Recently, I had a length exchange with a transsexual over the Natural Right to discriminate.  This person was polite, and I will admit that this was refreshing as the majority of those who wade into the debate over such matters — on both sides — are usually less than civil.  However, this person had a very poor understanding of the laws governing logic, and less so of Natural Law.  In fact, I am convinced this person rejects Natural Law.  Then, yesterday, a read used my post on the necessity of religion for liberty to try and prove I am irrational.  Once again, the person standing in opposition to me demonstrates with their argument that they do not understand the rules governing logic.  In fact, this second person starts with a demonstrably false assumption and proceeds to use it to take me apart on every point in my post.  Sadly, this person seems oblivious to the fact that, since the foundation of his argument is fallacious, so is the whole of his argument.  So often this is the case: that the enemies of God show they do not understand God’s laws — in this case, the laws governing logic and reason.  But then, this is the point: if a person rejects God, then any attempt to describe or use His laws must necessarily result in a perversion of those laws — even in the case of reason.

I have written about the limits of logic, and how it is a tool which must be governed by wisdom if it is to be used properly.  I have also explained that, because  science is a systematic application of these rules for the specific purpose of exploration and understanding, it shares the same imitations of logic.  All of this is fact, by definition.  It is not ‘opinion’ as the majority of those who rebel against God would like to believe.  To them, science is a religion, and logic can be used to manipulate reason, not constrain it.  The result is a powerful delusion that leads these people into believing they are actually in control of the laws governing this universe.  The worst of them even can even get to a point where they convince themselves that they can change these laws by sheer force of their own will.  They are all insane, it is just a matter of degree as to how disconnected with objective reality they actually are.

I have tried to think of a way I can illustrate my point using ‘science.’  I am not sure I have found the perfect illustration, but I think it should serve well enough to clarify my point.  None but the most dogmatic would deny the existence of fossils.  Nor would we deny that they seem to be the skeletal remains of creatures unknown to man or recorded history.  However, there is a great deal of speculation past this point.  This is due to the limits of science and the refusal of people to acknowledge and accept those limits.  Instead, they allow what clues remain to guide them toward conclusions that simply cannot be supported by science or reason.  I’ll explain.

Two people examine a fossilized skeleton of a T-Rex.  One determines that T-Rex was cold blooded, another says he was warm blooded.  The first says this means T-Rex was slow, the other argues he was fast.  The first says T-Rex walked up-right, dragging his tail to conserve energy, the other says he walked like a bird, holding his tail upright for balance.  The first says T-Rex was a scavenger, the latter says he was an active hunter.  The first says T-Rex was killed of by an ice age, the latter says it was a meteor strike followed by global cataclysm.  Now, at one point or another, both theories have been ‘scientifically proven.’  The problem is, science cannot determine if a single part of neither theory is actually true because no one was around to record an actual observation of T-Rex.

In reality, everything I just listed is the result of speculation driven by imagination.  Yes, this speculation may be guided by our observations of our world today, but how can we know what is true today was true at the time T-Rex lived?  Science once thought the speed of light was constant, now it is not so sure.  If the speed of light can change over time, then what else can change?  Could the nature of life on this planet have changed as well?  Logic and true science both admit that we cannot know because we cannot observe or test the past; we can only speculate about the past from what remains of it in the present.

However, what remains in the present can tell us a great deal, and we can be very certain that what it tells us is accurate.  For example, the existence of the fossil tells us a creature we call T-Rex once lived.  If we find more than one such fossil, we can conclude that T-Rex was a species, and not just a one-time freak of nature.  Additional fossils can also give us some idea of the size and shape of the creature we call T-Rex.  Where we find these fossils can tell us the range over which T-Rex lived.  But aside from things such as this, logic and science cannot do much more than give us reasoned guesses — guided by our modern knowledge of our world — as to what the rest of T-Rex’s nature may have been?  We do not know what he really looked like, what color he was, what he ate, how he acted — nothing.  All we can do is guess.

The same applies to Natural law.  Those who deny God and His laws will say they do not exist, but they will always proceed from this false assumption to an assertion of ‘ought.’  ‘Ought’ is a philosophical concept, but as such, it is part of logic.  In short, an ‘ought’ is a value claim of what should be as opposed to what is.  If I say something is ‘unfair,’ or ‘not right,’ that is a value claim, which means it is also an ‘ought.’  So, if we look at the existence of an ‘ought’ as a fossil, what can we determine from it?  Well, to be honest, we don;t need to know much at all to conclude that Natural Law exists.

Natural Law assumes there is a fixed, universal set of rules governing human behavior in the same way the laws of physics govern the behavior of matter and energy.  ‘Ought’ claims exists.  The two people I described in my opening paragraph were both making counter claims to my position of how they believe things should be.  They were both making ‘ought’ claims.  Marx denied God and Natural Law, yet his manifesto is a giant series of arguments about how man should evolve.  That means Communism is a giant ‘ought’ claim.  All three exist  — the opinions of the two people I mentioned and Communism.  Therefore, we can conclude with certainty that ‘ought’ claims exist.  This is all we need to conclude that Natural Law does exist, it’s just that what those laws are and how they work may be open to interpretation — like whether or not T-Rex was cold or warm blooded.  You see, you do not need to prove the whole thing to prove it exists.

Logic — and therefore, science — both say that demonstrating a single example is sufficient (i.e. good enough) to prove the existence of that thing.  We just demonstrated that ‘ought’ claims exist, which means morality exists (remember, morality is just a value claim of right and wrong as it relates to human behavior).  This means that those who deny the existence of morality and then argue what that means for humanity are contradicting themselves.  Otherwise, they would say that nothing follows, and all things should be allowed.  But no one says this — not even the most ardent Anarchist says a;; things should be allowed.  This is because we are all instinctively aware that morality does exist, thus, Natural Law exists.  This means the real issue is not whether or not it exists, but the fact that we just don’t want to be constrained by or held accountable for violating it.  This even includes those who believe in God and Natural law (we all sin because we all break God’s laws).

So, back to the topic at hand: when we violate the Natural Laws governing logic and try to reason according to our own will or desires, we pervert them.  Yet, we do this all the time.  We even have some specific words to describe different forms of perverting the laws of logic.  In the case of logic, we call it a fallacy.  In the case of personal desires, we call it ‘rationalization,’ or ‘justification.’  In the case of ideologies, it is called ‘denial.’  In worst cases — like Nietzsche’s — denial is called ‘insanity.’  But no matter what we call them, they are all perversions of reason, and since reason is a Natural Law, that makes these perversions the result of lawlessness.