Topic: Natural Law in the Abstract

[Papist]

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no  big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not.  The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

[ialmisry]

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no  big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not.  The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers.  And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc., He was factored out of it.

[Papist]

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no  big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not.  The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers.  And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc., He was factored out of it.

Isa, the Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on God. You should read the Summa theologiae. It specifically states that it all about God's eternal plan. Any natural law view which does not require belief in God is not part of the Catholic Natural Law tradition.

[ialmisry]

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no  big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not.  The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers.  And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc., He was factored out of it.

Isa, the Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on God. You should read the Summa theologiae. It specifically states that it all about God's eternal plan. Any natural law view which does not require belief in God is not part of the Catholic Natural Law tradition.

Alas!  The Summa Theologiae depends on Aristotle a lot, and he did not require a belief in God.

[davillas]

There is a good essay on this topic : " Unspeakable ethics unnatural law " written by professor Arthur Allen Leff. You can find the pdf online.

[ialmisry]

I was reminded of this definition, from the wikipedia article on Leibnitz, and this thread, and thought the two should be together.

I came across a sentence that encapsulates the problems with Scholasticism-

the scholastic tradition, in which conclusions are produced by applying reason of first principles or prior definitions rather than to empirical evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz

[Porter ODoran]

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no  big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not.  The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers.  And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc., He was factored out of it.

Isa, the Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on God. You should read the Summa theologiae. It specifically states that it all about God's eternal plan. Any natural law view which does not require belief in God is not part of the Catholic Natural Law tradition.

Alas!  The Summa Theologiae depends on Aristotle a lot, and he did not require a belief in God.

Like the bulk of your posts in this thread, this is pure ignorance.

[ialmisry]

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no  big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not.  The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers.  And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc., He was factored out of it.

Isa, the Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on God. You should read the Summa theologiae. It specifically states that it all about God's eternal plan. Any natural law view which does not require belief in God is not part of the Catholic Natural Law tradition.

Alas!  The Summa Theologiae depends on Aristotle a lot, and he did not require a belief in God.

Like the bulk of your posts in this thread, this is pure ignorance.

yet again, your posts assUme we must accept your assERtions.