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

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Natural Law is a complicated theological concept.

But complicated doesn’t necessarily mean sophisticated.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

Ah yes, now I remember why I thought Natural Law was such a stupid idea.

Thank you.

How can we have a natural inclination towards evil (Original Sin, fallen human nature, etc.) and also have an instinctive understanding of and appreciation for the good?

 

[You]

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?

hello angry atheist. read my post carefully. I said find a culture in which every citizen accepts and loves bad rules as being good…
The Aztecs rulers had slaves/prisoners sacrificed. If every Aztec citizen accepted and loved human sacrifice you will need to show me the evidence for just that. Personally, I feel human sacrifice inspired dread into the Aztec citizen which helped the ruling classes build the empire. See below.
The Romans built colosseums and killed lots of people. In fact at its height the ‘games’ as they were sometimes called were on for over 200 days of the year, or every third day of the year prisoners, christians, animals would be slaughtered for amusement. They even had hot pastry sellers at the tops of the stands, like our hotdog sellers, so that the crowds would not miss the executions if they felt hungry.
Guess what, it was not long until the native roman population of rome became sickened with the carnage and the games were brought to an end.
Exceptions like mad emperors or evil Aztec priests won’t prove your idea that every citizen accepts and loves bad rules as being good any more than one psychopath in a hospital proves all patients are psychopaths.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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-

It matters because the Catholic Church wants everyone to live according to its ‘Natural Law’ and despite all the setbacks it has suffered in the 20th and 21st centuries the Church still has a lot of influence (at least in some parts of the world).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

… 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 …

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

An atheist by definition does not believe in the supernatural.
That means an atheist doesn’t believe in gods, demons, ghosts, heaven, hell, etc.

If you worship Satan (e.g. if your a Satanist) then he is effectively your god and you are not an atheist.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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…

HOW has it disproven his ideas?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Why EVER “Argue”?

Because not ever arguing would mean just passively accepting whatever anyone tells you.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Spock
**
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. **

What’s really absurd is your notion that feral children exist in a state on nature. It’s like saying fish out of water is really where fish are natural. Humans are natural only in a family and social environment. Everywhere in the world thinking people recognize that there are natural do’s and don’ts … except apparently you!

Actually there are quite a few anarchists in the world (I am not saying your one Spock, just acknewledging what Charlemagne II seems to be implying).

There have even been anarchist organizations

 

[Neildown]

How can we have a natural inclination towards evil (Original Sin, fallen human nature, etc.) and also have an instinctive understanding of and appreciation for the good?

Enters Neil

We all want to do what is good [usually anyway], but we are often inclined to do wrong against our better judgement. It’s like cheating on a diet. You tell yourself you are going to eat all health food for a week, because you know you need to stop eating junk, but then you cheat and you invalidate your intention of eating healthy.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re not being “logical” Spock.
Science has already been wrong about too many things to logically trust their proofs. It’ll remain that way as long as knowledge remains a growing unfolding kind of thing.
You also seem to be having an especially illogical and over emotional reaction to the subject of natural law. Does it make you angry for some reason?

After all, all people are really doing here is crediting a different source (God) than what you credit. What’s so upsetting about that?

I trust scientists more than theologians because scientists are willing to admit that their wrong (among other reasons).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And you sir, do not know what you are talking about. These statements are a classic example of a little education being a dangerous thing!

Well, ignorant people are easier to control

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

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 don’t see belief in supernatural causes and being superstitious as being synonymous. Ergo…

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.

I think you’re being wilful with this term superstitious, and since its being used in a totally circular way, I can’t debate it with you.

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?

Yes, read Martin Rhonheimer, Natural Law & Practical Reason and The Perspective of the Acting Person: Essays in the Renewal of Thomistic Moral Theology. Part of the problem here is that you seem to be inferring from the various sources you refer to—particularly Paul—a decidedly deistic view of God and God’s intervention. Rhonheimer clears that confusion—among other things.

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.

Can you give me a specific source from Aquinas? I’m not interested in Calvin and don’t consider him an authority on natural law—nor would any Catholic authority. I’d like to see a reference from Aquinas however, which supports your claim.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

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 wish I had read this first before wasting time replying to your earlier comments. At the end of the day, I can’t help but think you’re just interested in point scoring, and not in an honest discussion. Your constant use of the word ‘superstition’, and analogy with astrology indidcates a deep and profound prejudice, verging on hatred, which is unanswerable. You claim to have ‘a lot of experience and reading behind’ you on the topic, but frankly, I’ve seen none of it. My first year students come up with more compelling insights and comments than I’ve seen here. You’re good at name dropping, but most of it is just non-sequiturs with little bearing on the discussion at hand.

What is it you’re really looking for? You’ve already made it clear that you have no interest in academic honesty or a quest for truth. But something must be keeping you here. I’m not sure I’m the person to help you find it. I come here because I love philosophy and theology. I think I’ve made a mistake in thinking you shared that interest?

 

[soccerdad57]

I trust scientists more than theologians because scientists are willing to admit that their wrong (among other reasons).

How can science ever prove (or disprove) something like God, Love - or The Natural Law? All science can do is offer theories based on evidence it sees. People of various religious beliefs do the same - they hold beliefs (or theories) based on the evidence they see (the miracles of Jesus as depicted in Scriptures, near death experiences, ghosts (for some) the effect of prayer in their life - just to name a few). Its just that science’s inability to prove a reality which is beyond our immediate senses - which God, Love and the Natural Law are, is precisely because science uses a methodology based on those immediate senses. There is nothing wrong with this and is perfect for formulating theories regarding the things of this universe - which God is not - the universe is of Him. Science attempts to smell a rose with a telescope so to speak - it has the wrong tool to do that and always will since it relies on our immediate senses to discover God -and other such things. You can’t see God with a microscope and never will be able to - this however, does not prove anything about Him. In the same way, the Natural Law will never be proved or disproved by the science of biology - and thats OK! - Nobody is forced to believe in God or any of this - I think this brings us to the question of where we should get our societal values and moral norms from - which is a huge topic in and of itself - and worthy of another thread. I love science - its fun and helpful - but lets not make it more than it is - lets not turn it into a “god” itself. And don’t be so angry - we’re just talkin-

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Speak

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

Excellent and devastating rebuttal.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If you don’t believe in a natural law, and you don’t believe in religion, then YOU don’t have any governor for your actions. Then that means YOU are completely out of control.

Just a thought. What do you think?

I think that if fear of supernatural forces is all that’s keeping you from acting like a sociopath (murdering, raping, etc. whenever the impulse strikes you) as many religious people claim they are, then you are simply a bad person.

 

[Touchstone]

I don’t see belief in supernatural causes and being superstitious as being synonymous. Ergo…

This is the first hit from Google on “superstition definition”:

su·per·sti·tionNoun/ˌso͞opərˈstiSHən/

1. Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
2. A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief. More »
   Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

Having long been a Christian, I’m well aware of the special pleading and caprice Christians apply to this term. But it is special pleading, and self-serving to exempt Christianity when on the merits it is a thoroughgoing superstition, and not at the edges, but the foundations, the core. You can complain all you want, but my usage of superstition is completely non-controversial and consistent on the merits. Christians are just used to being “special” that way in our culture, due to its dominance in that culture.

Call it whatever, a credulous appeal to supernatural causes is STILL a credulous appeal to supernatural causes, and it’s the CONCEPT that is the problem, not the label. You are struggling with a fundamental epistemic problem, not just the sting of getting consistent labeling along with all the other superstitions that our out there.

I think you’re being wilful with this term superstitious, and since its being used in a totally circular way, I can’t debate it with you.

It’s not being used in a circular way.

Yes, read Martin Rhonheimer, Natural Law & Practical Reason and The Perspective of the Acting Person: Essays in the Renewal of Thomistic Moral Theology. Part of the problem here is that you seem to be inferring from the various sources you refer to—particularly Paul—a decidedly deistic view of God and God’s intervention. Rhonheimer clears that confusion—among other things.

Ok, well I do pick up lots of good reading recommendations at CAF, and I’ve got this on my list, thank you. I can’t help but think we are talking about the same Saul-of-Tarsus-become-Paul, if you (er, Rhonheimer) adopts a… deistic stance on God. This is the guy who personally MET Jesus, Jesus-as-God, on the road to Damscus, right???

I submit you cannot be less deistic and more personally-immanent-theistic than Paul was as a result of that experience.

But in any case, that sounds like an interesting argument to hear out, either way.

Can you give me a specific source from Aquinas? I’m not interested in Calvin and don’t consider him an authority on natural law—nor would any Catholic authority. I’d like to see a reference from Aquinas however, which supports your claim.

As a theologian, Aquinas is no more (or less) authoritative than Calvin, or you, or me, or Fred Phelps for that matter. Theology doesn’t admit to demonstrated authority. That’s a scientific concept, where you can show your model performing against real challenges in the real world, successfully.

But I’m not averse to talking Aquinas, even so. That wasn’t my goal here, but thoughtful and provocative discussions are something I enjoy, even and especially when the topic is not one I was looking for at the time.

-TS

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Touchstone

But it’s a deceiving appearance, and that’s why the ‘natural law’ superstition works so well. Humans are predisposed in some ways; babies are distressed at witnessing gratuitous suffering and violence being inflicted on others, far before they are able to process language at all, let alone use language to rationalized a learned moral lesson via that language faculty. Because these same humans are just by nature fantastically biased against non-telic explanations, they are credulous and lazy in the answers they embrace — God did this.

Blah, blah, blah. You have become so predictable and tedious in your smears against Christians.

And exactly how do you know there is no God behind everything?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

According to your religion, an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being created everything. And he later took on human form and founded a church (your religion) that is right about everything (at least when it comes to the important stuff).

Its unreasonable to expect outsiders to thoroughly disprove every one of these claims or accept them all. The rational standard, is to make the people asserting all this* prove it.*

And no Catholic ever has.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

All those long posts and you conclude with the same argument I have heard from 12 year olds, 17 year olds, guys with beer in heavy metal pub. But none of them yet has a better solution.:dts:

So its better to accept a bad argument than simply admit we don’t know

 

[davidv]

It matters because the Catholic Church wants everyone to live according to its ‘Natural Law’ and despite all the setbacks it has suffered in the 20th and 21st centuries the Church still has a lot of influence (at least in some parts of the world).

Why is it, do you think, that the Church wants this for everyone?