Comments on: Natural Law

By: Mark Martin

Mark Martin — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:07:06 +0000

Valerie,

The Statesman, above, unfortunately agrees with the modern atheist that you must be a “religious fruitcake” if you believe it can be a way to reach a consensus for establishing liberty and justice in governace.

Murray Rothbard, who was one of the 20th century’s most prolific free-market economists and libertarian political theorists, was an atheist. He wisely writes:

In the controversy over man’s nature, and over the broader and more controversial concept of “natural law,” both sides have repeatedly proclaimed that natural law and theology are inextricably intertwined. As a result, many champions of natural law, in scientific or philosophic circles, have gravely weakened their case by implying that rational, philosophical methods alone cannot establish such law: that theological faith is necessary to maintain the concept. On the other hand, the opponents of natural law have gleefully agreed; since faith in the supernatural is deemed necessary to belief in natural law, the latter concept must be tossed out of scientific, secular discourse, and be consigned to the arcane sphere of the divine studies. In consequence, the idea of a natural law founded on reason and rational inquiry has been virtually lost.

The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door.

As is the usual case, I end up making both sides mad. Hehe.

Nonetheless, it is a concept that this country is founded on, most of western society is founded on, a large part of eastern society is founded on, and it is also a concept that the United Nations was founded on. Don’t you think that alone should be enough for it be discussed in school?

By: Valerie

Valerie — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:21:03 +0000

Mark,
I believe that natural law is rarely discussed in school anymore. The few times I hear it discussed it’s usually being put down. You’re a religious fruitcake if you believe in it. Most people probably wouldn’t recognize that it’s adopted in our founding documents.

By: The Statesman

The Statesman — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:02:19 +0000

The “Natural Law” concept is a hitchhiker on the Judeo-Christian worldview. To whatever extent some of the founders were deists or atheists they were deists and atheists who grew up in a Christian-saturated culture. What they mistakenly assumed “every body knows in their heart and mind is right” is only so because of the type of culture they grew up in.

A secular Darwinist has no rational basis for “Natural Rights”. They are an illusion for propaganda purposes only. “Nature is red in tooth and claw” and the only law they see is the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest.

No, “Natural Rights” absent a culture with a God very much like the one portrayed in scripture is a non-starter. Each citizen hopes the other will honor his “rights”, but instead of knowing and agreeing what those rights might be, in their heart they know that those “rights” are a sham absent their being a gift “from their Creator”.