Originally posted by no1marauderSo if we could get representatives of all the major religious ideas together around a (very large) table, and have each one clearly and eloquently explain what experiences and factual knowledge back up each of their precepts about god, we should be able to pin down the truth. The truth based on the reality, that is all we have to go by.
Any God is open to the same objection; you have one interpretation of God and other people have a different one. How can you say your conception of God is accurate and their's is not? How can you say the God of the Bible is more likely than Odin? Only by using your experience and knowledge. Same thing, same problem, and still only one way of "solving" it.
Theology is in fact a science. The study of God. ok, god. It is the formulation of repeated observations formed into a graph, if you will, until a pattern can be discerned. The canonization of the scriptures resulted from such a process. Of course, the largest gathering of observers has never been realized. Passionate people who have already begun to form their charts of god don't often openly compare their lab results with others who may be hostile to their conclusions.
So while the teaching we get at home as children may be a good starting point, we each must, in the end, be sure that our lab report, our conclusions about God are responsible; based on real observations; not hearsay, not wishful thinking, not old wive's tales.
Originally posted by no1marauderI've asked this before, but if Natural law is inherent to the (I presume you mean physical) nature of human beings, why assume that there is only one unique Natural Law? Just as no two human beings share the same DNA sequence or fingerprint, why should they share the same Natural Law?
Natural law as regards human beings is a product of their nature, not their reason.
Originally posted by no1marauderI do think that people can know from their nature what acts are "right" and what acts are "wrong", though I seriously doubt we would agree on the criteria for so defining them.
I think you are incorrectly spinning what I said. I am not stubbornly saying "I know its true"; I am giving the reasons why I believe it is true based on objective facts. If my facts are wrong, then someone may correct them; if my interpretation is flawed, then if someone can come up with a better interpretation of the facts I will accept it. I ...[text shortened]... cts are "wrong", though I seriously doubt we would agree on the criteria for so defining them.
I think we agree more than you'd expect.
Let's take a simple example, and imagine how one person from anywhere in any time would respond. I will be anytime, anyman.
I'm walking by the campfire when someone sticks out his foot and I trip, almost landing in the fire.
Of course I am scared, but when I miss the fire, I am still very mad! Everyone understands that I am mad, but they all saw that the foot was stuck out unintentionally. I am not mad anymore, and everyone quietly supports a peaceful resolution. We all 'know' that to trip someone purposefully is bad, and that accidents are not bad.
Next day, someone deliberately tries to trip me into the fire but misses his timeing. I am mad! Everyone saw him, and knows, by the look in his eye etc., that he was out to get me. I wasn't hurt, and yet we all agree that he was bad. Perhaps justice calls for him to be punished, even though he missed. At least he will be avoided for his untrustworthiness (I didn't deserve it really guys!) We all know he was wrong.
It's the basic stuff that matters most, and that we all know in common.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy did Paine think that men have natural rights in the first place?
I normally don't do long cut and pastes but this passage from Tom Paine's The Rights of Man answers your question far better than I could, Halitose:
Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an ...[text shortened]... ined in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy doesn't everybody have their own unique Law of Gravity?
I've asked this before, but if Natural law is inherent to the (I presume you mean physical) nature of human beings, why assume that there is only one unique Natural Law? Just as no two human beings share the same DNA sequence or fingerprint, why should they share the same Natural Law?
1 edit
Originally posted by chinking58Show us a theological experiment that anyone can repeat and get the exact same result , every time.
So if we could get representatives of all the major religious ideas together around a (very large) table, and have each one clearly and eloquently explain what experiences and factual knowledge back up each of their precepts about god, w ...[text shortened]... vations; not hearsay, not wishful thinking, not old wive's tales.
How about a formula based on the points on your graph, at least a trend line?
BTW polytheism also fits the observed "facts".
If you insist on making unreasonable claims you will find people will decide the religion you follow is unreasonable.
And the canonization of scripture was was done by fanatics that would soon turn the Roman army loose on other Christians, thereby restoring the blood thirst into God's religion . Plot that on your graph.
Originally posted by no1marauderLaw of Gravitation*†
Why doesn't everybody have their own unique Law of Gravity?
Gravitation is a fundamental principle of matter; any two masses will experience an attractive force between them. Human beings experience gravitation by virtue of their participation in the material world.
While each person may not have their own unique Law of Gravitation, they certainly experience a unique net gravitational force.
When you say that Natural Law is a property of human nature, what are you referring to? Our physical nature? Do all material particles or bodies experience Natural [moral] Law? Our biological nature? Do all living creatures experience NL? Our rational nature? Does NL follow from the existence of human reason?
LH
† Gravity is a specific force of gravitation between the Earth and any other mass.
Originally posted by lucifershammerActually, he was a Deist who disbelieved in the Bible and the Christian God (see Age of Reason), but so what?? I already discussed the matter as to whether someone needs to believe in a God or Creator to believe in Natural Law and find it unnecessary and insufficient. So it is irrelevant.
In The Rights of Man, Tom Paine establishes the natural rights of man on the basis that all men are [b]created equal (and hence have equal dignity). Paine was no atheist.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerNatural Law follows from the way humans are. How much clearer can that be? The Law of Gravity follows from how objects are. They are laws of universal applicability like all laws in reality. I don't know of anything in humans seperate from physical reality, so your point (if any) is unclear to me.
Law of Gravitation*†
Gravitation is a fundamental principle of matter; any two masses will experience an attractive force between them. Human beings experience gravitation by virtue of their participation in the material world.
While each person may not have their own unique Law of Gravitation, they certainly experience a unique net gravitationa ...[text shortened]... son?
LH
† Gravity is a specific force of gravitation between the Earth and any other mass.
Originally posted by no1marauderI need to point out an important distinction. You said
Natural Law follows from the way humans are. How much clearer can that be? The Law of Gravity follows from how objects are. They are laws of universal applicability like all laws in reality. I don't know of anything in humans seperate from physical reality, so your point (if any) is unclear to me.
i]Originally posted by no1marauder[/i]
Natural Law follows from the way humans are. How much clearer can that be? The Law of Gravity follows from how objects are.
The law of gravity, that is the equation, the constant, and the principles we know of have followed, been derived from, careful observation. Exact forces are measured under varying circumstances according to factors such as mass and distance between objects. Thereby man has recognized what he calls the LAW of gravity. Every object obeys it implicitly.
The law of nature is a different matter altogether. If an alien came to earth and observed the behavior of man, he would never be able to conceive of any such law. Man behaves differently every time. There is no consistency as there is with the physical laws.
We call it a law because we recognize individually, and consciously, that we SHOULD follow a certain behavioral guideline. Electrons never decide whether they will or will not obey the laws of electromagnetism. Rocks, airplanes, apples, even people meticulously and mercilessly cooperate with the law of gravity. But with the law of nature, we have a choice. We only call it a law because we 'know' that it should be obeyed, and we also know, I think, that negative consequences will follow from its disregard.
Originally posted by chinking58Your distinction is meaningless. All physical laws do not have to have exact predictive value concerning the objects involved. The laws of quantum mechanics cannot predict what will happen in any particular reaction between subatomic particles, but it can give precise estimates of what the probability is of certain particles emerging from the collison of two particles. So it is with Natural Law; while we cannot predict with certainty what every individual human will do given a specific set of circumstances, we know from observation that humans as social animals generally behave in certain ways, that is their nature. Therefore, Natural Law is just as valid as the Law of Gravity as it too is based on observations of physical reality.
I need to point out an important distinction. You said
i]Originally posted by no1marauder[/i]
[b] Natural Law follows from the way humans are. How much clearer can that be? The Law of Gravity follows from how objects are.
The law of gravity, that is the equation, the constant, and the principles we know of have followed, been derived f ...[text shortened]... ed, and we also know, I think, that negative consequences will follow from its disregard.
[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by no1marauder
Your distinction is meaningless. All physical laws do not have to have exact predictive value concerning the objects involved. The laws of quantum mechanics cannot predict what will happen in any particular reaction between subatomic particles, but it can give precise estimates of what the probability is of certain particles emerging from the col ...[text shortened]... w is just as valid as the Law of Gravity as it too is based on observations of physical reality.
Your distinction is meaningless. All physical laws do not have to have exact predictive value concerning the objects involved. The laws of quantum mechanics cannot predict what will happen in any particular reaction between subatomic particles, but it can give precise estimates of what the probability is of certain particles emerging from the collison of two particles.
I am afraid that's ridiculous!
What good is a physical law without predictive value? If you took your newly discovered 'law of gravity' to a physics symposium and defined it as 'most things fall down', you'd be laughed at. Only those laws which are always and perfectly predictive, and cover all circumstances, have any real, full value.
If the laws of quantum mechanics only give probabilites then they should be called qualified laws, or simply put forth as probabilities. And I'm sure physicists are busy right now racing to identify the variables so that a real law can be identified.
So it is with Natural Law; while we cannot predict with certainty what every individual human will do given a specific set of circumstances, we know from observation that humans as social animals generally behave in certain ways, that is their nature. Therefore, Natural Law is just as valid as the Law of Gravity as it too is based on observations of physical reality.
So you think the law of human nature is simply a description of how people behave? Like the law of gravity describes how masses relate?
I'd like to hear this law described or defined.