There is no natural law... so kindly DROP it

[Spock]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

 

[Hypnotoad]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m not very good at putting into words my thoughts but here we go: the moral law is said to be written in the hearts of man but in order for this law to be utilized one must be able to use their gift of reason as well. I don’t believe anyone will argue that feral children or mentally handicapped humans cannot be morally culpable for their actions. Basically in short everyone has the natural law written in their hearts but due to certain circumstances not everyone is able to utilize it. I don’t know maybe someone else will explain it better or at least correct my misunderstanding.

 

[DJK100]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

Someone missed their nap.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Someone missed their nap.

That’s not a constructive way to criticize another person’s viewpoint.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I’m not very good at putting into words my thoughts but here we go: the moral law is said to be written in the hearts of man but in order for this law to be utilized one must be able to use their gift of reason as well. I don’t believe anyone will argue that feral children or mentally handicapped humans cannot be morally culpable for their actions. Basically in short everyone has the natural law written in their hearts but due to certain circumstances not everyone is able to utilize it. I don’t know maybe someone else will explain it better or at least correct my misunderstanding.

Yes, this is exactly what Catholics believe.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

Greetings Spock,

It is a completely different ballgame to not believe what has shown to be true - like this De Fide doctrine regarding “natural law - inscribed unto [it should be on] the human heart.” To keep not believing De Fide doctrines or Truths of the Faith like this shows a person to be not in line with the Truth and marks them as one who is living in disbelief and confusion. It is a sad thing that so many people buy into this fallacy of holding science above faith, of demanding scientific proof above faith and when they are shown the Truths of the faith, they simply close their hearts [which is infinitely much worse than closing one’s ears.]

---

Are you asking for the grace to receive Faith or just merely condeming the faith of those who do believe?

Are you open to what the Catholic Church teaches?

And I close with this quote.

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[AlanFromWichita]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060704050625/en.futurama/images/8/85/Hypnotoad_animated.gif

I’m not very good at putting into words my thoughts but here we go: the moral law is said to be written in the hearts of man but in order for this law to be utilized one must be able to use their gift of reason as well. I don’t believe anyone will argue that feral children or mentally handicapped humans cannot be morally culpable for their actions. Basically in short everyone has the natural law written in their hearts but due to certain circumstances not everyone is able to utilize it. I don’t know maybe someone else will explain it better or at least correct my misunderstanding.

If the moral law is as you have written, then I think the circumstances that prevent us from utilizing it could actually be our own intellect. Culpable or not, if we are not able to dispose ourselves toward contemplation, then the chances are great our own thoughts can actually get in the way of letting that law guide us.

One construct I find interesting even if it isn’t true, is that this “natural law” amounts to our connection to the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is a natural consequence of the way we were made in the image of God and the actions of Jesus resurrected, Who has sent us a Helper to live within our hearts. Most of the time we don’t recognize it because the “bushel basket” of our worldly concerns and our typical noisy train of thought hide that goodness, which itself is our “light.”

Just thinkin’ out loud.

Alan

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

I don’t think you understand what is meant by ‘natural law’. It is not, as your post suggests, a belief in a set of pre-programmed laws in the human brain, heart or any other part of our anatomy.

Natural law is not contrary to reason, precisely because it is established by reason. Law itself is rational, not simply something imposed on reason from outside or by some mysterious operation of biology.

Any reading of Aquinas, for example, on the matter will give you a proper understanding of what the Church understand by natural law and it’s not what your post suggests. In fact, Aquinas precisely deals with your understanding of Natural Law and dismisses it (ST IaIIae, q94, a1-6). You will also find the a discussion of the philosophical basis for the concept of natural law in Fides et Ratio, but Pope John Paul II. (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html)

Any discussion on the matter of natural law requires some serious study before we launch into straw men caricatures of what we think it means. If you would like me to recommend some literature on the topic, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to point you in the right direction.

Hope this helps.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

… dear spock ,

… before you put me asde " i agree with you muchly " , but you misunderstabnd natural law , everything in our universe and cosmos and all living things and man is governed by natural laws – each has his own , saying natural law / s do not exist is like saying the laws of physics don’t exist , as to a moral code man must live by , a natural law written on his heart , this is a bit sketchy how it’s explained , in the beginning man had no law written on his heart at all as we think in my opine , he was just natural the same as other creatures here , but vastly superior due to very high intelligence, and due to the fall of our first parents things changed , and i’m having dinner now and for a while but i’ll come back and pen my theories that may help this debate so the concept of moral law may not look so stupid to you , i hope you read it , i’m not your enemy spock , from the first contact you scrapped me , you’ll find me totally sane , human , rational , logical , sensible , reasonable and with common sense and even loving at times , but love is more than an emotion , and i can be quite good to talk to , give me a go spock , i’m a fellow human being wanting to talkwith you to engage in normal human coimmunication to solve problems as we seek truth , no need for fighting or arguing , these along with anger or hatred destroy the search for truth , let’s seek truth and not fear it wherever it leads , and catholics whilst not all are the greatest geniuses ever are good people with the best of intentions trying to love all men and embrace and spread truth – don’t approach them like they are the devil incarnate spock , you have it all wrong about catholics , they love you aS GOD DOES ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Spock, only laws of Philosophy, Mathematics we believe in exist? Laws of Calculus don’t exist unless we believe in them? Perhaps you have different Definition of our Use of “The Natural Law” of Morality; What is your definition of the Morality “Law”, “Guide”? We gave you ours, please.

 

[Spock]

It is a completely different ballgame to not believe what has shown to be true - like this De Fide doctrine regarding “natural law - inscribed unto [it should be on] the human heart.” To keep not believing De Fide doctrines or Truths of the Faith like this shows a person to be not in line with the Truth and marks them as one who is living in disbelief and confusion. It is a sad thing that so many people buy into this fallacy of holding science above faith, of demanding scientific proof above faith and when they are shown the Truths of the faith, they simply close their hearts [which is infinitely much worse than closing one’s ears.]

Luther would be proud of you. As he said: “Reason must be trampled underfoot”, and “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”. Yep, he would be proud. I wonder, if you only presented your personal opinion here, or if you believe that you speak for the church?

Are you asking for the grace to receive Faith or just merely condeming the faith of those who do believe?

I asked many times. I was not given. Also, I am not in the “condemnation” business. All I feel is extreme sorry for those, who consider some “doctrine” being “proven” and think that those doctrines are over and beyond the facts of reality. If I could help them, I would. These posts are my attempts to lend a helping hand.

Are you open to what the Catholic Church teaches?

If it is reasonable, I am willing to contemplate it. But only if it is reasonable.

And I close with this quote.

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

Yes, this quote is a strong contender in the race for the dumbest arguments (next to the “inscribed on the human heart”). If God wanted to, he could demonstrate his existence and his requirements to all. After all, who can stand against the will and the ability of God? No one could close their eyes and ears (and the heart is still just an organ to pump blood) if God decided to grant their wish. I have been asking many times. Either God does not want to do it, of he does not hear it, or - most probably - there is no God out there.

 

[Spock]

Looks like that you guys don’t get my drift. The “laws of nature” are NOT the same as the alleged “natural law” - and I am pretty sure you all know that. This attempt to spread confustion by trying to sidetrack the thread is just a usual “tactics” used by those who do not wish to face the actual point of the thread.

The laws of nature are the regularities we find in the natural processes - subject to science. The “natural law” is supposed to be a ingrained tool we are born with to tell us right from wrong. The fact is that humans are not born with any kind of “guiding tool” (which requires thinking and deliberation). That is proven by biologists, and it is obvious when we observe those poor feral children who are not really human, but share our DNA. They have no thinking, no understanding, no language, and thus no guiding tool.

 

[Spock]

Dear John -

Please, pretty please, use those upper and lower case letters where appropriate. Please, break your posts down into readable sentences and paragraphs. Use the delimiters. I had the opportunity to read Ulysses, and threw it away after the first page. I am not interested in reading book-long sentences. If you would grant me this little wish, I will promise that I will try to read what you write. As is, I just bypass everything you write.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

Looks like that you guys don’t get my drift. The “laws of nature” are NOT the same as the alleged “natural law” - and I am pretty sure you all know that. This attempt to spread confustion by trying to sidetrack the thread is just a usual “tactics” used by those who do not wish to face the actual point of the thread.

I think you’re equivocating. I have already clearly answered your criticism. Who’s dissembling here?

 

[DJK100]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

Bolding things make them true!

 

[Spock]

I have already clearly answered your criticism.

No you did not. I did not answer your post, because I am most certainly not interested in some medieval speculation.

The “natural law” is supposed to be a moral guiding tool, which allows us to use reason and thus separate right from wrong - and allegedly we are born with this tool. I did not specify where it would reside, though it is obvious that it has to do “something” with our brain and mind - since that is the place where thinking happens.

 

[MtnDwellar]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”.

I think that your definition of natural law is incomplete. Part of the natural law is inscribed unto every human heart. The rest of the law is derived by applying reason to observations of nature.

If one does not make an effort to fully discover natural law, he does not know it completely.

 

[You]

Looks like that you guys don’t get my drift. The “laws of nature” are NOT the same as the alleged “natural law” - and I am pretty sure you all know that. This attempt to spread confustion by trying to sidetrack the thread is just a usual “tactics” used by those who do not wish to face the actual point of the thread.

The laws of nature are the regularities we find in the natural processes - subject to science. The “natural law” is supposed to be a ingrained tool we are born with to tell us right from wrong. The fact is that humans are not born with any kind of “guiding tool” (which requires thinking and deliberation). That is proven by biologists, and it is obvious when we observe those poor feral children who are not really human, but share our DNA. They have no thinking, no understanding, no language, and thus no guiding tool.

I remember hearing that a kitten blindfolded for the first few days of its life will never see for the rest of its life even though its eyes are perfect. Feral children is a bit of a mis-nomer, they are not animals. And while the first few years of a child’s life is the best time for learning languages there are many deaf children from birth who learn language later in life. To claim a feral child does not think or understand is a poor claim. For some reason the term feral children conjures up images of trauma and isolation which are not the norm for humans.
A guide to the natural law might be better seen in every culture and civilization on the planet where there are rules and taboos, all of which stem from their knowledge of right and wrong, good and bad. If you can find an isolated culture in which every citizen accepts and loves bad rules as being good as much as another culture loves good rules then you might have something to discuss.

 

[purplesunshine]

Looks like that you guys don’t get my drift. The “laws of nature” are NOT the same as the alleged “natural law” - and I am pretty sure you all know that. This attempt to spread confustion by trying to sidetrack the thread is just a usual “tactics” used by those who do not wish to face the actual point of the thread.

The laws of nature are the regularities we find in the natural processes - subject to science. The “natural law” is supposed to be a ingrained tool we are born with to tell us right from wrong. The fact is that humans are not born with any kind of “guiding tool” (which requires thinking and deliberation). That is proven by biologists, and it is obvious when we observe those poor feral children who are not really human, but share our DNA. They have no thinking, no understanding, no language, and thus no guiding tool.

Actually, all it shows is the severe problems someone neglected will face. Many “ferel” children were grossly abused and nearly killled by their parents before being disposed of and adopted by animals. From a neurological standpoint a parent can cause enough damage in the first 6mo to 1.5 years to perminatly damage a child who is not then properly cared for from 1-3. The brian is damaged…and with any damage this affects morality.

Contrast that with stories of native american or mongolian or african tribes where only 2-6 very young (under 6, thus below the age of reason) survived and did keep language and morality and eventually found and were “reintigrated” into society.

From that we learn that early parental neglect and lack of language are the factors of being fereal. Not the absence of natural law.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

No you did not. I did not answer your post, because I am most certainly not interested in some medieval speculation.

I don’t know what your issue is, but it’s clearly not dialogue. Your whole tone of conversation is combative and uncharitable…I’m not quite sure what you’re agenda is? I rather suspect you have not replied to my post is because you are unable to. The above reply is just captious; medieval thinkers are capable of the truth, and turth and speculation are not antonyms.

Please don’t bother replying to this, unless you feel you have to have the last word. I just wanted to do justice to St Thomas Aquinas, because you clearly have not–I really have no further interest in the tone of this thread.

Peace.