Rick Santorum and Secular Natural Law
Feb 24, 2012
Peter J. Leithart
Rick Santorum recently criticized Obama’s worldview as a “phony theology not based on the Bible.” A few days ago, the Drudge Report resurrected a 2008 speech in which Santorum warned that Satan has it in for the U.S. Santorum’s blatantly religious comments have already made him an object of ridicule and will doubtless cost him support. My cynicism meter goes as wild as anyone’s when politicians talk like this. Still, I find it invigorating. 
Politicians are usually careful to couch their public remarks in a more generic idiom. Romney never criticizes Obama for failing to follow the instructions of 4 Nephi or for not living up to the example of Ether 7:11. Christian though he is, Ron Paul mentions von Mises more than Matthew. It’s an understandable stance. Politicians want votes, and talk in a way that makes sense to as many people as possible. Besides, we are in a delicate moment in American history. We need some common norms to be a functional society, yet no secular consensus has replaced the decayed Protestant consensus of earlier centuries.
For many conservatives, natural law provides the secular grammar we need for debating moral issues in a pluralistic society. John Finnis, a leading “new natural law” theorist, contests the notion that every argument against homosexual conduct is “a manifestation of purely religious, theological, and sectarian belief.” Natural law arguments against homosexuality are instead “reflective, critical, publicly intelligible and rational.” Finnis acknowledges debts to theologians, especially Germain Grisez, but claims that “the relevant philosophical arguments and considerations can be distinguished and detached [from theology] by careful analysis.”
I don’t think so. Natural law theory remains too entangled with the particularities of theology to do everything natural lawyers want it to do. That is the thrust of Nicholas Bamforth and David A.J. Richards’ Patriarchal Religion, Sexuality, and Gender (2007). Bamforth and Richards argue that “the new natural lawyers’ arguments about sexuality, gender, and the law are religious.” Natural law theorists “meld” secular and religious motivations and norms and are “unlikely . . . to be able to draw a clean distinction between that which is knowable through revelation and that which is graspable by reason alone.”
For instance, Bamforth and Richards trace Finnis’s argument that marriage is a “basic good” back to Grisez. In defending his characterization of marriage as a basic good, Grisez cites the “development in Catholic teaching about marriage” and particularly John Paul II’s magisterial teaching that marriage is “a unique kind of communion and form of cooperation.” Using biblical language, Grisez describes marital sex as “one flesh unity” and marriage as “a covenant” that is “involved in the covenant with God.” Marriage is “not purely secular.” Grisez’s very notion of human good is theologically charged: “Every human good realized on earth will last forever” in some form, enduring after “God creates the new heavens and the new earth and Jesus hands over his kingdom to his Father.”
Finnis directly borrows Grisez’s biblical notion of marriage as a “one-flesh communion” when he says that the biological union of a man and woman “is part of, not merely an instrument of, their personal reality.” Robert George and Gerard Bradley also say that the good of marital sex is “the basic good of marriage itself, considered as a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons.” George knows that natural law arguments will not convince everyone. Anyone who assumes the “modern conception of human nature and human good would be dubious” about restrictions on extra-marital sex. Natural law, though, is “an alternative conception of human nature.” In practice, this “alternative” is inseparable from biblical claims about the Creator and his creation.
On the plus side, the fact that natural lawyers don’t actually put revelation and the gospel to the side is much to their credit. In practice, they resist the pressure to erect a wall between their faith and their public philosophy. On the down side, this “melding” of secular and religious arguments undermines their claim that natural law provides a theologically neutral grammar for a pluralistic society.
Natural law theory has many uses. Using its categories, we explore the contours of creation to uncover the pathways the Creator has laid out for us. Natural law reasoning can demonstrate the “fit” between creation and revelation. The fact that women, not men, bear babies is ethically significant, as is the fact that human beings talk but animals don’t. Natural law is rhetorically useful for advancing arguments and purposes that would be rejected out of hand if stated in overtly religious terms.
Bamforth and Richards don’t accuse natural lawyers of bad faith. They simply conclude that natural lawyers are more dependent on religion than they realize. Critics like Bamforth and Richards sniff out the aroma of theology that clings to natural law arguments, and they are right that Christians should be transparent about the theological sources of our political convictions.
The fundamental Christian political claim is “Jesus is Lord,” a truth that lies beyond natural reason. Christians can’t finally talk about politics without talking about Jesus, and, yes, Satan and the Bible too. We can’t talk politics without sounding like Rick Santorum, and we shouldn’t try to.
Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Athanasius (Baker Academic).
RESOURCES
Nicholas Bamforth and David A. J. Richards, Patriarchal Religion, Sexuality, and Gender: A Critique of New Natural Law
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.24.2012 | 5:24am
Griff says:
Excellent summary of Natural Law theory - and its chief problem to date.
In my opinion, a truer and better natural law, would disentangle itself from theological presuppositions, and base itself far more strictly on science. And what Science says about nature.
In my opinion, a truer and better natural law, would disentangle itself from theological presuppositions, and base itself far more strictly on science. And what Science says about nature.
2.24.2012 | 10:17am
The Moz says:
The more courage that a politician can muster the better, I agree. But to suggest that arguments against the moralithy of many actions, that are currently only being put forward by the religously minded can not be advanced without reaching back to some theology is in my opinion alittle too pessimistic about the efficacy of natural law.
You do not have to be a Christian or a theist to act morally. This is a trap the atheists love to lay for the unsuspecting Christian. Certain acts can and should be judged purely on their ethical merits. There is no scent of the divine in a good natrual law argument.
Either way one should always keep in mind that even the world's most ardent secularist operates within a particular worldview, with its own assumptions that can not be proven in the strict sense of the word but must be accepted on faith.
You do not have to be a Christian or a theist to act morally. This is a trap the atheists love to lay for the unsuspecting Christian. Certain acts can and should be judged purely on their ethical merits. There is no scent of the divine in a good natrual law argument.
Either way one should always keep in mind that even the world's most ardent secularist operates within a particular worldview, with its own assumptions that can not be proven in the strict sense of the word but must be accepted on faith.
2.24.2012 | 10:28am
David Nickol says:
" . . . natural lawyers are more dependent on religion than they realize"
I think this is very true. I have read Robert George's essay "What Is Marriage?" and I find that not only does his "non-religious" natural-law argument arrive at a Christian definition of marriage, but a Catholic definition, in which marriage is indissoluble. I don't see how anyone whose religion allows for divorce and remarriage can invoke George's definition of marriage to argue against same-sex unions.
I think this is very true. I have read Robert George's essay "What Is Marriage?" and I find that not only does his "non-religious" natural-law argument arrive at a Christian definition of marriage, but a Catholic definition, in which marriage is indissoluble. I don't see how anyone whose religion allows for divorce and remarriage can invoke George's definition of marriage to argue against same-sex unions.
2.24.2012 | 11:53am
Howard Kainz says:
The "new natural law" theory of Finnis et al is meant to overcome some supposed deficiencies in the natural law theory of Aquinas. Aquinas allegedly goes against the restriction in Anglo-American analytic philosophy of deriving an "ought" from an "is," that is, deriving a moral value from tendencies of human nature. Aquinas' argument that homosexual acts are "contra naturam" are much more intuitively clear, based on the fundamental natural appetite to procreate, and are independent of theological or Biblical moorings, although, like Cicero and other philosophers, he holds that the natural law is imbedded in human nature by God.
2.24.2012 | 12:39pm
Gil says:
Excellent essay and comments. Very enlightening indeed. I especially liked the quote of Blondel from Michael PS: “It is impossible not to recognize the insufficiency of the natural order in its totality and not to feel an ulterior need; it is impossible to find within oneself something to satisfy this religious need. It is necessary; and it is impracticable... Absolutely impossible and absolutely necessary for man, that is properly the notion of the supernatural. Man’s action goes beyond man; and all the effort of his reason is to see that he cannot, that he must not restrict himself to it. A deeply felt expectation of an unknown messiah; a baptism of desire, which human science [knowledge] lacks the power to evoke, because this need itself is a gift. Science can show its necessity, it cannot give it birth.”
Leithart's basic point is well taken: "Christians can’t finally talk about politics without talking about Jesus, and, yes, Satan and the Bible too." The political future for Christians relies on this understanding. We might not be able to get comfortable with our faith in public, but we have to assert it anyway. Just another one of those crosses we are required to bear, especially in defending the lives of the innocent.
Leithart's basic point is well taken: "Christians can’t finally talk about politics without talking about Jesus, and, yes, Satan and the Bible too." The political future for Christians relies on this understanding. We might not be able to get comfortable with our faith in public, but we have to assert it anyway. Just another one of those crosses we are required to bear, especially in defending the lives of the innocent.
2.24.2012 | 1:05pm
arty says:
I've always taken Christianity to be a statement of "what is," so to speak, and so in that light, Christians are probably always going to be on the defensive, accused to smuggling in "theological" principles under the guise of natural law. If One takes Christian ontology at face value, though, this distinction doesn't really make any sense, and so, once again, the argument comes down to the "Great Commission", I think, minus which non-Christians can justly accuse Christians of duplicity, and Christians essentially handicap themselves of their best argument for why they should be listened to.
2.24.2012 | 1:07pm
Dan says:
By concluding that because natural law stems in large part from centuries of Catholic thought natural law is therefore religious, this essay is presupposing that there should be a distinction between Catholic theology and natural law. This misses the larger point about what the natural law's relationship to Catholic theology is. Catholic theology cannot be entirely separate from natural law because they both have the same source: God. Natural law is what we can know through reason (the rules built into nature by God), while faith is what we can know through revelation (the rules revealed by God). Proper exercise of reason and a proper understanding of faith will, therefore, lead to the same conclusions. That doesn't mean that natural law is simply theology in disguise. God intends us to know him through faith AND reason. Therefore both paths will lead to the same place, although a full understanding depends on both. Indeed, the coherence of faith and reason is a sign of the truth.
2.24.2012 | 1:32pm
Ken Smith says:
I think you're probably right about the fact that theology gets smuggled into natural law arguments. As far as I can tell, that's because it's ultimately necessary to smuggle theology into *any* rational defense of ethics. The only way of moving from the indicative to the imperative, from "this is" to "this ought to be", is to ground that "ought" in God. That said, there's still some value to natural law style arguments in the public sphere. Not everyone accepts the idea that marriage is a "fundamental human good", but natural law arguments for traditional, heterosexual marriage nevertheless make it clear just how much society will change if we change the definition of marriage. And when folks see how much human social behavior is tied to the traditional idea of marriage, they may wake up and start asking themselves, "Am I really comfortable with all of that changing?" That's not a terribly persuasive philosophical argument, but it's a pretty good pragmatic one.
2.24.2012 | 2:16pm
Fred says:
_We can’t talk politics without sounding like Rick Santorum, and we shouldn’t try to._
Then we'd better resign ourselves to being permanently on the margins of American political life. The liberal media portrays Santorum as a religious fanatic who will send religious shock troops to your house in the middle of the night to kick in your door and confiscate your contraceptives. And let's face it, the collective drooling, mouth-breathing moron that is the American public is more than stupid enough to fall for it. Especially when Santorum seems to the ignorant to reinforce that stereotype whenever he opens his mouth.
I agree with Santorum on most of the social issues, abortion, gay marriage, etc. But paradoxically, he is the last person conservatives who care about those issues should vote for. First, because he doesn't have a snowflake's chance in the Lake of Fire to beat Obama in the fall. Second, even if, by some miracle, he became president, his views and personality are such that he would have an extremely hard time enacting any of his social agenda even if the SCOTUS would let any of it stand. And his nominees to SCOTUS would be extrememly unlikely to win nomination. When it comes to social issues, the SCOTUS is where the real battle is. To change the court, we need to nominate people for president who can get elected, elect presidents who will nominate the right SC justices, and elect the right senators to confirm them. Given the bias of the media and the stupidity of the public, that will often mean stealth candidates. Anything else is ideological grandstanding by people who would rather be right than change things.
Then we'd better resign ourselves to being permanently on the margins of American political life. The liberal media portrays Santorum as a religious fanatic who will send religious shock troops to your house in the middle of the night to kick in your door and confiscate your contraceptives. And let's face it, the collective drooling, mouth-breathing moron that is the American public is more than stupid enough to fall for it. Especially when Santorum seems to the ignorant to reinforce that stereotype whenever he opens his mouth.
I agree with Santorum on most of the social issues, abortion, gay marriage, etc. But paradoxically, he is the last person conservatives who care about those issues should vote for. First, because he doesn't have a snowflake's chance in the Lake of Fire to beat Obama in the fall. Second, even if, by some miracle, he became president, his views and personality are such that he would have an extremely hard time enacting any of his social agenda even if the SCOTUS would let any of it stand. And his nominees to SCOTUS would be extrememly unlikely to win nomination. When it comes to social issues, the SCOTUS is where the real battle is. To change the court, we need to nominate people for president who can get elected, elect presidents who will nominate the right SC justices, and elect the right senators to confirm them. Given the bias of the media and the stupidity of the public, that will often mean stealth candidates. Anything else is ideological grandstanding by people who would rather be right than change things.
2.24.2012 | 4:08pm
Nate says:
I completely disagree with most of what was said in this article. To say that any natural law theory will inevitably become entangled with theological presuppositions is tantamount to the denial of the autonomy of natural reason. If you state that there is no such thing as ethics without revelation, one destroys the very foundation of moral philosophy. Further, such a position is directly contrary to the intellectual tradition of the Church. Thomas Aquinas himself, at the beginning of his Summa Theologica makes a clear distinction between truth that can be attained by reason alone and those truths that must be accepted from divine authority. This distinction should be kept in mind when engaging others in the public sphere. We do not, unfortunately, live in a Christian nation (legally speaking), and therefore cannot expect others to consider any arguments based on Revelation. If we are to make any headway in the "culture wars," we must have recourse to natural reason alone.
2.24.2012 | 4:11pm
andrew says:
methinks this essay could only have been written by someone who sees a dichotomy where there isn't one. and who probably has a dim view of the natural light of reason.
if christianity is true, then all of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology are ultimately "dependent on religion." if christianity is true, then the line between "secular" and "religious" doesn't ultimately exist, for God would be the ground of all being and the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty. theology goes deeper than philosophy. so would say john henry newman.
given the truth claims of christianity, if you ask enough questions of anyone who claims anything to be true, not just new natural lawyers, you will by definition start smelling the "aroma of theology." the difference will then be between good theology and bad theology, perhaps even atheology, but still theology.
in sum, if christianity is true, then ultimately robert george and other new natural lawyers cannot not smell of theology. what a bizarre and pointless charge.
if christianity is true, then all of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology are ultimately "dependent on religion." if christianity is true, then the line between "secular" and "religious" doesn't ultimately exist, for God would be the ground of all being and the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty. theology goes deeper than philosophy. so would say john henry newman.
given the truth claims of christianity, if you ask enough questions of anyone who claims anything to be true, not just new natural lawyers, you will by definition start smelling the "aroma of theology." the difference will then be between good theology and bad theology, perhaps even atheology, but still theology.
in sum, if christianity is true, then ultimately robert george and other new natural lawyers cannot not smell of theology. what a bizarre and pointless charge.
2.24.2012 | 4:15pm
harry says:
As for the usability of natural law: God has ordered the Universe such that there is nothing, in scientific terms, that proves the truth of the proposition that God exists. There is no “if the litmus paper turns red, then God exists” kind of test we can perform. It seems that God has ordained that an element of faith is required to grasp certain truths. So we can never reason our way to conclusions regarding the truth about the morality or immorality of a given behavior based on strictly natural law (where the “natural” is considered a reality without a supernatural, intelligent origin) that will satisfy those who have already decided that God does not exist and whose faith is in the atheistic proposition that this is so – which is just as unprovable, in scientific terms, as the proposition that He does.
So whose faith should prevail as we determine the truth about what is moral and what is not, and then which immoralities should be prohibited by law and which moral obligations should be mandated by law? Theistic faith or atheistic faith?
Well, we first need to acknowledge that there is a huge difference in the laws we are going to end up with depending on which of these faiths prevail in making these determinations. Theism and natural law, or “the laws of nature and nature's God,” upon which American government was originally founded, leads to one kind of governmental system, the contemporary rejection of this foundation – quite unsurprisingly – leads to quite another.
The original natural law foundation of American government made the demise of the institution of slavery inevitable. It made the enactment of laws protecting the life of the child in the womb inevitable. A government based upon the truth that every human being possesses rights and a dignity bestowed upon them by God, the protection of which necessitates the existence of government, can adjust itself as needed to correct injustices. There is no basis for such self-correction with atheistic government that sees humanity as the product of mindless, purposeless processes that quite accidentally spewed us forth. There is no real basis for morality at all with such a government. When there is no authority above Caesar, mere might alone makes right.
Modern history clearly demonstrates that atheistic regimes acknowledging no authority above their own always end in taking the lives of innocent human beings by the millions. It seems to me that to decide that theistic faith, rather than atheistic faith, should prevail in determining what should be legal and what should not is a “no brainer.” It will be a faith-based determination in either case.
Of course, under atheism, there is no sure way to determine what “innocence” is, or, for that matter, whether there is any such thing as guilt – which is another reason why government based upon theism and natural law is really the only rational choice, and one that has proven to be far less dangerous to humanity than mere mortals claiming for themselves god-like authority over the rest of us.
So whose faith should prevail as we determine the truth about what is moral and what is not, and then which immoralities should be prohibited by law and which moral obligations should be mandated by law? Theistic faith or atheistic faith?
Well, we first need to acknowledge that there is a huge difference in the laws we are going to end up with depending on which of these faiths prevail in making these determinations. Theism and natural law, or “the laws of nature and nature's God,” upon which American government was originally founded, leads to one kind of governmental system, the contemporary rejection of this foundation – quite unsurprisingly – leads to quite another.
The original natural law foundation of American government made the demise of the institution of slavery inevitable. It made the enactment of laws protecting the life of the child in the womb inevitable. A government based upon the truth that every human being possesses rights and a dignity bestowed upon them by God, the protection of which necessitates the existence of government, can adjust itself as needed to correct injustices. There is no basis for such self-correction with atheistic government that sees humanity as the product of mindless, purposeless processes that quite accidentally spewed us forth. There is no real basis for morality at all with such a government. When there is no authority above Caesar, mere might alone makes right.
Modern history clearly demonstrates that atheistic regimes acknowledging no authority above their own always end in taking the lives of innocent human beings by the millions. It seems to me that to decide that theistic faith, rather than atheistic faith, should prevail in determining what should be legal and what should not is a “no brainer.” It will be a faith-based determination in either case.
Of course, under atheism, there is no sure way to determine what “innocence” is, or, for that matter, whether there is any such thing as guilt – which is another reason why government based upon theism and natural law is really the only rational choice, and one that has proven to be far less dangerous to humanity than mere mortals claiming for themselves god-like authority over the rest of us.
2.24.2012 | 5:27pm
Gil says:
Many years ago (seems like a century) I was watching a Phil Donahue show. Can't remember what the subject was, but there were several guests, a panel, speaking on some sociological issue. One of the guests hardly spoke at all, but when he did it was short and to the point and easily swept away all the intellectual clutter that spiraled nowhere.
At one point Donahue asked the man how it was that he spoke so clearly, so concisely and so convincingly, and the man answered, "I receive Eucharist every morning."
At one point Donahue asked the man how it was that he spoke so clearly, so concisely and so convincingly, and the man answered, "I receive Eucharist every morning."
2.24.2012 | 5:31pm
woodbridgegoodman says:
Art:
You've made a valuable point. When you noted that for Christians, theology/God is ontologically real; so that they feel that their place firmly, even in Natural Law theory. As being fully as real as the objective physical Nature that Science outlines.
However? Much of theology still acknowledges a difference between the "natural" and "supernatural"; and even asserts that its own field was often the "super," and not the natural. Leaving the rest to others. And traditional theology has often been at best puzzled, as to the relation of supernatural spirit, to the "world" of material things. (Why did a supernaturally "Good" God allow evil in the material world, is a major puzzle). So that? Finding problems here, in the interface between ontological ideals and material realities, much of theology has long partially ... backed off on its own, from too much attempt to speak too firmly on the "world," of physical things. So that in effect? The ontological aspect of Christianity has often ... recused itself, from too much comment or action, in the "world" of natural, physical things.
Citing Christianity's own traditional arguments and modesty here therefore? I'd suggest that Christian ontology specifically say, be granted only a peripheral role in a true, Science of Natural Law. Rather as Philosophy has a real but peripheral role, in Science. While we concentrate on the Natural world per se. Or, when we invoke the Bible, we should invoke the ... elements of the Bible itself, that stress the empirical. And that are therefore compatible with Science.
Are there empirical elements in the Bible? Consider among hundreds of example, the moment when Jesus warned there are many false spirits, and "false prophets." And when he told us therefore, to critically examine not just their "spiritual," but even more as it turns out, their physical "fruits," before we trust they are from God.
There are many false things in spirits, and false religious leaders, God warned. Therefore, he told us not to trust our "heart" or intuition, that leads us to accept religious assertions, moral theories uncritically; but to instead, apply a sort of ...Science of God to them. Carefully testing our holy men to see if they are true or false, according to their visible, physical, material "fruits," "works," "signs," "deeds," and "proofs." (As I show in a dozen book drafts, currently free online, under my name. )
There is in fact, a very scientific side to the Bible that address material "nature" effectively. One which easily gives importance not to metaphysical/immaterial ontology, but also to physical nature. And it is this aspect of the Bible, that interfaces completely with classic science. Joining together to form a better, scientific study. It is this science of God, that can deal molre effectively with material "nature," after all. In the search for the laws, rules, morality, of Nature. Of Natural Law.
Ontology to be sure will always have a role, even in science. And moreoever, we are concerned, even in a Scientific Natural Law investigation, with the heart of traditional religion: morality, ethics, proper codes of behavior. But here we do not delve so much into Ontology ... as the side of the Bible that urges evaluating morality by the material "fruits" of given behavior.
And here? CHristianity easily interfaces with - and with much work, can itself beome - real Science.
You've made a valuable point. When you noted that for Christians, theology/God is ontologically real; so that they feel that their place firmly, even in Natural Law theory. As being fully as real as the objective physical Nature that Science outlines.
However? Much of theology still acknowledges a difference between the "natural" and "supernatural"; and even asserts that its own field was often the "super," and not the natural. Leaving the rest to others. And traditional theology has often been at best puzzled, as to the relation of supernatural spirit, to the "world" of material things. (Why did a supernaturally "Good" God allow evil in the material world, is a major puzzle). So that? Finding problems here, in the interface between ontological ideals and material realities, much of theology has long partially ... backed off on its own, from too much attempt to speak too firmly on the "world," of physical things. So that in effect? The ontological aspect of Christianity has often ... recused itself, from too much comment or action, in the "world" of natural, physical things.
Citing Christianity's own traditional arguments and modesty here therefore? I'd suggest that Christian ontology specifically say, be granted only a peripheral role in a true, Science of Natural Law. Rather as Philosophy has a real but peripheral role, in Science. While we concentrate on the Natural world per se. Or, when we invoke the Bible, we should invoke the ... elements of the Bible itself, that stress the empirical. And that are therefore compatible with Science.
Are there empirical elements in the Bible? Consider among hundreds of example, the moment when Jesus warned there are many false spirits, and "false prophets." And when he told us therefore, to critically examine not just their "spiritual," but even more as it turns out, their physical "fruits," before we trust they are from God.
There are many false things in spirits, and false religious leaders, God warned. Therefore, he told us not to trust our "heart" or intuition, that leads us to accept religious assertions, moral theories uncritically; but to instead, apply a sort of ...Science of God to them. Carefully testing our holy men to see if they are true or false, according to their visible, physical, material "fruits," "works," "signs," "deeds," and "proofs." (As I show in a dozen book drafts, currently free online, under my name. )
There is in fact, a very scientific side to the Bible that address material "nature" effectively. One which easily gives importance not to metaphysical/immaterial ontology, but also to physical nature. And it is this aspect of the Bible, that interfaces completely with classic science. Joining together to form a better, scientific study. It is this science of God, that can deal molre effectively with material "nature," after all. In the search for the laws, rules, morality, of Nature. Of Natural Law.
Ontology to be sure will always have a role, even in science. And moreoever, we are concerned, even in a Scientific Natural Law investigation, with the heart of traditional religion: morality, ethics, proper codes of behavior. But here we do not delve so much into Ontology ... as the side of the Bible that urges evaluating morality by the material "fruits" of given behavior.
And here? CHristianity easily interfaces with - and with much work, can itself beome - real Science.
2.24.2012 | 10:53pm
savvy says:
Santorum does scare the daylights out me and I say this as an Orthodox Catholic.
He does need to cut down on the religious language, because it does not help his cause.
Natural law does provide the common ground between religious believers and secular rationalists.
Natural law would help secularists see the value of very human person and oppose things that objectify them.
Pope Benedict XV1 does argue that divine law does not have much to offer to secular politics.
“Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation.”
Natural law ethics that concern relationships between human beings , differ from the scientific laws of nature, even though they might both have the same source which is God.
The task lies for Christians to ground their moral views in ways that make sense, and for secularists to be open to dialogue of faith and reason.
He does need to cut down on the religious language, because it does not help his cause.
Natural law does provide the common ground between religious believers and secular rationalists.
Natural law would help secularists see the value of very human person and oppose things that objectify them.
Pope Benedict XV1 does argue that divine law does not have much to offer to secular politics.
“Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation.”
Natural law ethics that concern relationships between human beings , differ from the scientific laws of nature, even though they might both have the same source which is God.
The task lies for Christians to ground their moral views in ways that make sense, and for secularists to be open to dialogue of faith and reason.
2.25.2012 | 7:31am
Michael PS says:
Unfortunately, many Natural Lawyers appear, at least, to embrace Aristotle’s axiom that the natural end of a creature must be in principle attainable by the creature’s own resources and cannot be impeded by anything external to the creature. But this is precisely what Christian thinkers have denied, perhaps most fully in Aquinas’ real distinction between existence and essence in the creature and his assertion that it can be the “second act” of a creature that is most proper to it.
As Henri de Lubac explains, this means that what is most unique and proper to a human being is the desire for God, despite the fact that this desire cannot demand its own fulfilment without destroying the very nature of that fulfilment, which lies in the freely given gift of God’s grace and love. Thus what is most intimate to us as human beings is, paradoxically, supernatural to us and only to be enjoyed as a gift
As Henri de Lubac explains, this means that what is most unique and proper to a human being is the desire for God, despite the fact that this desire cannot demand its own fulfilment without destroying the very nature of that fulfilment, which lies in the freely given gift of God’s grace and love. Thus what is most intimate to us as human beings is, paradoxically, supernatural to us and only to be enjoyed as a gift
2.25.2012 | 7:51am
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
One of my profesdors in law school told me that when Willuam F. Buckley spoke at Brigham Young University many years ago, he referred to Natural Law Theory. At a reception afterward, a student asked how he derived the propositions if Natural Law, and Buckley replied that some things are obvioysly true, such as the proposition that a fine wine is a much preferable drink over dishwater. The studemts laughed, because BYU us a place where Buckley's proposition would not gain general assent.
Mormons come from a different place. It is one of our doctrines, taught in Moroni Chapter 7, by the way, that every person born into this world has a basic gift of revelation, a literal moral compass that will, if we listen to it, guide us toward what is good, and toward Christ. It us the source of the recognition that Christ is the person on whom we can center our hope for salvation. Because Mormons believe we all lived as the children if God before our birth on earth, it is sometimes described as a recollection of truths we once knew by immediate experience of the presence of God.
In any case, it is that inherent feel for truth that Mormon missionaries seek to evoke as they speak to strangers. Mormons have faith that decent people will, if they simply ask themselves moral questions, and listen honestly to the still small voice within them, will be guided toward truth and morality. This is not a rational process of parsing axioms and deductions on moral propositions, but a literal experience of feeling the voice of the spirit, or a sense like our sense of smell or balance. It is not in conflict with reason, but is a factual observation and experience on which reason can be built.
Mormons come from a different place. It is one of our doctrines, taught in Moroni Chapter 7, by the way, that every person born into this world has a basic gift of revelation, a literal moral compass that will, if we listen to it, guide us toward what is good, and toward Christ. It us the source of the recognition that Christ is the person on whom we can center our hope for salvation. Because Mormons believe we all lived as the children if God before our birth on earth, it is sometimes described as a recollection of truths we once knew by immediate experience of the presence of God.
In any case, it is that inherent feel for truth that Mormon missionaries seek to evoke as they speak to strangers. Mormons have faith that decent people will, if they simply ask themselves moral questions, and listen honestly to the still small voice within them, will be guided toward truth and morality. This is not a rational process of parsing axioms and deductions on moral propositions, but a literal experience of feeling the voice of the spirit, or a sense like our sense of smell or balance. It is not in conflict with reason, but is a factual observation and experience on which reason can be built.
2.25.2012 | 9:24am
ferd says:
Pastor Leithart writes "We need some common norms to be a functioning society, yet no secular consensus has replaced the decayed Protestant consensus of earlier centuries."
This is, ofcourse, the white hot point of contention in today's America. This is where we divide as a people and a nation. A secular philosophy based on fear has soaked into Western Christianity over hundreds of years--causing many to be deceived. This philosophy permeates most of our children's education and culture. It is the underlying premise behind most news and information sources. Now, this destructive, secular philosophy may not be a numerical "consensus", yet, it is surely a social consensus. It is indeed replacing Christianity.
The writers of First Things are not always clear about this secular philosophy--what it is and how it functions--nor are they consistently clear about how it permeated into the Body of Christ in our Western world.
Pastor, we do not need to forever cater to secularists with natural law arguments. The hard core secularist will not be converted even when faced with the logical contradictions, historic failures and inhumanity of their worldview. How about, instead, we try to rescue our own (Christians) as the top European bankers declare this week "the old social contract is obsolete".
Christians who truly believe in the secular model as THE PATH toward helping the "anawim" (the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger in your land) should have the systemic failures of Obama's exploding inflation bomb (after borrowing and printing many trillion of dollars) and the admitted failure of European socialism shown for what it truly is...a painful disaster, especially for the least among us. Santorum eluded to the false theology of the religious Left who believe in this secular Path. He was, however, unclear. And that is our main problem today! The pages of First Things should be a shining light of distinction, not a sheepish retreat into careful arguments with phantoms over natural law.
This is, ofcourse, the white hot point of contention in today's America. This is where we divide as a people and a nation. A secular philosophy based on fear has soaked into Western Christianity over hundreds of years--causing many to be deceived. This philosophy permeates most of our children's education and culture. It is the underlying premise behind most news and information sources. Now, this destructive, secular philosophy may not be a numerical "consensus", yet, it is surely a social consensus. It is indeed replacing Christianity.
The writers of First Things are not always clear about this secular philosophy--what it is and how it functions--nor are they consistently clear about how it permeated into the Body of Christ in our Western world.
Pastor, we do not need to forever cater to secularists with natural law arguments. The hard core secularist will not be converted even when faced with the logical contradictions, historic failures and inhumanity of their worldview. How about, instead, we try to rescue our own (Christians) as the top European bankers declare this week "the old social contract is obsolete".
Christians who truly believe in the secular model as THE PATH toward helping the "anawim" (the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger in your land) should have the systemic failures of Obama's exploding inflation bomb (after borrowing and printing many trillion of dollars) and the admitted failure of European socialism shown for what it truly is...a painful disaster, especially for the least among us. Santorum eluded to the false theology of the religious Left who believe in this secular Path. He was, however, unclear. And that is our main problem today! The pages of First Things should be a shining light of distinction, not a sheepish retreat into careful arguments with phantoms over natural law.
2.25.2012 | 4:00pm
lhf says:
"I agree with Santorum on most of the social issues, abortion, gay marriage, etc. But paradoxically, he is the last person conservatives who care about those issues should vote for. First, because he doesn't have a snowflake's chance in the Lake of Fire to beat Obama in the fall. Second, even if, by some miracle, he became president, his views and personality are such that he would have an extremely hard time enacting any of his social agenda even if the SCOTUS would let any of it stand.".
I agree with the person above who wrote this. Santorum is simply not an articulate enough spokesman to make the case for conservative social policies. I don't know if there is anyone on the horizon who is, but I do believe that we will have to work our way slowly back up from the mire into which we have fallen. This requires someone with great leadership and teaching ability as well as a Supreme Court and a Congress sufficiently courageous to battle the mainstream media and Hollywood.
An interesting case for secular morality is made by James Q. Wilson in his book THE MORAL SENSE.
I agree with the person above who wrote this. Santorum is simply not an articulate enough spokesman to make the case for conservative social policies. I don't know if there is anyone on the horizon who is, but I do believe that we will have to work our way slowly back up from the mire into which we have fallen. This requires someone with great leadership and teaching ability as well as a Supreme Court and a Congress sufficiently courageous to battle the mainstream media and Hollywood.
An interesting case for secular morality is made by James Q. Wilson in his book THE MORAL SENSE.
2.26.2012 | 3:16am
Patrick says:
I disagree with the thrust of this article.
It calls to my mind the great "natural law" tradition of the East: Confucionism. It is an ethical system based purely on the inherent nature and logic of humanity. For example, Confucionism points out that although no particular version of etiquette is intrinsic to humans, nevertheless some etiquette itself necessarily is. It also examines certain primitive (in the sense of immutable) relationships: the "Five Bonds:" Ruler to Ruled, Father to Son, Husband to Wife, Elder Brother to Younger Brother, Friend to Friend. It may be helpful for Westerners to study it. Its existence points to the fact that non-monotheists have had their own ways of honoring God.
It's also worth noting that the author uses the word "religion" to refer (apparently) to Judeo-Christian monotheism. Clearly religion is not so limited. Why not let's quote the entire entry from etymonline.com:
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.
The primordial idea of religion as reading again may well inform Mircea Eliade's theory thereof which he defined simply as the distinction between the sacred and profane. Thus in his view there is no getting outside of religion. Everyone enacts values which distinguish between sacred and profane by their actions and existential stance. Therefore, everyone is religious. (Science is a religion, etc.)
Personally, I believe one of the great failings of modern apologism has been the willingness to paint oneself into the corner of "religion" as defined in a modern sociological way. Rather than defend a "religion" which includes all manner of superstitious and barbarous nonsense, one should instead argue that this particular religion (e.g. Roman Catholicism) is, in fact, the true religion. At no point should anyone attempt a defense of religion in general, this is a fool's errand and a trap. And do not let anyone get away with portraying themselves as outside of religion.
As with clothing, even if you are intentionally unfashionable, you nevertheless exhibit some kind of fashion. It is illegal to walk the streets naked; likewise, it should not be acceptable to pretend that you do not have a religion.
As to the practical matter of Santorum's candidacy... again, he has failed to call out his opponents as being in possession of a set of "read again" beliefs analogous to his own conservative Catholicism. But this isn't really his fault -- it is extraordinarily difficult to speak against the worldly "wisdom" of the age.
It calls to my mind the great "natural law" tradition of the East: Confucionism. It is an ethical system based purely on the inherent nature and logic of humanity. For example, Confucionism points out that although no particular version of etiquette is intrinsic to humans, nevertheless some etiquette itself necessarily is. It also examines certain primitive (in the sense of immutable) relationships: the "Five Bonds:" Ruler to Ruled, Father to Son, Husband to Wife, Elder Brother to Younger Brother, Friend to Friend. It may be helpful for Westerners to study it. Its existence points to the fact that non-monotheists have had their own ways of honoring God.
It's also worth noting that the author uses the word "religion" to refer (apparently) to Judeo-Christian monotheism. Clearly religion is not so limited. Why not let's quote the entire entry from etymonline.com:
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.
The primordial idea of religion as reading again may well inform Mircea Eliade's theory thereof which he defined simply as the distinction between the sacred and profane. Thus in his view there is no getting outside of religion. Everyone enacts values which distinguish between sacred and profane by their actions and existential stance. Therefore, everyone is religious. (Science is a religion, etc.)
Personally, I believe one of the great failings of modern apologism has been the willingness to paint oneself into the corner of "religion" as defined in a modern sociological way. Rather than defend a "religion" which includes all manner of superstitious and barbarous nonsense, one should instead argue that this particular religion (e.g. Roman Catholicism) is, in fact, the true religion. At no point should anyone attempt a defense of religion in general, this is a fool's errand and a trap. And do not let anyone get away with portraying themselves as outside of religion.
As with clothing, even if you are intentionally unfashionable, you nevertheless exhibit some kind of fashion. It is illegal to walk the streets naked; likewise, it should not be acceptable to pretend that you do not have a religion.
As to the practical matter of Santorum's candidacy... again, he has failed to call out his opponents as being in possession of a set of "read again" beliefs analogous to his own conservative Catholicism. But this isn't really his fault -- it is extraordinarily difficult to speak against the worldly "wisdom" of the age.
2.26.2012 | 2:17pm
Saul says:
But according to the doctrine of original sin and the Fall, the natural world and human nature has been corrupted. But if human nature is fallen and corrupted as Christian theology asserts, then how can we possibly take it to be a sound guide to what is objectively good for us and what is objectively bad for us?
The entirety of Natural Law theory of morality and goodness in general seems to be in jeopardy if nature itself and human nature are currently corrupted.
The entirety of Natural Law theory of morality and goodness in general seems to be in jeopardy if nature itself and human nature are currently corrupted.
2.26.2012 | 6:38pm
G says:
Pat:
1) By claiming with Eliade, that everyone has a religion, you are ignoring your own point, that we should not take "religion" seriously, but only Christianity,, say.
2) Then too? In the same move, you are rather presumptiously colonizing other peoples' lives. And completely failing to respect their conscious and adamant protest that they do not want any religion ... and especially, say, not yours. To try to just smooth over this - and then assert your seniority to them, in the field in which you have yourself inserted them? Is an outrageous indignity.
3) But in any case? You might consider that if indeed, many of us have religion, then I would be wise for you to acknowledge connections between them; to support your thesis that they are the same thing. Amony other examples: the Confuscian worship of the "Father" has obvious parallels with Christianity.
In fact, specifically Santorum's problem is that his perspective on "religion" is far, far too narrow. Not only is it Christianity; it is Catholicism only. And not only is it Catholicism; it is the "conservative," EWTN/ Charles Chaput Embryo Cult specifically. That makes it impossible for him to even get along with most other Catholics; much less Protestants. And this narrow view, keeps him from finding the wider consensus; the broader and fuller view of God. That makes it impossible for him to get along with SCOTUS. And the vast bulk of the American people.
So that indeed? Santorum for instance, MUST give up the "world." For lack of having the breath of mind, to face it.
Eliade made some mistakes. But a little broader respect for "religion" in general would in fact, help everyone here, and in the world.
1) By claiming with Eliade, that everyone has a religion, you are ignoring your own point, that we should not take "religion" seriously, but only Christianity,, say.
2) Then too? In the same move, you are rather presumptiously colonizing other peoples' lives. And completely failing to respect their conscious and adamant protest that they do not want any religion ... and especially, say, not yours. To try to just smooth over this - and then assert your seniority to them, in the field in which you have yourself inserted them? Is an outrageous indignity.
3) But in any case? You might consider that if indeed, many of us have religion, then I would be wise for you to acknowledge connections between them; to support your thesis that they are the same thing. Amony other examples: the Confuscian worship of the "Father" has obvious parallels with Christianity.
In fact, specifically Santorum's problem is that his perspective on "religion" is far, far too narrow. Not only is it Christianity; it is Catholicism only. And not only is it Catholicism; it is the "conservative," EWTN/ Charles Chaput Embryo Cult specifically. That makes it impossible for him to even get along with most other Catholics; much less Protestants. And this narrow view, keeps him from finding the wider consensus; the broader and fuller view of God. That makes it impossible for him to get along with SCOTUS. And the vast bulk of the American people.
So that indeed? Santorum for instance, MUST give up the "world." For lack of having the breath of mind, to face it.
Eliade made some mistakes. But a little broader respect for "religion" in general would in fact, help everyone here, and in the world.
2.26.2012 | 7:00pm
Gil says:
I'm with ferd on this, as in "...we do not need to forever cater to secularists with natural law arguments. The hard core secularist will not be converted even when faced with the logical contradictions, historic failures and inhumanity of their worldview."
Christians catering (submitting) to secularists is what hastened the onslaught of the secular reign of terror that we find ourselves trapped in, for ferd is correct in naming secularism as an essentially fear-based philosophy. The Age of Enlightenment which, from a Deist perspective, claimed a belief in God but that we are on our own to attain the Good, and from an atheist perspective also a claim we are on our own to attain the Good, with the added arrogance that we can do this independent of any structure in our thinking gifted from God, instilled in consciousness a notion that Jesus can be left out of the equation, that we have in natural law and other forms of universally accessible knowledge and graces from God what is required to attain the Good. Yet history proves otherwise.
What Christians need to understand is that in essence we will be either a) imitating Jesus Christ (being his body with he as head) or b) imitating some "enlightened" figurehead or figureheads (pan-collective) or the ideas they proffer as an equally viable Way in opposition to the Way of Christ. Jesus as the Way is the Way of Love. All other ways are either forms of indifference (which is a form of violence passively produced), no matter how spiritually impressive, or power, which automatically makes them fear-based.
Of course, never moving into politics with an intention of imposing our religion, we must in every way we can as Christians make our case (without confining it) through the knowledge systems of secularists, which includes elements of natural law arguments and genuine science (for example, we now know from geneticists and neuroscientists that not only is there no gay gene, but that thoughts as well as behavior can alter the brain and cause a person to not only alter his/her sexual orientation, but make it extremely difficult to alter that orientation back to an original orientation: the original brain-alteration will always have residual forces in play even after the return), but that none of this should in any way move us to compromise our faith and the knowledge the Holy Spirit gifts to us in that faith, as Christians have tragically done en masse, including priests, since the beginning of Enlightenment, especially since Kant's Ethical God became enthroned, and no doubt goes back at least as far as Descartes who unwittingly centered the Christian's reality not in the life of Christ, but in the cognitive processes, which, in essence, took us Christians out of the body of Christ and placed us firmly in the realm of high abstraction, what we call The Age of Enlightenment, falsely portrayed as an age of scientific certainty and advance: just look at all the faulty science running rampant and used to destroy the lives of children in sex education classes as one example.
Why secularism has become a fear-based philosophy is simple enough: Having successfully removed us from the hope inherent in the resurrection of Christ, the first fruits, and placed us squarely in the grips of "progress" as our salvation, we have reversed course and now more than ever are embedded in the fear of death (why we remove from our sights the aging). And because we know in our heart of hearts what Camus knew, that without God the universe is absurd, and that each one of us is subjected now to the futility of that absurd universe, we have a new fear, more radical than the fear of death, the "fear of being found out" (as Karen Horney named it), finding out that our lives are meaningless, and all that is available to us now with the absence of God are things and more things to fill the bottomless pit, the void of a Godless world.
Christians catering (submitting) to secularists is what hastened the onslaught of the secular reign of terror that we find ourselves trapped in, for ferd is correct in naming secularism as an essentially fear-based philosophy. The Age of Enlightenment which, from a Deist perspective, claimed a belief in God but that we are on our own to attain the Good, and from an atheist perspective also a claim we are on our own to attain the Good, with the added arrogance that we can do this independent of any structure in our thinking gifted from God, instilled in consciousness a notion that Jesus can be left out of the equation, that we have in natural law and other forms of universally accessible knowledge and graces from God what is required to attain the Good. Yet history proves otherwise.
What Christians need to understand is that in essence we will be either a) imitating Jesus Christ (being his body with he as head) or b) imitating some "enlightened" figurehead or figureheads (pan-collective) or the ideas they proffer as an equally viable Way in opposition to the Way of Christ. Jesus as the Way is the Way of Love. All other ways are either forms of indifference (which is a form of violence passively produced), no matter how spiritually impressive, or power, which automatically makes them fear-based.
Of course, never moving into politics with an intention of imposing our religion, we must in every way we can as Christians make our case (without confining it) through the knowledge systems of secularists, which includes elements of natural law arguments and genuine science (for example, we now know from geneticists and neuroscientists that not only is there no gay gene, but that thoughts as well as behavior can alter the brain and cause a person to not only alter his/her sexual orientation, but make it extremely difficult to alter that orientation back to an original orientation: the original brain-alteration will always have residual forces in play even after the return), but that none of this should in any way move us to compromise our faith and the knowledge the Holy Spirit gifts to us in that faith, as Christians have tragically done en masse, including priests, since the beginning of Enlightenment, especially since Kant's Ethical God became enthroned, and no doubt goes back at least as far as Descartes who unwittingly centered the Christian's reality not in the life of Christ, but in the cognitive processes, which, in essence, took us Christians out of the body of Christ and placed us firmly in the realm of high abstraction, what we call The Age of Enlightenment, falsely portrayed as an age of scientific certainty and advance: just look at all the faulty science running rampant and used to destroy the lives of children in sex education classes as one example.
Why secularism has become a fear-based philosophy is simple enough: Having successfully removed us from the hope inherent in the resurrection of Christ, the first fruits, and placed us squarely in the grips of "progress" as our salvation, we have reversed course and now more than ever are embedded in the fear of death (why we remove from our sights the aging). And because we know in our heart of hearts what Camus knew, that without God the universe is absurd, and that each one of us is subjected now to the futility of that absurd universe, we have a new fear, more radical than the fear of death, the "fear of being found out" (as Karen Horney named it), finding out that our lives are meaningless, and all that is available to us now with the absence of God are things and more things to fill the bottomless pit, the void of a Godless world.
2.26.2012 | 7:47pm
Erwin says:
I think the burden of proof is also on the shoulders of Bramforth and other self-proclaimed rationalists: they should prove, but are unable to do so, that their points of view are truly rational.
Writing to reject Finnis' claim that homosexual behaviour is contrary to Natural law, Bramforth says that arguments relying on Natural Law “are, in short, prepared to dismiss the most personal and intimate feelings of many millions of people because of their failure to match up to a set of pre-ordained, absolute moral rules … Their disregard for the feelings and experiences of so many human beings — which are valuable and important to their holders — implies a complete lack of concern for the diversity of human experience and a blind determination to fit the world into a prescribed ‘reality.’”
As it appears, the reproach is that Natural Law refers to (an objective and verifiable) reality rather than to (subjective) feelings and sentiments. The argument is ambivalent and therefore self-defeating: in the same way, one might point out that Bramforth is showing disregard for the “feelings” and “experience” of many millions of people who feel that homosexuality is repellent.
Which are the criteria that help him distinguish feelings that are worthy of respect from those which are not? Setting aside the question whether Bramforth’s ideas about equality, autonomy or privacy are not themselves pre-ordained, it is clear that his acknowledgement that feelings and sentiments should supersede reasonable arguments excludes him and his likes from any rational debate.
The text quoted above is from Jakob Cornides, Natural and Un-Natural Law, C-Fam (New York) 2010. But his point could be made in a more general way: the critics of Natural Law usually base their argument not on reason, but on sentiment and emotion. Why should anyone believe their argument is "rational"??
Writing to reject Finnis' claim that homosexual behaviour is contrary to Natural law, Bramforth says that arguments relying on Natural Law “are, in short, prepared to dismiss the most personal and intimate feelings of many millions of people because of their failure to match up to a set of pre-ordained, absolute moral rules … Their disregard for the feelings and experiences of so many human beings — which are valuable and important to their holders — implies a complete lack of concern for the diversity of human experience and a blind determination to fit the world into a prescribed ‘reality.’”
As it appears, the reproach is that Natural Law refers to (an objective and verifiable) reality rather than to (subjective) feelings and sentiments. The argument is ambivalent and therefore self-defeating: in the same way, one might point out that Bramforth is showing disregard for the “feelings” and “experience” of many millions of people who feel that homosexuality is repellent.
Which are the criteria that help him distinguish feelings that are worthy of respect from those which are not? Setting aside the question whether Bramforth’s ideas about equality, autonomy or privacy are not themselves pre-ordained, it is clear that his acknowledgement that feelings and sentiments should supersede reasonable arguments excludes him and his likes from any rational debate.
The text quoted above is from Jakob Cornides, Natural and Un-Natural Law, C-Fam (New York) 2010. But his point could be made in a more general way: the critics of Natural Law usually base their argument not on reason, but on sentiment and emotion. Why should anyone believe their argument is "rational"??
2.26.2012 | 11:07pm
Mark VA says:
Raymond Takashi Swenson:
I agree with your general point about the moral compass. Normal human beings are attracted to love, and are repelled by hatred. Thus, the "still small voice" points toward God.
Now, regarding the miracle in Cana - I guess we can safely assume that Cana was not a Mormon village.
I agree with your general point about the moral compass. Normal human beings are attracted to love, and are repelled by hatred. Thus, the "still small voice" points toward God.
Now, regarding the miracle in Cana - I guess we can safely assume that Cana was not a Mormon village.
2.27.2012 | 2:43am
andrew says:
this piece has continued to baffle me.... pastor leithart wants to defend rick santorum's right to speak of "jesus" and "satan" in the public square; along the way, he accuses natural law philosophers of not being transparent regarding the theological sources of their convictions.
i guess st. paul should have started his address on mars hill with talk of "satan" and his minions? maybe even hand out a few jack chick tracts? so much for becoming all things to all men.... as for c. s. lewis, maybe the first few chapters of "mere christianity" should have been about "satan." maybe lewis should have been more "transparent."
then again, perhaps i'm missing the point completely. please lift me out of my confusion....
i guess st. paul should have started his address on mars hill with talk of "satan" and his minions? maybe even hand out a few jack chick tracts? so much for becoming all things to all men.... as for c. s. lewis, maybe the first few chapters of "mere christianity" should have been about "satan." maybe lewis should have been more "transparent."
then again, perhaps i'm missing the point completely. please lift me out of my confusion....
2.27.2012 | 2:46pm
Torontonian says:
There is a religion where God's law and man's law are one. There is a legal system that subordinates itself to theology and Scripture. They are called Islam and Sharia, respectively.
The great strength of Christianity, from a secular point of view, is that it has always recognized the separation of church and state, and that its theology recognizes that moral laws can be discerned by natural human reason.
As long as Mr. Santorum's rhetoric references a particular theology, rather than placing it in the context of a broader moral code recognizable, if even remotely, inthe consciousness of the genera public, he will be open to attack.
The great strength of Christianity, from a secular point of view, is that it has always recognized the separation of church and state, and that its theology recognizes that moral laws can be discerned by natural human reason.
As long as Mr. Santorum's rhetoric references a particular theology, rather than placing it in the context of a broader moral code recognizable, if even remotely, inthe consciousness of the genera public, he will be open to attack.
2.28.2012 | 5:12pm
Don Roberto says:
Erwin, there are many feelings that are unnatural or against the natural law and natural goodness, e.g., alcoholism, self mutilation, cannibalism, murderous rage, etc. We shape ourselves, sculpting body, brain and soul, and if in early childhood a person nurtures inappropriate feelings, he can grow into an adult for whom those feelings seem completely innate. This is why proper socialization is so important and why the LGBT agenda is so evil: it leads the innocent into error. (Shool psychoogists are telling kids that if they think they were born into the wrong sex it's true and they can and should persue a sex change!) Tastes are highly maleable and humans exhibit a great deal of neuroplasticity. And sin begets sin.
Gil, it seems to me that in Christian mercy we must cater to all, and there are many who are best initially catered to by reason. And reason is on our side!
†
Gil, it seems to me that in Christian mercy we must cater to all, and there are many who are best initially catered to by reason. And reason is on our side!
†
3.13.2012 | 9:32am
joanne says:
Dallas Theological Seminary professor Daniel B. Wallace said earlier this month that the newly discovered fragments might have been from the time of eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection. But this is precisely what Christian thinkers have denied ...
Many natural Law arguments rest on what Laberthonnière called “a false theological notion of some state of pure nature,” embraced by the Neo-Thomists of his day and which he insisted, like Blondel, was a mere abstraction.
Blondel again: “It is impossible not to recognize the insufficiency of the natural order in its totality and not to feel an ulterior need; it is impossible to find within oneself something to satisfy this religious need. It is necessary; and it is impracticable... Absolutely impossible and absolutely necessary for man, that is properly the notion of the supernatural. Man’s action goes beyond man; and all the effort of his reason is to see that he cannot, that he must not restrict himself to it. A deeply felt expectation of an unknown messiah; a baptism of desire, which human science [knowledge] lacks the power to evoke, because this need itself is a gift. Science can show its necessity, it cannot give it birth.”
No Christian can deny his assertion that we “find only in the spirit of the gospel the supreme and decisive guarantee of justice and of the moral conditions of peace, stability, and social prosperity.”