

And we are not alone in this reasoning of good and not good. We are with others, and they are reasoning with us. We are learning together with others and within ourselves, knowing what pleases us and what hurts us, and seeing what pleases and what hurts those who are with us. And we also find we are hurt somehow when the other is hurt, and we are pleased somehow when the other is happy.

This reasoning in our experiences in community is how God is writing the moral law within each of us. We learn the very basics of law when we notice the pleasure and pain in ourselves and others, and learn what things are required for life together and what things must be rejected.

This is then divine Wisdom, the human person in community, ordering himself to the benefit of God’s creation of the person and the community. And it is done freely, to a great degree, more or less, when people make use of their nature as rational animals.

The natural law seems like it is not coming from a law-giver or governor. It seems as though we come up with it ourselves. Yet, we have to acknowledge that we did not create or invent ourselves, with our rational nature. Somehow in each of us is dissatisfaction until we know what is true, and then a satisfaction when we know what is true. There is also a constant question of “is this good to have” or not. And when we do conclude that something is good to have, we automatically desire to have it, but if not good, a desire to get away from it. This is not just with appetites like hunger or physical pleasure, but also with ideas and non-material things. This is natural to us, but we did not make ourselves this way. The law-giver made us this way, so that we would recognize the law, what leads to happiness and what leads away from happiness, within our own operation as humans. He wrote the natural law “on our hearts” where we would find it when we acted rationally, noticing ourselves and our neighbors in community.

Now this natural law did not show the “promised beatitude” of the Gospel, but it hinted at it, at the idea of happiness, of a satisfaction. And the reason was capable of understanding that something more than bits and pieces of satisfaction is the real meaning of life.

 

[John_Martin]

Will and Free Will - they are two different things.

The Will loves or desires whatever the reason judges will bring happiness, automatically.
If you understand that union with food, consuming it, will bring happiness or satisfaction, then the will automatically moves the whole being toward union, toward actualizing consumption.

Free will happens when the will does not have yet clear direction toward union with the food. So to actualize union, part of its movement of the whole being is to move the intellect to visualize the route to the food, visualize the “means to the end”. The means have no value to the will in themselves, but will only have value for their relative “use” in getting to the end of consumption.

The reason visualizes alternatives and judges a do-able means to reaching consumption. It is not desirable for any relative good, it is even hard work. No one would desire doing it for itself. But the will then chooses to do it, this is free will - doing a difficult and non-desirable act freely (rather than being forced to do a non-desirable and difficult act by some power or force).

At first Adam and Eve loved God, and his garden. Then a new suggestion was presented to their appetites - union with the knowledge of good and evil and being like God. The will automatically desired this. And how does one unite to this satisfaction?

Ooooh, a difficult task, you go up to the tree and eat a fruit that has a threat associated with it. Without the presence of sanctifying grace to keep the first love alive (union with God), this second (but now first) love of being like God chooses the difficult task of picking and eating fruit. Free will chose the obtaining of the fruit over turning away in the face of a threat because the will loved the new first love (being wise like God) . Free will resolved to perform a difficult task without being forced to perform this dangerous task.

If you do not distinguish “will” from “free will” you will be in an endless argument.