2 edits
Originally posted by chinking58Again a "Christian" with a total lack of knowledge of science. What a surprise. Come back when you have studied some actual science and understand why quantum mechanics is considered the most powerful predictive law science presently has. You might find it "ridiculous", but that's your problem.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/] 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 ha ...[text shortened]... relate?
I'd like to hear this law described or defined.
I've repeatedly defined and described Natural Law; if you are still unclear, do a google search since it's obvious that I can't get you to grasp the concept.
BTW, gravity has no apparent effect on subatomic particles and is ignored. And according to Einstein gravity isn't a "force" either.
Originally posted by ivanhoeDoesn't Natural Law arise from the Hobbsian " State of Nature" and the acceptance of the "Social Contract", whereas religious law arises from clerics claiming "inspiration".
I think introducing a dichotomy between Natural (Moral) Law and "religious law", whatever that is, is more than confusing.
Originally posted by frogstompFrogstomp: " .... religious law arises from clerics claiming "inspiration".
Doesn't Natural Law arise from the Hobbsian " State of Nature" and the acceptance of the "Social Contract", whereas religious law arises from clerics claiming "inspiration".
What on earth are you talking about ?
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, it is not irrelevant because you need some explanation as to why Natural Law exists in human beings in the first place. Paine (like all deists/theists) drew his explanation from the created nature of man.
Actually, 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.
To quote you from an earlier post:
And from history we know that certain moral principles have been uniformly held by human beings, even those who did not believe in any God, much less a Christian one. This is evidence that there is a Natural Law that human beings follow EVERY DAY.
Actually, all empirical observation will tell you is that all human beings follow some kind of interior moral code. Two persons picked at random will rarely possess identical moral codes; it's very possible they will differ even on extremely basic matters such as murder, theft, adultery etc. If NL were a law of the physical universe like gravitation, it cannot admit of a single exception.
Second, even if you establish a limited set of universal moral principles, you cannot get over the fact that virtually every single culture has developed its moral principles in some spiritual/religious framework. Take away the spirituality/religion and there will be no morality/Natural Law left for you to observe - unless you can explain why NL is fundamental to human nature.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerBunk. I've already gave an example of a physical law that gives only probabilities of events occurring: Quantum Mechanics. I cannot help it if you people are ignorant of science.
[b/]Actually, it is not irrelevant because you need some explanation as to why Natural Law exists in human beings in the first place. Paine (like all deists/theists) drew his explanation from the created nature of man.
To quote you from an earlier post:
And from history we know that certain moral principles have been uniformly held by human bein ...[text shortened]... ural Law left for you to observe - unless you can explain why NL is fundamental to human nature.
You don't know about "every single culture" and thus are speculating. Human societies existed and thrived for tens of thousands of years before writing was even invented and there is no evidence that they believed in any Creator God. Like all Christians you are starting from your own preconceived ideas and trying to force reality into it. But you present no evidence to support your views.
People's moral codes are NOT substantially different in primitive cultures; there are accepted mores of conduct that are virtually universal. The anthropological evidence is pretty clear on that. This evidence is consistent with a Natural Law explanation; Man has a social animal has a certain nature from which rules of conduct flow. If Men were not social animals they would have different rules whether they believed in a Creator or not. Many religions believed in vicious Creator Gods, yet Man's nature remains fundamentally the same. It takes tons of social pressure and other factors to overcome Man's inherent empathy with his fellow Man.
I don't need to explain "why" NL is fundamental to human nature; all I need to do is to observe the actions of Man in every society all around the world EVERY DAY to see that Man is a social animal who's outstanding characteristic is cooperating with his fellow Man. Wherever Man's nature came from is irrelevant; he has a nature that is observable by his typical actions. It is part of him and of reality. As Paine put it:
Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origins in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished ..... No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society, by a diversity of wants, which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
Rights of Man, Part 2, Chapter I
No superstitious mumbo jumbo need apply; we are compelled by our nature and what we are to certain rules of behavior towards our fellow Man. This is the Natural Law. Individuals may violate it, but unless they are sociopathic or under similar delusions caused by social pressures they know their actions are wrong. And that is true irrespective of their belief in any God.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
Bunk. I've already gave an example of a physical law that gives only probabilities of events occurring: Quantum Mechanics. I cannot help it if you people are ignorant of science.
First of all, if you're going to accuse people of being ignorant about science, ensure that your own science is sound first.
Quantum Mechanics is a theory - a logically self-consistent model explaining the behaviour of natural phenomena - and not a law - a generalisation of the behaviour of specific natural phenomena based on empirical observation. Quantum mechanics, Relativity etc. are theories; Boyle's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. are laws.
A physical law, by definition, cannot have repeatable contradicting observations.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
You don't know about "every single culture" and thus are speculating.
I said "virtually every single culture". Of course I don't know about every single culture that has ever existed.
But neither do you. If it is valid for you to generalise that all humans are possessed of a "Natural [Moral] Law" based on the limited number of cultures you've observed, then it's equally valid for me to generalise that all human cultures develop their moral codes in a spiritual/religious framework based on the cultures I've observed (and I'm willing to bet I've encountered more cultures than you have).
It's very telling that you should call your own generalisations "laws" and mine "speculation". This, of course, is precisely the confusion that most people with little or no backgrounds in science have (see the Wiki article on 'Physical Laws' above).
People's moral codes are NOT substantially different in primitive cultures; there are accepted mores of conduct that are virtually universal.
Observation: Now you use the words "virtually universal".
Here's some food for thought - what are the tenets of this "virtually universal" moral code?
- Murder
- Theft
- Institution of Marriage
- Wrongfulness of Homosexuality
etc.
I don't need to explain "why" NL is fundamental to human nature; all I need to do is to observe the actions of Man in every society all around the world EVERY DAY to see that Man is a social animal who's outstanding characteristic is cooperating with his fellow Man. Wherever Man's nature came from is irrelevant; he has a nature that is observable by his typical actions.
Unless you explain why NL is fundamental to human nature, you cannot assert that spirituality/religion is unnecessary for NL. As I pointed out, if morality is a "law of nature", then so is religion/spirituality.
Quoting Paine on the matter will not help because, as I pointed out, his conception of human nature is predicated on its spiritual origin. Yours, on the other hand, is not.
By asserting that NL is related to the social aspect of human nature, you are formulating a theory. However, if NL is intrinsic to the human being, then it exists prior to and independent of his participation in society.
Originally posted by no1marauderTo quickly recap your position:
Bunk. I've already gave an example of a physical law that gives only probabilities of events occurring: Quantum Mechanics. I cannot help it if you people are ignorant of science.
You don't know about "every single culture" and thus are speculating. Human societies existed and thrived for tens of thousands of years before writing was even ...[text shortened]... res they know their actions are wrong. And that is true irrespective of their belief in any God.
People's moral codes are NOT substantially different in primitive cultures; there are accepted mores of conduct that are virtually universal....
... we are compelled by our nature and what we are to certain rules of behavior towards our fellow Man. This is the Natural Law. Individuals may violate it, but unless they are sociopathic or under similar delusions caused by social pressures they know their actions are wrong. And that is true irrespective of their belief in any God.
Criticisms:
1. For a law of nature to be a valid law, there must be no repeatable, observed contradictions.
2. If NL is intrinsic to human nature, then it is present to and in human beings prior to and independent of his participation in society or social interactions with other human beings.
Explanation:
It is part of human nature to possess certain physical characteristics (a typical human form), as well as certain mental (e.g. rationality) and social characteristics (determinations - to use the language from classical philosophy). These determinations may be diminished by external influences (accidents), but no human being can fail to have these naturally. If a creature naturally had no sense of sight, or had antlers or six limbs instead of four, we would not classify that creature as a human being.
Similarly, if NL is a determination of human nature, then no human being can naturally fail to possess it. Further, no two human beings can naturally fail to disagree on whether a particular course of action accords with NL or not.
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by no1marauder
Again a "Christian" with a total lack of knowledge of science. What a surprise. Come back when you have studied some actual science and understand why quantum mechanics is considered the most powerful predictive law science presently has. You might find it "ridiculous", but that's your problem.
I've repeatedly defined and described ...[text shortened]... batomic particles and is ignored. And according to Einstein gravity isn't a "force" either.
Again a "Christian" with a total lack of knowledge of science. What a surprise. Come back when you have studied some actual science and understand why quantum mechanics is considered the most powerful predictive law science presently has. You might find it "ridiculous", but that's your problem.
I don't know anything about quantum mechanics bud, except what you taught me. You said its laws are not as predictive as other laws. I said then, that it is not in the same category (in so many words). And I predicted that physcists right now would be working on this good, but incomplete law you referred to, in order to maximize its usefullness. That is, to make it a real law, like the otheres that famous men have defined over the centuries.
I do have a problem I guess. I still find ridiculous, the idea that you are trying to equate physical laws (most of which have absolute predictive value) with the natural law--the one referring to human behavior.
I've repeatedly defined and described Natural Law; if you are still unclear, do a google search since it's obvious that I can't get you to grasp the concept.
When I asked you to define describe the NL again, I mispoke. I was trying to ask you to come up with a specific obsrvation predicted by this law. I doubt your conclusion about its being so predictive, but if I could see some examples of this idea applied, I may understand better.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou've written a bunch of BS and I'm not going to waste my time responding to all of it. You're bantering semantics about scientific laws; Quantum Mechanics is not a theory since it is 100% accurate; Mendel's Law of Hereditary also is 100% accurate but can't predict individual variations. You still don't know what you're talking about.
To quickly recap your position:
[b/]People's moral codes are NOT substantially different in primitive cultures; there are accepted mores of conduct that are virtually universal....
... we are compelled by our nature and what we are to certain rules of behavior towards our fellow Man. This is the Natural Law. Individuals may violate it, but unless ...[text shortened]... can naturally fail to disagree on whether a particular course of action accords with NL or not.
Your 2nd criticism is absurd: humans are social animals so there is no reason for a description of our nature to be seperate from our social reality since that is our reality. You might as well speculate how bees would act outside the hive.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by no1marauder
You've written a bunch of BS and I'm not going to waste my time responding to all of it. You're bantering semantics about scientific laws; Quantum Mechanics is not a theory since it is 100% accurate; Mendel's Law of Hereditary also is 100% accurate but can't predict individual variations. You still don't know what you're talking about.
Y ...[text shortened]... lity since that is our reality. You might as well speculate how bees would act outside the hive.
You've written a bunch of BS and I'm not going to waste my time responding to all of it. You're bantering semantics about scientific laws; Quantum Mechanics is not a theory since it is 100% accurate; Mendel's Law of Hereditary also is 100% accurate but can't predict individual variations. You still don't know what you're talking about.
To quote from the Wikipedia article I provided the link to earlier:
"There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
Just because a view differs from yours does not mean it's BS. Not all of us learnt everything we know about Quantum Physics from A Brief History of Time and popular magazines; some of us have actually studied the subject.
I'll get back to your second part later.
Originally posted by chinking58Let me explain the basic characteristic of Quantum Mechanics that is relevant to this discussion. What QM can do is predict probabilities to unerring accuracy; it has never been proven wrong. As an example, if particle A and B collide, it predicts that 96% of the time particle C will result and 4% of the time particle D will result. Millions of such interactions are observed and they match the predictions of Quantum Mechanics made beforehand as a result of mathematical formulas. But it is impossible to predict that a certain collison between particle A and B will result in particle C or D; we do not know and apparently can not know. The same principle applies to the Laws of Hereditary; we cannot know a particular result for certain but we know the probabilities. Thus, there exist some physical laws that cannot predict an individual outcome. I would think that the application of this observation to something as incredibly complex as human behavior would be obvious - Einstein said "Politics [a particulary confusing form of human behavior] is much harder than physics".
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Again a "Christian" with a total lack of knowledge of science. What a surprise. Come back when you have studied some actual science and understand why quantum mechanics is considered the most powerful predictive law science presently has. You might find it "ridiculous", but that's your problem.
...[text shortened]... g so predictive, but if I could see some examples of this idea applied, I may understand better.[/b]
I mentioned one observation that is consistent with Natural Law: that cultures have similar basic moral codes. At its most basic, we can the say a universal moral code would be the "Golden Rule": "do unto others as you would have them do onto you." I would maintain that this is a universally accepted societal premise and one that is conducive to societal stability. Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerTake the snotty BS and shove it up your a**; Quantum MECHANICS is 100% accurate in its predictions which is more than one can say about the "Law" of Gravity since it apparently has no effect in the subatomic world. I know what a theory is and while Quantum THEORY is a theory, Quantum MECHANICS are a set of mathematical formulas used to describe the probabilitie of results of collisons between subatomic particles. It is that aspect of Quantum Theory I am referring to. The relevance of Quantum Mechanics to the discussion is given in my post above to Chingking, so if we could stop with the semantic squabbling it would be useful.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/]You've written a bunch of BS and I'm not going to waste my time responding to all of it. You're bantering semantics about scientific laws; Quantum Mechanics is not a theory since it is 100% accurate; Mendel's Law of Hereditary also is 100% accurate but can't predict individual variations. You still don ...[text shortened]... ines; some of us have actually studied the subject.
I'll get back to your second part later.