FRIHOSTFORUMSFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Is it laws of nature or natural law? God and nature revisite

 


yagnyavalkya
The association among beginnings of law and conceptions of nature is a compound one, and
proceeds on what emerges to be two different fronts. On the one hand, we frequently talk of natural world as being lawlike or as following laws. On the other hand there are schools of beliefs that hunt for
to justify morals universally, or permissible theory specifically, in commencements of nature. issues about the chronological beginnings and maturity of claims that nature is lawlike are generally treated as
entirely separate from the growth of ethical normal law theories. By looking at the numerous intersections of law and nature in ancient times, this post shows that such a pointed difference is excessively unsophisticated, and frequently relies fatefully on the burden of a false and anachronistic containment of the position of gods or religion in the worlds of primeval natural viewpoint. Furthermore, by tapering up the terms of the discuss, we see that the widespread claim that a beginning of ‘laws of nature’ only emerges in the Scientific uprising is built on a shallow reading of the ancient evidence.
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
The association among beginnings of law and conceptions of nature is a compound one, and
proceeds on what emerges to be two different fronts. On the one hand, we frequently talk of natural world as being lawlike or as following laws. On the other hand there are schools of beliefs that hunt for
to justify morals universally, or permissible theory specifically, in commencements of nature. issues about the chronological beginnings and maturity of claims that nature is lawlike are generally treated as
entirely separate from the growth of ethical normal law theories. By looking at the numerous intersections of law and nature in ancient times, this post shows that such a pointed difference is excessively unsophisticated, and frequently relies fatefully on the burden of a false and anachronistic containment of the position of gods or religion in the worlds of primeval natural viewpoint. Furthermore, by tapering up the terms of the discuss, we see that the widespread claim that a beginning of ‘laws of nature’ only emerges in the Scientific uprising is built on a shallow reading of the ancient evidence.


Errr.....what? Am I missing something or is this complete gibberish?
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:

Errr.....what? Am I missing something or is this complete gibberish?

Try this site for a starter then we can start the discussion
http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/Q-zone/theory.html
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Errr.....what? Am I missing something or is this complete gibberish?

Try this site for a starter then we can start the discussion
http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/Q-zone/theory.html

I understand Natural Law theory - that was not my point. The problem is that I find your prose to be confused to the point of illegibility. Please understand that I am not criticising simple grammatical or syntactical errors - that would be churlish, particularly since English is the only language I can express myself in, and I am guessing from your handle that you may be multilingual.

The criticism is that you seem to be overcomplicating your prose and, in so doing, making it impossible for me to comprehend what your actual point is. Perhaps this is a failing on my part - which is why I asked if I was missing something - but I must say in all modesty that I think that I have a good grasp of the language and do not normally have problems in this regard.

As regards Natural Law theory - I have long regarded it as fallacious. It is most often used by advocates of a particular religious viewpoint to criticise behaviours which they find objectionable.

The first problem that I see is that it relies on unwarranted and highly subjective anthropomorphisations of observed behaviours in the 'animal kingdom'. These behaviours are often poorly understood and the subsequent attempt to interpret human behaviours according to these observations is, at best, highly questionable.
The assumption is then made that human behaviours which do not correspond to these anthropomorphised 'norms' are, in some way, morally or ethically questionable. Proponents of this argument must therefore, if they are to be consistent, accept that Social Darwinism is the only ethically 'correct' system. This implies that many of the altruistic behaviors which we accept as desirable are themselves unethical. The contradictions are obvious. Love thy neighbour, for example, is an ethically questionable imperative in this light......
yagnyavalkya
You are right I am multilingual although I consider that I express my feelings best in English
I will get back to you in this post in a few days I am just busy with my work
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.