# Natural law methodology



## jwright82 (May 5, 2019)

I have been thinking about the natural law theory and I realized that a good method to determine a good NT argument good be inductive instead of deductive. Your thoughts?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I have been thinking about the natural law theory and I realized that a good method to determine a good NT argument good be inductive instead of deductive. Your thoughts?



What is the connection you are making between natural law and inductive/deductive reasoning?


----------



## jwright82 (May 5, 2019)

Basically a methodological one. We can "deduce" morals from scripture. But I wonder if inductive reasoning is the best method to use to determine morals from nature. Like most countries (even horrible ones) recognize murder as wrong.


----------



## deleteduser99 (May 5, 2019)

To some extent. However, the conscience of man is corrupted, and we have a real gift for reasoning our way to justifying sin and getting our consciences to accept the reasoning, or to neglect duties and to get conscience to be quiet about it. The reasoning is good to prove there is an universal law written on man's heart by God, but to get down to our exact duties we need special revelation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (May 5, 2019)

True, I'm a Vantillianism. But common grace is still in affect. It's an awkward mixture as Bahnsen says.


----------



## jwright82 (May 5, 2019)

I'm at work, so I'll think about more detail and post later.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Basically a methodological one. We can "deduce" morals from scripture. But I wonder if inductive reasoning is the best method to use to determine morals from nature. Like most countries (even horrible ones) recognize murder as wrong.



Depends on what you mean by "nature." I used to think it meant looking at a squirrel and deducing that murder is wrong, and I ridiculed NL theorists that way. Rather, it is the structure of man and the world and "what we can't not know."


----------



## jwright82 (May 7, 2019)

Well I think an " inductive" method might be key to using natural law as a tool. We can tell what most countries view as wrong. They seem to cohere here, not perfectly but enough.


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 7, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Like most countries (even horrible ones) recognize murder as wrong.



I agree with what you said but there are exceptions. Some Muslims have a real problem with who to kill and who not to kill. In America we kill about 640,000 babies each year, and lately even live ones. I don't know if there are good statistics but quite a few older people are euthanized as well in our developed country. You can train the conscience to accept almost anything if you really work on it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 7, 2019)

True but, and that stuff is horrible, as far as a method goes most societies agree on basic morality. I wonder if an inductive method could be useful in decoupling arguments from natural law.


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 7, 2019)

Natural Law theory was dealt a severe blow by Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution through "natural selection," which was updated by Herbert Spencer to its more severe, but logically consistent term "the survival-of-the-fittest." Then
Friedrich Nietzsche's takeaway of survival of the fittest led not only to Germany's Eugenics, or Superman Theory, but to the Holocaust itself, and, if I'm not overstating the matter, to the death of over 50 million people in the last and bloodiest century. Such is the darkness that man, made in the image of God can sink to without the aid of the inscripturated Word.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2019)

"“Does not nature itself teach you"

~St Paul


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 7, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> "“Does not nature itself teach you



Good point. I almost mentioned something about that in my post above because I do believe in natural law rightly interpreted. But I do not believe God has made it an adequate guide for a Godly civil law code. Inadequate because of the Fall and not because of some defect in the law itself.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Good point. I almost mentioned something about that in my post above because I do believe in natural law rightly interpreted. But I do not believe God has made it an adequate guide for a Godly civil law code. Inadequate because of the Fall and not because of some defect in the law itself.



The problem is that the Natural Law theory that Gary North and Co. are attacking is not the historic Christian view on natural law. Thomas Aquinas is a theocrat, for example. Natural law is simply the human reflection on divine law, which is inevitable since God didn't give us an exhaustive code for every human contingency.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2019)

Eternal Law *is* the mind of God. Natural law is a human reflection on the eternal law, which includes first principles, remote implications, proximate implications. To answer the OP, in this sense it is deductive.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 7, 2019)

A couple of thoughts.

First, whenever I see a natural law discussion, I immediately reach for my Blackstone:

"Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together."

Blackstone's Commentaries. Book I, Part I, Section 2.

So often the language of "natural law" gets confused with "law of nature" and it is obvious that sometimes people don't catch the difference.

The second thought relates to the nature of inductive reasoning. We know it has practical use: even well trained dogs can identify a pattern and make predictions based on a limited sample of observations. (I'm thinking of cow-dogs I used to train, who, after only a few sessions, could generally predict herd behavior in all sorts of circumstances).

But why does it work? By nature we are "wired" to interact with God's creation in such a way. And we can deduce from the revealed "law of nature" (i.e. Scripture) that God created an orderly world that, in general, runs in predictable patterns.

So inductive conclusions based on observation are (and must be) verifiable by a deduction from the "law of nature." Otherwise, they are suspect and often damaging.

(I'm not saying, e.g., we must verify the structure of a bridge by Scripture, but that we ought to acknowledge that our trust in repeated tests of structures is consistent with our knowledge, from Scripture, that God creates a consistent universe).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000 (May 7, 2019)

As soon as we put some flesh on the bones and formulate some arguments, we will soon see that all appeals to inductive inference to ground moral absolutes will reduce to arbitrariness and inconsistency - a utilitarian standard of opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 9, 2019)

Every reconstructionist I have read defined natural law as Newtonian metaphysics, and then said natural law has been refuted by Darwinian thought. But this is a rather odd claim. Consider:

1) No major historic figure defined natural law as Newtonian metaphysics. I think Gary North confused "law of nature" for natural law. Big category mistake.

2) Even if Natural Law = Newtonian physics, it's not clear how Darwin refuted it. Darwin didn't refute Newton. Newton is science. Darwin is not.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 2) Even if Natural Law = Newtonian physics, it's not clear how Darwin refuted it. Darwin didn't refute Newton. Newton is science. Darwin is not.



Well, yeah!?

Who actually thinks this? I've not read a lot of recons, but this seems bizarre.

Newtonian physics is a nice, tight, and integrated summary of observable and repeatable events. Darwin speculates on history. No point of overlap.

It's like trying to refute the law of gravity by saying someone made a cake yesterday.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 9, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> Who actually thinks this? I've not read a lot of recons, but this seems bizarre.



It is in most of Gary North's non-economics books. Bahnsen never really attacked natural law as it is classically understood. Rushdoony rejected it by saying "Nature is fallen," but that doesn't tell me anything.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 22, 2019)

Yes I admit the inherent trouble in inductive reasoning, I have read Hume's critique. But I have read other very powerful critiques of Hume, that don't deny his charges but sidestep them. Plus as far as I know Hume never doubted induction just the claim that it could be airtight deductive arguments. But by way of "custom" we had every right to believe things we know by way of induction.

Also I should have said but I didn't, sorry, any argument for any moral from induction must 
A. Be viewed as inferior to deduction
B. Always tested against and controlled by scripture

But methodologically might be a good way developing arguments from natural law. David Vandrunen does this implicitly in his book on Bioethics. He just doesn't spell out a method, which is what I'm exploring here.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 22, 2019)

James, I've been pondering your topic off and on. I don't know if this is helpful, but I offer a simple hypothetical:

We look at cattle, say, in their "natural" state and find, behold!, there are male and female versions. We watch them long enough and we see that there is a purpose behind maleness and femaleness. Their complementary forms seem clearly to conform to a function. Or maybe the function follows the form--we can't really say from simple observation.

Nevertheless, if we remain simple and agenda-free in our thinking, we believe we can safely say that nature (natural law) supports male and female pairing. We make an ethical conclusion that anything else is contrary to nature and, being contrary to nature, it is wrong.

Now introduce an agenda-driven observer who says, "wait a minute, I was watching bulls in a corral the other day and they were all trying to breed each other. See, nature allows for homosexuality!"

We can always argue that we might see that in fallen or thwarted nature, but that is obviously not the design. And the counter argument brings up some other observation of bent processes--ad nauseum. And our ethical rule is chipped away bit by bit by the eroding definition of "nature."

I don't know if such barnyard philosophy helps define the issue. I think about these things in simple terms and tend to see weakness in the process right from the start.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 25, 2019)

Yes my big question started when I pretty much agreed to the view of Dr. Van Drunen on natural law, albeit with some hesitations. One thing I noticed is a lack of methodology for making arguments from natural law, problems like the one shared by VictorBravo. I got his book on Bioethics hoping to see at least some good arguments from natural law and be able to deduce a method but sadly no. It's a decent book but sadly not what I was looking for. So I pondered it too and thought that an inductive method might be best suited to natural law arguments.That was my thought process.
Without a method to do it in practice it doesn't matter how it is in theory.


----------



## jwright82 (May 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Eternal Law *is* the mind of God. Natural law is a human reflection on the eternal law, which includes first principles, remote implications, proximate implications. To answer the OP, in this sense it is deductive.


In what way? Could you explain? I'm very interested In your "deduction" point. As far as method, how would it work?


----------



## jwright82 (May 25, 2019)

RWD said:


> As soon as we put some flesh on the bones and formulate some arguments, we will soon see that all appeals to inductive inference to ground moral absolutes will reduce to arbitrariness and inconsistency - a utilitarian standard of opinion.


True but a persuasive argument might be possible. If persuasion is all we're looking for (like in political arguments) than that will do. And inductive arguments might be the best.


----------



## Taylor (May 25, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> ...if we remain simple and agenda-free in our thinking, we believe we can safely say that nature (natural law) supports male and female pairing. We make an ethical conclusion that anything else is contrary to nature and, being contrary to nature, it is wrong.



But doesn’t this entire argument depend upon whether or not one can derive an “ought” from an “is”? That seems to be an unargued, hidden premise in your example. How is that assumption not an “agenda”?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 25, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> But doesn’t this entire argument depend upon whether or not one can derive an “ought” from an “is”? That seems to be an unargued, hidden premise in your example. How is that assumption not an “agenda”?



The whole "ought" from "is" is the very essence of arguing from natural law. It is not deductive, but inductive.


----------



## User20004000 (May 26, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> True but a persuasive argument might be possible. If persuasion is all we're looking for (like in political arguments) than that will do. And inductive arguments might be the best.



What you said true to was: “As soon as we put some flesh on the bones and formulate some arguments, we will soon see that all appeals to inductive inference to ground moral absolutes will reduce to arbitrariness and inconsistency - a utilitarian standard of opinion.“

Accordingly, what you’re saying in context of my post is that if one can be persuaded of moral absolutes by an argument that denies moral absolutes yet affirms subjectivity, “that will do.” Obviously you don’t mean that so I’ve misunderstood...

Maybe you wouldn’t mind offering an example? That’s what I meant by putting some flesh on the bones.


----------



## User20004000 (May 26, 2019)

Hi Victor,

I agree with Taylor. There seems to be something fishy about deriving _ought_ from _is_. 

I just don’t see how this response to Taylor can salvage the project: _The whole "ought" from "is" is the very essence of arguing from natural law. It is not deductive, but inductive._

I’ll make just a few passing comments on some other things you wrote.

“Nevertheless, if we remain simple and agenda-free in our thinking, we believe we can safely say that nature (natural law) supports male and female pairing. We make an ethical conclusion that anything else is contrary to nature and, being contrary to nature, it is wrong.”​
The argument you put forth does not take the form of an inductive argument, (which are weak or strong). Actually, it takes the form of a deductive argument, which are valid, invalid, sound or unsound. Yours appears to be an invalid deductive argument:

*p1. *Natural law supports male-female pairing 
*p2. *Therefore, anything contrary to such natural pairing is contrary to nature 
*p3. *Therefore, anything contrary to nature is morally wrong

It’s simply invalid to move from statistical normality to moral normality. In other words, the premises you require seem to be absent. Or as Taylor intimated, there would appear to be an “unargued, hidden premise in your example.” In a word, it would appear you’ve begged the question. (Your conclusion goes beyond the scope of the premises.)

Now introduce an agenda-driven observer who says, "wait a minute, I was watching bulls in a corral the other day and they were all trying to breed each other. See, nature allows for homosexuality!"​
We can always argue that we might see that in fallen or thwarted nature, but that is obviously not the design.​
But can’t we say the same thing about birth defect? We might observe that in the totality of newborn nursery corrals we find something contrary to nature, four fingers on a hand for instance. 

Let’s apply your exact form of argument to see where it leads us. 

*p1. *Natural law supports babies with five fingers 
*p2. *Therefore, anything contrary to a baby with five fingers is contrary to nature 
*p3.* Therefore, anything contrary to nature is morally wrong

I’m not sure what more needs to be said. 

I’m afraid that the apologetic approach being advocated leads to arbitrariness and inconsistency. It’s arbitrary to say that _is_ implies _ought, _and the inconsistency is shown by the birth defect analogue. In other words, it’s inconsistent because we’d never argue that it is immoral to have four fingers. Accordingly, it’s arbitrary to selectively draw only some moral conclusions from nature but not others. 

This is not to deny God’s natural law or its usefulness. I’m merely pointing out some shortcomings of misapplying God’s natural law. It was never intended to operate apart from special revelation, even in the prelapsarian state when sin wasn’t obscuring conscience. How much more the case _after_ the fall? 

Lastly, I don’t think that pointing out the improper maneuver of moving from statistical-normality to moral-normality makes one an “agenda-driven observer.”

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> In what way? Could you explain? I'm very interested In your "deduction" point. As far as method, how would it work?



Because of God's simplicity. Anything in God is God.

When Eternal Law is applied to human situations, it is called natural law. Of course, not all applications are equally pure.

And I don't quite do the whole "deduction" and "method" thing in such a strict manner. If it happens, it happens.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> In what way? Could you explain? I'm very interested In your "deduction" point. As far as method, how would it work?



I guess if you wanted to see how it works, read some of the dialogues J. Budziezwki has
https://www.undergroundthomist.org/blog


----------



## VictorBravo (May 26, 2019)

@RWD, @Taylor Sexton, thanks for identifying the problem of using empiricism to come to a moral conclusion. I was trying to point the same thing out from a different angle. I am *not* arguing that we can successfully argue from form and function in nature.

Somehow in the mix it apparently came across that I was in favor of using empiricism for this purpose. My use of "agenda free" etc. was tongue in cheek--I'm under no illusion that I am agenda free, but that is because Scripture tells me so.

Yes, inductive reason often imports deductive premises, etc. I'm thinking of a common sort of "ought" argument from empiricism:

A high percentage of meth users become addicted.
Meth addiction is deadly.

So we jump to an ought: One ought to avoid meth.

Most of our health decisions are the same way: doctor says you ought not to smoke. He is speaking in moral terms--whether he intends to or not.

Of course, I'm looking at Natural Law in the way Blackstone did, as I quoted above:

"the other [natural law] is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law."


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2019)

I am not trying to do a quote bomb, but the following does show how historic Christianity used natural law. The great thing about these traditional positions is that you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
https://heidelblog.net/category/natural-law/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2019)

This might help on the is/ought distinction. Ancient Christians believed that man had a telos that was embedded in him. That's why they could speak like this without worrying what Hume might say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (May 26, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ancient Christians believed that man had a telos that was embedded in him. That's why they could speak like this without worrying what Hume might say.



I would not _argue_ that way these days, but I have to admit I think that way when I look at our world.

But, I also think of the physical laws of nature, like gravity, inertia, etc., as simply shorthand for observations of God's active sustaining of our universe. In other words, gravity does not cause anything, and so forth.


----------



## Taylor (May 26, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ancient Christians believed that man had a telos that was embedded in him.



Did they get this from nature or Scripture?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Did they get this from nature or Scripture?



Both. The argument was that we have a design and purpose built into us. I am sure you can find proof-texts for it


----------



## User20004000 (May 27, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> @RWD, @Taylor Sexton, thanks for identifying the problem of using empiricism to come to a moral conclusion. I was trying to point the same thing out from a different angle. I am *not* arguing that we can successfully argue from form and function in nature.
> 
> Somehow in the mix it apparently came across that I was in favor of using empiricism for this purpose. My use of "agenda free" etc. was tongue in cheek--I'm under no illusion that I am agenda free, but that is because Scripture tells me so.
> 
> ...




Again, these are not a moral arguments. To make them into one, you’d need to insert premises to which the professing atheist will not subscribe. Here’s your meth argument:

We ought to avoid addicting drugs
Meth is an addicting drug
We ought avoid Meth

Again, that is a deductive argument; it’s not inductive. (Your minor premise is an inductive inference; more on that later.)

This time your argument is valid (though perhaps not universally sound), but again you have begged the question. The question that’s being begged is _why _should we avoid addicting drugs? Indeed, it might be desirable to avoid addiction, but it might also be desirable to avoid Memorial Day traffic or venturing out in a blizzard. That we might do well to avoid certain things under certain circumstances does not imply those things are immoral. Is traffic immoral? It can also be argued that it might be advisable _not_ to avoid those same things under _all_ circumstances. Therefore, so much for making an _absolute_ moral claim in that way.

Regarding your minor premise, the very basis upon which one may conclude that Meth and smoking might have any _effect_ presupposes the existence of God. Inductive inference presupposes causality and the uniformity of nature, which presupposes God. That should be the focus of your apologetic. At the very least, if an appeal to causality, purpose or being is ever going to work for you, you’ll need to recast those appeals in a non-traditional way. There are no brute particulars.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Did they get this from nature or Scripture?



Another thing to remember is the fourfold causality. This represents final causation, so they would argue that it is built into man given the nature of causality.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 27, 2019)

RWD said:


> Inductive inference presupposes causality and the uniformity of nature, which presupposes God. That should be the focus of your apologetic.



That sounds like helpful advice regarding the original post's question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

But we all know what's right and wrong. Pointing out the deadly effects of meth is a kind of natural law argument.we teach our children what's right and wrong, based on our own intuitions.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> But we all know what's right and wrong. Pointing out the deadly effects of meth is a kind of



It’s not an apologetic.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

RWD said:


> It’s not an apologetic.


I don't believe I said it was. But I guess it could be. Not as sound as deduction or TA but persuasive.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I don't believe I said it was. But I guess it could be. Not as sound as deduction or TA but persuasive.



I’d like to see some meat on the bones of “natural law methodology.” But as long as we continue to talk in snippets and cliches, I don’t see how the discussion can progress.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

RWD said:


> I’d like to see some meat on the bones of “natural law methodology.” But as long as we continue to talk in snippets and cliches, I don’t see how the discussion can progress.



The historic tradition has written extensively on natural law.

Outline of Thomas Aquinas on Natural law: https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/outline-thomas-aquinas-treatise-on-law/

Outline of Althusius on Natural Law: https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/outline-althusius-politica/

Partial Outline of Turretin: https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/turretin-on-the-civil-magistrate/

Outline of Rutherford: https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/review-and-outline-of-lex-rex/


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Both. The argument was that we have a design and purpose built into us. I am sure you can find proof-texts for it



How does one _justify_ that he has a purpose built into him? There’s a vast difference between knowledge and the _justification_ of knowledge.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Good point. I almost mentioned something about that in my post above because I do believe in natural law rightly interpreted. But I do not believe God has made it an adequate guide for a Godly civil law code. Inadequate because of the Fall and not because of some defect in the law itself.



Added to that, it can’t effectively guide us on civil code because natural law doesn’t reveal to us which sins are crimes.

If we are left to govern ourselves by natural law, then civil laws must be ultimately a matter of opinion, yet laws by their very nature are to reflect what _ought_ to be. Moreover, apart from Scripture inductive inference cannot be _justified_. Therefore, apart from Scripture it cannot be proven that all persons are endowed by nature with the same moral code. Accordingly, it would be tyrannical to impose unjustifiable codes of conduct, let alone sanctions for violations of those codes, with a revelatory authority to appeal to for such impositions.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The historic tradition has written extensively on natural law.
> 
> Outline of Thomas Aquinas on Natural law: https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/outline-thomas-aquinas-treatise-on-law/
> 
> ...



Great. We can now add “posting links” to “snippets and cliches.” 

My sincere question is, what’s the “natural law methodology?” I’m hoping someone might put some meat on the bones. I’m merely looking for an example of the methodology rather than our just talking about it in the abstract or in vague terms. Then we can focus in on the genius of it, or its inadequacy. Outlines aren’t methods.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Natural Law theory was dealt a severe blow by Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution through "natural selection," which was updated by Herbert Spencer to its more severe, but logically consistent term "the survival-of-the-fittest." Then
> Friedrich Nietzsche's takeaway of survival of the fittest led not only to Germany's Eugenics, or Superman Theory, but to the Holocaust itself, and, if I'm not overstating the matter, to the death of over 50 million people in the last and bloodiest century. Such is the darkness that man, made in the image of God can sink to without the aid of the inscripturated Word.



Ed,

You will no doubt appreciate these words from Kloosterman:

*Excursus: A Case Study in a Reformed Application of Natural Law[12]*

For some time now, Dr. VanDrunen has been pleading for the reconsideration of natural law theory. He is concerned to teach Christians how to make arguments in the public square about moral and political issues. VanDrunen argues that the moral standards of the natural law are known to every person, whether believer or unbeliever, to such an extent that most people would admit that murder, stealing, and lying are immoral.

Of all the contemporary public moral debates which could serve to illustrate the validity of appealing to natural law, surely legalized abortion is the preeminent issue. Let us observe how such an appeal to natural law could work, according to VanDrunen, who summarizes his position this way:

As observed above, _nearly_ everyone, at _some_ level, believes that life is valuable and therefore that lethal violence against others should be prohibited by law. _Most_ people would also agree that this applies, _perhaps_ especially, to those who are weak and unable to defend themselves. Based upon such convictions, people _today_ _overwhelmingly_ condemn infanticide as a terrible crime. Beginning from this _widespread_acknowledgment of natural law truth, we could attempt to show how these proper moral sentiments are inconsistent with a pro-choice abortion position.[13]

The italicized qualifiers are important to VanDrunen's position: _nearly_ everyone, at _some_ level, _overwhelmingly_agrees, on the basis of _widespread_ acknowledgement, that infanticide is wrong.

But, really, how universally accessible and how functionally reliable is this "natural truth" _when there are numerous societies throughout history that have practiced infanticide, even as a religious gesture_?! Moreover, by what objective, transcendent, trans-cultural, and trans-historical standard are the moral sentiments which VanDrunen affirms (respect for life, aversion to violence, and defense of the weak) judged to be proper at all, whether by the social consensus or by VanDrunen? In other words, how can we know _which_ social consensus to accept as normative?

His concluding encouragement is this: "Based upon the social consensus that infanticide is immoral, then, a compelling argument can be made, based upon observation of the natural process of fetal development, that life should be protected from conception on."[14]

This crowning sentence clearly embodies exactly what Reformed opponents of post-Enlightenment natural law theory have warned against.

Twice within the same sentence, we read that moral argument in the public square can be "based upon" something: (1) "the social consensus that infanticide is immoral," and (2) "observation of the natural process of fetal development." Here we have two fallacies within the same sentence, namely, the _sociological fallacy_ and a form of the _naturalistic fallacy_. The former fallacy is committed by arguing from majority opinion to moral evaluation (social consensus is the basis for judging infanticide to be immoral), while the second arises when arguing from what "is" to what "ought" to be (the natural process of fetal development is the basis for judging infanticide to be immoral). What makes both of these to be fallacies is that they move from description to prescription.

Social consensus and natural process are unstable, varying, or open to differing interpretations. Some have derived from nature the notion that women should perform military duty alongside men, since nature teaches us that female animals fight ferociously to protect their offspring. Others argue from the behavior of bees in defense of human communal living without private property. Others appeal to the order of bee colonies to defend the principle of monarchy. _Nature teaches virtue_, it is claimed. But _nature also teaches vice_, when we observe the negative behavior of animals. Some animals eat their offspring, rather than defend them.

What, then, qualifies "natural" behavior as virtuous or vicious? Answer: we come to nature with our previously endorsed scale of values. Because industry is _already_ considered a virtue, we exalt those creatures that display it. Because monarchy is _already_ thought preferable to aristocracy or democracy, bees are a good moral example. It is simply not the case that people "read nature" objectively, but rather they engage in circular reasoning.

Someone could construct a "compelling argument," analogous to VanDrunen's case against abortion, in order to defend legalizing homosexual marriages. Here it is: "Based upon the growing social consensus that homosexual intercourse is morally acceptable, and based upon observation of the personal physical and emotional satisfaction derived from such a practice, every consensual form of homosexual expression should be legalized and afforded every civil protection." Why not?

With deep concern, and with all due respect, I ask: Is this, then, the best moral argument that natural law can supply to us Christians who must work and witness in the public square alongside unbelievers blinded by sin and rebellious in heart?

*Conclusion*

Dr. VanDrunen's monograph provides us all with an opportunity to converse about some very important issues involving our use of moral argument, the church's function within culture, the nature of the Christian's public testimony and cultural engagement, and the like. During recent decades we've been offered an array of programmatic answers, including Bahnsen's theonomy, Niebuhr-style cultural transformationalism, the Christendom of Christian Reconstruction, the modern Anabaptism of John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas, and now VanDrunen's NL2K.

In contrast, with his teaching in the areas of apologetics, epistemology, and ethics, Cornelius Van Til has shown us the mistaken assessments and answers supplied by non-Reformed thought, including those proffered by a coalition of Roman Catholic and post-Enlightenment theorists who have joined together in denying the absolute necessity of special revelation for properly apprehending and rightly using general revelation. Somehow, Van Til's enduring contribution needs to be integrated into this conversation.

So, let the conversation continue!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

RWD said:


> Great. We can now add “posting links” to “snippets and cliches.”
> 
> My sincere question is, what’s the “natural law methodology?” I’m hoping someone might put some meat on the bones. I’m merely looking for an example of the methodology rather than our just talking about it in the abstract or in vague terms. Then we can focus in on the genius of it, or its inadequacy. Outlines aren’t methods.



Would you rather I just copy/paste whole pages from websites so it wouldn't be considered "an outline?" My outlines are fine. They condense the best of Christian thinking throughout the ages. I point to the sources. Read the original sources if you want to see the methodology. Otherwise, I don't know what you are really seeking.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

RWD said:


> How does one _justify_ that he has a purpose built into him? There’s a vast difference between knowledge and the _justification_ of knowledge.



I don't know. I don't really worry about it. Final causality is a real thing; therefore, teleology is real.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know. I don't really worry about it. Final causality is a real thing; therefore, teleology is real.



1. How do you justify causality? 

2. How do you get from causality to purpose?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

RWD said:


> 1. How do you justify causality?
> 
> 2. How do you get from causality to purpose?



In Aristotelianism final causation is teleology. 

Some thoughts:

1) No one is claiming that natural law provides an exhaustive textbook for every case. (Ironically, neither does biblical law, such as the issue of water rights in a desert agrarian society).

2) I dont' worry about having to justify every single thing in the world. These are questions while no doubt interesting to the philosopher, have never been asked by the man on the street. I'm sure I should start justifying every justification in my worldview, but I've done okay so far.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

And many theonomic critics think we are offering some sort of secular, Neo-Thomist neutral account of natural law where any appeal to God is off-limits. Nothing of the sort. With Bullinger I would say,

The law of nature is an instruction of the conscience, and, as it were, a certain direction placed by God himself in the mind and hearts of men, to teach them what they have to do and what to eschew. And the conscience, verily, is the knowledge, judgment, and reason of a man, whereby every man in himself, and in his own mind, being made privy to everything that he either hath committed or not committed, doth either condemn or else acquit himself. And this reason proceedeth from God, who both prompteth and writeth his judgments in the hearts and minds of men. Moreover, that which we call nature is the proper disposition or inclination of every thing. But the disposition of mankind being flatly corrupted by sin, as it is blind, so also is it in all points evil and naughty. It knoweth not God, it worshippeth not God, neither doth it love the neighbour; but rather is affected with self-love toward itself, and seeketh still for its own advantage. For which cause the apostle said, “that we by nature are the children of wrath.” Wherefore the law of nature is not called the law of nature, because in the nature and disposition of man there is of or by itself that reason of light exhorting to the best things, and that holy working; but for because God hath imprinted or engraven in our minds some knowledge, and certain general principles of religion, justice, and goodness, which, because they be grafted in us and born together with us, do therefore seem to be naturally in us. (Decades, II.194.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

Natural law is the will of God, and consequently, the divine rule and principle for knowing what to do and what not to do. It is, the knowledge of what is good or bad, fair or unfair, upright or shameful, that was inscribed upon the hearts of all people by God himself also after the fall. For this reason, we are all universally taught what activities should be pursued and what should be avoided; that is, to do one thing and to avoid another, and we know that we are obligated and pushed to act for the glory of God, our own good, and the welfare of our neighbor both in private and in public. In addition, we know that if we do what should be avoided or avoid what we should do, we are condemned; but if we do the opposite, we are defended and absolved. (Girolamo Zanchi, quoted by Stephen Grabill, “Part VI: Recovering and Reviving the Catholicity of Protestant Ethics” at percaritatem.com)


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In Aristotelianism final causation is teleology.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> ...



I’m not asking for an “exhaustive textbook for every case.” Nor am I asking you “to justify every single thing in the world.” 

Let’s review the bidding. You claimed, “I don't really worry about it. Final causality is a real thing; therefore, teleology is real.” 

To which I responded, 

“1. How do you justify causality? 

2. How do you get from causality to purpose?”

By checking your Bible at the door, you left yourself with zero justification for causality. Yet Christians who refuse to abandon God’s word for “natural law” _can_ give an account for the intelligibility of causality. So, although you’ve “done ok so far,” I’m not questioning whether you can function in God’s world. Even pagans do. I’m merely asking for an elementary account of intelligible experience. 

As for getting from causality to purpose, you’re now more out to sea than any Radical 2 Kingdom proponent I’ve ever encountered. Your modal leap is extraordinary.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> By checking your Bible at the door, you left yourself with zero justification for causality.



Which Bible verse provides an account of causality's justification?


RWD said:


> Yet Christians who refuse to abandon God’s word for “natural law” _can_ give an account for the intelligibility of causality.



I didn't abandon God's word for natural law. With *all* of the Reformed, I see natural law as participation in the eternal divine law of God. I referenced numerous Reformers to that effect. 


RWD said:


> you’re now more out to sea than any Radical 2 Kingdom proponent I’ve ever encountered.



That's good to know.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which Bible verse provides an account of causality's justification?



I would say anything that has to do with God's works of creation and providence, or his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing of all his creatures and all their actions. So, Genesis 1 would be a very good accounting for causality.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which Bible verse provides an account of causality's justification?



That’s a bit like asking, which Bible verse gives us the doctrine of the Trinity? It’s pretty hazardous to try to construct any doctrine, let alone metaphysical claims, on a single Bible verse.

Surely you must agree that the intelligibility of causality is a good and necessary inference we can righty draw from Scripture. Given that a common creator - who is also the Lord of Providence - stands behind human minds and the external mind-independent world (ie the external and _otherwise_ raw brute particulars outside our minds), we can be assured that this _good_ God also provides the fruitful connection between thought and observation by which we can _justify_ inductive inference and take dominion as He has commanded _in His word_, which in fact presupposes an intelligible and well ordered universe. It is through God’s _written_ word, we can give a _*defense*_ of causality. We have an answer to Hume’s skepticism and an epistemic basis for inductive inference. We don’t have to psychologize science as did Kant.

Apart from Scripture’s justification for the uniformity of nature, men can certainly “do science” and draw rational inferences. But as I’ve pointed out, it’s one thing to _function_ in God’s world and quite another thing to be able to _*justify*_ - in a non-arbitrary yet internally consistent way, the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience. To say, as you have, that you “don’t really worry about it” is simply to give yourself a free pass on the methodology of natural law.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> Surely you must agree that the intelligibility of causality is a good and necessary inference we can righty draw from Scripture.



I suppose so, though I don't see how positing "Bible" leads us to causality.


RWD said:


> iven that a common creator - who is also the Lord of Providence - stands behind human minds and the external mind-independent world (ie the external and _otherwise_ raw brute particulars outside our minds), we can be assured that this _good_ God also provides the fruitful connection between thought and observation by which we can _justify_ inductive inference and take dominion as He has commanded _in His word_, which in fact presupposes an intelligible and well ordered universe.



That's almost word-for-word every Christian natural law thinker before Grotius.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

I'll admit that natural law arguments do commit fallacies but so does inductive reasoning. But inductive reasoning is essential to science as well as our ability to get along in the world. Our arguments will not be air tight but persuasive perhaps.
Persuading someone of the facts Vandrunen lays out could lead to persuading someone that abortion is wrong.
Just because some culture's practiced infanticide, most haven't.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I'll admit that natural law arguments do commit fallacies but so does inductive reasoning. But inductive reasoning is essential to science as well as our ability to get along in the world. Our arguments will not be air tight but persuasive perhaps.
> Persuading someone of the facts Vandrunen lays out could lead to persuading someone that abortion is wrong.
> Just because some culture's practiced infanticide, most haven't.



There are some arguments that are "Because most cultures practice/don't practice x; therefore, _____." I, however, am not making those arguments and the stronger arguments of natural law (like the Reformed divines I mentioned) don't make such crude arguments.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> Of all the contemporary public moral debates which could serve to illustrate the validity of appealing to natural law, surely legalized abortion is the preeminent issue.



I think I am right that the "natural" law of God is written on the hearts of all men. Not His Special Revelation, but surely the Ten Commandments and the myriad of corollary deductions along with a knowledge of the true God, "even his eternal power and Godhead are infallibly known to all men." But what does Paul show that fallen man invariably does with that knowledge? He "holds (suppresses) the truth in unrighteousness." He even knows that the outcome of disobedience deserves death. (see vs 32 below)

But right now, I am a little tired, so I will let Paul finish my thought on natural law theory.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> I think I am right that the "natural" law of God is written on the hearts of all men. Not His Special Revelation, but surely the Ten Commandments and the myriad of corollary deductions along with a knowledge of the true God, "even his eternal power and Godhead are infallibly known to all men." But what does Paul show that fallen man invariably does with that knowledge? He "holds (suppresses) the truth in unrighteousness." He even knows that the outcome of disobedience deserves death. (see vs 32 below)
> 
> But right now, I am a little tired, so I will let Paul finish my thought on natural law theory.
> 
> ...



Ed, your posts are formatted as if you were quoting me. Those are not my quotes. I shared with you Nelson's thoughts.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I suppose so, though I don't see how positing "Bible" leads us to causality.
> 
> 
> That's almost word-for-word every Christian natural law thinker before Grotius.



*I wrote:* Surely you must agree that the intelligibility of causality is a good and necessary inference we can righty draw from Scripture

*Jacob responded:* I suppose so, though I don't see how positing "Bible" leads us to causality.

Jacob,

Anyone following this thread recognizes I did not posit that the _Bible leads us to causality_. In fact, the proposition is so ambiguous, it’s hard to imagine what _you _mean by it.

What I did state, to which you just now responded: “I suppose so” - is that “Surely you must agree that the intelligibility of causality is a good and necessary inference we can righty draw from Scripture.”

Given that you seem to concur and given that I elaborated upon that sentiment, to which you further offered that I was in line with every “Christian natural law thinker before Grotius,” then please provide a quote from such a natural law thinker who comes close to saying something like I just said:

“Given that a common creator - who is also the Lord of Providence - stands behind human minds and the external mind-independent world (ie the external and _otherwise_ raw brute particulars outside our minds), we can be assured that this _good_ God also provides the fruitful connection between thought and observation by which we can _justify_ inductive inference and take dominion as He has commanded _in His word_, which in fact presupposes an intelligible and well-ordered universe.”​
Although I don’t think you’ll be successful in finding a 17th Century or earlier “natural law thinker” saying such a thing, let alone "almost word-for-word," even if you could find such a quote, that wouldn’t change the fact that what I’ve been driving at has been conspicuously avoided.

AGAIN:

There’s a difference being knowing x and being able to justify x. The question is not whether we know, but whether we can know that we know. Without special revelation, it’s impossible. And the reason that is relevant to this discussion is that without special revelation, we’re left to make our final judicial appeals to our subjective beliefs (_even if those beliefs were epistemically warranted in an externalist sense, which we could not know_).

At one time, I believe you were rather fond of this quote:

Theonomy is concerned with three irreducible questions, which anti-theonomists cannot answer in an epistemologically satisfactory manner:


Which sins should civil magistrates punish?
What should those punishments be?
How does one justify the answers to the first two questions?
If we are left to govern ourselves by general revelation, then civil laws must be ultimately a matter of opinion, yet laws by their very nature are to reflect what _ought_ to be. Moreover, apart from Scripture inductive inference cannot be justified. Therefore, apart from Scripture it cannot be proven that all persons are endowed by nature with the same moral code. Accordingly, it would be tyrannical to impose unjustifiable codes of conduct, let alone sanctions for violations of those codes, with a revelatory authority to appeal to for such impositions.​
That quote would seem to run contrary to what natural law thinkers believe.

Please, no more quotes or links. Rather, please send me _your_ concise thesis and _your_ justification for it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> Please, no more quotes or links. Rather, please send me _your_ concise thesis and _your_ justification for it.



I don't think so. When I ask Van tillians and theonomists to show me, concisely if you will, which Bible verse justifies x, they tell me that is an illegitimate question. And then they ask me the same thing.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> When I ask Van tillians and theonomists to show me, concisely if you will, which Bible verse justifies x, they tell me that is an illegitimate question.



To be fair, I did provide an answer to this request.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

Jacob,

1. You won’t provide a quote from a 17th century (or prior) “natural law thinker” that resembles my quote; yet you asserted that they _all_ have said what I have said, even nearly word-for-word.

2. You refuse to state your natural law thesis.

3. You asserted that your are “not making those [fallacious] arguments and the stronger arguments of natural law (like the Reformed divines I mentioned) don't make such crude arguments.”

Yet, you have yet to show _any_ natural law argument, let alone “the stronger arguments of natural law...”

4. You admitted that you used “to think it meant looking at a squirrel and deducing that murder is wrong, and [that you] ridiculed NL theorists that way.”

But how have you really improved on that? After all, now you say that natural law is about “the structure of man and the world and ‘what we can't not know.’”

That all men know things is indeed true. It’s just not very interesting. But maybe that’s as far as natural law theory has taken you?

Frankly, you might as well have stuck to poking fun at all those NL theorists with your squirrels and murder caricature. Though not very kind, at least you would have remained on the right side of the issue.

5. “And I don't quite do the whole ‘deduction’ and ‘method’ thing in such a strict manner.”

Yes, that _is_ a problem. Ambiguity is a convenient out. 

6. “I don't know. I don't really worry about it.”

Yes, I see that too. Translation of 5 and 6, “I have no well thought out position and frankly, I don’t care.”


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> 2. You refuse to state your natural law thesis.



I did state it, both recently and at the beginning of this thread. Natural law is human participation (and I am using methexis/metaxu in the ancient sense) in the Eternal Law of God, which is the Divine Will, which is God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> Frankly, you might as well have stuck to poking fun at all those NL theorists with your squirrels and murder caricature. Though not very kind, at least you would have remained on the right side of the issue.



And I was wrong. I hadn't at that time studied the historic Reformed sources.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I did state it, both recently and at the beginning of this thread. Natural law is human participation (and I am using methexis/metaxu in the ancient sense) in the Eternal Law of God, which is the Divine Will, which is God.



That’s not a thesis. It’s a definition. Aside from that, the definition is flawed. At the very least, God is not his will; nor is God his eternal law. 

God can do all his holy will. Therefore, if God is his will, then God can do all his holy God. Nonsensical. Whether you insert decree or precept for “will” makes no difference. If the former, then different possible worlds implies God can change in essential attributes (depending on which world he would actualize). If the latter, then God’s statutes or his ordering of nature could not be distinguished from himself.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> God is not his will



Divine simplicity. No parts in God. If you want to get technical, we can say that Jesus is the will of the Father, following Athanasius. The Word must be the living Will of the Father, and an essential energy (enousion energia), and a real Word” (II.14.2)


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

Jacob,

The simplicity of God simply means that God is not like his attributes but rather he is his attributes. He is not like love, but rather God is love etc. 

To identify God’s being as his will of decree is pantheistic. It also leads to mutability since God’s is free and as such was able to have decreed other possible worlds. Accordingly, the decretive will of God must be distinguished from God’s being, lest what he decrees is necessary as he is necessary or else God can change. 

That God has a will, is another matter. However, even that basic point requires nuance that doesn’t lend itself to links, snippets and clichés. 

Look, it’s rather apparent what’s going on here.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> To identify God’s being as his will of decree is pantheistic.



You are confusing the decree with the effects of the decree.


RWD said:


> Look, it’s rather apparent what’s going on here.



Please enlighten me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

Though, to be specific, I don't want to say that God = the decree, simpliciter. Classical theism doesn't compartmentalise God's will and his his mind, and there is no essential distinction between God's mind and his essence.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are confusing the decree with the effects of the decree.
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me.



https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/natural-law-methodology.98118/page-3#post-1202445


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

“You are confusing the decree with the effects of the decree.”

So, like I thought, you _are_ saying the decree is an attribute.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2019)

RWD said:


> “You are confusing the decree with the effects of the decree.”
> 
> So, like I thought, you _are_ saying the decree is an attribute.



It was never my intended argument to say God = decree. In fact, I rejected that. My point was that you can't make God's will (or his Mind) be something other than God. You were the one that brought in decree at this point.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It was never my intended argument to say God = decree. In fact, I rejected that. My point was that you can't make God's will (or his Mind) be something other than God. You were the one that brought in decree at this point.



You’ve used “will” in a most unqualified sense. Even now it’s completely unclear to me what you have in mind. It’s as if you have just pasted ideas from Aquinas, if not other ancients, without having first internalized things for yourself.

As I said, “That God has a will, is another matter. However, even that basic point requires nuance that doesn’t lend itself to links, snippets and clichés.”

Let me offer you some distinctions. 

In a very qualified sense God _wills_ his attributes, but that willing of God isn’t what eternally causes God to be who he is. So, God’s will to be holy is neither decretive nor preceptive. Rather, God delights in who he is and _desires_ (or wills) himself to be as he is; it is in that _qualified_ non-decretive and non-self-generating sense, God _wills_ himself. 

Secondly, the divine _will_ as a _capacity_ to decree is an attribute. Maybe that’s what those you’re borrowing from mean? 

This capacity to decree entails God’s _necessary_ knowledge, from which God _freely_ decrees. Accordingly, God’s eternal decree is God’s _free_ determination of what will come to pass. As such, the divine decree itself (God’s plan and purpose) is _not_ an attribute. If it were an attribute, then given divine simplicity, God _is_ decree - a monstrosity indeed. God would be what his decree contemplates, including the sin he contemplated in his capacity to decree. 

Anyway, we’ve gotten far afield. I’m still looking for your insights of natural law methodology.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2019)

RWD said:


> Anyway, we’ve gotten far afield. I’m still looking for your insights of natural law methodology.



I'm really not getting what you're after. Are you looking for some kind of calculus that applies the same way in all situations? Sort of like a Natural Law version of TAG that works the same way? I don't think that's possible. I wouldn't give the same argument against transgender surgery that I would against Rousseau.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm really not getting what you're after. Are you looking for some kind of calculus that applies the same way in all situations? Sort of like a Natural Law version of TAG that works the same way? I don't think that's possible. I wouldn't give the same argument against transgender surgery that I would against Rousseau.



Give me a moral argument against transgender surgery.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2019)

RWD said:


> Give me a moral argument against transgender surgery.



I'm actually working on developing something like that. Unfortunately, it involves design, teleology, etc., so you would probably just keep asking, "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?"

I just don't think it would be a fruitful discussion right now. 

I had posted outlines of natural law that were drawn from the primary sources. I had foolishly thought that entering into the older and wiser Christian tradition on what is justice, etc. would have been a good idea.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm actually working on developing something like that. Unfortunately, it involves design, teleology, etc., so you would probably just keep asking, "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?"
> 
> I just don't think it would be a fruitful discussion right now.
> 
> I had posted outlines of natural law that were drawn from the primary sources. I had foolishly thought that entering into the older and wiser Christian tradition on what is justice, etc. would have been a good idea.



Ok. Fair enough. All good. 

Blessings, 

Ron


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm actually working on developing something like that. Unfortunately, it involves design, teleology, etc., so you would probably just keep asking, "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?" "How do justify x?"
> 
> I just don't think it would be a fruitful discussion right now.
> 
> I had posted outlines of natural law that were drawn from the primary sources. I had foolishly thought that entering into the older and wiser Christian tradition on what is justice, etc. would have been a good idea.


Since I'm both a Vantillian and advocating a method, albeit not without it's problems, of inductive NL arguments, I wouldn't do the whole justify x thing. Those arguments have a time and a place, not here. And to caricature Vantillians and pressups , as you call them, is not very fair or cordial. I suggest you take it down a notch.
I also agree with RWD about the snippet thing. Just say what your thinking.

Now as far as a method I think one can broadly point out certain historical developments that may have become better for people (healthcare, modern democracies, literacy, etc) which I would point to NL as the culprit. A realization of and application of NL necessarily has a history, albeit I'm not proposing a postmillianal golden age but gradual getting (and worse in some ways) better on some fronts. Whatever we have gotten morally right is do to NL and common grace.

An example would be NL by its nature would impress upon us the need to live in better societies.
Literacy has been shown (almost?) Universally to improve conditions in society. With sin being a great hampering, but in general it's been good.
Therefore a persuasive case can be made that we should seek literacy in any society that doesn't have it.

Also a better use NL will always be by Christians due to us having been regenerated and has access to special revelation. We can fill out our moral "pallet", so to speak, to make better use of NL.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I also agree with RWD about the snippet thing. Just say what your thinking.



I felt like I have about a half dozen times.


jwright82 said:


> I wouldn't do the whole justify x thing. Those arguments have a time and a place, not here.



Try it on the streets with someone who spends all day listening to Katy Perry and would have to study to score over 10 on an IQ test. They won't even be able to follow the conversation.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I felt like I have about a half dozen times.
> 
> 
> Try it on the streets with someone who spends all day listening to Katy Perry and would have to study to score over 10 on an IQ test. They won't even be able to follow the conversation.


I haven't done it that, I'm no sye( whatever his last name is, Pennington or something), he is far to rough with people. One can easily be gentle about. Van Til's "Why I Believe in God" is a good example.

Now from time to time I come across a belligerent atheist( or Christian fundamentalists, they both don't like me very much) and I'm a little more aggressive. Especially when they don't know the first thing about theology, philosophy, or science but they want to tell me how stupid I am. I just throw logic and concepts they can't possibly understand at them. Then I ask I thought you were smarter than me and you don't know these things? It tends soften them up a bit or people listening gain more respect for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

