the sloppy magical fingerprints of natural law
Naturals laws are science, the way of the world. The way atheists throw science under the bus in order to make atheism work out for them is astonishing! (Silence of Mind)
As a species, I think human beings sometimes lose sight of the limitations we face in terms of expression and understanding. In many parts of the world the population are unhelpfully and unhealthily monolingual, which can have a tendency to further limit them to narrow definitions of larger concepts.
Take this term ‘natural law’, which is in common usage in English. The unhelpful inclusion of the word ‘law’ gives a sense that some agency has created a written rule somewhere and oversees its use. And indeed this would have been the intention of the religious philosophers in the Dark Ages who developed the notion that, astoundingly enough, some people still hold today.
But ‘natural law’ has very little in common with a human legal system in terms of design and process. And although at a glance it may seem to have similarities, it is the very antithesis of actual science.
Natural law and science are attempts to explain our existence. Both can involve seeking patterns and predictability in our natural world, and finding a suitable method of expressing what we observe, which has the potential to help us understand and interact more effectively with our world.
However, proponents of ‘natural law’ have a tendency to fall foul of the limited conceptual framework they have created. For example, they broadly observe in the majority of species that there are males and females who perform separate breeding functions, and conclude this is a ‘law’ – inventing gender roles to suit their cultural bias and claiming same-sex attraction is unnatural. In doing so, they happily ignore nature itself: the many species in our world exhibiting homosexual behaviour; the hermaphrodite snails, worms and fish; and the human experiences of people born outside their tunnel vision definitions, those who are intersex, gay or trans.
Limited observation based on cultural or religious bias does not equal a ‘law’. It’s that simple.
Science, on the other hand, is an ongoing exploration of observation and testing that is open to revision, that is challenged, expanded and updated all across the world by millions of human beings. Because with every day our understanding as a species grows. While individual scientists can fall foul of bias, science as a whole has no agenda, no underlying belief and nothing it has to prove.
So I’m more than happy to throw this concept of ‘natural law’ under the bus, and I would urge every religious person on the planet to do the same. If your gods exist, they created an existence that isn’t ruled by laws, but an existence that is marvellous in self-sufficient appearance and ongoing evolution – a natural universe with no sloppy magical fingerprints on display.
Everybody has an agenda.
Any form of inquiry that includes the existence of the God of the bible in it’s subjects of probing, rather than the first axiomatic principle without which 1+1 couldn’t even equal 2, is an arrogant, insolent campaign of self deluded self exaltation.
Only the God who “alone is the fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things” is even capable of actually objective thought.
LikeLike
“Only the God who “alone is the fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things” is even capable of actually objective thought.”
So when do you expect this “God” to reveal himself to the almost 8 billion humans on this planet ? Millions of people have died because of speculative and exclusive religions. The sooner this “God” reveals himself to “everyone” not just a select few, the sooner we can eliminate the confusion religion has caused.
LikeLike
Paul the apostle to the church at Rome. Ealy 60’s AD (NASB translation)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
=======================================
God’s signature and fingerprint are on every particle, precept and proposition in His universe. Most especially in your own being and consciousness wherein you you bear His very image and likeness, broken though it is in sin. You couldn’t avoid Him if you tried and boy do you ever by suppressing His truth in your unrighteousness. The last thing you will ever believe if left to yourself, is that you are morally accountable to your blindingly holy and pure creator.
He is not hidden. You are dead and willfully blind in sin and corruption. Only a supernatural resurrection from that death, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, the man born this God, can save you.
LikeLike
Did you read the post? There are no sloppy goddish fingerprints on this existence – if your god exists, you do it an extreme disservice, and I expect you will be punished for promoting the idea that a magic trail was left in the wake of this curious creation.
LikeLike
“… since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. “
The great apostle Paul wrote that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And at least 12 other books of the New Testament. Not me.
LikeLike
When did the ‘great apostle Paul’ write that?
LikeLike
Mid first century
LikeLike
So we start investigation into reality accepting the existence of an invisible, undetectable being who is benevolent but at certain periods in time commits genocide and tells men to rape women, who knows everything but has regrets, and who is based on generic superstitious ramblings from a time of ignorance? Doesn’t sound very reasonable or logical, but if we have to choose a mythical god to base our inquiry around, I’m going for Pachamama. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
How does one respond to someone like Greg without including in the reply words such as delusion?
LikeLike
He’s got a soft spot for you, bet he says something nice and encouraging. I think he sees his god’s plan for you … 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That does not help …
Having absolutely no respect whatsoever for his position, and not even having the energy to even laugh at him, maybe it is simply better to ignore such people?
LikeLike
Well, it’s not nice to laugh at people, we should respect people’s rights to have their own opinions, and humans are social animals who need interaction to thrive. So I don’t agree. And you seem to be enjoying his chat right now …
LikeLike
Well, I may amend my initial thought if Greg decides to answer my question honestly.
We’ll see ….
I am going to take the dogs for a walk so this will give Greg some time to formulate a response.
About an hour?
T’ra,
LikeLike
Look Ark. Until I get a definition of “probability” outta you (after over 2 years,) it will not be possible to take you seriously. So you can prattle on with your inane ad hominem jabs as you please, but they will never constitute an actually substantive response.
LikeLike
Okay, fair enough.
Without wishing to derail Violet’s thread, let me try to clear the playing field for all of us.
You are the god believer among us and likely consider we, as non believers are all doomed as per your god and thus feel you are duty bound to lead us to Salvation.
So far so good.
Therefore, pick a foundational tenet of your faith and demonstrate it’s veracity beyond all reasonable bounds of probability and we can then proceed with the dialogue you so yearn for.
In fact, let me make it easier for you as we are so spoilt for choice.
Demonstrate how we can arrive at a level of confidence to accept that the virgin birth of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact.
Your call, Greg …
LikeLike
Your creator says that His “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse. “
I’ll take His word over yours. The burden is on you.
LikeLike
And where did you get this quote from, please?
LikeLike
Undetectable she says 😀
See my reply to your friend please.
LikeLike
Please see my reply to your reply. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trib, you very humorously write, “Any form of inquiry that includes the existence of the God of the bible in it’s subjects of probing, rather than the first axiomatic principle without which 1+1 couldn’t even equal 2, is an arrogant, insolent campaign of self deluded self exaltation.
Many chemists relying on mole calculations to make stuff you use every day would be reasonably offended that by your idiotic declaration about an imaginary “axiomatic principle” they dare to defy makes what they do into “an arrogant, insolent campaign of self deluded self exaltation.” You’re just flinging poo, Trib… like any good simian held in (religious, in your case) captivity would do. Every chemist knows that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, you see, and there is ampler evidence in reality to demonstrate this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh
LikeLike
I just love reading about natural law because it’s hilarious. The use of the word natural in and of itself is amusing- as it’s completely meaningless. Heroin and faeces are natural, and oleander tea will kill you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it should be termed ‘natural law’ – the quotations are necessary. Or ‘so-called natural law’. Or ‘the antiquated notion of natural law’. Simply stating natural law is misleading …
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they wanted to be honest they would’ve just called it ________ Doctrine (fill in the blank with whatever ideology you like, Catholic etc.) But of course that’s not enough . They know it’s not enough because without the words natural and law they can’t attempt to impose their doctrine on the whole world.
LikeLike
Merveilleux,
Not to pick nits but heroin is not “natural” it is made in a lab from a certain species of poppy.
Also, “natural” in terms of natural law has to do with the nature of a thing, good or evil, pleasurable or offensive.
LikeLike
Okay, heroin comes from morphine, a natural product of the opium poppy. Does that clarify it enough?
Amusingly, you’re doing precisely what VW speaks of. Playing with the definition of the word natural to suit your narrative.
LikeLike
Interesting, you went to the spam bucket – been misbehaving recently? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I only ever comment on the same blogs. No idea what happened…
LikeLike
Mr. Merveilleux,
You repeating what I told you is a good start toward getting a brain of your own and teaching it how to think properly.
LikeLike
Idiot. Which part of heroin is a natural product do you find confusing? Talcum is also a natural product even though it’s transformed in a lab. And believe it or not, bees don’t make honey in jars! Even milk goes through a process before it reaches the consumer. That doesn’t make it less “natural”.
So good try with the word games, but they only work with people as undereducated as you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Merveilleux,
If what you say is true, then every product ever manufactured including plastic and gasoline are “natural.”
But of course we all know that is not the case.
Therefore, you must accept that fact that you are wrong…
…AGAIN.
LikeLike
The difference is heroin is derived entirely from opium, genius. It’s a process of synthesis, not like plastic. How about educating yourself before pretending you knw things to inflate your ego?
LikeLike
Mr. Merveilleux,
The difference is that you make things up as you go just to get through the moment.
You have no idea what you are saying even when one such as I points it out to you.
LikeLike
Really? No need to take my word for it. People who can read are welcomed to check for themselves what I mean by natural: https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/heroinmfg.html
LikeLike
Mr. Merveilleux.
Your googling skills are unsurpassed no doubt.
Now if you only had a brain of your own.
LikeLike
The evidence doesn’t suit your narrative, as usual.
LikeLike
Violet, do you feel that the term “natural law” somehow implies a creator god? Is that why you object to it?
It seems to me that there are identifiable “laws” or rules / principles that govern the world, such as the laws of gravity, physics and so on. No legal body passed these “laws”. I can’t imagine saying “So called laws of gravity” every time we mention gravity.
What phrase would you use, instead of “law” to describe the things in nature that seem to follow a very definitive pattern?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I imagine she means Natural Law as in Thomas Aquinas.
LikeLike
Good questions Jim, going to the heart of the mix that Silence of Mind probably deliberately makes above. I guess there are three distinctions to be made. First you have the historical use of ‘natural law’ that has roots before the Middle Ages but was heavily developed then, and is more about morality, but ostensibly based on ‘nature’. Then there is the scientific use of ‘laws’ (which I also think is a misleading term as stated in first two paragraphs) to classify how we observe and explain patterns in natural occurances. The third version is people like Silence of Mind of who mix the two up and assume that religious so-called ‘natural law’ is the same as science, or anything like it.
What phrase would I use instead of law? Maybe make up a new word that people can’t confuse, even subconciously, with invented human laws. It’s more about expressing what observe, what has been tested and what we can expect based on our experience. The Observational Facts of Gravity? Seems less like someone invented it. And people like Silence of Mind can call their version the ‘Christine Doctrine of Natural Law’ so we can fully understand where it’s coming from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
I haven’t mixed anything up.
Please google “Newton’s Laws of Motion” or the “Laws of Thermodynamics,” or “Bernoulli’s Principle.”
I don’t make things up or mix things up.
You do.
Everything I say comes straight out of a textbook or scientific study or a lecture by an accredited doctoral professor.
LikeLike
@Violet
we should respect people’s rights to have their own opinions,
Would we honestly extend this respect to someone who thought Hitler was right in exterminating 6 million Jews?
If not, why are we expected to extend the same respect to someone who believes their god exterminated the entire human and animal population bar one soon-to-be incestuous family?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What constitutes the “right to have an opinion”? A shield from criticism?
LikeLike
As long as he’s not inciting violence or hatred, surely it’s not the same thing. Although I guess he attempts to incite self-hatred in everyone.
LikeLike
I agree it is a difficult call.
But let’s try an experiment and see what turns up?
Imagine if Greg were to stand up in Hyde Park at Speaker’s Corner ( do they still have this?) and go on about Hitler only furthering Luther’s belief regarding the Jews as Hitler.like Luther was also a Christian.
I wonder how long he would last!
Now imagine Greg at Hyde Park steaming along in a similar vein about how Yahweh was perfectly justified in liquidating almost every living thing on the entire planet.
Most people would laugh at him and the average Christian would probably squirm with embarrassment.
What if he went about God annihilating Muslims! After all, they are all going to hell aren’t they? And so are Catholics according to these folk.
But should any of these positions be afforded any respect?
LikeLike
He’s essentially saying there is an invisible creature who controls humans and kills at will. We can’t prove him wrong and lots of other people agree with him. It’s a Golden Rule moment – humans have extremely diverse opinions and when we don’t respect the rights of others to believe things we are sure are wrong/harmful (eating animals features strongly in my mind here too), we are not only shooting ourselves in the foot but we are being the same as every other arrogant ‘right opinion’ holder down through time. It’s good to learn the lessons of time, and action tried and tested philosophies that have a sound logical basis.
LikeLike
Violet,
Laws are regulations that govern behavior toward some end.
I gave you examples in your last post. I spelled it out verbally but you still don’t seem to get it.
The laws of nature discovered by science are expressed in mathematics and are immutable on the size scales for which they serve.
That means you can bank on them, create technology on them, found civilization upon them (which is exactly what Christian Western civilization did).
Newton’s Laws of Motion -> Net Force = Mass x Acceleration -> F = ma
Bernoulli’s Principle (
v^2/2 + g*z + p/r = constant
where:
v is the fluid flow speed at a point on a streamline,
g is the acceleration due to gravity,
z is the elevation of the point above a reference plane, with the positive z-direction pointing upward – so in the direction opposite to the gravitational acceleration,
p is the pressure at the chosen point, and
ρ is the density of the fluid at all points in the fluid.
Einstein’s Equation showing the relationship between matter and energy
E = mc^2
Violet, these equations are strict laws, not some atheist’s hallucinated alternative reality cooked up to get through the moment.
LikeLike
They aren’t laws SOM, they are how we express what we observe. If there were no constant or reliable conditions in our existence, nothing could ever have developed over time. An empty chaos – perhaps that’s how it started and eventually over googolplex billions of years eventually some patterns emerged. Who knows? Monkeys with typewriters and whatever predates our Universe with infinity at their disposal can do amazing things. Presumably.
LikeLike
Violet,
You are incorrect.
Laws define behavior.
Mankind was able to discern the laws of nature because they define behavior.
LikeLike
Can you give me an example?
LikeLike
So you are proposing that we have no free will because our behaviours are determined by natural law. Are you sure you want to maintain this view?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tildeb,
No, that is not what I am proposing.
Read my comments. I make no such claim.
LikeLike
Violet,
Here are some links to some of natures laws:
1. Newton’s Laws of Motion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
2. The Bernoulli Principle which is a derivation of Newton’s Laws of Motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle
3. Schrodinger’s Wave Equation which describes the motion of particles on the quantum level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
4. The Laws of Thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Violet, I could go on and on.
I am simply telling what is taught in every engineering school on the planet.
Your atheism doesn’t allow you to redefine reality.
LikeLike
How do these define behaviour?
LikeLike
Violet,
To find the answer to your question, you need to take a physics class.
Engineers like me study basic physics for 2 years upon entering university.
University physics is calculus-based consequently, we also study 2 years of basic calculus so that we can understand the physics we are learning.
Most of what follows in the junior and senior years is looking at the physics in greater detail and greater variety.
LikeLike
“Laws define behavior. Mankind was able to discern the laws of nature because they define behavior.”
What do gravity and thermodynamics have to do with behaviour? Give me an example where you believe your god created gravity so humans can understand their behaviour or where what we observe in patterns relating to thermodynamics somehow ‘governs’ our behaviour. It’s a missing link to you need to explain if I’m to understand how your series of comments here is in any way coherent.
LikeLike
Well, that debunks my two books 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
So sorry John, that was thoroughly tactless of me. I should have added that one the offchance there is a creator who hasn’t left sloppy fingerprints, she is very, very evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Curious, I’d say, not evil
LikeLike
Background that may or may not be helpful:
The stoics developed the idea of natural law: humans should try to live in accordance with the order of the cosmos. The Romans used the idea of natural law as common decency which even the barbarians should know, distinguished from Roman and tribal law. St Paul uses a similar concept when he argues that everyone – even pagans – has a sense of right and wrong put there by God.
The scholastics defined the source of natural law as human reason, since people know their own nature (rational, social, animal, etc.) and chose among various goods that they think will help them fulfill the potential of their nature. That nature of course is unchanging and created, so God’s law is the ultimate source, but the individual human does not need to know that to know right from wrong, though it helps. A human makes an evil choice by choosing a good thing (say, eating an apple) in the wrong way (it isn’t his apple to eat).
Late scholastics threw out the notion of natural law and replaced it with voluntarism: God just makes up rules and tells us. The Reformers were educated in this sort of thinking which is why the Catholic Church ended up going back to natural law theory.
Most discussions of ethics and morals are discussions of natural law, it is pretty much inescapable. If you argue about what a human should do, you at least implicitly are arguing about what sort of animal he is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What’s with the new grumpy avatar? I kind of miss Peter Sellers. What do you think about Silence of Mind confusing scientific observations with the Catholic Doctrine of so-called ‘natural law’? Do thermodynamics govern our behaviour because your god invented relationships between types of energy to give us clues?
LikeLike
I didn’t read the comments so I can’t speak to what he said, but when we talk of “laws of nature” we are speaking analogously, there are no legal code governing gravity. “Natural law” is also an analogous term, it is trying to get at how humans should behave independently of positive law.
As for the avatar, I like to change every once in a while and for some reason angry Linus resonated with me.
LikeLike
It is interresting how a theist may bring about a link in their mind between for example Newton’s law of gravitation and their particular religion, wich has none what so ever information about gravity in their holy books, alledgedly provided by some supreme divinity responsible for the entire universe. It is quite obviously a trick of the mind, to build confidence in their ungrounded metaphysical assumptions, by appealing to the semantics of the word law as in the case of “natural laws”.
It seems that several logical fallacies are at play here:
1. Equivocation fallacy because there is the use of the word “law” it has to be something similar to man made laws, but as we know man did not make the law, there must be mighty supernatural pixies to explain who made the law.
2. False equivalence – laws govern the actions of humans be they from human legal system or a “natural law” such as gravity. Even though the laws of gravity have inescapable effects, while human laws are mere rules of conduct, not really a method to force any particular behaviour.
3. False attribution, or appeal to authority, when we are talking about observations scientists have made, the Theist thinks their authority somehow reaches beyond the material universe, and in recognizing a “natural law” the scientists have also been somehow able to observe and confirm the existance of a divinity, that has alledgedly ordained the natural order, when infact nothing of the kind has happened.
4. Incomplete comparrison fallacy, is when the Theist reaches into his bag of magic and pulls out a god, or some other supernatural – that is to say unnatural proposition, wich is a suggestion with no base in measurable reality to attribute for something in the actually measurable, observable material universe, like for example gravity.
There are more logical fallacies to the list even in this issue, but it is kind of tickling how Silenceofmind has a tendency to appeal to logic, when he is making the most obvious logical fallacies. Such things about him make me sometimes suspect, that he is infact an atheist troll, who enjoys portraying the most stupid Theist positions. But as I have no way to investigate, I have chosen to assume everyone in the internet is who they claim to be, as long as it does not really matter to me personally. I find no personal interrest in Silenceofmind, so what he really is does not matter to me.
It is kind of sad, that the Theist may feel they are treading on a minefield in these sorts of conversations, wich may be why they so often retort to semantics and tactical evasions, rather than try to discuss the issue. The truth of the matter is, that untill such time when all the different gods, mankind has used to “explain” things we do not know, finally decide to come out of self imposed exile and stop the hide and seek game, they all are equally engaged in, the Theist has no case none what so ever. Many Theists are aware of this on one level or a nother of their consciousness.
Such appearances all these assumed gods alledgedly have presented, like as characters in old stories, they are inevitably just as irrelevant to the actual questions of the material observable universe as – you guessed it – characters in old stories.
Meanwhile in reality we as the humanity make great strides in understanding the material observable universe and altough we are even today still hindered by religious nonsense, we truly are limited only by the observable systems of the material universe (that is to say the “laws of nature”) for wich we are unable to account as to how they came to be for the moment. If we one day can explain by natural measures how the universe came to be, does that lead to the Theist giving up on their faith on the divine father characters their cultural history by ignorant and superstitous ancestors have cooked up?
LikeLike
Logical fallacies he says.
LikeLike
I do.
LikeLike