Paper 1 - Jorge Rossello Professor MacLean Phil 089H 5...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Jorge Rossello Professor MacLean Phil 089H 5 February 2010 On Russell’s Refutation of the Natural-Law Argument Man has been observing and describing the natural world since prehistoric times. Due to our repeated experiences of nature’s patterns, such as objects falling to the ground, humans have attempted to explain these phenomena with laws. These laws do indeed exist, and doubting their validity would be showing ignorance. No sane person would expect to continue rising indefinitely after jumping off of a diving board. Also, every law requires a lawgiver, a being that creates the laws and puts them into action. Therefore, there must be an ultimate lawgiver that put the natural laws that we know into action, to whom theists give the name God. This attempt to prove God’s existence is famously known as the Natural-Law Argument. In his work entitled “Why I Am Not a Theist,” Bertrand Russell provides a skeptical response to the Natural-Law Argument in which he criticizes its weaknesses. Russell’s initial qualm with the Natural-Law Argument is the notion of natural laws.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

Paper 1 - Jorge Rossello Professor MacLean Phil 089H 5...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online