Thursday, June 25, 2026

The Journal of Natural Law

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!

Posted by at

37 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 25, 2026 at 12:41 PM

    Unfortunately, cannot access journal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. EXEJune 28, 2026 at 9:35 AM

    OK, 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:

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 28, 2026 at 1:22 PM

      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 :)

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 28, 2026 at 3:04 PM

      Well, this is a journal devoted to secularism
      https://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles
      And it's accessible.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 28, 2026 at 6:52 PM

      "The International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion" has no specific religious of point of view.
      https://link.springer.com/journal/11153

      Delete
    4. Tim FinlayJune 29, 2026 at 8:48 AM

      EXE,
      That 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.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJune 29, 2026 at 11:15 AM

      To Tim Finlay.
      Just 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.

      Delete
    6. ArnoldJune 29, 2026 at 8:09 PM

      Funny that no one ever accuses academic journals dedicated to skepticism or materialism as having a bias or being narrow minded in their scope.

      Delete
    7. Tim FinlayJune 30, 2026 at 8:11 AM

      Anonymous,
      Thank 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.

      Delete
    8. EXEJuly 2, 2026 at 6:05 AM

      I mean, sure. Re-read my comment, I said you can have it if you want. There are journals dedicated to astrology too. I expect this one to be of equal merit. It'll exist to be one more part of the siloed-off ecosystem of Catholic academia - in other words, a safe space where you guys can go to pretend that it's still the Middle Ages and your fantastical speculations about the Bible are actually totally valid modes of knowledge co-equal with (or even superior to!) secular science and philosophy. Natural Law is a moribund tradition, at least in any of the substantive, Medieval-style forms that you all love. Some heavily modified and attenuated forms of it persist into the modern day, but even then they are usually niche theories that at best co-exist with others. The only reason why you keep it around is because you need Catholic dogmas to be "rational". My judgment to this effect is bolstered by the fact that not a single one of you has ever dared to explain literally anything about your own positions, no matter how I've tried to ask. I ask you to explain how Natural Law works, even at the most basic level, and all I get in response is scoffing, insults, and deflection ("Do Your Own Research, go read such-and-such!"). Well, that or intense stupidity ("ask Google Gemini!"). The most reasonable conclusion to these observations is that either A) you don't actually understand the beliefs you claim to hold or B) you know the evidence for them is weak and don't want to expose that fact. If any of you want to refute me on this point, answer me this:

      How does one tell what constitutes "perfection" for an organism? Explain your epistemology.

      Delete
    9. EXEJuly 2, 2026 at 6:49 AM

      "And nobody takes your condescension seriously :)"

      Really? Seems like I'm the most popular person here! My comments always get the most responses. This party'd be dead without me! :p

      "Funny that no one ever accuses academic journals dedicated to skepticism or materialism as having a bias or being narrow minded in their scope."

      Isn't that conservative Christianity's entire shtick? Claiming that secular academia is biased against them, and that's the real reason why their ideas aren't taken seriously? As opposed to the real reason, which is because of their massive intellectual flaws?

      "[The] Journal of Evangelical Theological Society [and] Andrews University Seminary Studies [are taken seriously in biblical academic studies"

      This is *sort of* true, but framing it like this is misleading. It's true that these journals can do respected work and do have pretty good standards of peer review. The core problem is that their faith commitments make their work highly problematic. Because both of them require contributors to subscribe to certain doctrinal tenets, this means their inquiry is not free, and therefore they are not taking a critical position (and just in case someone genuinely doesn't know this, "critical" in this context does not mean "presuming that the Bible is wrong" but "applying the same scholarly standards to the Bible that we do to every other work, rather than giving it special privileges").

      Or, to put it in other words: JETS, AUSS, and other similar journals can have smart contributors, and can apply most of the methods of good scholarship. But their scholarship will always be deficient because certain conclusions are simply banned or required by fiat. This is fundamentally unscientific - real scholarship requires that people be free to pursue the facts wherever they lead. If you tell people that they are not free to follow the facts, then what you are doing is not science anymore, it's dogma, mere thought policing.

      Delete
    10. NLRJuly 2, 2026 at 11:51 AM

      No one is impartial (except about things they have not encountered or do not care about), some are just more up front about it than others.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousJuly 2, 2026 at 2:57 PM

      EXE
      "Nous" is a distinguished philosophy journal that publishes articles on the philosophy of religion and other topics without any bias. The current issue criticizes some arguments for the existence of God. You can read it online free.
      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14680068

      Delete
    12. ArnoldJuly 2, 2026 at 8:32 PM

      “Isn't that conservative Christianity's entire shtick? Claiming that secular academia is biased against them, and that's the real reason why their ideas aren't taken seriously? As opposed to the real reason, which is because of their massive intellectual flaws?”

      Flaws such as? You haven’t provided any. You simply complained that the journal devoted to natural law is surprisingly sympathetic to natural law. Who would have thought? Mind blowing.

      Delete
    13. EXEJuly 3, 2026 at 4:18 AM

      "Flaws such as?"

      Such as, for instance, placing their doctrinal commitments over and above their scholarly ones. EG, in Biblical Studies, allowing their judgment about the meaning of a passage to be informed by what their church demands they understand the Bible to be saying rather than allowing it to speak for itself (for example, refusing to acknowledge that the Bible, especially earlier parts, speaks about the existence of more than one god, and does not refer to these gods as demons or angels or any such later notion). Just to take one example from an author linked to by this blog, Lydia McGrew's book on "Undesigned Coincidences" is not taken seriously by Biblical Scholars because she gives no criteria to distinguish between real and apparent coincidences, no criteria to determine what is and is not designed, and no engagement with any of the prior scholarship dealing with the texts. Are those examples clear enough for you?

      Delete
    14. EXEJuly 3, 2026 at 4:29 AM

      NLR:
      "No one is impartial (except about things they have not encountered or do not care about), some are just more up front about it than others."

      Sleight of hand - you're trying to manufacture a false equivalence between critical bible scholars and yourself/your side. What you're saying is technically true, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce our biases and attempt to think critically. Taken literally, your comment would imply that critical thinking is impossible and all thinking is simply people yelling at each other about their presupposed biases. Surely you don't mean that? Unless you're a presuppositionalist, in which case I guess you do believe that, and I pity you. And if you don't mean that, then your comment is irrelevant. Of course everyone is biased to some extent. That doesn't mean that you can just dismiss their conclusions, especially if they are supported by a wide variety of educated scholars coming at the issue from a wide variety of points of view while trying their damnedest to treat the topic neutrally. That's just pooh-poohing the very idea of science - which is on-brand for a certain type of Fundagelical, I suppose, but I wanted to think better of the folks on this forum.

      Delete
    15. NLRJuly 3, 2026 at 4:42 AM

      I should have said "neutral" rather than "impartial". It is possible to evaluate positions fairly, but neutrality is often not possible. Better to say what one believes and make the case for it than claim a neutrality that does not exist.

      Delete
    16. ArnoldJuly 3, 2026 at 12:38 PM

      Somehow a discussion centered around natural law suddenly shifted to questions about Bible scholarship. How odd. Nevertheless it’s not as if the book of judges clearly depicts Israel going back and forth between polytheistic belief and monotheistic belief. Hardly a surprising phenomenon. Doesn’t really change anything.

      Delete
    17. NLRJuly 3, 2026 at 12:44 PM

      EXE,

      What is wrong with a journal of natural law? They journal is all about discussing that and making the case for it. If people have other foundations for morality, they can write articles about it in journals devoted to that subject or in less specialized journals.

      But honestly, what is your point in making comments here?

      You come on a blog which you already know doesn't take for granted modern leftism and then get offended that people don't take modern leftism as the default position. If you actually believe modern leftism is the proper way to approach things, then make your case. But you don't actually do that.

      You keep flipping back and forth between different things. Sometimes you claim neutrality; you criticize natural law or some other position by saying not everybody agrees with it.

      When people then point out that no philosophical position has universal agreement, then you say, "well anyway, it's wrong". Okay, if that's what you think, then why not just say that? Why this barrage of rhetorical tactics?

      I probably shouldn't have even gotten into this discussion but anyway, you have made some polite comments to me before, which I appreciate. I don't agree with progressivism or think that it will give us a utopia, but at least you tried to say something in its favor rather than a barrage of critiques.

      Delete
    18. grodriguesJuly 3, 2026 at 7:43 PM

      An anonymous keyboard warrior railing against scholars and scholarship he knows nothing about for placing "their doctrinal commitments above their scholarly ones". And the obligatory mumbling about "moribund tradition" and "secular science and philosophy" and yada yada. It would even be funny if it were not pathetic.

      Delete
    19. EXEJuly 4, 2026 at 2:13 PM

      NLR

      So, it seems like you *are* arguing that critical thinking is impossible? You said:

      "Better to say what one believes and make the case for it than claim a neutrality that does not exist"

      The way you frame this comment makes it seem like one ought to come to the discussion with a presumed prior belief and then seek to "find reasons" for believing in it. But this is the opposite of how a critical scholar proceeds; they start with the known facts and follow them to the conclusion that they most likely point to. Is that really what you mean? If so, your epistemology is fundamentally broken. If not, well, what *do* you mean?

      Delete
    20. EXEJuly 4, 2026 at 2:40 PM

      I said:

      "[Conservative scholars tend to dogmatically refuse] to acknowledge that the Bible, especially earlier parts, speaks about the existence of more than one god, and does not refer to these gods as demons or angels [I should have added 'or idols'] or any such later notion"

      Arnold responded:

      "[...] it’s not as if the book of judges clearly depicts Israel going back and forth between polytheistic belief and monotheistic belief. Hardly a surprising phenomenon. Doesn’t really change anything."

      I don't think you've quite grasped my point. For one, you're naively assuming that the Book of Judges is what it claims to be, rather than what basically all scholars agree it is: a piece of propaganda/revenge fantasy created by the Deuteronomistic writer(s) in the Early Iron Age, centuries after the events it claims to depict. The entire Deuteronomistic literature is an attempt to retcon Israelite history to pretend that they originally worshipped Yahweh and that polytheism was a perversion of this original faith (even though archaeology suggests that the exact opposite is true). But even if we accept for the sake of argument that the Book of Judges is completely accurate, my point isn't that Israel is merely *depicted as* worshipping other gods. The point is that the Bible claims that such gods are *real*, which is incompatible with monotheism. Take Exodus 20: 3, which in the original Hebrew says:

      "לֹֽ֣א יִהְיֶֽה־לְךָ֛֩ אֱלֹהִ֥֨ים אֲחֵרִ֖֜ים עַל־פָּנָֽ֗יַ׃"
      "lō yih-yeh lə-ḵā ’ĕ-lō-hîm ’ă-ḥê-rîm ‘al-pā-nā-ya"

      Notice that the word used here is, in fact, "elohim", which means "gods", not "idols" or statues or anything else. Gods, as in real, existent divine beings. Similarly, Psalm 82 depicts Yahweh as taking his stand in the divine assembly, of rendering judgment *among the gods*, again using "elohim" in the original Hebrew. This Psalm depicts God as condemning and usurping the gods of the other nations - but importantly, still depicts them as real beings. To take a third example, Deuteronomy 10:17 says

      "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes."

      This is the rhetoric of incomparability - it's saying "my God is a million times better than every other god" - but crucially, this rhetoric would make zero sense if there weren't other actual, real, independent gods for God to be better than. Later Jewish writers, and then Christian writers after them, tried to renegotiate these kinds of passages or interpret them away in order to harmonize them with their later doctrines, but if you actually just allow them to speak, they show that the Bible clearly portrays a world where many different gods exist in reality. Sure, it depicts Yahweh as *the best* god, but *not* the only god. It is Henotheistic, not Monotheistic.

      Delete
    21. EXEJuly 4, 2026 at 2:49 PM

      NLR:

      "You come on a blog which you already know doesn't take for granted modern leftism and then get offended that people don't take modern leftism as the default position."

      Offended? Please. I haven't been "taking modern leftism for granted", I've been asking you to so much as explain your positions - something you have all steadfastly refused to do and are in fact still doing right now. Do you not understand the difference between critiquing other people's beliefs and proselytizing for my own? I'm not saying "you must provide a 100 page thesis defending Thomism or else agree that I'm right"! You don't! Literally all I'm doing is questioning the beliefs that you have; something everyone should be doing to their own beliefs whenever feasible! You being wrong doesn't mean that I'm right! It just means that you might have to admit that you don't actually know the truth about certain topics. Yet you act as if you are entitled to stick to your beliefs without examining them, without understanding them, and without being able to defend them at all. You act like you're "entitled" to the presumption that your beliefs are true, and it's up to me to prove you wrong. That's not the way rational thought works! You should understand your beliefs, and be able to defend them, or else reduce your confidence in their truth!

      Delete
    22. EXEJuly 4, 2026 at 2:50 PM

      Roddy:

      Aww, thanks, honeybun. You really do have *such* a way with words, you know that?

      Delete
    23. NLRJuly 4, 2026 at 7:44 PM

      EXE,

      You are just making a bunch of associations with things you don't like, not responding to what people actually say.

      I think you're wrong, but it's not personal, have a good week.

      Delete
    24. EXEJuly 5, 2026 at 10:50 AM

      NLR:

      ??? What? Do...do you genuinely not understand what I'm saying? It's pretty straightforward - I am asking how you know your positions are correct, what your reasons are for believing them. This is separate from my attempts to argue for my own beliefs - whenever I choose to do so, I make arguments for them. You seem to keep getting confused between me promoting my own beliefs and merely criticizing yours. I don't need to prove my beliefs right in order to criticize yours, because you are not entitled to the simple presumption that your beliefs are correct. Those are two different activities. Does that make sense?

      Delete
    25. ArnoldJuly 5, 2026 at 11:19 AM

      Woah, how impressive, peddling worn out documentary hypothesis talking points. As if that position hasn't been gradually phasing out among the academic realm for the past 20 or so years. Tell me again what any of this has to do with natural law?

      Delete
    26. NLRJuly 5, 2026 at 4:27 PM

      Okay, EXE, I reread your last comment in this thread. In the spirit of charitable discussion, I will say that I was unfair in my characterization of it yesterday.

      You did respond in giving your reasons for commenting on this blog, so I get what your goal is to some extent.

      I will just say in response that I believe everyone reading here is aware that there are other positions than whatever they happen to favor. With the viewpoints presented in mass media it is especially clear. They have all come to form their views by thinking about what is going on and trying to understand things.

      Delete
    27. Tim FinlayJuly 6, 2026 at 7:19 AM

      I do not fault EXE for his mistake here, which is made by most of biblical scholarship. It assumes that biblical henotheism (there are numerous gods or superhuman beings and YHWH is incomparably greater than these other superhuman beings) is incompatible with the monotheism in traditional Jewish and Christian theology. It is not. I have to dash now but will expand upon this later.

      Delete
    28. EXEJuly 6, 2026 at 9:49 AM

      OK, NLR, that's actually a fair response. My frustration has come from being unable to get anyone to articulate the reasons why they believe in their positions (natural law et al), which is a very strange thing if they do in fact have well-reasoned-out beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to believe in my positions, at least not in any post where I don't explicitly give an argument in their favor. I apologize if I've gotten too feisty sometimes, but I assure you that I'm always genuine in my attempts to find the truth. The snark primarily comes out when I feel like the other person has absolutely nothing to contribute and thus mockery will be more effective than reason.

      Delete
    29. EXEJuly 6, 2026 at 10:05 AM

      Arnold:

      The Documentary Hypothesis has been "phasing out" in the same sense that Darwinian Evolution has been "phasing out": that is to say, while the original formulation is falling out of favor, the basic observations that it was built on are not in doubt - all the discussion is about how to build a more robust theory on the back of those observations. To put it more simply, while the idea that there were four distinct sources for the Pentateuch (J,E,D,P) that were all combined to form a single narrative is now in dispute, the core idea (that the Pentateuch is a composite of various sources compiled over time) is all but certain. The debate is over how exactly this worked: some defend an updated Documentary Hypothesis model, others (particularly in Europe) hold to the Supplementary Hypothesis, which posits one central foundational document that was gradually edited and added to over the centuries with new books, writings, redactions, etc, and yet others defend the Fragmentary Hypothesis (the idea that the Pentateuch was cobbled together from lots of older stories that were originally totally unconnected, with no big Foundational Text at all). These are all still riffs on the same basic idea, and it's that idea that stuffs up your doctrines. The fact that the original version of the Documentary Hypothesis is falling out of favor absolutely does not mean that Mosaic Authorship is back on the table as a serious consideration. You won't find any reputable scholars who hold to traditional authorship. Only Fundagelical types still take those claims seriously.

      Delete
    30. AnonymousJuly 6, 2026 at 11:30 AM

      Thankfully, orthodox religious scholarship has no issue with the Documentary Hypothesis.

      Delete
    31. AnonymousJuly 6, 2026 at 7:51 PM

      Arnold,
      EXE's reply had nothing to do with natural law. He's just confused.

      Delete
    32. ArnoldJuly 7, 2026 at 5:18 PM

      @Anonymous, yup 💯

      Delete
    33. Tim FinlayJuly 9, 2026 at 8:03 AM

      Monotheism is the philosophical claim that there is a metaphysically ultimate BEING which exists necessarily and upon whom all other beings depend for their existence. It is entirely compatible with the existence of superhuman beings such as angels, the gods of other nations, or even Zeus, Hera, Odin, Freya, etc. if these limited beings depended upon BEING for their existence. Several biblical passages present YHWH (the Existent One or perhaps the One who causes existence if YHWH derives from a Hiphil stem) as presiding over a council of gods, after which YHWH does what he wills. Such a council of gods does not conflict with monotheism.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousJune 29, 2026 at 3:51 PM

    The Thomist is a very highly respected philosophy journal, founded almost a century ago.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJune 30, 2026 at 12:14 PM

    Ed must be on his July 4]th vacation or working on his latest book, or maybe both,

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)