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

[John_Russell_Jr]

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.

… dear spock ,

… my style of writing is a work in progress and there is a great deal of logic and reason behind it , you just need to understand it , if you want i’ll explain it to you ??? , but the idea is to continually perfect everything and my writing style may need changing , but to the eye and mind it is far less stressful and traumatic than the usual style , you’ll see how i breakn it up thus , as to the logic do you want to know ??? ,

… and i used to have more paragraphic styles and your advice seems reasonable to resume this , thx for contributing and helping me perfect my style spock …

… i’ll write about natural law theory as i understand it soon , it’s quite a bit to put together and you may like it , it’s certainly new , so give it a try dear friend …

… speak soon …

… may god bless and love you dear spock ,

… john …

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Spock,

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?

I could not resist doing that with the paragraph I did. And no I do not agree with Luther. Faith and reason do not contradict each other. In fact reason compliments faith. That is addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you are interested I shall go and look for the the paragraph numbers.

No that is not my personal opinion. By the grace of God I agree with the Church. I could go through that paragraph and back it up with Church Teaching which it does reflect. One either lives in the Truith or one lives in lies and confusion. I do not speak for the Church, Truth does not need to be spoken for, only relayed. Truth speaks for itself. Jesus once said “He who has ears let him hear.”

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.

Keep asking for the gift of faith. Also we have to dispose ourselves to it.

Perhaps “condemnation” was a bit strong for me to use, I should have used “disapprove.” My apologies for that word.

The doctrines are not beyond the facts of reality, they are beyond the natural realm. There are two orders of knowledge, that of the natural and that of the supernatural. If you do not believe or do not accept the supernatural order of knowledge, then further dialogue is not possible.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

#50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

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

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

#159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

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.

He does demonstrate his existence and his requirements to all. I could quote lengthy Scriptures and doctrines of the Church, but I find myself asking myself why since you seem so convinced that you are in the right. The knowledge is out there, how much are you willing to seek after God and dispose yourself?

No one can stand against God’s Will or His abilities. He is Almighty. God hears your prayers. However He is Perfect in all things and perhaps your prayers are not being answered becuase it is not in your best interests, I don’t know. But just because he does not answer does not mean that He is not there.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Spock,

Oh and you should look up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about what it has to say about Natural Law.

Wanting to help others by posting is great, but in doing so, one must be open to what others are saying. If you reject everything and evade questions which are legitamately asked by others posting in your thread, you do more not to help others but just to alienate others. I have observed that people wish for dialogue, and not what I have been observing in this thread.

I would encourage you to understand or try to understand what the difference is between what you understand and what the Church teaches.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Spock]

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.

Why not explain to me in what manner is the definition incomplete? And it is obvious that the euphemism (which starts to make me puke every time I see it) is meant as a metaphor. Ok! A metaphor of WHAT? Let’s stop beating around the bush, and let’s call a “spade” a “spade”. No need for political correctness. I can take the unvarnished facts… what does the metaphor stand for?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The general teaching of theologians is that the supreme and primary principles are necessarily known to every one having the actual use of reason*.*

OCE Natural Law

 

[MtnDwellar]

Why not explain to me in what manner is the definition incomplete? And it is obvious that the euphemism (which starts to make me puke every time I see it) is meant as a metaphor. Ok! A metaphor of WHAT? Let’s stop beating around the bush, and let’s call a “spade” a “spade”. No need for political correctness. I can take the unvarnished facts… what does the metaphor stand for?

You defined Natural Law in your first post:

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”.

Your definition is incomplete and also inaccurate in that natural law is not a euphemism or a metaphor.

The definition is incomplete because it includes that natural law is “inscribed” into our hearts, but lacks completeness in that natural law is only fully understood by applying reason to the study of nature. A glance at the Summa will show the process by which St. Thomas arrives at natural law.

This point is also raised by Verbum:

The general teaching of theologians is that the supreme and primary principles are necessarily known to every one having the actual use of reason.OCE Natural Law

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Spock,

Although I am a Catholic and personally believe that natural law comes from God, I can also point out a totally secular understanding of natural law that might appeal to you.

You can think of natural law as those common norms of behavior that human societies tend to develop through evolution. For example, take murder. If a society happened to adopt the norms that say it is OK to kill your neighbor if you disagree with him it is not difficult to see that such a society will not prosper and will self-destruct. This makes murder an evolutionary disadvantage and thus evolution will act to weed it out of the gene pool. The fact that unrelated societies tend to agree that murder is wrong shows that the prohibition against murder is not an accidental feature of society but an inherent truth, feral children notwithstanding.

As I said, this is not exactly how I think of it, but it may serve you given where you are at present.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

As I said, this is not exactly how I think of it, but it may serve you given where you are at present.

You might have a valid point here. Whatever else you might say about our ancestors, every single ancestor of every single one of us shares one common characteristic: they all lived long enough to reproduce.

Alan

 

[St_Francis]

I asked many times. I was not given.

Sometimes we ask and are given, but we have re-conceived notiins which make it so we don’t recognize what is given. A rich man searching for truth, for example, may receive it from a poor man but not notice precisely because the man is poor.

It’s like the woman around whose house floodwaters were rising. The water was coming when a man came by in a bus and offered her a ride out. No, she said, God will save me. As the water rose and she was forced to the second floor and a man came in a boat and offered to save her. No, she replied, God will save me. Then the water rose so she had to get on her roof. A helicopter came by and a man tossed out a ladder. No. no, she called back, God will save me.

Then the water rose some more and she was swept away. The next thing she knew, she was in front of God. What! God, why didn’t You save me? she asked. I sent a bus, a boat, and a helicopter–what more could I have done?

One of my most difficult problems is that I was raised and educated secular. It was hard for me to understand that my whole mindset was wrong. It’s been 15 years last month since I returned to the Church, and I still run into little places where my mindset is wrong.

I am having trouble learning to make cheese, so I ask online about the latest problem, and someone tells me what went wrong. So now I know that just about every step of making cheese is fraught with scientific difficulties (ph, %, temp, etc).

I see that I am working backwards. What I really need is a good set of directions! An explantion that works in a forward way.

You want to know about natural law, but this way you are going to get nothing but a series of backwards-facing corrections. Try asking for a full explanation from the beginning, so that you can see the foundation and work forwards.

I can see just from what you’ve written in this thread that you have trouble because you don’t understand that we are using some of the words in a different way than you do. You are asking about a difficult concept, and need to relax. I don’t think you will get a quick answer so try not to be upset with people because you don’t understand after just a few words.

 

[AdesteFideles]

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.

Then you will easily be able to demonstrate this assertion from a neurobiological perspective, yes? I would be interested in seeing your attempt; so long as it likewise takes the time to deal with the contrary studies and evidence which have been raised to this very well-documented question.

 

[St_Francis]

Look at it this way: human beings are born with an attraction to goodness (among other things). That’s what’s written on our heaets. As we learn more about the world, humanity, and our interactions with it, we learn more about being fair, being unselfish, and the like.

Take one issue: standing in line to get your turn. We in the US do this all the time, and understand the fairness of first come, first served, and the simple mmethod of indicating the order by standing in a line.

If someone cuts into the line, then people who were already in line complain, right? They think that is unfair.

But there are cultures where people do not stand in line and just crowd around doing what they can to attract attention so they will be served next. They would not understand our system until they had tried it a few times and seen that it works, right?

A feral child will be attracted to what is good, distressed by seeing someone beat someone else,'happy when they see someone being nice to someone else. But they don’t have a lot of experience with human interaction, so they don’t have the expeience. And they may not have the brain development or trust level or whatever to achieve it, which is a lack in them, not a proof that something does not exist. Many feral children are unable to learn language by the time they are found, but that does not mean that we do not have a natural ability to learn language, just that that ability can be abused or lost in someway, as when someone is kept from lanugage in one of those horrible cases of a child kept in isolation, or when someone lacks the capacity to perceive language, like deaf children.

 

[lisahiku]

Look at it this way: human beings are born with an attraction to goodness (among other things). That’s what’s written on our heaets. As we learn more about the world, humanity, and our interactions with it, we learn more about being fair, being unselfish, and the like.

No, we are inclined towards **evil **because we are born with original sin. Thus we have to battle the devil our whole lives.

 

[TimothyH]

…sheer nonsense… …absurdity… …ridiculous concept… …To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person… It is a sad thing… …assorted nonsense…

What sin are you holding in that causes you to continue to come here and call us - to call me - a bunch of stupid imbiciles?

My experience is that people who go out of their way to call believers a bunch of stupid idiots are involved in some sort of habitual behavior that bothers them a great deal, even if they don’t admit it, or have something in their past which creates the need to either come to terms with what they have done or to destroy anything which tells them that what they have done is wrong.

If there is no natural law, then fine. So what? I really wonder what your motivation is for continuing to call us a bunch of morons. The more you do it, the more I personally am convinced that deep down, its because something bothers you.

-Tim-

 

[AntalKalnoky]

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.

*The “natural law” is exactly the same Regularities we find in Morality of Human processes, Spock. Cavemen had the same “Natural” regularities to right/wrong: don’t Steal, don’t Brag, don’t covet or mess with my Mate/Child, don’t Lie about Most Important Facts (who killed that Prey) (Pride), let me Love/Adore my ‘god’: Weather, Nature, Mate/Child…Etc., Etc…The Ten Commandment ‘laws’ are Ingrained in everyone’s ‘nature’, naturally. Can be proven by “Science”: observation of our Interaction, Behaviour. We Just call it maybe misnomered “natural law”. * [SIGN] We basically agree on everything, Spock, except on Wording and Analyzing. We love, respect your intellectual challenges. The Free RCIA’s begining NOW in Every Parish explain The Rest of The Catholic Story, and, Spock, The Reasons For…[/SIGN] Similarly for “Miracles”: The Church defines them as Totally Impossible Scientifically, Naturally, Spock. Only a Supernatural Power can Cause Miracles.
[SIGN]Our Definition, Understanding Of "God" is The Impossible Naturally Source/Creator (Power/Spirit?) of Everything: The Laws of Calculus up to the Rapidly Expanding Universe, Time Trackable back to Nothing: **The Big Bang** Proven Scientifically, irrefutably. Search "Big Bang Theory", misnomered like Darwin's Evolution now PROVEN 100% "Theory". Notice **the Source of Big Bang Theory, 1920's**, Spock. [/SIGN] Searched The Most Investigated/Studied Mystery on Earth: THE SHROUD OF TURIN Science site, Proven Miracle Last 15 Years, as Described in the Bible? Countable 1sr Century Era Roman Scourge Marks, Nails and Lance Piercings, etc., etc. Rare fancy Named 1st Century Syrian Weave Pattern/Cloth; Same rare Blood type as Another sourced From Christ, a few types Rare Pollen sourced Only to small Area near Jerusalem: Announced by The Chief Botanist of The State of Isreal Recent Years. [SIGN]The Shroud Of Turin First miraculous Negative Picture is The Same as Popularly pictured Christ, being thought to be The Source of His Appearance. There is documentation of the Location of The Shroud in First Millenium. Best Scientific 'explanation of the Source Power of the Image is 'Radiation' From INSIDE The Corps. Just maybe Miraculously Resurrecting from The Dead: "Photo Negative First Picture". [/SIGN] I've been Science Only Proof, like you, Spock, Decades. as Agnostic/Atheist Albert Einstein once observed: *Science Alone can't explain Every Thing............... * Know Catholic Clergy (Mendell, Etc., Etc) Began Western Scientific Investigations, about 1500's, Spock? Motivation was NOT Religious; but trying to Discover the Why's, What's of everything :hey_bud:

 

[fhansen]

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.

There’s no natural law unless God exists because our discretionary powers would be superior to any evolved “law” gene within us anyway; there’d be nothing that could compel us to obedience. Consciousness of a God is the only thing that might ensure that one takes the idea of natural law seriously-or at least for it to have any relevance. In any case there are a whole host of patterns that indicate that humans are more similar than not in a variety of ways, including their morality, suggesting that humans do at least possess a basic * nature* which is common to all. It’s not that there’s no natural law-it’s just that even if there is one our we’re free will gives us the ability to disregard or override it anyway.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

What sin are you holding in that causes you to continue to come here and call us - to call me - a bunch of stupid imbiciles?

My experience is that people who go out of their way to call believers a bunch of stupid idiots are involved in some sort of habitual behavior that bothers them a great deal, even if they don’t admit it, or have something in their past which creates the need to either come to terms with what they have done or to destroy anything which tells them that what they have done is wrong.

If there is no natural law, then fine. So what? I really wonder what your motivation is for continuing to call us a bunch of morons. The more you do it, the more I personally am convinced that deep down, its because something bothers you.

-Tim-

… my dear friend ,

… i’m not talking about anyone in particular and thus no accusations , but i’m sure many satanists come here to try and destroy gods work thru caf and the members faith , and to generally spread evil and hell , so just beware it likely happens a lot , satanists say they are atheists you know …

… but there are really two types , the worst ones are theistic satanists and then there are atheistic satanists who do the same things pretty much but do not believe in god , either way these people as you should know are in an all out assault to destroy catholicism , but i don’t know any here and am just saying beware as it probably happens …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[AntalKalnoky]

What sin are you holding in that causes you to continue to come here and call us - to call me - a bunch of stupid imbiciles?

My experience is that people who go out of their way to call believers a bunch of stupid idiots are involved in some sort of habitual behavior that bothers them a great deal, even if they don’t admit it, or have something in their past which creates the need to either come to terms with what they have done or to destroy anything which tells them that what they have done is wrong.

If there is no natural law, then fine. So what? I really wonder what your motivation is for continuing to call us a bunch of morons. The more you do it, the more I personally am convinced that deep down, its because something bothers you.

-Tim-

Maybe, Tim, Spok is getting nervous, emotions showing, that The Church/Science disprove his ideas. I respect Spock Highly: He is Searching, Interrogating our Answers. Tough to be Proven Wrong, unless in an Irish Pub: Who Cares? :bowdown2:uch::juggle: Bottoms up!. Let’s try the Dart Board…

 

[Hypnotoad]

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

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

Thank you Alan, this actually touches on one of the many parts explaining the natural law in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I will have to reread it since I must admit I’m a slow learner): here is a snippet taken from newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

A few theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, following some older ones, maintained that there cannot exist in anyone practical ignorance of the natural law. This opinion however has no weight (for the controversy see Bouquillon, “Theologia Fundamentalis”, n. 74). Theoretically speaking, man is capable of acquiring a full kowledge of the moral law, which is, as we have seen, nothing but the dictates of reason properly exercised. Actually, taking into consideration the power of passion, prejudice, and other influences which cloud the understanding or pervert the will, one can safely say that man, unaided by supernatural revelation, would not acquire a full and correct knowledge of the contents of the natural law (cf. Vatican Council, Sess. III, cap. ii). In proof we need but recall that the noblest ethical teaching of pagans, such as the systems of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, was disfigured by its approbation of shockingly immoral actions and practices.

I guess in the end the argument against the OP would be to show there is a difference between not using something and not possessing something. For example just because I do not use a hammer does not mean I do not own a hammer or something to that affect, right?

 

[sw85]

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.

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.

You are conflating natural law with synderesis, which is simply the intuitive/instinctive grasp of natural law.

What is meant, I believe, when it’s said that natural law is inscribed on the human heart is that it irrevocably arises from man’s nature. And that’s all that natural law really is: “natural” refers to “consistent with human nature.” It simply asserts that goodness consists in using our faculties in a manner consistent with their respective telos’. What about this is even remotely controversial?

 

[AntalKalnoky]

No One has been able to get close to Describing Perfection: God. We only try by Observed Results and Science. “He” Is LOVE, considering EVERYTHING Extant. That is the Latest thinking of The Searcher: His Church, in the 1960’s. [SIGN] (EWTN Priest recently>>) I’ve learned THE Two-Liner of Christ: (1) Love The Lord/God. (2) Love your Neighbor, as Yourself: (Beggars to Every Person; (Love Prevents All Problems: << Common Sense.:newidea::idea)[/SIGN]