Natural law v. theology

[spencelo]

The thing is, Natural Law philosophers already thought of objections like this; do you really think you’re the first one? I highly doubt they’ll crumble under these objections.

So what’s the answer? Do you know?

 

[Stephen168]

.Of COURSE Catholic theology matches with Natural Law. It’s modelled after it, not the other way around. St. Thomas’s philosophy was NOT uncontroversial when he first established it, partly because he drew on so many pagan philosophers. It took years for the Church to accept his philosophy, and even know Catholics don’t technically HAVE to accept it; I do because I happen to think it’s correct.

 

[Stephen168]

Natural law is often misunderstood. It is a system to try and discern a moral code using rational thought. We do this by looking at the “nature” of the world-as in, what are objects “meant” to do?.

which is why it drives irrational people, who can not reasonable justify their moral code, crazy.

 

[Elizabeth502]

“Natural Law is the imprint of God’s Eternal Law upon creatures”

This confirms my initial suspicion that “natural law” is pretty much the same as Catholic theology.

Key word = “suspicion”

It is unfortunate for those who believe God does not sustain the universe, including all the seen and unseen natural laws within it, that they would object to any model or paradigm from which God cannot be evacuated by effort of will, imagination, or speech.

Theology results from natural law (as well as other sources). Theology is not synonymous with natural law; it’s just that theology does not contradict natural law.

 

[JDaniel]

Let’s try this exercise then. Derive a moral proposition using “rational thought” that doesn’t make an implicit reference to Catholic theology.

Spence:

Mind if I butt in? I thought not.

OK. You believe in “rights,” right? That we all have rights which are inalienable, right? Let’s derive a moral proposition that says, "In the category of “rights,” some rights have more moral superiority and others less. For example, if you were a thirsty traveler and came across a pristine pond and decided to stop and help yourself to a cupful of water, would you expect to be shot for the indiscretion? (Now, this is where it gets juicier. I own the land and the pond. I have rights, too. I have the right to protect my pond and every drop of water in it - a cupful of which you just wrongly converted to your own personal use!)

Let’s further say that you knew that the land and the pond belonged to someone, but you were so thirsty, and you were only going to take a tiny cupful. Besides, you weren’t stealing a horse! Wouldn’t you think that your ‘right to life’ trumped my ‘right to property’? Therefore, I have committed murder. If you would - and I think most people would side with that view - then you have just come up with a moral proposition using rational thought, having nothing per se to do with the Catholic Church.

God bless,
jd

 

[fhansen]

Is there a difference between the two? Many on here have invoked natural law in their justification for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and some have claimed that the “natural law argument” is a completely secular justification against SSM. I highly doubt that’s true: that is, I doubt that the “natural law argument” against SSM is really much different than the “Catholic argument” against SSM. Am I wrong?

Catholic theology incorporates the concept of natural law into it’s structure of thought. Revelation and reason, to the extent it’s capable, compliment and support each other and in any case don’t conflict

 

[JDaniel]

Consider your first claim that the “natural end” of our communicative faculties is to “convey what is really in our minds.” But here’s another possibility: the natural end of our communicative faculties is to “convey what we wish to convey.” Why suppose that the latter possibility isn’t the *true *“natural end?” (Remember, your answer to this question cannot appeal to Catholic theology.)

Spence:

Imagine the world were that the case! No one could trust in anything. We would tend to ourselves and no one else. We would separate ourselves from everyone else. Married life would be impossible! Life in society would be impossible. Courts of Law would cease functioning. Science collaboration would be a joke. Ad infinitum.The world, in other words, would be chaos.

(No referent back to the Church.)

The quote identifies natural law with “God’s Eternal Law.” By “God,” I assume the article meant the God of Christianity. by “Eternal Law,”

What else can we assume to be “eternal?” The Universe? Man? Cockroaches?

I assume the article meant the moral commandants of God, which are supposedly explicated in the Bible.

Why would you write, “which are supposedly explicated in the Bible”? Was that feigned attempt at disparagement really necessary? It is strange how non-theists find it irresistible to poke sharp sticks at Christians. If we follow that back, what might we surmise from it? (Rhetorical question.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Marc_Anthony]

[For what it’s worth, I’ve already come to peace on my acceptance of natural law theory for reasons I explained; I did indeed research several different philosophies and in fact came very close to becoming an atheist and even briefly looked into Buddhist philosophy, which I still find rather interesting if ultimately wanting. Another reason I accept natural law theory is that I’m completely convinced by Aquinas’s Five Ways to explain the existence of God. Also remember that even though it’s hard for me to give a complete explanation of the arguments NOW I’ve seen people do so, been able to follow their arguments, and agree completely. So in any case I have made my decision and it would take a whole lot to convince me otherwise.]

Okay, let me attempt to take a crack at what you said: “The natural end of our communicating faculties is to convey what we wish to convey”. As JDaniel pointed out that would lead to a lot of rather ridiculous conclusions. So that clearly can’t be the natural end of our communicative faculties. It seems to me to be obvious that communication is meant to convey to people what we truly think.

I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that.

 

[JDaniel]

No, not adequately - but I’d love to see them try. I have other objections as well.

Spence:

I would have assumed that you did!

I wasn’t “assuming” that - I have a suspicion, which is based on the observation that people who hold to “natural law” also embrace Catholic theology.

If you were playing cards, wouldn’t you expect a set of rules to come into play? Perhaps Hoyle’s rules? Now, when I was very young, my friends and I made up games and rules, some that strangely resembled Hoyle’s rules, and some others that didn’t. If the natural law is in the nature of everything, wouldn’t you suspect that it might have an affinity with the various churches, in various ways? Do you think that Protestants and Islamics are differentiated from the natural law? They may not call it what it is, but they are not differentiated from it.

Are all of your “natural law” beliefs consistent with all of your Catholic beliefs in regards to morality?

“All of them?” (This might take a few years.)

In order words, can you think of a moral proposition derived from the Bible that contradicts a moral proposition derived from natural law? If not, then that is highly coincidental (suspiciously so).

Why should something be “suspicious” that naturally follows from something else? This sounds like a highly suspicious question. If I am on one of those torturous naturalist expeditions, why shouldn’t I be expected to do smart things, derived from past training, that would enhance my potential for survival? Even if they were highly coincidental? That would make no sense.

(Btw, if you’re no expert on natural law, then why believe in it? Why believe that the moral propositions derived from “rational thought,” via natural law reasoning, are true? Why believe that lying is always wrong when you can’t give more than a elementary defense of such a counter-intuitive proposition?)

Precisely because it is imprinted on our hearts and in our minds! Why would I try to fly with only my arms and legs when I know I can’t?

Maybe I will. But what’s clear is this: it’s certainly not obvious that natural law doesn’t appeal to Catholic theology at some point when deriving moral propositions from “rational thought.”

So what? If I was to go on one of those survivalist hikes, I would certainly hope that I wouldn’t forget any training I might have obtained along the road!

Doesn’t “God’s eternal law” mean the laws that God himself has commanded? If so, *which *laws are those? Are they the laws of the Bible? (Another coincidence?). If one adds “God of classical Theism” + “laws he commanded,” one comes (again) suspiciously close to the God mentioned in the Bible (and thus Catholic theology.)

Oooooh! How scary! We can’t have that now, can we? Such a terrible thing. We might become suspiciously close to God, of all things!

Sorry, I couldn’t help that.

Anyway, you have more questions? Perhaps Marc Anthony will permit me to participate?

God bless,
jd

 

[spencelo]

Spence:

Mind if I butt in? I thought not.

OK. You believe in “rights,” right? That we all have rights which are inalienable, right?

Actually, I don’t, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Let’s derive a moral proposition that says, "In the category of “rights,” some rights have more moral superiority and others less. For example, if you were a thirsty traveler and came across a pristine pond and decided to stop and help yourself to a cupful of water, would you expect to be shot for the indiscretion? (Now, this is where it gets juicier. I own the land and the pond. I have rights, too. I have the right to protect my pond and every drop of water in it - a cupful of which you just wrongly converted to your own personal use!)

Let’s further say that you knew that the land and the pond belonged to someone, but you were so thirsty, and you were only going to take a tiny cupful. Besides, you weren’t stealing a horse! Wouldn’t you think that your ‘right to life’ trumped my ‘right to property’? Therefore, I have committed murder. If you would - and I think most people would side with that view - then you have just come up with a moral proposition using rational thought, having nothing per se to do with the Catholic Church.

I meant an example using “rational thought” via natural law, one that doesn’t make reference to any aspect of Catholic theology.

\

 

[JDaniel]

Really? Doesn’t the church derive a lot of its theology from the Bible?

Spence:

To be precise, “theology” is more the scientific study of God than the study of morality and ethics.

Let’s consider a another example – homosexuality. I know that the Bible says it’s wrong. Prove that homosexuality is wrong via natural law without appealing (either implicitly or explicitly) to God.

(Actually, this isn’t a new topic in this thread.) Simple: in nature all things are, we might say, bicameral. There are, among the higher life forms particularly, dual exigencies designed to aide them in the proliferation of their species. A male and a female. The sperm and the ova. This is how things were designed. Why?

The system is efficacious for a number of reasons. (1) More than half of married men and women form a bond that helps them deal more effectively and efficiently with their surroundings. (2) The additional genes help prevent many inherited abnormal traits from being passed on to progeny. (3) Most progeny are well nurtured. (4) There is typically less consternation between the partners who have to go outside of the unit to work. And so on.

I offered what you considered a “basic objection” to your argument, but you are unable to refute it. If you can’t refute a “basic objection” to your argument, then your position is on highly questionable foundation.

Right back at ya!

I wasn’t asserting as fact that “natural law arguments” were making appeals to Catholic theology, but it seems like that is what’s going on at some level. If Feser (or some expert) were to subject himself to my questioning, then perhaps we could get to the bottom of the matter.

I’m not Edward Fesser, but I’ll do the best I can.

Right, and I never made this claim. What I’m saying is that natural law arguments, at some point, implicitly make appeals to currently accepted Biblical propositions.

But, there’s no valid reason that they should be distinct, even though, along the way, there are times when they were. One should hope that they perfectly line up.

Moreover, isn’t true that “God’s Eternal laws” (from the quote) refer to at least some laws mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no?

Is this a problem? Why?

God bless,
jd

 

[spencelo]

Spence:

Imagine the world were that the case! No one could trust in anything.

How does this follow?

What else can we assume to be “eternal?” The Universe? Man? Cockroaches?

This confirms my original suspicion: NL at some point appeals to Catholic theology.

Why would you write, “which are supposedly explicated in the Bible”?

Because that is more accurate than if I wrote “which are explicated in the Bible.” (In case you didn’t know, I don’t believe in the Bible.)

 

[spencelo]

(Actually, this isn’t a new topic in this thread.) Simple: in nature all things are, we might say, bicameral. There are, among the higher life forms particularly, dual exigencies designed to aide them in the proliferation of their species. A male and a female. The sperm and the ova. This is how things were designed.

Designed by whom? God? If so, then this is an appeal to Catholic theology.

Why?

The system is efficacious for a number of reasons. (1) More than half of married men and women form a bond that helps them deal more effectively and efficiently with their surroundings. (2) The additional genes help prevent many inherited abnormal traits from being passed on to progeny. (3) Most progeny are well nurtured. (4) There is typically less consternation between the partners who have to go outside of the unit to work. And so on.

I don’t see how “homosexuality is wrong” follows from any of this.

Is this a problem? Why?

It would confirm my suspicion that “natural law reasoning” isn’t complete without appeals to Catholic theology.

 

[spencelo]

Okay, let me attempt to take a crack at what you said: “The natural end of our communicating faculties is to convey what we wish to convey”. As JDaniel pointed out that would lead to a lot of rather ridiculous conclusions. So that clearly can’t be the natural end of our communicative faculties.

First, JDaniel hasn’t shown how any of those “ridiculous conclusions” follow.

Second, if the proposition that “lying is always wrong” is true, that would also lead to a lot of “ridiculous conclusions,” and yet you don’t seem to take that as a reductio.

 

[JDaniel]

[For what it’s worth, I’ve already come to peace on my acceptance of natural law theory for reasons I explained; I did indeed research several different philosophies and in fact came very close to becoming an atheist and even briefly looked into Buddhist philosophy, which I still find rather interesting if ultimately wanting. Another reason I accept natural law theory is that I’m completely convinced by Aquinas’s Five Ways to explain the existence of God. Also remember that even though it’s hard for me to give a complete explanation of the arguments NOW I’ve seen people do so, been able to follow their arguments, and agree completely. So in any case I have made my decision and it would take a whole lot to convince me otherwise.]

Okay, let me attempt to take a crack at what you said: “The natural end of our communicating faculties is to convey what we wish to convey”. As JDaniel pointed out that would lead to a lot of rather ridiculous conclusions. So that clearly can’t be the natural end of our communicative faculties. It seems to me to be obvious that communication is meant to convey to people what we truly think.

I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that.

Good points, Mr. Marc.

What other created exigencies would be so completely at odds with each other? In a world of order, only communication would be disorder? Wouldn’t that overturn the entire system? The one, admittedly pretty important, fact of non-solitary human life completely overturns the order necessary for human life to work! One would have to say that the designer of such a system is on some kind of drugs! And “truth?” Well, there would be no such thing as “truth.”

You are correct in your assessment of the natural end of communication. Anything else would tend us toward annihilation.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Actually, I don’t, but that’s a discussion for another day.

I meant an example using “rational thought” via natural law, one that doesn’t make reference to any aspect of Catholic theology.

Spence:

That’s what I did. Do you think that rights, such as the rights to life and property do not pre-date religion?

God bless,
jd

 

[spencelo]

Spence:

That’s what I did.

Really? But you made no mention of our “natural purpose” or that sort of thing, which is what I thought “natural law” was about.

 

[JDaniel]

How does this follow?

Spence:

Is the following not your writing?
"But here’s another possibility: the natural end of our communicative faculties is to “convey what we wish to convey.”
Were you being equivocal?

This confirms my original suspicion: NL at some point appeals to Catholic theology.

Does not follow.

Because that is more accurate than if I wrote “which are explicated in the Bible.” (In case you didn’t know, I don’t believe in the Bible.)

Oh, I assumed that you didn’t believe in the Bible. But, OK; I’ll accept your explanation.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Designed by whom? God? If so, then this is an appeal to Catholic theology.

Spence:

Perhaps designed by Mother Nature.

I don’t see how “homosexuality is wrong” follows from any of this.

Really?

It would confirm my suspicion that “natural law reasoning” isn’t complete without appeals to Catholic theology.

Does not follow.

God bless,
jd

 

[spencelo]

Spence:

Is the following not your writing?
"But here’s another possibility: the natural end of our communicative faculties is to “convey what we wish to convey.”
Were you being equivocal?

No. But it’s your claim that if the natural end of our communicative faculties is to “convey what we wish to convey,” then “No one could trust in anything.” This doesn’t follow.

Does not follow.

Since NL is identical to “God’s law,” then if you know God’s law (i.e., what it says in the Bible), then you know NL.