“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”

Yes, but if you already know the answer you want there's no need to concern yourself with learning anything new.

Not shooting the messenger, he didn't even follow his own advice; A great concept for all endeavors - thoughts, actions, etc. I was just speaking with a leading Pathologist and they said there is a whole body of science beyond the eyes if you can let go of academia's preconceived notions. Among other topics that come to mind, the body politic is here impacted. To follow humbly the laws of nature and of nature's God is an education in freedom, liberty and a sovereign's personal rights. To follow man's preconceived notion of law and order or prepared tyranny in ignorance (for power, the ease of it, some misplaced self serving moral, a perceived security or material gain, to be a collectivist lemming or member of the borg herd, etc.) leads to abysses in despotism.

The hardest part is giving up preconceived notions.

An excellent peice of advice. To think it's a waste of time if you "already know the answer," you've missed the point completely.

Mike, you should know very few follow their own advice. I wonder indeed if extraterrestrial's, which a scientist said (the other day) 'their is evidence of their existence', believe in this same "nature's God" Will we have Galactic wars fighting over who's God rules the Universe. I just prey that if we are contacted by ET's that we are humble enough to leave our God our of the conversation. The laws of nature are summed up in one word and it is this one word that is absolute across the galaxy, Plato and Socrates spoke of it - the Form of GOOD - yes, I mean Good not God - who then does have the correct notion of Law? The "Form" is immutable, absolute, it needs no reference. If you have read Plato's Republic you will have some idea where he is going regarding "Forms". Their is much in the book I disagree with but many learned and well educated scientists and philosophers have referred to Plato's theory of "Forms" as having substance.

RBESRQ, I don't think you know what you're talking about. The platonic "form" was a basic epistemological and metaphysical rejection of "substance". Very few "scientists" or "philosophers" actually base their political or legal theory on platonism (i.e. neo-platonism). If you want to actually have a substantial concept of political philosophy's claim of natural law -- look to Aristotle, not Plato.

RBESRQ, a belief in a g(G)od has little, to nothing to do with "the laws of nature or of nature's God". The use of nature's God here is a reference to the founders understanding of natural law. Said natural law reference by the founders was more closely related to Locke than previous Greeks. The natural law of nature's God differed from Locke in that it was understood as a self evident truth beyond moral relativism, a measure absolute such as gravity or fiscal law. As to your humble hope of leaving our God out of the conversation, we've done that now in Amerika's schools and look how things are going (the reference to nature's God means alien life forms are subject to our God because all are subject to the same law). Said reference ultimately means law existed before man and man is incapable of creating law. Philosophy differs from science in that there are no absolutes in philosophy - every thing can be argued. Man's codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. can always be argued. At law, if you step off a cliff, gravity applies or, spend more than you can pay back, fiscal law applies. Man can legislate gravity's suspension, or invest in stimuluses beyond possibility of pay back and the law of nature and of nature's God is going to prevail.