The
second issue of the new
Journal of Natural Law is out
soon. It includes, among other things, a
debate between Melissa Moschella and Robert Koons on the New Natural Law
Theory, and articles on Protestantism and natural law. The
first issue included a
symposium on Kevin Vallier’s
All the
Kingdoms of the World and several articles on natural law and the concept
of intention (as well as
my
review of Stephen Boulter’s
Natural
Law Liberalism and the Malaise of Modernity). Congratulations to editor Brian Besong and associate
editors James Jacobs and Matthew Minerd on an excellent and much-needed
publication!
Unfortunately, cannot access journal.
ReplyDeleteOK, I guess, but I do question the usefulness of a Journal expressly committed to one specific philosophical position. From their website, it seems like they've got a preconceived commitment to, and I quote:
ReplyDelete"the conviction that what once shaped a civilization has not spent its force"
I mean, sure, you can do that if you want. But how exactly is this useful for anything other than being a hugbox for Conservative Catholics? While it's not quite as strident as an Evangelical Statement of Faith, the way this is phrased does make it seem like views critical of Natural Law are not welcome. If that's so, then the Journal is little better than those conservative Evangelical institutions that aren't taken seriously by real academics. You can't be a real scholar if you start with a preconceived conclusion that you aren't allowed to disagree with. I mean, that's literally the definition of rationalization.
Somebody needs to learn some logic. Because a number of people have found a particular philosophical position compelling is sufficient warrant for having a journal dedicated to it. And nobody takes your condescension seriously :)
DeleteWell, this is a journal devoted to secularism
Deletehttps://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles
And it's accessible.
"The International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion" has no specific religious of point of view.
Deletehttps://link.springer.com/journal/11153
EXE,
DeleteThat philosophical position is held far more broadly than you realize. Most Christians affirm natural law (Karl Barth and his followers are outliers); it is found in Eastern Orthodoxy as well as most of the Oriental Apostolic churches, but is more emphasized in the West than in the East. The Noahide laws in Judaism are an example of natural law, but natural law is implied in numerous other places in the Hebrew Bible--David Novak has written extensively on natural law in Judaism. Nor is it limited to the Judaic-Christian heritage.
Further, you are wrong if you think that certain journals such as the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society are not taken seriously, or Andrews University Seminary Studies (a seventh day Adventist publication) for that matter in "mainstream" biblical scholarship. They do serious scholarly work. Word Biblical Commentary is an example of a commentary series from a largely evangelical viewpoint that is highly regarded in much broader circles.
To Tim Finlay.
DeleteJust a minor observation, because I agree with most of what your say. In Judaism the Noahide Laws are not viewed as natural law but as divine revelation to the Gentiles. Judaism doesn't seem to work much with the concept of natural law (although Maimonides might be an exception -- I'm not sure). However, and more important here, Judaism is compatible with the concept of natural law. And this confirms your major point.
Funny that no one ever accuses academic journals dedicated to skepticism or materialism as having a bias or being narrow minded in their scope.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteThank you for your comment. You are correct that the Noahide laws are divine revelation to the Gentiles/nations (these laws are of course obligatory for Israelites also because they are descended from Noah). This does not preclude them from also being natural law. A thin concept of natural law is laws which are obligatory for all human beings and which are knowable apart from divine revelation. Laws such as the prohibition against murder clearly qualify. We see that in a number of law codes prior to Moses. The rabbis recognize that if the Noahide laws are obligatory on all people, they must have been obligatory for Adam and Eve and their descendants. In Sanhedrin 7:5 of the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbis connect the Noahide laws as implied midrashically by God's instructions to humans in the garden of Eden.
The Thomist is a very highly respected philosophy journal, founded almost a century ago.
ReplyDeleteEd must be on his July 4]th vacation or working on his latest book, or maybe both,
ReplyDelete