Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, can we at least have a semi-intelligent discussion about natural law? It is baked into our own country's history. Thousands of years worth of philosophers worked with it, from atheists to theists. It is at the nexus of the question of intrinsic morality. There is plenty to read, from Plato to Aquinas, all the way to our own founders' writings.

I would dearly love to, but some PPs have a serious misunderstanding of the definition of natural law, which is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

In case you didn't notice, the same is true of theology. The Aztecs weren't sacrificing babies to appease reason.

Yes, they were. They thought they had a very good reason to sacrifice babies.

And you are confusing natural law with religion.

I think you're doing the confusing. Someone claimed that rationalism leads to differing models of morality. PP responded that so does theism. He gave the example of the Aztecs, who were sacrificing babies to appease their gods.

Your responded, to paraphrase "No, the Aztecs *were* sacrificing babies to appease reason. They thought they had a good "reason" to try to appease the gods. But of course, sacrificing babies has nothing to do with the formal sense of the word "reason". It's pretty much the purest expression of theology.

Finally, you finish with the non-sequiter, "You are confusing natural law with religion." Please, if you're going to contribute, try to include the structure of an argument. Otherwise, it's just confusing for everyone who wants to extend to you a good-will effort to converse.

[Anonymous]

Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The most critical founding principle of our country was universal, inherent human rights from God:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

They did not say:

"We hold these opinions to be very persuasive, that all men should be seen as equal, and that we have decided based on our reason that men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Mentioning a Creator was not an accident or a rhetorical flourish. It was absolutely essential. Natural law is defined as the existence of perfect Justice, authored by absolute Authority, which can be known by human reason. Have centuries of natural law theory really been so completely misstated?

Philosophers and founders of this country were.....wait for it.... men. Ethics is part of human nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

No, *you* assume a "lawgiver". Causality is part of natural law. Therefore, natural law itself is not bound by causality and is not required to have a "source." Just as PPs "uncreated creator god" is not required to have a creator. Only without the magic tricks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

In case you didn't notice, the same is true of theology. The Aztecs weren't sacrificing babies to appease reason.

Yes, they were. They thought they had a very good reason to sacrifice babies.

And you are confusing natural law with religion.

I think you're doing the confusing. Someone claimed that rationalism leads to differing models of morality. PP responded that so does theism. He gave the example of the Aztecs, who were sacrificing babies to appease their gods.

Your responded, to paraphrase "No, the Aztecs *were* sacrificing babies to appease reason. They thought they had a good "reason" to try to appease the gods. But of course, sacrificing babies has nothing to do with the formal sense of the word "reason". It's pretty much the purest expression of theology.

Finally, you finish with the non-sequiter, "You are confusing natural law with religion." Please, if you're going to contribute, try to include the structure of an argument. Otherwise, it's just confusing for everyone who wants to extend to you a good-will effort to converse.

.

Natural law is true. Religion can be false.

[Anonymous]

Most of societal morals are based on the experiences societies have had in dealing with the necessities of people co-existing within a society.

Theists see the results--that moral order across various societies have similarities--and come to the conclusion that there must be a god/gods.

That's a fallacy. Human moralities are similar across various societies because humans are similar. Pretty simple, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

No, *you* assume a "lawgiver". Causality is part of natural law. Therefore, natural law itself is not bound by causality and is not required to have a "source." Just as PPs "uncreated creator god" is not required to have a creator. Only without the magic tricks.

.

See definition of natural law a few posts up.

Look, we can debate different ethical systems if you like, but natural law theory is as defined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

In case you didn't notice, the same is true of theology. The Aztecs weren't sacrificing babies to appease reason.

Yes, they were. They thought they had a very good reason to sacrifice babies.

And you are confusing natural law with religion.

I think you're doing the confusing. Someone claimed that rationalism leads to differing models of morality. PP responded that so does theism. He gave the example of the Aztecs, who were sacrificing babies to appease their gods.

Your responded, to paraphrase "No, the Aztecs *were* sacrificing babies to appease reason. They thought they had a good "reason" to try to appease the gods. But of course, sacrificing babies has nothing to do with the formal sense of the word "reason". It's pretty much the purest expression of theology.

Finally, you finish with the non-sequiter, "You are confusing natural law with religion." Please, if you're going to contribute, try to include the structure of an argument. Otherwise, it's just confusing for everyone who wants to extend to you a good-will effort to converse.

.

Natural law is true. Religion can be false.

Ah, well, that clears that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The most critical founding principle of our country was universal, inherent human rights from God:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

They did not say:

"We hold these opinions to be very persuasive, that all men should be seen as equal, and that we have decided based on our reason that men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Mentioning a Creator was not an accident or a rhetorical flourish. It was absolutely essential. Natural law is defined as the existence of perfect Justice, authored by absolute Authority, which can be known by human reason. Have centuries of natural law theory really been so completely misstated?

Philosophers and founders of this country were.....wait for it.... men. Ethics is part of human nature.

.

Which part? Which material aspect of man contains his ethics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

No, *you* assume a "lawgiver". Causality is part of natural law. Therefore, natural law itself is not bound by causality and is not required to have a "source." Just as PPs "uncreated creator god" is not required to have a creator. Only without the magic tricks.

.

See definition of natural law a few posts up.

Look, we can debate different ethical systems if you like, but natural law theory is as defined.

Ok, so assuming the definition of "natural law" is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" then I'd ask for a definition of "the eternal law". Which seems to make a lot of assumptions. Sounds like we're on a collision course with tautology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

No, *you* assume a "lawgiver". Causality is part of natural law. Therefore, natural law itself is not bound by causality and is not required to have a "source." Just as PPs "uncreated creator god" is not required to have a creator. Only without the magic tricks.

.

See definition of natural law a few posts up.

Look, we can debate different ethical systems if you like, but natural law theory is as defined.

Ok, so assuming the definition of "natural law" is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" then I'd ask for a definition of "the eternal law". Which seems to make a lot of assumptions. Sounds like we're on a collision course with tautology.

As you wish. So what ethical system do you prefer to discuss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

Then why did many natural law philosophers not use one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

In case you didn't notice, the same is true of theology. The Aztecs weren't sacrificing babies to appease reason.

Yes, they were. They thought they had a very good reason to sacrifice babies.

And you are confusing natural law with religion.

Yeah, their reason was to appease God. Aaaaaaand that's where we learn that the pursuit of God also leads us to diametrically opposed maxims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The most critical founding principle of our country was universal, inherent human rights from God:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

They did not say:

"We hold these opinions to be very persuasive, that all men should be seen as equal, and that we have decided based on our reason that men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Mentioning a Creator was not an accident or a rhetorical flourish. It was absolutely essential. Natural law is defined as the existence of perfect Justice, authored by absolute Authority, which can be known by human reason. Have centuries of natural law theory really been so completely misstated?

Philosophers and founders of this country were.....wait for it.... men. Ethics is part of human nature.

.

Which part? Which material aspect of man contains his ethics?

I'm no neurologist, but I'd venture a guess that it's related to our family and social needs and capacity for empathy. Even a pack of wolves can get along as a family unit. There's a hierarchy and social rules for other types of mammals, too.