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

[tonyrey]

I believe Stephen J. Gould was the first to so express it - in an attempt to pacify the religious objections to scientific progress. Google ‘Stephen J. Gould’ and ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ and you will find all the sources you require.

Since Gould wasn’t a Catholic it obviously isn’t a source for Catholic belief on the subject.

 

[John21652]

Not forgetting, also, that Catholicism, early in its history, embraced the thinking of classical pagan philosophers, of which the concept of natural law itself is a product. Sola scriptura has generally not been a feature of Catholic Church teaching.

What you have written here is misleading.

Natural Law grew out of the Hellenistic schools of Philosophy in ancient Greece. Sure they were Pagan, as was Aristotle, who also embraced the concept, but that doesn’t alter the cogency of the Theory of Natural Law. Anyone with a degree of rationality will always come back to the question of a First Mover, as did the Stoics and Aristotle. The ancient Roman’s also embraced Natural Law and Cicero is is bect known champion. The ‘Catholicness’ of Natural Law is usually sheeted home to Aquinas, however it was embraced by the Byzantines and codified into Law by the Emperor Justinian, himself, of course, a devout Catholic. From the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine, Catholicism was “the” religion of Europe and Natural Law ethical theory underpinned its development. Obviously, before the advent of Jesus Christ, there were no Christians, yet the obviousness of the cogency and coherency of Natural Law was there for the thinkers of what you call the ‘pagan societies’. So, has it cogency and coherence been obvious to some of the world’s most famous thinkers since then.

By the way, Judaism and Islam are also Natural Law religions, so one needen’t be Catholic, or even Christian, to recognise its existence and value.

 

[vontroster]

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.

Current research is proving that we are indeed born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Morality is demonstrated in infants as young as six months old. Why six months? It would be hard to test them earlier than this point as they don’t move around too much.
The feral children argument could be easily explained as having this naturally born morality erased by the unnatural environment the children have been forced into. The adopt the “morals” of the animals they are living with as a basic modes of survival. The natural morality that is part of their humanity will require nature and nurture to develop fully. If you replace the human nurture part with the survival instincts of wild animals it will never fully develop.
nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html

 

[tonyrey]

Current research is proving that we are indeed born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Morality is demonstrated in infants as young as six months old. Why six months? It would be hard to test them earlier than this point as they don’t move around too much.
The feral children argument could be easily explained as having this naturally born morality erased by the unnatural environment the children have been forced into. The adopt the “morals” of the animals they are living with as a basic modes of survival. The natural morality that is part of their humanity will require nature and nurture to develop fully. If you replace the human nurture part with the survival instincts of wild animals it will never fully develop.
nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html

Thanks for the fascinating reference - especially the one year old boy who administered justice to the naughty puppet!

 

[AntalKalnoky]

It was in reference to the claim that the Catholic Church reversed EVERYTHING it inherited from the Roman Empire.

NO ONE has Ever said The Church reversed “EVERYTHING” of the Roman Empire; Only the Wrongs.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Even classical pagan philosophers got some things right. Should the Church deny everything they taught, even though she agrees with some of them?

Exactly. If it weren’t for certain “non-religious” philosophers and non-denominational and even Protestant preachers, I never would have come back to the church at all.

For example, the late philosopher Alan Watts, once and Anglican priest, then Buddhist, then afa as I know “nothing at all,” knew more about the Catholic Church and her teachings, and the “real” Jesus, than most Catholics I know.

Alan

 

[LittleSoldier]

Not at all - I was merely expanding upon my earlier point that Catholicism differs from evangelical Christianity in embracing other sources of knowledge than scripture alone. Of course, this is one of the grounds on which the latter adherents claim that Catholicism is not ‘real’ Christianity - or not any sort of Christianity at all - but I certainly think it is far more respectable to critically evaluate the claims of science and philosophy than to reject them out of hand because they don’t fit in with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Evangelical Christians don’t believe that Catholics are “real” Christians? Hmmm…I didn’t know that. Are you sure?

How did you come up with this idea that Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible? I’ve never heard that before. Surely some parts should be taken literally (although there is some disagreement about the definition of “literal” and some believe that the proper word is “literalistic” and the only reason I’m mentioning this is because it shows there is some confusion).

Speaking of confusion, I’m really getting confused here because my training is in science and yet I have no problem accepting Church interpretation of any scripture. Would you please provide some examples of claims of science that the Church has dismissed because “they don’t fit in with a literal interpretation of the Bible”?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Exactly. If it weren’t for certain “non-religious” philosophers and non-denominational and even Protestant preachers, I never would have come back to the church at all.

For example, the late philosopher Alan Watts, once and Anglican priest, then Buddhist, then afa as I know “nothing at all,” knew more about the Catholic Church and her teachings, and the “real” Jesus, than most Catholics I know.

Alan

I’m very happy that both of us are home.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Evangelical Christians don’t believe that Catholics are “real” Christians? Hmmm…I didn’t know that. Are you sure?

I don’t know about Evangelicals, but growing up I heard this all the time. I heard the same thing about Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t know about Evangelicals, but growing up I heard this all the time. I heard the same thing about Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Sadly, I agree. The worst one I’ve ever met was a Bible-toting Christian who was at a “pro-life” rally of Justice For All (JFA), on the campus of Wichita State University. These are the people that go around showing posters of mangled babies.

My son and I talked to this guy and he knew scripture front and back. I could refer to anything I knew about and he’d find it in a heartbeat. But when we revealed we were Catholic, it was all he could do not to spit on us. He was so vitriolic and so adamant that Catholics were not only going to hell but taking others with them, that I couldn’t believe anybody could be that bigoted. Only after we walked away did it occur to me that I should have asked him about what Church not only wrote that Bible, but who promulgated it and had millions of her members give their lives and endured torture to bring it to this day where it could be copied and mistranslated by many so he could use it as a vicious weapon against Chris and me, who were actually having a nice conversation until he found out “what we were.”

Alan

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sadly, I agree. The worst one I’ve ever met was a Bible-toting Christian who was at a “pro-life” rally of Justice For All (JFA), on the campus of Wichita State University. These are the people that go around showing posters of mangled babies.

My son and I talked to this guy and he knew scripture front and back. I could refer to anything I knew about and he’d find it in a heartbeat. But when we revealed we were Catholic, it was all he could do not to spit on us. He was so vitriolic and so adamant that Catholics were not only going to hell but taking others with them, that I couldn’t believe anybody could be that bigoted. Only after we walked away did it occur to me that I should have asked him about what Church not only wrote that Bible, but who promulgated it and had millions of her members give their lives and endured torture to bring it to this day where it could be copied and mistranslated by many so he could use it as a vicious weapon against Chris and me, who were actually having a nice conversation until he found out “what we were.”

Alan

Wow! There’s some of that “love your neighbor” missing. And what happened to “love your enemy?” I mean even if he loathed what he thought you believed and know to be true (which is probably the opposite of what you really believe and know to be true) I don’t understand how he can call himself “Christian” while blatantly ignoring the second of Jesus’ Great Commandments.

I know I shouldn’t judge him but I’m just so shocked that someone would do something like that.

I think this thread is going off-topic. I’m thinking about starting a new thread in which we could discuss incidents like this, if it’s allowed. I’ve never had anyone be as cruel to me as you have but it seems that if I identify myself as Catholic I’m attacked (even if I didn’t say one word about the other person’s church or faith). There seems to be so much anger, especially in many who have left the Church. The last woman I talked to told me that the Church had too many fallacies in it - this after I had comforted her, a complete stranger, over the loss of a cat that she obviously loved.

I’m still puzzling over that. And looking back I still have no idea what I should have said to her.

 

[LittleSoldier]

What you have written here is misleading.

Natural Law grew out of the Hellenistic schools of Philosophy in ancient Greece. Sure they were Pagan, as was Aristotle, who also embraced the concept, but that doesn’t alter the cogency of the Theory of Natural Law. Anyone with a degree of rationality will always come back to the question of a First Mover, as did the Stoics and Aristotle. The ancient Roman’s also embraced Natural Law and Cicero is is bect known champion. The ‘Catholicness’ of Natural Law is usually sheeted home to Aquinas, however it was embraced by the Byzantines and codified into Law by the Emperor Justinian, himself, of course, a devout Catholic. From the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine, Catholicism was “the” religion of Europe and Natural Law ethical theory underpinned its development. Obviously, before the advent of Jesus Christ, there were no Christians, yet the obviousness of the cogency and coherency of Natural Law was there for the thinkers of what you call the ‘pagan societies’. So, has it cogency and coherence been obvious to some of the world’s most famous thinkers since then.

By the way, Judaism and Islam are also Natural Law religions, so one needen’t be Catholic, or even Christian, to recognise its existence and value.

Great post, John!!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No. I believe that truth cannot contradict truth. A truth uncovered by science is just as valid as a truth uncovered by any other means.

I’m a scientist. I have great respect for science. I believe it is a tool God gave us to aid us in understanding the universe He created.

Any other means?
How about astrology or reading entrails?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

NO ONE has Ever said The Church reversed “EVERYTHING” of the Roman Empire; Only the Wrongs.

That’s not true, you did in the post below (I have highlighted the relevant section):

Sep 23, '11, 11:49 pm
AntalKalnoky
Banned
Prayer Warrior Join Date: June 29, 2011
Location: Haymarket VA
Posts: 881
Religion: Revert to Traditional Roman Catholic

Re: There is no natural law… so kindly DROP it

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The Catholic Church was in many ways built on the system, structures, and authority of the Roman Empire. Should we therefore give the Roman Empire credit for everything Catholicism has done?

No, because the Catholic Church Reversed everything of the Roman Empire: (a) From selfishness to Selflessness: always Giving instead of Taking, (b) From Military Power to Prayer Power (c) from Roman great culture, failing in selfishness, to New Catholic Culture: Liturgy, Arts., Etc., Etc.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Any other means?
How about astrology or reading entrails?

Those don’t lead to the discovery of truth, nor do reading coffee grounds, throwing beads to see which ones fall into a circle, the use of tarot cards (although I did see a really cool set of those once with amazing drawings of cats), or reading palms.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That’s not true, you did in the post below (I have highlighted the relevant section):

Sep 23, '11, 11:49 pm
AntalKalnoky
Banned
Prayer Warrior Join Date: June 29, 2011
Location: Haymarket VA
Posts: 881
Religion: Revert to Traditional Roman Catholic

Re: There is no natural law… so kindly DROP it

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The Catholic Church was in many ways built on the system, structures, and authority of the Roman Empire. Should we therefore give the Roman Empire credit for everything Catholicism has done?

No, because the Catholic Church Reversed everything of the Roman Empire: (a) From selfishness to Selflessness: always Giving instead of Taking, (b) From Military Power to Prayer Power (c) from Roman great culture, failing in selfishness, to New Catholic Culture: Liturgy, Arts., Etc., Etc.

As that poster has been banned I think it’s disingenuous to quote him/her because he/she cannot defend him/herself. Just my opinion although I wonder why you would debate with a banned poster.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As that poster has been banned I think it’s disingenuous to quote him/her because he/she cannot defend him/herself. Just my opinion although I wonder why you would debate with a banned poster.

Because I didn’t notice that he had been banned until now to be honest.

 

[StarFireKK]

Wow! There’s some of that “love your neighbor” missing. And what happened to “love your enemy?” I mean even if he loathed what he thought you believed and know to be true (which is probably the opposite of what you really believe and know to be true) I don’t understand how he can call himself “Christian” while blatantly ignoring the second of Jesus’ Great Commandments.

I know I shouldn’t judge him but I’m just so shocked that someone would do something like that.

I think this thread is going off-topic. I’m thinking about starting a new thread in which we could discuss incidents like this, if it’s allowed. I’ve never had anyone be as cruel to me as you have but it seems that if I identify myself as Catholic I’m attacked (even if I didn’t say one word about the other person’s church or faith). There seems to be so much anger, especially in many who have left the Church. The last woman I talked to told me that the Church had too many fallacies in it - this after I had comforted her, a complete stranger, over the loss of a cat that she obviously loved.

I’m still puzzling over that. And looking back I still have no idea what I should have said to her.

I’m more surprised now when I am not attacked after someone finds out I am Catholic. Even when I was growing up my friends seemed to have a personality change every now and then to say the most hateful things about Catholics to me. What I always found funny was these are the same people that would never dare say something hateful to a Jew or to a Muslim because that would be “wrong.”



Oh well, I guess that is just one of the crosses we are suppose to bear.

In fact, if I want to end a conversation from someone trying to convert me I just tell them I am not just Catholic but Irish Catholic. It is fun to watch them run away.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Because I didn’t notice that he had been banned until now to be honest.

I apologize; it was in the post you quoted so I thought you knew. I guess I shouldn’t be making assumptions, especially after accusing others of making assumptions about me. And I should know that things that are obvious to me aren’t always obvious to others.

I’m sorry.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I apologize; it was in the post you quoted so I thought you knew. I guess I shouldn’t be making assumptions, especially after accusing others of making assumptions about me. And I should know that things that are obvious to me aren’t always obvious to others.

I’m sorry.

No big deal:shrug: