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

[Spock]

Who said “proof”? The Church is present today. I need no ancient texts. I am your witness. You have been interogating him - with quite a bit of hostility it appears.

Unfortunately you are not much of a witness, and that is simple fact, no hostility involved in it. And I am not “hostile”, though I started to develop a low tolerance to BS. The existence of the church - a purely human institution - does not lead to the existence of God. Your current post reminds me of some others, where the poster brought up the arguments like this: “look at the smile of baby, that is the proof that God exists”, or “everyone is a miracle, and that is the proof of God’s love for us”. Maybe these people thought that I am an idiot, who can be convinced by such ridiculous “arguments”. Maybe they geniunely thought that they provided an argument, in which case, I think that they are idiots - with all “due” respect, of course.

Stories contain facts - so what is your point?

Some stories contain some facts. That is the point. And the fact that the Bible is loaded with scientific absurdities, which no one should accept - but many do. And that is a crying shame.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Those who oppose natural law are just like the atheists who oppose the idea of God , they are all sublimely superstitious.

Superstitious simply means you believe something without evidence for it.

There is certainly less evidence there is neither a God nor any natural law than there is evidence there are both.

Give me one argument there is no God and one argument there is no natural law.

The only argument you cannot use is that they are both superstitions. That is a cop-out.

 

[davidv]

Unfortunately you are not much of a witness,

I have a feelling you would have said the same about St. Peter in AD 35 too.

and that is simple fact, no hostility involved in it.

And I am not “hostile”, though I started to develop a low tolerance to BS. The existence of the church - a purely human institution - does not lead to the existence of God. Your current post reminds me of some others, where the poster brought up the arguments like this: “look at the smile of baby, that is the proof that God exists”, or “everyone is a miracle, and that is the proof of God’s love for us”. Maybe these people thought that I am an idiot, who can be convinced by such ridiculous “arguments”. Maybe they geniunely thought that they provided an argument, in which case, I think that they are idiots - with all “due” respect, of course.

Some stories contain some facts. That is the point. And the fact that the Bible is loaded with scientific absurdities, which no one should accept - but many do. And that is a crying shame.

Why are you resorting an emotional appeal fallacy.
What is the relevance of the Bible on the point of the OP? The Bible is not the source of natural law. Beside since the Bible isn’t a science book, any supposed absurdities are due to your faulty interpretation.

 

[Z_Ninja]

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

I would rather say that we have it in our nature to sin or have the propensity to sin, but that is not to say we are inherently evil. Yet, I believe we are drawn to goodness or at the very least, drawn to search for truth.

I remember seeing a video in a psychology class where a baby was sat in front of an adult. In the first interaction, the adult showed no reaction to the baby, just kept a straight face, the baby cooed and tried several times to get a reaction from the adult. The baby would look to the side or his fist as a form of reassurance and would try to coo again. This went for a few minutes and the baby eventually began crying. The next scene, the adult responded to the baby and smiled, the baby then smiled. This, imo, shows there must be something that would constitute some ingrained natural law.

or, I am wrong, and am totally off base with my assertions.

 

[Touchstone]

Hi Touchstone;

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I see you’ve been busy on this thread!

The key is to type really fast and not think too much. I excel on both counts.

That’s an interesting definition of superstition, and seems to be circular/begging the question, since it seems to rely on the assumption that there are no supernatural causes, therefore belief in supernatural causes is invalid.

It’s a tautology, though, not a value judgment. Whether there are or are not any supernatural causes does not affect the semantics of the term. Superstitions may perhaps be quite valid and grounded in reality. Or they may not be. The definition doesn’t establish anything one way or the other. Superstitions are beliefs in supernatural causes, that’s all. Those beliefs could be well grounded, or not so much, but the definition holds as a meaningful and useful conceptually either way.

Aren’t you being a bit histrionic here? Is there no room for metaphor in reading this passage?

If that’s all you have to hang your hat on as evidence in Paul of superstition (a term I am not convinced you are applying correctly to begin with), I’m not sure it would be enough to convict him by a jury of peers!

Let me get this straight: you don’t think Paul could be convicted by his own words of being superstitious, of belief in supernatural causes??? You have to be kidding me.

I think what Paul means, and what most exegetes seem to take him to mean, is that there is something of God in our very natures.

Yes, but that view reifies the superstition as opposed to discounting it. This is God’s design, the telos, the physical manifestation, immanent throughout all creation (cf. Romans 1:18-20) but apprehended by reason in the mind of man, man as the creature invested with the imago dei.

I’m completely stumped to think of how that would be “de-superstitioned” and detached from the telic, purposeful intervention by God in his creature, and in the design of his creatures. I mean, at some point, if you’re buying the God idea, at least on the Christian model, you have to face facts: you’re inescapably, ineluctably superstitious. It’s OK, not the end of the world. It’s a problem, though, and it goes with the territory.

This idea can be (and has been) interpreted in such a wide variety of ways (as your own eclectic reading sources show).

Indeed, but can you point me to one interpretation that does reduce to a supernatural God intervening purposefully in creation, and effecting the design and teleological ends that God wills in his creation?

That would be quite interesting to see!

Might I suggest that academic rigour would necessitate our giving St Paul the widest reading possible until his meaning is understood? No university professor would brook such a facile conclusion in any discipline based on such a limited use of sources. As St Paul makes no direct references to natural law, and none that encapsulate the understanding of Aquinas, around whose work much of the modern contemporary debate revolves, he plays relatively very little role in the development of the theory. Aquinas makes no reference to the line you quote in his treatment of natural law (ST, 1a2ae, q94).

I’m going to primary sources here, which I thought you’d prefer. It’s a problem the other way around. If I point to Calvin or Aquinas, they both stand with one foot at least (if not both) on the words of Paul. If you aren’t going to take Paul as an “expert witness” on the matter, than Calvin, Aquinas, Barth or Cicero aren’t gonna stand a chance.

But as above, no matter, by me. Give me your preferred authoritative work on natural law, and let’s if superstition underwritest that view. That’d be just fine with me.

I should also add that there is a consisderable difference in the concept of natural law between Aristotle and Aquinas. To be sure, Aquinas bases some of his distinctions (especially the distinction between natural law and natural justice) on Aristotle, but his development of the idea is unique.

Yes, but see above. From what you’ve said to me so far, none of those distinctions matter (and there are plenty of fine grained differences between various thinkers on this to drive interesting discussions). They are all Christian-theism-supernaturalist, and just by virtue of that, superstitious in nature. All the different flavors (so far as I’m aware) have the same fundamental weakness.

-TS

(con’t anon)

 

[Touchstone]

All that to say, and one of the things that I find a little frustrating about this otherwise very interesting thread is that there seems to be very little consensus on what natural law even means. Nor does there seem to be much of an appetite here for laying sources on the table systematically and dealing with the issue with a certain amount of academic honesty and integrity. There also seems to be very little understanding of the diversity of views within the Christian community on the meaning of natural law, and diversity of views among Thomists to boot.

I understand that. But really, think about it from someone’s point of view who’s not embracing to such intuitions as determinative on belief: you’re tinkering around the edges with all that, and distracted by minutiae. The fundamental problem is the superstitious pseudo-epistemology. Spock’s subject in the thread is not advanced (not that I’m pedantic about going off topic a bit, as anyone who knows me here can attest) by wondering about natural law vs. natural justice – that’s missing the whole problem. If you’re going to fall into the ditch straight away at that level, it’s pretty much just ennui working about Barth’s ideas about, oh, say, syndersis, you know what I mean?

Imagine sitting down to talk about astronomy, and your astrologist friend insists you aren’t doing justice to the fine points of astrology, and that until you know the baroque ornamentation on all those fanciful ideas inside and out, you really aren’t doing justice to astronomy.

That would be a problem for you, would it not? If so, then you can understand my position. As it happens, I’ve a lot of experience and reading behind me on the finer points of your “astrology”, but at the end of the day, it is “astrology” your are concerned with, as opposed to thinking through robustly rational frameworks and heuristics.

I don’t know if you’re an atheist or not, or what your current position is in reference to faith. But you strike me as being well-read and articulate, and so I am presuming that you have an interest in some sort of purposeful discussion?

Sure. I’ve spent decades as a fairly committed, if decidedly amateur theology buff, when I was a Christian. I have been particularly interested over that time in the philosophy of religion, insofar as that is distinct from theology (and it is). I’ve been an atheist for going on 5 years now, though, so while I am interested in thoughtful discussion, the traction Aquinas provides for me over Calvin or William Lane Craig is pretty meager, even if I’m able to participate and keep up. Like I said, at some level, it’s just like debating the minutiae of astrology.

If so, I’d be interested to know your definition of ‘natural law’. What does it mean to you? What is the basis for your assumption in these blogs? Maybe you have every reason to believe that it is, afterall, superstition…depending on where it comes from!

I have, for my part, become convinced through my own study of the reality of natural law as developed by Thomas Aquinas, and as explained by, for example, Martin Rhonheimer and John Paul II to name just two reliable exegetes. That understanding does not reflect the moral subject/object divide one frequently finds in discussions of natural law today and which is a feature of some of your own sources.

Best wishes…

Ahh, OK, should have read this all the way through before responding, sorry. I will accept that as your “authoritative framework” on natural. JPII (via Theology of the Body primarily) I’m familiar with, of course. Haven’t read Rhonheimer.

But what of this choice, over another? Is there something epistemically superior in your choice over other Christian alternatives that would rebut Spock’s idea, or my dismissal that this is all just one flavor of abject superstition over another?

-TS

 

[SpeakInSilence]

See here, at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Nature is replete with such examples. This isn’t even an interesting challenge.

I understand “absolute truth” as “divine fiat” to be a hopelessly confused concept. If it were an absolute truth, then God would not help, hurt or be able to alter its “truthiness”.

On the other hand, I do not understand humans to be perfectly plastic, “tabulas rasa”, shaped any which way the surrounding culture would prefer. Humans are products of evolution, and as such are, on human timelines, nearly static in their nature, evolving substantially only over tens and hundreds and thousands of thousands of years.

So, any and all modern humans inherit the millions-of-years legacy of their evolutionary ancestors. As such, they have moral instincts and basic dispositions which are innate, the heritage bequeathed them by those that went before them, and which are not dictated or dominated by any particular culture.

And I note that even this articulation is tricky. The fact that “culture” is a meaningful concept is the proof that humans are innately moral; choose any culture you wish, no matter how successful or failed it is in working against the “biological inertia” of human evolved pyschology, the mere fact that humans are social – that they engage in culture in the FIRST PLACE – denotes the essentially moral psychology of modern humans.

In modern Pakistan, there is a widespread and institutional support for rape. In the Punjab, for example, tribal and feudal customs, centuries old, countenance the rape of women from families were the male members have committed crimes.

Rape has LONG been a valued and accepted weapon of war. Just a quick Google on that will produce way more sources on that than you need, or anyone should want to engage.

Not sure why you are asking, but if you suppose rape is a good example of something that is “universally abhorred” in moral terms, you are quite mistaken about the history of your species.

OK, great! None of this will be controversial to you, then.

-TS

1. You actually failed to answer my first question by just sending a link, when indeed the link doesn’t even give one example of pure altruism. Actually reading the final paragraph of the link you gave me probably shows you didn’t completely read it.

Quote, “Do theories of the evolution of biological altruism apply to humans? This is part of the broader question of whether ideas about the evolution of animal behaviour can be extrapolated to humans, a question that fuelled the sociobiology controversy of the 1980s. All biologists accept that Homo sapiens is an evolved species, and thus that general evolutionary principles apply to it. However, human behaviour is obviously influenced by culture to a far greater extent than that of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires (though this does not necessarily mean that genetics has no influence.) Nonetheless, at least some human behaviour does seem to fit the predictions of the evolutionary theories reviewed above. In general, humans behave more altruistically (in the biological sense) towards their close kin than towards non-relatives, e.g. by helping relatives raise their children, just as kin selection theory would predict. It is also true that we tend to help those who have helped us out in the past, just as reciprocal altruism theory would predict. On the other hand, numerous human behaviours seem anomalous from the evolutionary point of view. Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their biological fitness, obviously, so adoption is an altruistic behaviour. But it is does not benefit kin — for parents are generally unrelated to the infants they adopt — and nor do the parents stand to gain much in the form of reciprocal benefits. So although evolutionary considerations can help us understand some human behaviours, they must be applied judiciously.”

Actually friend the type of altruism humans often display is very contradictory to evolution in regards to evolution’s may goal: breed, and survive. The article you gave gives perfect examples of “you scratch my back I scratch your back scenarios”, ie: the blood-sharing in vampire bats.

1. You gave an example of country where there is a heavy amount of rape; however that was not my question, my question was in fact, "Can you tell me at least one nation in past, or maybe modern world, where they value rape? Also, do you ever think there is a scenario where rape would be necessarily? If so, could you outline your position for me?"

I highly doubt that warring tribes wanted THEIR women or children to get raped, and if they did could you prove with a primary document where someone in the Punjab tribe talked about how they enjoyed and valued getting raped? Same for Pakistan. Also it seems that you are saying that because there is large amount of “sin” in a country it therefore justifies it. Do you believe in basic human rights?

You tend to mix up the “Moral Law” with what is done, instead of what should be done.

 

[principio]

I sense anger in these posts. And when there is anger, I doubt the arguement.

 

[Abba]

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.

Are you claiming that John Locke proved his claim? That is quite a CLAIM you have going there; that biology has proved it so. You have obviously never read the works of Immanuel Kant. The falsehood of your claim is evident to children.

 

[John21652]

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?

Ok, let’s call a spade a spade.

Natural Law is a metaphor for Human Nature, observed, discerned and accepted as the “norm”. No Natural Law, no human nature. From the discerned norms of human behaviour, normative ethics is founded and from observing what is, we get what should be. Is and ought. The discerned normative aspects of human nature must be universal and mind independent to be termed ‘normative’ according to Natural Law ethics.

. Plain enough for you?

If you disagree, then explain why a Godless Aristotle discerned a Natural Law and so too the Stoics. After all, it was they who “discovered” the uniform, coherent, cogent thing called Natural Law in the first place. Western civilisation was founded on it. The Catholic Church champions it. The consequences of not following the Natural Law are to be found in the long list of failed nation states, territories and whole empires who forgot its basic tenents. Oh and that’s not even considering the squillions of failed individuals who have failed to live by its ethical standards.

As someone once wrote, the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.

Puke on it and you thumb your nose at the very concept of human nature.

“Drop it” at your own peril.

 

[tonyrey]

Ok, let’s call a spade a spade.

Natural Law is a metaphor for Human Nature, observed, discerned and accepted as the “norm”. No Natural Law, no human nature. From the discerned norms of human behaviour, normative ethics is founded and from observing what is, we get what should be. Is and ought. The discerned normative aspects of human nature must be universal and mind independent to be termed ‘normative’ according to Natural Law ethics.

. Plain enough for you?

If you disagree, then explain why a Godless Aristotle discerned a Natural Law and so too the Stoics. After all, it was they who “discovered” the uniform, coherent, cogent thing called Natural Law in the first place. Western civilisation was founded on it. The Catholic Church champions it. The consequences of not following the Natural Law are to be found in the long list of failed nation states, territories and whole empires who forgot its basic tenets. Oh and that’s not even considering the squillions of failed individuals who have failed to live by its ethical standards.

As someone once wrote, the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.

Puke on it and you thumb your nose at the very concept of human nature.

“Drop it” at your own peril.

Bravo! You have overtaken the undertakers>>>>>

 

[FurtherSuntime]

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.

Morality is a human construct which is developed as well in-built. We have a conscience & intellect including emotional intelligence They are guided by self preservation-nature

Everybody knows full well we are enriched and therefore shaped by the environment and yet “spock”… the moral compass is something we all have

…BUILT IN

Good is better then bad, the social allows and is required for activation and nuturing…that is the WHOLE of the package You have neatly picked apart the components of human experience and presented a… false argument.

Mind brings reason to creation, it is to be. The creation is NOT a non-conscious creation.Objectively men who do not reason are not good . Reasons nature is reflective… and needs to be here.

This view throughout thread in thoughtlessness is what is ruining the world…that thoughtlessness will make man worse than the animal. The closer to the rational mankind is, the closer to nature as man is a rational being.

The closer to the animal, the more dangerous man is as he is not of the animal. The less rational man is the greater the need to self de-mentalize… Make him primitive.

Good thing I checked in today

BTW…little babies and so forth are well known to be looked after by these beautiful animals God has created instead of being killed and eaten…we have even more tools and to deny such
is an absolute insult to all that IS…(above is my opinion, thankyou) theres no point in anything if you cannot stand up for what the heck is right and good

 

[Spock]

Ok, let’s call a spade a spade.

Well, well… after 7 pages someone comes clean. I am glad to see that.

Natural Law is a metaphor for Human Nature, observed, discerned and accepted as the “norm”.

So what is the need for having a euphemism? What is wrong with the “real McCoy”? But, of course we did not make any progress yet. Just what is that “norm”? Enumerate it for me.

No Natural Law, no human nature. From the discerned norms of human behaviour, normative ethics is founded and from observing what is, we get what should be. Is and ought. The discerned normative aspects of human nature must be universal and mind independent to be termed ‘normative’ according to Natural Law ethics.

But here you are off in la-la land. There is no “universal norm”. In the primitive times it was perfectly acceptable to clubber and eat another human being. In the ancient Egyptian times it was perfectly acceptable to marry one’s sibling. In medieval Japan it was perfectly acceptable for the samurai to wield his sword and cut down anyone who dared to oppose him. Same in medieval Europe. Just about a hundred years ago it was perfectly acceptable to consume the so-called mind-altering drugs, which were all available over the counter. Divorce was unacceptable under the rule of the church. Today it is accepted. In the Victorian era the handicapped (I mean crippled) members of the family were barely tolerated, and most of them were kept out of sight.

The norms are changing all the time.

Just ponder that not even all Catholics agree about contraception, abortion, divorce, and other assorted “abominations” against the “natural law”, I mean, “human nature”… why is that? Because there is no “uniform, unchanging human nature”.

Plain enough for you?

The words are plain, but empty. Just what is this nebulous “human nature”? And while you are at it, you might concentrate on the assertion that it is against “human nature” to prevent unwanted pregnancies using active measures. I can hardly wait.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Well, well… after 7 pages someone comes clean. I am glad to see that.

So what is the need for having a euphemism? What is wrong with the “real McCoy”? But, of course we did not make any progress yet. Just what is that “norm”? Enumerate it for me.

But here you are off in la-la land. There is no “universal norm”. In the primitive times it was perfectly acceptable to clubber and eat another human being. In the ancient Egyptian times it was perfectly acceptable to marry one’s sibling. In medieval Japan it was perfectly acceptable for the samurai to wield his sword and cut down anyone who dared to oppose him. Same in medieval Europe. Just about a hundred years ago it was perfectly acceptable to consume the so-called mind-altering drugs, which were all available over the counter. Divorce was unacceptable under the rule of the church. Today it is accepted. In the Victorian era the handicapped (I mean crippled) members of the family were barely tolerated, and most of them were kept out of sight.

The norms are changing all the time.

Just ponder that not even all Catholics agree about contraception, abortion, divorce, and other assorted “abominations” against the “natural law”, I mean, “human nature”… why is that? Because there is no “uniform, unchanging human nature”.

The words are plain, but empty. Just what is this nebulous “human nature”? And while you are at it, you might concentrate on the assertion that it is against “human nature” to prevent unwanted pregnancies using active measures. I can hardly wait.

Friend Spock, the definition of Human Nature is available in searches: it’s our ESSENCE. It’s common sense to Not use phony measures when Natural measures are ideal, and Natural.
[SIGN]It was NEVER ok to
club or harm another. There was always Another Bigger or More others to naturally ensure The Norms of Behaviour were kept, often without a show of hands. Headhunters only mounted heads, Rarelly, as one trophy of their Warrior Skills.[/SIGN] When was Theft ever condoned? Errant Pirates were Keel-Hauled, Or made to Walk the Plank if didn’t learn the lesson.

 

[Spock]

Friend Spock, the definition of Human Nature is available in searches: it’s our ESSENCE. It’s common sense to Not use phony measures when Natural measures are ideal, and Natural.

I was expecting exactly that, but did not want to pre-empt it. It does not help to “define” one meaningless phrase with another, equally meaningless one.

What is our “essence”? Define it. I have never seen a coherent definition of it. Some people say: “the essence is without which we would not be what we are” - which is ridicuolously vague and therefore useless. Give me a constructionist algorithm which shows what is your “essence” and does it differ from my “essence”. They must be different, otherwise I would not be me, and you would not be you.

 

[John21652]

Well, well… after 7 pages someone comes clean. I am glad to see that.

No more “clean” than other posters. You just need to read between the lines of what others post. I think they call it patience. Or is it maybe tolerance?

So what is the need for having a euphemism?

Good question. Especially how it was you who first used that adjective. It isn’t one I would have chosen, but perhaps the fact that you chose it is a reflection of your mindset. I’d have probably gone for ‘aphorism’.

What is wrong with the “real McCoy”?

Nothing at all. However, as they say in the movies, a rose by any other name…

But, of course we did not make any progress yet. Just what is that “norm”? Enumerate it for me.

Well, we aint gonna make any progress until you not only read between the lines to better understand people, but also not until you learn to read accurately what others write. I already stated it is that which is discerned, mind independent and universal and accepted as the norm. The norm, of course is not about one single behaviour, but refers to many different behaviours, the sum of which constitutes human nature. Of course you already know that and you know I know you know, so if you want to call a spade a spade, stop playing childish games.

But here you are off in la-la land. There is no “universal norm”.

Tell that to the scientists, shrinks and philosophers who study it.

In the primitive times it was perfectly acceptable to clubber and eat another human being.

Are vyou saying cannibalism was a universal human behaviour? Gee whiz, even Wiki tells you that isn’t so.

In the ancient Egyptian times it was perfectly acceptable to marry one’s sibling.

You are again trying to generalise from the particular. It doesn’t work. By the way, ancient Egypt is a good example of one of those failed empires I mentioned earlier.

In medieval Japan it was perfectly acceptable for the samurai to wield his sword and cut down anyone who dared to oppose him.

Same mistake again. Now if Aristotle had followed your methodology, we’d be all up the creek without a paddle. You are not giving examples of behaviour which can ever be considered as “normative”.

Same in medieval Europe.

medieval Europe covers a very long period of history. Can you narrow it down a wee bit? After all, medieval Europe was totally catholic and was so right up until the Reformation. It seems you must have even more examples of aberrant behaviour tucked away in your head.

Just about a hundred years ago it was perfectly acceptable to consume the so-called mind-altering drugs, which were all available over the counter.

You mean they sold LSD in 1911?! Now pull the other one…

Divorce was unacceptable under the rule of the church.

Haven’t you heard of annullments?

Today it is accepted.

This statement opens a can of worms. Just because something is widespread doesn’t mean it is “accepted”. There seems to be quite a hue and cry against the social harm being caused by the high divorce rates. Divorve is also not accepted by all people in all societies, so until we can get some stats on the subject, I’d not hasten to say it is universally accepted. You should also realise that divorce is a good example of natural Law ethics being abused.

In the Victorian era the handicapped (I mean crippled) members of the family were barely tolerated, and most of them were kept out of sight.

I wouldn’t know, but you seem to be suggesting that there was less love for certain family members back then. I find that hard to beleive.

The norms are changing all the time.

Actually, the norms of behaviour always remain the norm. Whether people continue to adhere to them is another question. Like I said, the world is full of examples of failed empires and failed individulas…

Just ponder that not even all Catholics agree about contraception, abortion, divorce, and other assorted “abominations” against the “natural law”, I mean, “human nature”… why is that? Because there is no “uniform, unchanging human nature”.

So, are human’s capable of morphing into something not human? Could it not be the case that there are certain traits that todays humans share even with their ancient ancestors? How about basic survival instincts, like the will to live? We know certain people kill themselves, but does that mean the will to live is not universal?

The words are plain, but empty. Just what is this nebulous “human nature”? And while you are at it, you might concentrate on the assertion that it is against “human nature” to prevent unwanted pregnancies using active measures. I can hardly wait.

Actually, if you want to put your cynical mindset to work productively, you might be able to figure out what the words actually mean, just as Aristotle did and the Stoics before him. Can you, for instance, put together a list of human traits which are indeed discernable as being universal? Come on, I bet you can.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

If no explanation is possible then outsiders must seriously question whether or not there is a good explanation at all.

Blind faith might be good enough for those who already believe, but if you want to draw in outsiders you *need *convincing explanations and arguments.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

The problem is that* moral behavior *differs wildly from civilization to civilization.

If the Natural Law is inscribed on every human heart, why did the Aztecs think it was just to sacrifice huge numbers of innocent people to their gods?
Why did the Romans think it was moral to kill criminals for the sport of the masses in gory orgies of sex and violence?
Why do the Muslims in Egypt think its decent to sew shut the vaginas of their daughters?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

… 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 …

I agree with Spock.
Your writing style makes you hard to understand.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Greetings Spock,

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.”

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

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

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

Ulitimately all your arguments boil down to:
What the Church says is true because the Church said it.