Cit. from the book: De pace Fidei, witten by Nicholas Cusanus, translated by. Jasper Hopkins

succes Jasmin...

The divine commandments are very terse and very well known to everyone and are common to all nations. Indeed, the light that shows us these [commandments] is created together with the rational soul.94 For God speaks within us, [commanding us] to love Him from whom we receive being and not to do unto another anything except that which we want done unto us. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of God’s law,95 and all [other] laws are reducible to the law of love.

Gerechtigheid geworteld in de Natuur. Marcus Tullius Cicero de re publica III Cic.rep.3,33:

(3,33) Est quidem vera lex recta ratio naturae congruens, diffusa in omnes, constans, sempiterna, quae vocet ad officium iubendo, vetando a fraude deterreat; quae tamen neque probos frustra iubet aut vetat nec improbos iubendo aut vetando movet. Huic legi nec obrogari fas est neque derogari ex hac aliquid licet neque tota abrogari potest, nec vero aut per senatum aut per populum solvi hac lege possumus, neque est quaerendus explanator aut interpres eius alius, nec erit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac, sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et immutabilis continebit, unusque erit communis quasi magister et imperator omnium deus, ille legis huius inventor, disceptator, lator; cui qui non parebit, ipse se fugiet ac naturam hominis aspernatus hoc ipso luet maximas poenas, etiamsi cetera supplicia, quae putantur, effugerit

3.33 Ware wet is juiste rede aan de natuur congruent , verspreid in allen, constant, eeuwig, roepend tot plichten door geboden, weghoudend van het verkeerde door verboden. Wanneer gericht tot een goed mens, zijn de geboden en verboden niet vergeefs, maar gericht tot dwazen hebben dezelfde geboden en verboden geen effect..Deze wet kan niet worden ingetrokken of geamendeerd. We kunnen niet worden vrijgesteld van deze wet door een decreet van de Senaat of het volk, ook is er niemand nodig om deze wet uit te roepen of uit te leggen, noch zal er zulk een wet zijn in Rome en weer een andere in Athene, een wet voor hier en nu en een andere voor in de toekomst. Maar alle volkeren en ten alle tijde zijn omarmd door een en dezelfde, eeuwige onveranderlijke wet. En er zal zijn, als het ware, één meester en gebieder aller god, inventor van wet. Wie weigert deze wet te gehoorzamen zal zich keren tegen zichzelf, omdat hij zijn menselijke natuur/aard verloochend heeft ontmoet hij zware straffen, zelfs als hij slaagt wat als straf wordt beschouwd te ontwijken

Cicero is an excellent place to start. Quoted in italics, below, is an English translation of the passage contributed by Ida in the original Latin and in Dutch.

The English text is that found in Christine Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?, Princeton, 2015, page 57 (internal numbering omitted). Hayes, for her part, quotes the translation from Long and Sedley (1987).

True law is right reason, in agreement with nature, diffused over everyone, consistent, everlasting, whose nature is to advocate duty by prescription and to deter wrongdoing by prohibition. Its prescriptions and prohibitions are heeded by good men though they have no effect on the bad. It is wrong to alter this law, nor is it permissible to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be absolved from this law by senate or people, nor need we look for any outside interpreter of it, or commentator. There will not be a different law at Rome and at Athens, or a different law now and in the future, but one law, everlasting and immutable, will held good fer all peoples and all times. And there will he one master and ruler for us all in common, god who is the founder of this law, its promulgator and its judge. Whoever does not obey it is fleeing from himself and treating his human nature with contempt; by this very fact he will pay the heaviest penalty, even if he escapes all conventional punishments.

[Cicero, Republic 3.33]

For my perception, Cicero's text has a futuristic feel to it. If one considers the task of governing a galaxy comprising millions of inhabited worlds, a system of law such as Cicero describes would be a suitable tool for the job.

Cicero's "true law" is analogous DNA, the biochemical text defining the construction of biological organisms on Earth. Each individual organism's particular DNA has a central source (in case of humans, it is the cell comprising fused gametes at conception) and thereafter is implemented massively decentrally with reference to a true copy located in the nucleus every cell. Failures to obey this text generally manifest as disease.

About law of nature, I believe that there is still much to be discovered and interpreted by humanity. About religious law, it has been generally interpreted just by men (church), and universe law is something that is still being studied by scientists without discarding active participation of humanity as well as church responsibility. Anyway, whatever, whenever or wherever it is, there is still a lot to learn about life.

Larry,

You make an important point touching on the legal positivist view of law as a command (Austin's expression) which is found also in systems of natural law such as Cicero's. You also deal with the requirement for legitimacy, which is a key assumption in legal positivist systems.

The essence of legal positivism is that there must be a supreme authority, such as a sovereign, invested with ultimate power to legislate, adjudicate and administer. In tension with the positivist construct, human minds increasingly are occupied with the question as to why any person's claim to be a legitimate ruler should be accepted.

Like Cicero, James I and VI (whom you mention) expounded a form of "true law". James promoted the The True Law of Free Monarchies, being the title of a tract attributed to him and believed to have been written during 1597-1598. In essence, James I and VI claimed to be God's directly appointed agent on Earth. Henry VIII lately had deprived the Pope of his functions properties in England, thereby enabling (at least in England) James' particular version of true law. However, the latter was incompatible with spiritual claims made by the Pope.

James' theory of kingship system was not without logical and practical difficulties. These required an adequate solution -- in theater if not in theory -- if his divine right of kings idea were to be politically feasible. A then perhaps underappreciated source of political risk lay in the circumstance that the more or less devout English population recently had been told that, contrary to prior advice, the Pope after all was not God's eternally appointed agent on Earth.

Henry VIII thereby planted the seeds of the Glorious Revolution, much as the Roman church's excessive venality on the Continent had sowed the seeds of the Reformation. In Germany, Martin Luther had abjured belief in human authority, at least so far as spiritual matters were concerned. He declared: "I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God". An assistant to the Archbishop of Trier, Johan Eck, retorted: "The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments". Against the background of that doubt-multiplying exchange, it is a wonder is that institutional religious fervor has persisted so long in Europe, even in attenuated form.

According to Henry VIII's system, the Church of England assumed the Holy Roman church's functions and properties in England, whereby the English king became the head of the Church of England. The new arrangement placed an English king more or less in the position of a person who is the sole shareholder and sole director of a company while also serving as the Chair of the Corporate Affairs Commission. By long tradition, English kings were expected to die while crowned. This created a practical problem as to who would crown an English heir to the crown upon the reigning king's death. According to James' system, God would be the proper authority for conferring the crown. But God could not be compelled to perform the office, and any failure on His part to do so might induce royal subjects of a speculative turn of mind to draw the politically perilous conclusion that God did not approve of the royal heir. Therefore it was politically expedient that a human being should be appointed to crown English kings.

A corollary of Henry VIII's expropriation and expulsion from England of the Holy Roman church was that it no longer was possible to rely on the Pope or his delegates to officiate at an English coronation. An heir to the English and Scottish crowns could not crown himself because he lacked the legal authority to do so. As he had not yet assumed the kingship, he was not head of the Church of England, wherein God's power to crown English kings (perhaps also Scottish kings, on account of union of the crowns with James I and VI, but I would have to check) was stored, rather like water held behind a weir upon the king's death. The solution was for the Archbishop of Canterbury to perform the office. This theory of divine storage or resonance pertaining to the Church of England apparently survived the interregnum following the Glorious Revolution, or else afterwards somehow was resurrected. At all events, the English tradition of coronation of kings was revived post-restoration, and continues today despite a detractor from New Zealand recently feloniously alleging (based on reasonable arguments, I think) that renamed Rothschilds now inhabit Buckingham Palace. However that may be, the Archbishop of Canterbury scheme has enjoyed political success, though not altogether unmixed.

Less than 70 years after the death of James I and VI, Charles II (the successor of James' successor, Charles I) lost his royal head in the Glorious Revolution, whereupon Oliver Cromwell installed a secular military government in England. A century after that, Louis XVI of France lost his head, too. Napoleon emerged from the chaos of the ensuing French revolutionary republic and was crowned emperor, with the Pope officiating, but not performing the coronation, at the corresponding ceremony. Napoleon crowned himself in order to make it clear that his coronation depended not upon God or the Holy Roman church, but rather upon his own merits and, as he claimed with some justification, upon the will of the people. And that, more or less, is where we are today, despite the very considerable intellectual contributions of the U.S. federalists.

To my mind, the theory of the divine right of kingship and successor theories of legitimacy of power are but bright wrappings around a veritable litany of political intrigue and special pleading. They have nothing whatever to do with divine law.

Cicero, I think, shot much closer to the mark. He is describing something altogether different: "Whoever does not obey [the true law] is fleeing from himself and treating his human nature with contempt; by this very fact he will pay the heaviest penalty, even if he escapes all conventional punishments".

Thank you Hassan Syed

Larry Carlson

However, again what the differences are among the laws asked in the question is perhaps going to be harder to explain but how about the inquiry about what can unite these laws, the principles that may reconcile differences that contemporarily some parts of the world emphasise greater than others. Some hold to the natural law and universal law of creation, some to the natural, religious and universal law of creation where religious law guides them and is consistent with natural law and universal law of creation and yet there are those who just reject every law and dont believe in it whatsoever or perhaps they accept some objective law that makes a system. However, that objective law is part of the natural, religious and universal law of creation whether it is accepted or not by a particular individual. Hence, what are the ways to unify these laws and let people who live ever more heterogeneously everywhere accept particular differences of detailed personal freedom-based adherence to either religious, natural or universal law of creation while respecting a common legal foundation? Can this be accepted? I believe some integration would and can definitely help overcome problems of heterogenous societies.

Cit. from the book: De pace Fidei, witten by Nicholas Cusanus, translated by. Jasper Hopkins

succes Jasmin...

The divine commandments are very terse and very well known to everyone and are common to all nations. Indeed, the light that shows us these [commandments] is created together with the rational soul.94 For God speaks within us, [commanding us] to love Him from whom we receive being and not to do unto another anything except that which we want done unto us. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of God’s law,95 and all [other] laws are reducible to the law of love.

Thanks, Larry, for your interesting observations and especially for your reference to Thoreau, which would be good to develop further.

My last remarks paid little attention to Jasmin's theme of harmonization (as distinct from integration) of religious and spiritual systems. Those who have experienced life in peaceful, strongly multiconfessional countries such as Malaysia (e.g. Jasmin) presumably have much to teach Europeans and Americans about integration of religious and spiritual systems - and probably their harmonization as well. Is it not said in Malaysia that there is one God but He has many faces?

Ida rightly points out that some simple rule sets, such as the substance of the Ten Commandments, are widely distributed across many human cultures. That should assist integration efforts, whatever the origin (collective unconsciousness, or otherwise) of the remarkable similarities between these rule sets may be.

Harmonization could involve the task of detecting and reconciling differences. But it also could involve developing an attitude of perceiving apparent differences as illusory. Western legal and religious traditions tend to be strong in the first aspect and weak in the second. Zen koans and certain Sufi stories suggest to me that a complementary situation may apply in the corresponding Eastern traditions.

Plato...Laws.... Reason....Logos...

Athenian. No man can be a true worshipper of the Gods who does not know these two principles — that the soul is the eldest of all things which are born, and is immortal and rules over all bodies; moreover, as I have now said several times, he who has not contemplated the mind of nature which is said to exist in the stars, and gone through the previous training, and seen the connection of music with these things, and harmonized them all with laws and institutions, is not able to give a reason of such things as have a reason. And he who is unable to acquire this in addition to the ordinary virtues of a citizen, can hardly be a good ruler of a whole state; but he should be the subordinate of other rulers. Wherefore, Cleinias and Megillus, let us consider whether we may not add to all the other laws which we have discussed this further one — that the nocturnal assembly of the magistrates, which has also shared in the whole scheme of education proposed by us, shall be a guard set according to law for the salvation of the state. Shall we propose this?

Plato, Cicero, Al Farabi, Cusanus, Spinoza, Einstein, etc............ If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it.” Einstein’s devotion was to the universe itself and he found himself in awe of it.

There is a line.....to peace.......

Perhaps "scientific not knowing" can help to recognise universal mutual values???? I hope so.....

Docta Ignorantia II, 167 168 169, (written in 1440) natural laws, science, religion, ethics?????

Cit.: Cusanus.

For being a star, perhaps the earth, too, influences the sun and the solar region, as I said.

And since we do not experience ourselves in any other way than as being in the center where influences converge, we experience nothing of this counter-influence.

For suppose the earth is possibility; and suppose the sun is the soul, or formal actuality, with respect to the possibility; and suppose the moon is the middle link, so that these [three] stars, which are situated within one region, unite their mutual influences (the other stars—viz., Mercury, Venus, and the others—being above, as the ancients and even some moderns said).

Then, it is evident that the mutual relationship of influence is such that one influence cannot exist without the other. Therefore, in each alike [viz., earth, sun, moon] the influence will be both one and three in accordance with its [i.e., the influence's] own degrees. Therefore, it is evident that human beings cannot know whether with respect to these things [viz., the influences] the region of the earth exists in a less perfect and less noble degree in relation to the regions of the other stars (viz., the sun, the moon, and the others). Nor [can we know this] with respect to space, either. For example, [we cannot rightly claim to know] that our portion of the world is the habitation of men and animals and vegetables which are proportionally less noble [than] the inhabitants in the region of the sun and of the other stars.

Indeed detailed answers and inputs from diversified sources. Thank you all.

Ida Lamers , indeed the ten commandments are common to all and naturally everybody can understand it as sound. However, other commandments, laws, scriptures etc. were revealed, codified, elaborated etc. by other people, tribes, nations, civilizations etc.. They all do follow their own traditions and for some those are very common while others follow distinct less common detailed commandments, laws, rules, customs etc.. It is everybody's right to chose and follow those. However, perhaps some principles like justice, fairness, equity, etc . can be common where nobody will feel imposition of particularities from the other that may be contrary to their views, beliefs etc.

Larry Carlson

Michael Lusk mentioned Malaysia as a country that can share with others experience of harmonious life etc. and it is true that some people say that there is One God only and some say that God has many faces but not everybody says both. However, everybody has the right to say and follow what willing but rules and regulations of common principles are what everybody respects.

The discourse shifted to a religious one where I perceive no issues as everybody has freedom of choice to believe, talk and adhere to it in the best manner. History is replete with much discourse on these matters. Ancient civilizations and philosophers are indeed ancient and many are still relevant as lessons for today but it does not mean to replicate them today is a solution. A common ground is sought to harmonise differences and accept unity in difference and difference in unity yet everybody has a choice to follow or indulge more into what one loves more. Everybody needs to change to some degree and accept change and if one can change that never accepted change before and if the other can change that never accepted change before then everybody can change despite not accepting change before. Its a matter of dialogue to get to know each other more.

My question was not a question related to religions only but to living as a human in an ever greater globalised world where heterogeneous societies become even more heterogeneous and homogeneous gradually disappear. To seek common qualities of God or Gods depending on what individuals believe in is not going to find agreement. The qualities that some ascribe to God or Gods is a particular matter of respective religions where it is recognised as such. What is needed are some common principles that may harmonise or integrate (harmonisation is similar to integration and not distinct, but the terms have different meanings in degrees as much as they have in common - both are constructive after all most importantly) differences into a functional common while particularities can be followed on individual basis if willing. No imposition of anybody's views, beliefs etc. is acceptable except under free choice to accept, to accept it willingly.

How can a framework be made to enable the interaction and exchange from each other? Everybody has much to learn from everybody else and nobody is exclusive because once upon a time there was only one man and woman on earth.

We may strive to procure that a critical mass - say one percent - of the world's population understands and internalizes the passage from Cicero's Republic posted by Ida near the beginning of the thread or, of course, equivalent expressions of the same idea. That may provide a transformative catalyst to awaken the whole population.

I am particularly exercised by the sentence --

Whoever does not obey [the true law] is fleeing from himself and treating his human nature with contempt.

Cicero here seems to refer to a health-giving pattern inherent in humanity, not to any particular legal or religious doctrine. To use a materialistic similie, this health-giving spiritual pattern may be like undamaged human DNA, which codes for the growth and maintenance of perfect bodies (including, but not limited to, the physical body). "Health-giving" implies much more than physical health. It further implies the capacity to unfold human spiritual powers.

The relevant (spiritual) task would be observance and care of the health-giving pattern.

In this context, harmonization of divergent legal and religious ideas may be attained by recognizing that all such notions are irrelevant to the task at hand.

Just a quick note here and question: speaking of the health-giving pattern, can't it be nurtured and navigated by people in power whether religious or non-religious representatives or officials? I believe they can contribute to reviving it and harmonize social relations in dynamic ways. Now, shall it be called health-giving pattern or not is surely going to be discussed further.

It seems to me that any person, including a secular or religious official, may contribute towards both herself and others attaining the wisdom outlined in the passage from Cicero's Republic quoted above. Such officials may, however, find themselves at a peculiar disadvantage because any effort to contribute towards attainment of such a goal by means of exercising power is apt to (but need not) miss the mark. An attitude of humility and service such as that described by Hesse in his Journey to the East may be needed. That is quite a rare quality -- but perhaps more prevalent than commonly is believed.

Use of terms like spirituality is not a problem in my view but perhaps to us some other is better as spirituality may mean totally different things to many and indeed is rather a personal experience, subjective rather than objective.

Social or public health, positive state of mind as defined earlier are nice terms to direct individuals to such way or attitude in life from where common principles can be agreed upon.

Concerning religions, in every religion there are things not subject to change and mostly link to beliefs, rituals, the lawful or non-lawful and as such can not be modified or communicated to really religious people to be invalid any longer while all sections related to human relations, activities etc. are always subject to change and these are in need for adjustment and regulation in the form of some social contract.

What I envisage to be needed for the attainment of Jasmin's objective is effective guidance accessible to a broad audience. The purpose of the guidance would be to facilitate the awakening of each individual to the existence of the true law. Proceeding from Cicero's indication, a man who knows the true law will be motivated by virtue of his own humanity to follow it.

Any effort to enforce an individual's obedience to human law, such as compliance with a command purporting to require an individual to recognize some official as God's agent on Earth, would miss the mark.

Larry's last contribution presents interesting notes on the meaning of the words spirituality and religion according to modern usage. The linked page entitled "What is Spirituality?" prepared by the University of Minnesota's Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing has the merit of presenting a practical popular outline rather than an academic analysis of concepts including spirituality, religion and emotional health.

For context, I will restate the line form Cicero's Republic which I personally find to be so helpful --

Whoever does not obey [the true law] is fleeing from himself and treating his human nature with contempt.

I find this statement useful because, reasoning from it, I can deduce some key attributes the true law would be required to have in case Cicero's statement were true. One of these is that the true law would be deeply entangled (in a sense recalling quantum entanglement) with the fabric life, the latter being more supersensible than material. Furthermore, the true law would be objective. That does not, however, imply that the true law could not be viewed and described from various perspectives.

Like any attempt to capture in words abstract concepts not necessarily belonging to the realm of common experience, the Bakken Center material is apt to provide effective guidance for some at the risk of misleading others. Not everyone will be inclined to walk the same path. Therefore there should be a plurality of paths and a degree of tolerance for trailblazers.

In a related field, university-based quantum physicists have made creditable progress in explaining very counter-intuitive concepts in quantum physics to popular audiences. Leonard Susskind of Stanford University has published at Youtube many deeply insightful lectures on the subject pitched at non-experts. His coherent explanations for the most part gloss over the underlying mathematics, thereby enabling millions people to grasp the main ideas. In doing so, he candidly admits that he introduces a degree of inaccuracy for the sake of clarity. See e.g. Susskind's lecture on the world as a hologram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY [note: for truth in advertising purposes, I substituted the link since first posting this response. The example I previously posted turned out to be uncharacteristically mathematical for Susskind's lectures posted at Youtube. Hi world as hologram lecture is fascinating].

As the subject matter we here are dealing centrally concerns interconnected concepts which in English are denoted by the words religion and spirituality, I think it would be well to get to grips with those terms rather than to avoid them.

Religion literally means re-connection. That implies that the first step may be to recognize that one has become disconnected from something.

Dear Larry,

We propose to proceed from different axioms. You propose that axioms be chosen from a selection of human laws. I propose that axioms be discovered by inquiring into the laws of nature (particularly by quantum mechanical and biological inquiries). I think, however, that each of these approaches would be needed as part of a workable solution to harmonize differences of opinion yet allow everyone to follow distinctive legislation corresponding to traditional sources of law (see further the concluding paragraph).

Quantum mechanics and biology supply principles from which inductive thought can generate ethical principles. Think of quantum entanglement (cf. interconnectedness); Heiseberg's uncertainty principle and the event horizon (cf. lesser and greater mysteries); and the fractal structural principle, i.e. self-similarity of the structure of natural objects at all scales from atoms to galaxies (cf. sense of coherence). The reason why natural law, such as the true law indicated in III.33 of Cicero's Republic, supplies meaningful integrative and harmonizing principles is that it is law in this natural sense.

It would be quite incorrect to conflate Cicero with a panglossian humanist such as Rousseau. Rousseau's faith in human legislatures was manifestly misplaced, as he could have observed for himself. The true law to which Cicero refers is not human law but natural law. Its texts are embedded in nature, including in humans. If natural law has any legislator, it would be a self-conscious universe.

Ida observed earlier in the thread that common themes are to be found across a wide range of particular religious laws. Such common themes may exist because human religious laws comprise distorted versions of natural law. If that is so, and I think it is so, then there would seem to be reasonable prospects of achieving interfaith engagement on the integrating theme of Source.

An interfaith convention aimed at (re)establishing religious coherence could set its delegates to work on the problem from both ends before discussing the results in a plenary meeting. In the first stage, let some delegates work on identifying the common themes among the more or less well known (and fragmented) religious laws, while others work on deriving ethical principles from the imperfectly known (and unified) natural law. Delegates at the ensuing plenary meeting then should try to integrate the working groups' results.

Jasmin:

1. The natural law. In the sense of law as a legal term, of law, there are no natural laws as such. What do exist are inevitable phenomena, or things that take place outside the access of man's action (for instance, the fact that the sun rises every day, or human aging itself).

2. The religious law itself is - unlike the previous one - that is carried out by men, by an ethnic, social group ... However, this "religious" law also does not affect the concept of law as a norm mandatory for a specific human group (even if it claims to be universal). The religious law, should perhaps be called better "set the religious precepts." In addition, it only affects a group of determined people, those who belong to that religion or believe in it. There is no legal criterion of "ius sanguinis" or "ius soli"

For example, not eating certain foods at certain times of the year can be a religious "law", but it only concerns believers in such a religion. The "natural law" refers above all to "physical events", and the "religious law" has more to do with precepts or rites, often derived from myths.

3. The "universal law of creation" refers more to the first idea (law of nature) since in this case it is more about laws such as the movement of the stars, the cycles of the seasons, certain biological laws ...

Jasmin:

I think we have to accept some important updates on the subject.

1. I do not approach the subject from a historical-academic-philosophical point of view. I try to think "here and now" from our present culture. The part of the past that is consistent must already be in the whole of our culture.

2. There is no such thing as Natural Law. They already told us - and well - at the University. The Law - whether good or bad the laws it establishes - is always positive, imperative, whatever it is that regulates.

3. It would be convenient to focus the thought more on the facts - the perception of reality - than on ideas such as the possible existence of God, which is a subject unknown to men and undefined.

4. The ultimate reference of thought must be man, and in special the man that exists, the one that is provided with temporary and sentient corporeity.

There is an irreconcilable difference between scientific laws, the application of which allows me to optimally predict the result or future events caused by them - and moral / religious laws, because these are normative statements, moral settings - like the 10 Commandments in the Bible. They are completely unsuitable for predicting future behavior if, on the other hand, they are to apply: Man is free in his decision to do good or evil.

Larry Carlson

Hi, Larry, Thank you for your detailed comment. I don't know exactly with which thesis you want to say something agreeing or questioning, related to what I have written. The reference to (I suppose: Steven P.) Pinker doesn't help me. His theses on language acquisition are appealing, there is something creative and challenging in his argumentation, but you don't have to follow it: It can be or it can't be (I'm holding it to Luhmann's concept of contingency here).

My commentary takes a critical look at all those who cannot distinguish between sentences that express a postulate, a normative demand, a "should," and those sentences that are empirical in nature. Of course, with this distinction - as with your commentary - it depends on where one stands in terms of the theory of science. From different points of view on scientific theory, I can hardly expect that there will be agreement in the result of a discussion. G.E. Moor fought the battle at the turn of the 19th/20th century because some people had deduced a frivolous application of Darwin's theory of evolution to social problems in the sense of a social demand. But the naturalistic fallacy is only one of several "traps" that open themselves if both "being" and "should" are not distinguished. In the philosophy of pragmatism with Peirce and even more radically with Dewey (I leave W. James out of it) new problems have come. The concept of truth as intrinsic value was abandoned. Instead, truth is what the experts think is true (Peirce). This is not my world. But everyone has his own playground.

Best, Hein

post scriptum: I don't trust a neuroscientist a priori. They have delivered groundbreaking experiments (so on free will), as you have hinted. But the conclusions they draw in order to draw social consequences - for example in court cases - must be carefully examined to see whether there is not a normative overinterpretation of their findings. Strangely enough: People believe all their interpretations are pure truth! What ever they claim - or let's say: there are some who go over the top here, the majority of neuroscientists do not need populism.

Dear all,

my apologies for absence to contribute here. Indeed I followed the discussion but circumstances deprived me to engage deeply into thought here. That is what life sometimes does to us, just drags us away but if some mechanism would be available to help cope with challenges of life then it would help and enable engagement of deeper type into though here and elsewhere. I believe it can be done and your contributions reveal that it concerns us more than we thought. We go much in common and can make a change hopefully in the near future. A change shall start with small contributions. My next contributions follow...

Dear Michael Lusk and Larry Carlson

True law, as Cicero mentioned, is something that we all seek today generally while particular groups or religions know their source of that law and consider it a continuation of the true law, and in no way different, from the law that Cicero referred to. Revelations that came before Cicero to a people and later just confirmed the same message and guidance towards the universal principles that ensure no intermediary or monopolist structure that links or enables communication of an individual with God exclusive of different idols etc. However, even when some do ascribe sons or idols to God then its a particular matter that does not deprive universal principles to be identified and followed by all.

There are so many intellectual individuals, philosophers, scientists, or better said eminent thinkers that have a conception of social contract or some form of rule of public and private affairs that fits perhaps best their circumstances but may be learned from for today. Limiting to few is never good but acceptance of different views may help integrate them all to some new common view.

To refer to physics or quantum theories more specifically and evolving ideas of entanglement in physics or biological contributions and base development of some social matters solely on some of those axioms may not be a good idea. It may be somehow constructive but eventually destructive as normative aspects need to be part of those rather positivist assumptions that end up being science.The story of economics we see in trouble today as a discipline and practice is an example that scientific replication is not the ultimate solution to social problems. Hence, the role of ethics, morals, values and principles that unite all is the way or solution that needs to be integrated with those scientific assumptions.

Use of one or the other in secluded fashion is detrimental in long-term while in short-term there may be benefits to perhaps just few. Again, some principles of universal nature that, as you both inferred to and Ida mentioned, refer to religion and social realities are needed and as you explained in your answers are very clear for identification, e.g. those that appeal for the good for all people and not few.

Legislators need to be doing this work and people must raise their interest and so the consciousness about what legislators do and need to do. A two way process of communication like a check and balance may explain the workings, but here its the check and balance as defined and not as usually practiced in the world.

Natural law is a good reference for all and guide to be better but it does not mean to replicate some science that reflects laws of nature but even the natural law and partial universal law of nature. All are important and work together much better. Full replication is not possible but much of what we have is possible to integrate and replicate some common law combined of all while individual particularities can be adhered to in private life.

Dear Miquel Ricart ,

Since centuries philosophers discussed about natural law, the law of nature and pondered about the universal law of creation. These three are inherent part of creation and do have links with each other and some look into them as parts of one whole law that indeed if contemplated in depth of each human's potentialities refers to the fact that God exists and as such definitely.

Facts of our times with billions of believers that God indeed exists and created everything from nothing explains that God is of eternity and has no start or end but is One. Billions believe in this and historically while religions developed along or within certain civilisations, these beliefs took form or were shaped by beliefs in myths about certain legendary individuals as heroes of certain times.

These facts summon the pondering about some universal common principles, values, morals, ethics that all religious revealed laws like or human invented laws indeed possess.

Religious laws exist and no one religion will claim different and cant be denied as some sets of religious precepts. It causes disturbance in minds of many if attempted to change. Those are particularities of belief that those wish to follow while the common shall rule us all. Why not look into justice for example or peace or in other words unity against oppression as something common for all.

If something exists or not may still be let to those who dont believe about it to follow or believe without imposition or convincing the other about non-existence of something that they categorically believe in and adhere to. And vice versa applies as well.

As earlier mentioned, none shall wish to the other what one wishes not for oneself.

Then, to refer to the past writings is incumbent and it can never be assumed or claimed that what the present contains is all the good that the past produced. In fact, much of what the past produced as best is not applied in the present and that needs to be projected with reference to the past in thousands of years. Indeed as indicative from the citations in this discussion, much of the past philosophers still serve as the key references to our current problems due to their deep though and universal projection of a holistic religious and non-religious tone of narration, explanation, framing, claiming, etc. These are the views that lacks the present age and needs some digging and sweeping effort to be recasted in contemporary times.

Dear Larry Carlson

I refer her to your answers starting with "I maintain that one can indeed draw a parallel between...." and "Though common ideals are useful, ....."

I can agree with you about impossibility to narrow down some of the philosophers ideas to natural law or general will but rather on the focus on making the general welfare greater as based historically on the natural law and then even the divine/religious law.

Without going into details of referring to every paragraph, I also agree that even if people are not deriving rules, or guidelines from religious texts or even dont follow some religion can be indeed very ethical, moral, and often far more than those who adhere to some religion.

As for those who adhere to some religion, I can say that most are accidental adherents to such religions and have not worked out why they are in one religion and not in the other. Critical study of religions comparatively can lead anyone to conviction that all religions have much in common in terms of ethics and morality as humans while also to conclude which religion is not containing contradictions or if you like, which religion has the least contradictions. Indeed, in every religion, it is possible to find contradictions in statements of some scholars of those religions but important is to know that those are not the original statements but just an understanding of the original statements or texts what can be wrong and even understood differently.

I can say that many religious personnel accept that the natural law, law of nature and universal law of creation are sources of some ethical and moral guidelines but those are not contradictory to moral teachings of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. All three recognise that religious laws are compatible with laws of nature, natural law and universal laws of creation. It is another thing to start speaking about which is first.

God revealed to humans religious laws via chosen Prophets to guide them and spiritually nurture them to perform in this life in best way. More can be said on this and dozens of books speak about these matters. Hence, the revealed laws of religions (not to start specifying here) are indeed recognising natural law, law of nature and universal law of creation but it does not mean that religious law should be discarded to follow only the e.g. law of nature. Both can be and works together. As much as you can be religious, you can be a scientist that derives science from law of nature, natural law and universal law of creation.

These are interrelated and complementary laws that guide one to greater faith, love, reason etc. and makes life meaningful.

This is possible with the civilisational integration and exchange of knowledge instead of clash of civilisations. How much is old and only Andalusia of the Islamic Civilisation, known as the beacon or lighthouse, useful to show how this common living in harmony is possible? Today, its intensively discussed. Much of what the developed world knows today has roots in those Andalusian times, and surely also the times of the House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikmah) of Baghdad, and Damascus, Kufa, Basra, Madinah, Macca, Constantinople etc..

Indeed, it is difficult to agree on these common principles of all but its hard to accept, for some harder than others.

Noone can manipulate these in a society, tribe. No person has authority to claim ultimate exactness or truth of one principle that belongs to one society compared to another. Relativity needs to be accepted but a common base is same for all.

Cultures exist but these are not the source of religion but just complementary references to apply or practice religious teachings in order not to cause extreme changes in multi-cultural societies. Some cultural practices are sound while others need to be changed or discarded by the adherents of a culture. When proper education takes place then that will happen. It takes time.

It is wrong to state that religious law stems from culture or is culture based as some referred earlier.

If that is true then atheists who have a certain culture are religious people. Perhaps they would deny this statement.

Dear Hein Retter ,

It is nice to be objective and actually very important if anyone's claims are to be taken seriously. Sometimes even subjective claims can be taken seriously but need to be verified if willing to use them for some other wider purposes. Some new application of those.

That is what science does.

However, pure focus on science created a gap in the last century in particular very visible. Since enlightenment that has been the norm and over time normative was marginalised for the positive.

Today, issues exist due to the lack of normative and but perhaps too much focus on the positive. Perhaps, if the normative would be given greater attention then the positive would develop more exponentially.

As earlier discussion mentioned, quantum physics reached a level where probabilities play the key role in making new breakthroughs. Nothing is fully predictable but just probable.

Behavioural psychology plays greater role in economic studies now than ever before due to positivistic models that are science based can not predict the future and then normative assumptions linkable to the 10 commandments or Qur'anic teachings need to guide science in order to stop perpetuating hoarding and affluent classes on the peril of majority middle and lower classes that are poor.

In a way, normative statements can help predict the future in complementary way with scientific contributions and there is no contradiction between the two. They are complementary and one without the other can no exist forever. The relationship is a two way complementarity rather than marginalisation of one or the other. Role of one or the other may be emphasised at times.

I am not convinced by the deductions of neuroscience that itself seems to pose a philosophical viewpoint on freewill, or its absence. Neuroscience deduces that the mind, or rather brain, functions mechanically in essence and reality is merely a mixture of identifiable functions/chemical, etc/and our concepts are simply the end results of largely mechanistic processes. Well, maybe all is not simply located within the brain and external stimili and cultural tropes operate separately producing their own flurry of information that the brain merely accomodates. If everything after all is reduced to within the brain, it still makes human kind central to existence. Maybe we are not!

What about the soul and the heart? Do those have neurons that send some stimuli to the brain? Then the brain would not be the central or sole center of all processes? Appreciate you insight Stanley Wilkin

Jasmin, its one of those ideas that have gained traction because they appear sophisticated but are actually simple. While it is a reasonable assertion to claim that the human brain is responsible for reality (some do) this looks just like Berkeley reconstituted but also has innumerable points of contradiction. A more complex interactive process is likely that includes an environment that impresses by its ability to kill us.

Well i believe that you refer to potential limitations of human brain that needs to be stopped producing things that may eventually turn against us with intention to initially actually serve us.

Well some do think that the brain is responsible for reality but if looking at reality then it is clear that if it is responsible then it needs to be limited to stop doing harm due to by nature the human brain is limited but seems to project itself as unlimited. That way it tricks itself with thought that its has control over its actions while much externalities, negative, become evident over time if not instantly.

Thanks Larry Carlson,

i appreciate your insights and critical analysis of what i wrote. I can say that you are right that to start from one assumption and then saying that that is a common for all is not fair and not really common. That is also what i disagree with but so does it not become a common if another says an assumption is common to all.

I understood all the assumptions earlier in contributions as just propositions that may be common but never really common as it needs to be agreed upon by all. Similarly are assumptions of mine that you identified and critically appraised for improvement just propositions of my side or another side that may agree or disagree with that. Also like you mentioned, every scientist or i can say every person has a sort of bias thatneeds to be eschewed when dealing with the other especially in order to find common ground and not attempt to impose personal convictions or beliefs or even thoughts upon another. That is not the way of course but a level of respect exists among all people to understand and differentiate what is possible to be common and what is not.

Natural law is what seemingly all accept to exist and again may be a reference for all but religions do recognize it and so may help strenghten that acceptance or common ground and vice versa in a relative manner who adheres to a respective religion. Those without religion maybe adhere to natural law or something else and may strenghten the common via that personal and objective common that may again be understood differently as Wittgenstein expressed. That is not a problem as we may have different imaginations or many things but ultimatelly agree on the thing while some may not agree on the thing and still all sit or stay or live together as they all sit, stay or live together.

To take the argument that ˋnatural law does not exist or then possible existence of God as a subject not defined for man´and now say that its not academic would not be academic from me as its a view as a proposition and not the common agreed. Similarly, if not taking any side or take one side or the other or even another as many may exist and for me to claim that its not academic is just not academic because differences of oppinions are a mercy upon humankind. However, i may say that the degree of something academic or not varries but ultimately there will always exist a sense of not academic due to the role of the normative contributions besides positive contributions and that is humane. In fact that is academic as one solution fits all is impossible but everything seems a solution for something somewhere. In this process of even identifying something academic or not or existing or not may be a product of something common which actually happened whereby the discourse continues.

To have the normative as a guide to positive and vice versa is academic and to agree or disagree with it is academic.

Indeed Larry, you are right in what you said. It is important to differentiate fact and opinion. As you requested me to say on this

"It is my understanding, as per the quotes I provided, that you claimed that it is a fact that god exists. If I am mistaken in my reading of what you said, and you did not claim that it is a fact that a god exists, then please say so."

I again say that if billions of people believe in the existence of God then its a fact that exists and as such when i responded this way I meant to say the same as you advise anyone to beware of saying that 'there is or is not God as a fact' as many who believe it as a fact to exist or not to exist would disagree or as you mentioned would provoke a 'wrath'. However, they may believe as they wish and express it with tolerance that does not impose it or force it on anyone.

Just one more matter that i did not say but it was implied from earlier discussion :

""Jasmin: " To take the argument that ˋnatural law does not exist or then possible existence of God .......is not academic""" is not what I claimed (to make clear only and i know you have not implied that to me) but consider it like you if stated as such not to be academic. However, i neither said that natural law does not exist nor that possibly God does not exist.

But similarly if we reverse the order of the above " to say that natural law exists and or then the possible non existence of God" is also not academic.

What I witness is that God exists and natural law exists. I universally tolerate those who disagree.

You are indeed true to say that imposition of any fact on other would be harmful to those who consider it not a fact but similarly those may have another thing that they believe to be a fact and that may not be agreeable to those who think otherwise.

I see that its a matter of calling something a fact or opinion and it that is a problem that excludes others from the discussion then it may be clear that everyone is welcome as a fact above that and may express something to be a fact in their view while it does not have to be agreed upon by the other. In my view, if for some something is a fact then not everybody has to accept it to be a fact and so everybody who thinks of something else as a fact does not have to be accepted as a fact by another. If we call it opinions then lets agree that those are opinions and not facts if that would enable harmony among all and let life continue without tension. I will modify the fact to opinion while I solely maintain the right to believe and chose personally to consider it a fact.

Of course, it happens frequently that some claim certain things as indisputable facts while it provokes others and that is not alright if it leads to conflict or tension of lower degree. However, its always important for both sides to accept and recognise the flexibility of the other and not keep squeezing without will to be squeezed. That happens as you mentioned and its totally not fine to exclude anyone. Inclusive is the way as my question attempts to discover how with help of all you experts indeed that i respect immensely.

I somehow think now how natural law and the law of nature together with the universal law of creation played a role in reconciling our views here even since we rationally and even emotionally with empathy of higher dose try to agree on something common and this is the beauty of our communication to realise where we may reduce the volume of our tone to accommodate everyone regardless of what spectrum of belief, thought, factual conviction, love, law, even economics or politics the anyone in everyone belongs to.

As its is know to all of us, someone may agree or disagree to what someone agrees or disagrees with but at same time that someone who can be anyone will always fight to give the right to the someone who can be anyone to express the agreed or disagreed upon.

I believe we politely agree rather than disagree.

Thanks Larry for the stimulus for thought. I appreciate it.

I can see that we came to some common understanding about what we meant with our contributions. Generally, that is the freedom of expression of opinions.

In my view, i can accept also that some claim something as a fact because of being convinced that indeed it is a fact.

My question was not even intending to delve into discussions of matters related to existence of God as for me personally that is a fact and its my personal conviction and belief upon which there is no doubt for me. I dont question the essence of God as its not possible as far as I always contemplated to comprise or reach the realisation of the essence of God. It only strengthens my faith and many others who believe in the same as me. Different religions named God differently while it has been researched innumerable times that its mostly the same God of all according to revelations that were revealed to particular Prophets at certain times. Each religion has the freedom to elaborate it and claim it as fact or opinions which ultimately poses no issue to me as none will seek to transform radically the other but a common base exists that is agreed upon but needs to be revived.

Hence, I note that there is one God, no-one is alike Him, He was not born and did not give birth, and is eternal who created everything as the Creator and possesses multiple beautiful names that can be contemplated about and seen in nature, natural law, law of nature, universal law of creation. And this can go on, to speak about my own convictions and doubtless for me the beliefs that shape my life and give it meaning, purpose etc.

Now, man has freedom of choice to believe or not to believe and is accountable to himself/herself. Freedom of choice is available to everyone and may chose to believe in more Gods or no God as there is no coercion in religion, since we all spoke about religion in this discussion.

Then, duties and responsibilities and rules and regulations are to be followed by everyone as its a e.g. common nation or country, where it should be respected. However, even that is not respected by all. And they do account for that if caught.

Fundamental freedoms are known commonly to all.

It still remains to investigate what the common principles can be to unite differences of opinion in heterogeneous societies.

Hence, the not clear sentences for you are my convictions that need to be elaborated and so do your convictions need to be elaborated to find a common base and not to touch into the particularities that I see somehow often touched by you and that may not be a problem. However, those particularities do not disturb the harmony of the common ground as its a personal matter that the public matters tolerate and may share to know each other better.

If this is what you also expressed in claiming that these matters should rather be exclaimed as opinions and not as facts then it makes full sense to me what you intended to communicate. However, i can agree that someone expresses an opinion and say it to be a fact later if that is for him/her a fact but it does not have to be a fact for me and vice versa what is for me a fact may and does not have to be a fact for another. It may be an opinion. Its fully flexibly tolerable for me to understand the others‘ sensitivities and not coerce them to give up their convictions.

Thanks Larry, appreciate your humble and very direct communication with all of us here.

As you mentioned, for facts or oppinions that some may have can always be found arguments for and against as those who agree and disagree with them. Academics does that, where some agree or disagree and offer alternatives until it gets better for all.

I claimed from the beginning that discussions that you mentioned above and for which much has been fought for are simly particularities of each sides involved that cant be overcome easily but each side may follow it individually within respect of some common or public space to make it more simple.

As for convictions, mine that i mentioned are known to all and visible for all who know and so are theirs to me. If i say or dont say those are assumed present and we do talk about it lovely.

Sometimes, convictions may lead to solutions that facts or opinions cant. But for all there will always be another view with more opinions or facts to prove right or wrong over time.