As Christians, we have faith. We most often call faith a "gift". It is beyond our control, and contrary to many posters it is not the product of reason and will, unless the will part is a choice to believe things without evidence, in which case we might as well drop the "reason" part.

Skeptic here: well said. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Pretty words, and I'm sure that and the repeatedly debunked pseudo-arguments we've seen will give comfort to those who want a thin veneer of rationality on what is an essentially irrational belief system. I agree with PP. though: we're at a dead end. Sophisty aside, desire is evidence of desire...nothing more.

You end with a great story. It is very comforting and I can understand why you feel sorry for your in-laws who don't have it.

But you still fundamentally miss something. You put theism and atheism on a par by saying everyone engages in "wishful thinking". That's absolutely false, and I am saying this as a Christian. Atheism, skepticism, scientists, etc. are all at their core skeptics. They believe what the evidence says, and they do not believe the rest.

By trying to label everyone a "wishful thinker", you make it so easy to say "as long as I have to make a wish, I'll choose the wish that involves an infinite, loving creator and eternal life." Well, that's just not fair to the other side. Their skepticism causes them to face some serious consequences: there may be no plan for them, they were not created for a purpose, if they are alone in this world then they are just flat out alone, and that when they die there is nothing. What kind of wishful thinker chooses that?

As Christians, we have faith. We most often call faith a "gift". It is beyond our control, and contrary to many posters it is not the product of reason and will, unless the will part is a choice to believe things without evidence, in which case we might as well drop the "reason" part.

I don't think it is proper to chastise or pity people who do not have it. I think it is also good to test that faith with reason, and I think that this thread is helpful in that. Because a weak faith is no faith at all.

But there is no point in wrapping this up with the conclusion that faith is beautiful. Because to the skeptic who applies reason to all the evidence he can find, it is just a beautiful dream.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This conversation is going in circles. After 46 pages, I think I'm going to throw in the towel.

Well said. It's been fun, but we're just ego-stroking theists desire to see themselves as rationalists at this point.

Now, now, many of the greatest human intellects were theists (Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Pasteur, Shakespeare, Dante, Chesterton, Dostoyevsky, Tennyson, Dickens, Milton, Bach, Vivaldi, etc. etc.). If God exists, there is no conflict of faith and reason, because He made both.


OP here. I started this thread with my personal story, and saw many of my personal doubts articulated along the way:

Where is my own direct revelation, like Moses or Joseph? Why is God silent? I can take care of myself. I am a good person. I don't need any external authority to keep me in line. If there is a God as First Mover, Uncaused Cause, well, that could be, but He is not personal. And if He is a person, He is evil.

I also saw my intellectual progression in the thread. I came to accept natural law theory, but I hesistated to accept God was a necessary element to natural law. Because if Someone imprinted natural law on our nature, and Someone was going to enforce natural law perfectly in the end, that was an Authority beyond this life. I would have to submit to Someone else's authority, Someone who would not let me get away with anything.

So is man just material? If so, I was off the hook. If this life was all there is, then I had no eternal law to face.

But if I refused Authority for myself, because man is just material, then there was no justice for anyone. I would get away with my little failings, but so would the really, really bad guys. And I could never even say anything was objectively wrong. Law without consequence was just opinion, not fact. Just like with my kids--if I give them a rule, and they break it without consequence, it's not really a rule.

And yet everything observable in the human experience evidences natural law. Humans seek (what they at least think is) good and avoid evil. Humans seeks justice in matters large and small, even though perfect justice is a priori impossible in this life. Humans can be selfless. We compare our actions against a standard not limited by our society or our own actions.

The "wishful thinking" argument is not definitive proof that God exists.

But it is not unreasonable. And it does not prove a negative.

Rationalists, materialists, empiricists, scientists, physicists, Darwinists, skeptics all have their own moment of wishful thinking. They look at the same material universe, observe the same human experience, and choose "not proven" rather than "high probability" in regards to God's existence. They conclude "spontaneous creation" (Hawking) or "lifeless to life without direction" or "from nothing to nothing then everything" to "when I touch Him, not just when He comes to me."

That is the gift of free will. The intellect can only inform the will.

But what about perfect justice, if there is such a thing, if man is material and immaterial? Billions and billions and billions of humans have lived without thinking this through, without having this conversation, and without Divine revelation. There are only so many hours in a day, anyway. Just those poor schmucks are SOL, instead of all of us being equally SOL because death is the end?

Every human being has natural law imprinted on his nature. And their Creator knows them better than they know themselves, and does not make mistakes. No one is sent away from God. Anyone can choose to be apart from God. He stays the same; it is our reaction to Him that we choose.

So why bother to even have this conversation? If everyone will get what they are due, perfectly, right from where they stand, and everyone has good will for the most part, why bother? Blissful ignorance. Live and let live. If God exists, He will figure everything out perfectly in the end. "Wishful thinking" will be "wish fulfillment."

This issue is very personal for me. My husband comes from a family of atheists. We don't talk much about faith with them. It goes no where. We love them, and they love us, and as the video rationalist said, that's fine and dandy. Right?

Yes and no. Yes, in that if there is a God who perfects natural law, there will be perfect justice, and our loved ones will not accidentally reject God.

No, in that it is not possible for our loved ones to be happy in this life when they do not know what this life means.

I can hear the indignant screams from here: "I am happy and well! How rude!"

But to use an analogy dear to the hearts of many DCUMers: look around at all the unhealthy, overweight, sedentary tourists here. They go to the doctor--or maybe are dragged there by a concerned spouse--and the doctor tells them precisely what is necessary for them to be healthy. But they go on eating badly and not exercising and getting sicker and sicker. And you both feel sorry for them, because it would be horrible to be stuck in an unhealthy body, but you also get frustrated that they refuse to accept the facts and use some willpower. Now think of God as a Divine Physician, for the body and the soul.

I want to end with a quote from my favorite novel of all time: Kristin Lavransdatter, by Sigrid Undset, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, when the author was an atheist. Read it, if you are going to read anything at all about faith and justice. This passage summarizes my personal faith completely:

"Who would be so foolish that he would not willingly endure pains and torment, when this was the path that led to a faithful and steadfast bridegroom, who waiteth with arms stretched out and breast bloody and burning with love?

For He loved mankind. And therefore did He die, as the bridegroom who hath gone forth to save his bride from the hands of robbers. And they bind him and torment him unto death, while he sees his dearest love feasting with his slayers, jesting with them and mocking his torments and his faithful love...

Then did I understand that this mighty love upholdeth all things in this world--even the fires of hell. FOr if God would, He could take the soul by force--we should be strengthless motes in His hand. But He loves us even as the bridegroom loves his bride, who will not force her, but if she yield not to him willingly, must suffer than she flee him and shun him. But I have thought, too, that mayhap no soul can yet be lost to all eternity. For every soul must desire this love, methinks, but it seems so dear a purchase to give up all other delights for its sake. But when the fire hath burnt away all stiff-necked and rebellious will, then at last shall the will to God, were it no greater in a man than a single nail left in a whole house, remain in the soul unconsumed, as the iron nail is left in the ashes of a house burned down..."

Anonymous wrote:This conversation is going in circles. After 46 pages, I think I'm going to throw in the towel.

Well said. It's been fun, but we're just ego-stroking theists desire to see themselves as rationalists at this point.

Oops 2 and 5 are repetitive. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's polite to answer a question when asked.

My apologies! I thought I was respecting your preference to discuss an ethical system that did not assume God. So, defining "eternal law:"

In short, God.

The longer answer:

You are correct: I have already assumed the existence of God, Who is the cause of all existence. God has, within His intellect, an Idea for the governance of His creation. This Idea in the mind of God is eternal law. This eternal law is imprinted in the nature of His creation. Everything in creation acts according to their nature, and derives their proper acts and purpose from this law written into their nature.

Natural law governs human behavior in a more precise way than other creatures, due to our reason and free will. So the full definition of natural law for humans is "humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will." Humans participate by using reason in conformity with natural law to discern good and evil.

The most basic precept of natural law is to do good and avoid evil, and this applies to every human. A human does everything he does only because that action at least "appears" to be good. Even when one chooses something one knows is bad, one chooses it under some aspect of good. (I will cheat on my wife, but only because I am in love with someone new; I will eat this fattening cake, because it is so tasty; I will take my own life, but only because I am in so much pain.)

On the level we share with all living creatures, natural law requires we preserve our existence. We also transmit life to the next generation.

On the human level, natural law requires we use the ability to know and to love, personally and in society. We develop our rational and moral capacities through virtue, both of intellect (prudence, art, science) and will (justice, courage, temperance). Natural law dictates what is necessary for a harmonious, functioning society (do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, do not cheat).

On the highest level, natural law intimates that our infinite capacity to know and to love shows human existence transcends this material life. As both material and immaterial beings, our purpose is to know and to love an infinite being, God.

Natural law theorists who attempt to discern natural law apart from eternal law, apart from God, cut off the beginning and the end: they drop the idea that God instituted natural law before the dawn of time, and they drop the idea that the natural end of human existence is eternity with God.

Is a great deal of natural law preserved in the middle? Sure. But it is deprived of its Authority, its universal obligation, its complete consequences, and its ultimate purpose.

In other words, a theist and and atheist could exercise their reason and come to the exact same conclusions of the requirements of natural law. But the atheist's position would be an ideal that would never be met, and so a fantasy.

To be even more specific, an atheist could arrive at an ethical philosophy based on the words of Jesus: the 10 Commandments (except the first three, which are about God), do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Those precepts could become the law of the land, of the entire Earth. And natural law without God would still be a fantasy.

Because human beings would continue to violate these precepts constantly and almost universally without consequence in this life. In fact, from the instant of a violation, an irretrievable moment in time and space, perfect justice in this life is absolutely impossible.

Natural law and ethics command how we "should" behave. Only the existence of eternal law, of a Lawgiver, can give natural law its due gravity. Otherwise, it is a thoughtful opinion, a hypothetical, a fine idea, but not reality.

1. Atheists don't care that God instituted the laws. They are imprinted on creation and that's all that matters from discerning of natural law.
2. Your statement that it is deprived of its ultimate authority is the same argument that we have been knocking down. Wanting an ultimate authority does not make it so.
3. Your belief that without this ultimate authority, everyone runs amok does not match with reality. There are people who do not believe there is an ultimate authority, and they do not run amok.
4. Further if the purpose of God is to keep people from running amok, then why in His name does he not show himself say "hey, mess with me and you go to hell. here's the brochure". So God does not share your goal anyway.
5. Next, as it has been pointed out before, the fact that the atheist's world does not have the ultimate Authority is not an argument for his existence. Wanting it does not make it so. No matter how many times you repeat it.
6. The ideal you speak of is is not met anyway, whether we believe or not. That's just a fact. People commit sins, and ultimate retribution in the form of hell does not nullify that sin. And believers are not so satisfied in heaven's reward that they do not seek justice in this lifetime.

This conversation is going in circles. After 46 pages, I think I'm going to throw in the towel.

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is also a fallacy to prove a negative:

God does not exist because there is no evidence that God exists.

Color does not exist because there is no evidence color exists.

The fact that humans share a moral sense does not necessarily prove that shared moral sense came from God.

However, it is also possible God designed humans to have a shared moral sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's polite to answer a question when asked.

My apologies! I thought I was respecting your preference to discuss an ethical system that did not assume God. So, defining "eternal law:"

In short, God.

The longer answer:

You are correct: I have already assumed the existence of God, Who is the cause of all existence. God has, within His intellect, an Idea for the governance of His creation. This Idea in the mind of God is eternal law. This eternal law is imprinted in the nature of His creation. Everything in creation acts according to their nature, and derives their proper acts and purpose from this law written into their nature.

Natural law governs human behavior in a more precise way than other creatures, due to our reason and free will. So the full definition of natural law for humans is "humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will." Humans participate by using reason in conformity with natural law to discern good and evil.

The most basic precept of natural law is to do good and avoid evil, and this applies to every human. A human does everything he does only because that action at least "appears" to be good. Even when one chooses something one knows is bad, one chooses it under some aspect of good. (I will cheat on my wife, but only because I am in love with someone new; I will eat this fattening cake, because it is so tasty; I will take my own life, but only because I am in so much pain.)

On the level we share with all living creatures, natural law requires we preserve our existence. We also transmit life to the next generation.

On the human level, natural law requires we use the ability to know and to love, personally and in society. We develop our rational and moral capacities through virtue, both of intellect (prudence, art, science) and will (justice, courage, temperance). Natural law dictates what is necessary for a harmonious, functioning society (do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, do not cheat).

On the highest level, natural law intimates that our infinite capacity to know and to love shows human existence transcends this material life. As both material and immaterial beings, our purpose is to know and to love an infinite being, God.

Natural law theorists who attempt to discern natural law apart from eternal law, apart from God, cut off the beginning and the end: they drop the idea that God instituted natural law before the dawn of time, and they drop the idea that the natural end of human existence is eternity with God.

Is a great deal of natural law preserved in the middle? Sure. But it is deprived of its Authority, its universal obligation, its complete consequences, and its ultimate purpose.

In other words, a theist and and atheist could exercise their reason and come to the exact same conclusions of the requirements of natural law. But the atheist's position would be an ideal that would never be met, and so a fantasy.

To be even more specific, an atheist could arrive at an ethical philosophy based on the words of Jesus: the 10 Commandments (except the first three, which are about God), do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Those precepts could become the law of the land, of the entire Earth. And natural law without God would still be a fantasy.

Because human beings would continue to violate these precepts constantly and almost universally without consequence in this life. In fact, from the instant of a violation, an irretrievable moment in time and space, perfect justice in this life is absolutely impossible.

Natural law and ethics command how we "should" behave. Only the existence of eternal law, of a Lawgiver, can give natural law its due gravity. Otherwise, it is a thoughtful opinion, a hypothetical, a fine idea, but not reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

Then why did many natural law philosophers not use one?

Some did not believe in a God. Some did not think God was necessary. Their point was that you could look at existence and determine what is good from that.

In many ways it's the same thing as the Big Bang to theists or atheists. One person says that the Big Bang is proof of the existence of God. Another says that our knowledge of science, the observations about how the universe works, reveals to us the Big Bang and that no special Being is required to make that happen. But whether you think God kicked it off, or that the forces of the universe dictate it, it does not matter. Both theists and atheists can then understand the physical world using the same tools going forward from that point.

Likewise with Natural Law, you can go back all the way to Plato's Republic, who begets Aristotle, who is re-interpreted by Aquinas for the Christians and on and on through Hobbes and over to Locke who gave us Life, Liberty, and Property. Locke's derivation of natural law is that our purpose is survival, and from that he determines what is necessary to that end. His formulation is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property". Does it matter that Locke personally believed that God created the purpose of survival, and Richard Dawkins believes that it is a consequence of life itself? No. Once you arrive at a common principle of survival (just as in the Big Bang discussion), you can derive the other principles in the same way. Just as theists are not forced to ignore the plain realities of modern physics, the atheists are not incapable of formulating Lockeian Natural Law.

It is very, very simple for any atheist to argue that an essential element of life is the need for survival. Therefore both theists and atheists can derive natural law.

Certainly, it is possible for both theists and atheists to discern natural law, because natural law is part of our nature. So natural law has been discussed from earliest antiquity, and does not conflict with any laws of the material world. All well said.

But if a man's life is confined to the material world, "survival" means something very different than if man's life is both material and immaterial, mortal and immortal.

We never said that two people can't have different personal views. Obviously even people in the same religion do not share exactly the same moral opinions. The issue was whether there is an objective source of morality that can be derived from natural law, not whether we are all equally good at understanding it, whether we choose to believe it, or whether we want to add any superstitions to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

Then why did many natural law philosophers not use one?

Some did not believe in a God. Some did not think God was necessary. Their point was that you could look at existence and determine what is good from that.

In many ways it's the same thing as the Big Bang to theists or atheists. One person says that the Big Bang is proof of the existence of God. Another says that our knowledge of science, the observations about how the universe works, reveals to us the Big Bang and that no special Being is required to make that happen. But whether you think God kicked it off, or that the forces of the universe dictate it, it does not matter. Both theists and atheists can then understand the physical world using the same tools going forward from that point.

Likewise with Natural Law, you can go back all the way to Plato's Republic, who begets Aristotle, who is re-interpreted by Aquinas for the Christians and on and on through Hobbes and over to Locke who gave us Life, Liberty, and Property. Locke's derivation of natural law is that our purpose is survival, and from that he determines what is necessary to that end. His formulation is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property". Does it matter that Locke personally believed that God created the purpose of survival, and Richard Dawkins believes that it is a consequence of life itself? No. Once you arrive at a common principle of survival (just as in the Big Bang discussion), you can derive the other principles in the same way. Just as theists are not forced to ignore the plain realities of modern physics, the atheists are not incapable of formulating Lockeian Natural Law.

It is very, very simple for any atheist to argue that an essential element of life is the need for survival. Therefore both theists and atheists can derive natural law.

Certainly, it is possible for both theists and atheists to discern natural law, because natural law is part of our nature. So natural law has been discussed from earliest antiquity, and does not conflict with any laws of the material world. All well said.

But if a man's life is confined to the material world, "survival" means something very different than if man's life is both material and immaterial, mortal and immortal.

Do we need philosophers to tell us what's bad for other people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural law assumes and requires a Lawgiver.

Then why did many natural law philosophers not use one?

Some did not believe in a God. Some did not think God was necessary. Their point was that you could look at existence and determine what is good from that.

In many ways it's the same thing as the Big Bang to theists or atheists. One person says that the Big Bang is proof of the existence of God. Another says that our knowledge of science, the observations about how the universe works, reveals to us the Big Bang and that no special Being is required to make that happen. But whether you think God kicked it off, or that the forces of the universe dictate it, it does not matter. Both theists and atheists can then understand the physical world using the same tools going forward from that point.

Likewise with Natural Law, you can go back all the way to Plato's Republic, who begets Aristotle, who is re-interpreted by Aquinas for the Christians and on and on through Hobbes and over to Locke who gave us Life, Liberty, and Property. Locke's derivation of natural law is that our purpose is survival, and from that he determines what is necessary to that end. His formulation is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property". Does it matter that Locke personally believed that God created the purpose of survival, and Richard Dawkins believes that it is a consequence of life itself? No. Once you arrive at a common principle of survival (just as in the Big Bang discussion), you can derive the other principles in the same way. Just as theists are not forced to ignore the plain realities of modern physics, the atheists are not incapable of formulating Lockeian Natural Law.

It is very, very simple for any atheist to argue that an essential element of life is the need for survival. Therefore both theists and atheists can derive natural law.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's polite to answer a question when asked.