Laws of Nature VS Laws of Man

Distinction between Laws of Nature and Laws of Man

Dr Dalvinder Singh Grewal

 

"Nature is typified by strength; humanity by weakness. Nature adheres to an immutable order; humanity to an ever-increasing chaos. Nature recognizes no equality at any level of it's order; humanity preaches an all-prevasive equality and freely hands-out unearned "rights" in an attempt to make its doctrine a living reality. In short: humanity is Democratic, nature is Fascist."ⁱ

“Don't shrink from natures brutal perfection. Take joy in it. Embrace it. Understand it and revel in it. Respect it's strength, it's wisdom, it's brutality and it's all-encompassing power. The highest law has always been, and shall be, nature; and the greatest wisdom forever lives in and through nature's eternal Fascism.” -- Boyd Rice, Standing in Two Circles: The Collected Works

The laws of man are very different from the laws of nature. While the laws of man seek to order and control individual and social behavior so as to make communal life less risky, the laws of Nature are deduced from long-term observation of repeatable patterns and trends. While the laws of man may vary from culture to culture: based as they are on moral values that lack universal standards; the laws of Nature aim at universality; at uncovering behaviors that are true - in the sense of being verifiable - across time and space. Thus, while certain cultural trends that are accepted in one group may seem barbaric to others (such as female circumcision), stars across the Universe have been burning according to the same rules since they've first appeared some 200 million years after the Big Bang. Likewise, while in some countries the death penalty is abhorrent and in others it is exercised with almost fanatical zest, atoms and molecules across trillions of planets and moons in this and other galaxies combine and recombine in chemical reactions that follow patterns of order based on well-defined laws of conservation and of attraction and repulsion.

The variation in the laws of man shows that we know little of ourselves and of what are, or should be, truly universal moral standards. On the other hand, the apparent certainty of the natural laws seem to confer a sense of trust and finality to the laws of Nature that has inspired many a movement to use them as a basis for all laws, including the laws of man. The Enlightenment, of course, is a well-known example. Fortunately, the quantum revolution of the early twentieth century was quick to show that the overconfidence of a clockwork determinism was greatly exaggerated; there is uncertainty in the Universe and any hope of making physics into an oracle is doomed to fail.

Laws of man can change while the laws of nature do not. If any law of nature is found to be changing it might be it might not have been defined rightly originally. Any Nartural Law defined rightly at the origin stage will never change. We know that if the laws of Nature do change, they haven't in a very long time.

---------------------------------------

ⁱ Boyd Rice, Standing in Two Circles: The Collected Works