Natural-law argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Arguments For the Existence of God}}
 
{{Arguments For the Existence of God}}
 +
The natural-law argument is an argument that the laws of nature are dependent on god.
 +
 +
==Background information==
 
The '''natural-law argument''' states that because there are consistent and predictable natural [[law]]s in the [[universe]], there must be a law-giver who set those laws in motion.  That law-giver is assumed to be [[God]].
 
The '''natural-law argument''' states that because there are consistent and predictable natural [[law]]s in the [[universe]], there must be a law-giver who set those laws in motion.  That law-giver is assumed to be [[God]].
  
==Counter-apologetics==
+
==Argument==
 +
===Syllogism===
 +
::p1. There are natural laws which govern the universe
 +
::p2. All laws have a law giver
 +
::c1. That law giver is God
 +
 
 +
==Counter arguments==
 +
===False premise p1: Natural laws===
 +
This argument relies on [[equivocation]] and [[reification]] between two meanings of the word "law".
  
===Equivocation===
+
Legislative laws, such as "Do not murder" or "No littering" are ''prescriptive'': they are established to demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. If a person breaks such a law, he or she has committed a crime, and may be subject to punishment.
  
This argument relies on [[equivocation]] between two meanings of the word "law".
+
Natural laws, on the other hand, are ''descriptive'': they are human concepts that describe how some aspect of the universe behaves. For instance, Newton's law of motion "F=ma" describes how solid objects behave when acted upon by a force. If a person or object breaks a physical law, then it is the law that is in error, since it obviously does not adequately describe what it seeks to describe.
  
Legislative laws, such as "Do not murder" or "No littering" are ''prescriptive'': they are established to demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behavior. If a person breaks such a law, he or she has committed a crime, and may be subject to punishment.
+
''[[Bertrand Russell]]:''
 +
{{quote|We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature.|Bertrand Russell, - [[Why I Am Not a Christian]]}}
  
Natural laws, on the other hand, are ''descriptive'': they describe how some aspect of the universe behaves. For instance, Newton's law of motion "F=ma" describes how solid objects behave when acted upon by a force. If a person or object breaks a physical law, then it is the law that is in error, since it obviously does not adequately describe what it seeks to describe.
+
This is peripherally related to the [[Transcendental argument]] for god, in that it heavily confuses a conceptual abstraction with concrete reality.
  
===Natural laws as human concepts===
+
===False premise p2: The law giver===
 +
The laws in question are descriptive abstractions of what the universe does, not prescriptive legislations about what the universe can do. As such they do not require a law giver, but as long as a law giver is being asserted, it opens up the question of where god got his laws. This opens up a paradox somewhat similar to the [[euthyphro dilemma]].
  
[[Bertrand Russell]] wrote:
+
{{quote|Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.|Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian}}
{{quote-source|We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature.|Bertrand Russell, ''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]''}}
+
  
===Where did God get the laws from?===
+
===Special Pleading c1: Which god?===
 +
Even if we grant the false premises that there are prescriptive natural laws, and by extension the existence of a lawgiver god, it does not follow that that god is the one the apologist has in mind, or even that there is only one god involved. It could just as likely be the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]], purple space pixies, Santa Claus, or invisible pink unicorns, as it could be [[Yahweh]].
  
Similar to the question of "[[Who created God?]]", there is the question of whether God was in some way required to choose the laws that he did.
+
==Links==
 +
===See Also===
 +
* [[Equivocation]]  
 +
* [[reification]]
 +
* [[Transcendental argument]]
 +
* [[Euthyphro dilemma]]
 +
* [[Special pleading]] 
  
{{quote-source|Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.|Bertrand Russell, ''Why I Am Not a Christian''}}
+
===External Links===
 +
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/god-natural-law God & Natural Law] – Article by Jason Lisle PhD on, Answers In Genisis.
  
===Presumed identity of the law-giver===
+
===Reference===
Even if we grant the existence of a lawgiver god, it does not follow that that god is the one the apologist has in mind, or even that there is only one god involved. It could just as easily be the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] as [[Yahweh]].
+
* [Wikipedia:Natural law] – Wikipedia article on true natural law
 +
* [Wikipedia:Legislation] – Wikipedia article on legislative law
 +
* [Wikipedia:Natural-law argument] – Wikipedia article on the Natural-law argument for god
  
 
[[Category:Arguments]]
 
[[Category:Arguments]]
 
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
 
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
 
[[Category:Anthropic arguments]]
 
[[Category:Anthropic arguments]]

Revision as of 08:33, 12 December 2009

Arguments For the Existence of God
Anthropic Arguments:
Arguments For Belief:
Christological Arguments:
Cosmological Arguments:
Majority Arguments:
Moral Arguments:
Ontological Arguments:
Reformed Epistemology:
Teleological Arguments:
Testimonial Arguments:
Transcendental arguments:

The natural-law argument is an argument that the laws of nature are dependent on god.

Contents

Background information

The natural-law argument states that because there are consistent and predictable natural laws in the universe, there must be a law-giver who set those laws in motion. That law-giver is assumed to be God.

Argument

Syllogism

p1. There are natural laws which govern the universe
p2. All laws have a law giver
c1. That law giver is God

Counter arguments

False premise p1: Natural laws

This argument relies on equivocation and reification between two meanings of the word "law".

Legislative laws, such as "Do not murder" or "No littering" are prescriptive: they are established to demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. If a person breaks such a law, he or she has committed a crime, and may be subject to punishment.

Natural laws, on the other hand, are descriptive: they are human concepts that describe how some aspect of the universe behaves. For instance, Newton's law of motion "F=ma" describes how solid objects behave when acted upon by a force. If a person or object breaks a physical law, then it is the law that is in error, since it obviously does not adequately describe what it seeks to describe.

Bertrand Russell:

"We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature."

This is peripherally related to the Transcendental argument for god, in that it heavily confuses a conceptual abstraction with concrete reality.

False premise p2: The law giver

The laws in question are descriptive abstractions of what the universe does, not prescriptive legislations about what the universe can do. As such they do not require a law giver, but as long as a law giver is being asserted, it opens up the question of where god got his laws. This opens up a paradox somewhat similar to the euthyphro dilemma.

"Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary."

Special Pleading c1: Which god?

Even if we grant the false premises that there are prescriptive natural laws, and by extension the existence of a lawgiver god, it does not follow that that god is the one the apologist has in mind, or even that there is only one god involved. It could just as likely be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, purple space pixies, Santa Claus, or invisible pink unicorns, as it could be Yahweh.

Links

See Also

External Links

Reference

  • [Wikipedia:Natural law] – Wikipedia article on true natural law
  • [Wikipedia:Legislation] – Wikipedia article on legislative law
  • [Wikipedia:Natural-law argument] – Wikipedia article on the Natural-law argument for god
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox