Would the law of nature hold even if there were no God?

Translation: quotations from Hugo Grotius are quoted in Ralph van Deman Magoffin's 1916 English translation; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition), not his original words.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Ralph van Deman Magoffin's 1916 English translation): Hugo Grotius believed that the law of nature holds independently of divine will, as he argues that God will not prosper those who violate it, but also that men will punish such violations, implying the law has validity beyond divine sanction. (key quote above) [1]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that the law of nature is unalterable and not dependent on God's will, as it is grounded in the nature of things themselves. He argued that the law of nature remains valid even if God were to command otherwise, because it is based on inherent qualities and truths. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that the law of nature holds independently of divine will, as he distinguished it from divine voluntary right, which he said springs from the divine will. He argued that the law of nature is not dependent on God's will but is instead derived from experience and time, as observed by Dio Chrysostom. [3]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that the law of nature and of nations is founded upon the fear of God and obedience to His will. He argued that in the absence of God, the law of nature would lose its divine foundation and thus would not hold as a standard of right. (key quote above) [4]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that the law of nature is perpetual and springs from the nature of man as man, not from divine authority. He argued that denying these laws implies a repudiation of human nature itself, regardless of divine authority. "Those laws which are perpetual, which spring from the nature of man as man, and not from his particular civil relations, continue even during strife and constitute the laws of war." [5]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Hugo Grotius argued that the law of nature is grounded in the nature of things themselves and is unalterable, even by God. [2]

2. He distinguished the law of nature from divine voluntary right, which he said springs from the divine will, but the law of nature is derived from reason and experience. [3]

3. However, he also stated that the law of nature and of nations is founded upon the fear of God and obedience to His will, implying that without God, the law would lose its divine foundation. [4]

4. This creates a tension: the law of nature is presented as independent of divine will in some passages, but in others, it is tied to the divine foundation. [2] [4]

5. The record does not resolve this tension definitively, as Grotius's statements are internally inconsistent. [2] [4]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on whether the law of nature would hold in the absence of God, but it shows that Grotius presented conflicting views. Some passages suggest the law of nature is independent of divine will, while others tie it to the divine foundation.

Extrapolation: Hugo Grotius likely believed the law of nature would still hold in the absence of God, as it is grounded in reason and the nature of things. However, he also suggested that without God, the law would lose its divine foundation and thus not hold as a standard of right.

Competing readings: One reading is that the law of nature is independent of divine will and would hold regardless of God's existence. Another is that the law of nature is tied to the divine foundation and would not hold without God. The record itself supports both readings.

Confidence: Moderate, due to the conflicting statements in the record and the lack of a definitive resolution.