Book Club: The Mind of the Maker, 1:The Laws of Nature & Opinion

Dorothy Sayers begins chapter 1 of The Mind of the Maker by saying that the word "law" has two distinct meanings and when people use/read that word they may or may not have the correct meaning in mind in relation to the context.  This is cause for confusion, says Dorothy.

The two meanings are arbitrary and necessary.  Briefly, arbitrary is a regulation made by man with the consent of man.  Things like Roman Law, the laws of civilization, and the laws governing the game of cricket (or football to us Americans).  Arbitrary laws are not necessary in that, if a football is run by a player into the end zone but the six points are not awarded, it doesn't cause a cataclysmic affect on the world.  The rules can be changed, and if everyone is in agreement, the game is operated under the new rules.

Necessary law is that which creates unalterable consequences if broken (put your hand in a fire and it will be burnt).   Necessary law includes those things than express tendency.  These could be historical fact (Grimm's Law) and physical fact (an apple falling from a tree will hit the ground unless something (Newton?) arrests it in mid-fall.)  Historical fact expresses something that has happened (and one might imagine a world in which it did not happen and the world would remain substantially the same), and physical fact expresses something that does happen (and imagining a world in which it doesn't would be very unlike our world).

Confusion occurs when the word "law" is used to describe these two very different things (an arbitrary code and a statement of unalterable fact about the nature of the universe).  Dorothy says it is at its worst when we talk of moral law.

She says there is a universal moral law (distinct from moral code) by which man enjoys true freedom.  The closer the moral code is to this universal moral law (UML), the more it makes for freedom in human behavior.  The more widely it departs, the more it enslaves mankind (and produces catastrophes called Judgments of God).   Dorothy says that UML is discoverable by experience.  The moral code can be written to prevent man from doing violence to his own nature.  Unlike matter, which isn't tempted to diverge from its own nature, man continually suffers this temptation.

Societies may agree or disagree on these, however, the closer it adheres to them, the more the people will flourish.  In creating the universe, God put this UML into motion, and because it was made that way, it cannot be altered just as the law of gravity cannot be altered.

A creed claims to be statements of fact about the universe as we know it.  As we make an intelligent apprehension of what the creed is saying and what it means, it enables us to decide if it is or is not a witness of universal truth.

That is my summary of chapter one.  I think I understand what she is saying.  Something came to mind while reading about UML; I am hesitant to write about it because it is somewhat controversial today.  It was the first time I saw, in physical terms, the intent behind God's law.  I tended toward a view of God as a critical, judgmental Father with a set of rules I really didn't understand.  In the early 1980's as the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome began to spread rapidly, devastating whole specific communities with the disease and death, I "got the picture."  God's laws are intended to protect us.  They are for our good.  They are not arbitrary.  I felt I could trust Him more with this greater understanding of Him.

I appreciate all the foundational work Dorothy is giving us.  I think it is particularly relevant today.  Who hasn't heard, "You can't legislate morality."  in their political discussions?  This gives me a broader but more stable framework for discussions like this.

Am I even on target with what Dorothy is communicating in this chapter?  I'm not sure.