RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I guess if you wanted to see how it works, read some of the dialogues J. Budziezwki has
https://www.undergroundthomist.org/blog
Natural law methodology
- Thread starter jwright82
- Start date
- Status
I guess if you wanted to see how it works, read some of the dialogues J. Budziezwki has
https://www.undergroundthomist.org/blog
@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."
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."
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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/
https://heidelblog.net/category/natural-law/
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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.
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.
Did they get this from nature or Scripture?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
It’s not an apologetic.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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 widespreadacknowledgment 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, overwhelminglyagrees, 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!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritanboard Assessor
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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.)
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Which Bible verse provides an account of causality's justification?
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.
That's good to know.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
- Status
