Bible Studies

---

Colin Bernreuter
3/10/14
Prof. Schulz
PHIL 201
Summa Style Argument
Whether There Is in Us a Natural Law?
Objection 1
It seems that the concept of Natural Law is a social construct, depending on the culture and geographical location of birth. In Western civilization, it is frowned upon to murder and steal, whereas in some African tribes it is celebrated as a releasing of the soul and a form of charity respectively.
Objection 2
Furthermore, the Natural Law is in principle an infallible, eternal set of Laws. The human is mortal, temporal, and fallen. Therefore, the Natural Law cannot possibly be perceived and followed by man.
Objection 3
The idea of a Natural Law depends on an omniscient Law-giver. No scientific discoveries have shown evidence for such a Creator. Our universe was formed through unguided, random processes. Therefore, there is no single set of moral laws that apply to all people at all times. The lack of a Law-giver demands a lack of universal moral principles.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis states in his book Abolition of Man, “These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about the universe we live in.”
I answer that, There is a sense of “oughtness” that presses upon us. We call this law of right behavior the Moral Law. We live in a moral universe, in addition to the physical facts (“this chair is brown”, “Gold is atomic number 79”), there are moral facts (“lying is wrong”, “bravery is a virtue”). But if there is an objective Moral Law, and none of us made it, there must be something else that produced the Moral Law, a Moral Law-giver. Still, the “Moral Law-giver” could just be something within the universe. Then maybe moral facts just supervene on physical facts, such as facts about society or facts about human nature. If so, then the Moral Law-giver (“society” or “natural selection”) would not be something beyond the physical universe, hence the theological conclusion could be avoided. However, if materialism is true, there are only physical facts. But there are not just physical facts, there are moral facts as well. Religion best explains the reality of moral facts (and not materialism), hence there is something beyond the universe. And this something is more like ‘mind’ than an impersonal like a Platonic abstract object (the Form “goodness” or “beauty”).
Reply to Obj. 1
Seeming differences can be explained by the different factual beliefs that people hold. Some societies have seen nothing wrong with slavery; others view it is a moral abomination.  This seems to mark a basic and serious disparity in moral perspectives.  Yet both may subscribe to the principle that “all men are created equal.”  Their disagreement may be over whether or not the people being enslaved are fully human.  Defenders of slavery in the United States did used to argue that blacks were sub-human and could therefore legitimately be treated like animals rather than as human beings.
Reply to Obj. 2
Human reason cannot fully comprehend the Eternal law, so it needed to be supplemented by revealed Divine law. Our inability to follow a law does not by necessity mean that the law does not exist. We fall short of conforming to this law on a daily basis, thus the need for a Savior.
Reply to Obj. 3
The existence of God cannot be proven. Similarly, God’s lack of existence cannot be proven either. We are left in a state of skepticism or faith. There are many reasons to believe that His existence is real such as: irreducible complexity, the ontological and teleological arguments from natures, and the historical science of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR VISITOR