Although some traditionalist scholars like Malik Ibn Anas, the fourth jurisprudential leader, observed the attitude of having blind faith and not asking questions when challenged with difficulty, the holy Qur’an has repeatedly told mankind to ask questions and reflect.
Unfortunately for Dawkins, we theists don’t need to take a leap of faith when it comes to this question. Many often accept His existence and other religious beliefs without question, blindly following ancient interpretations which have been passed down for generations. To many, the existence of God is a given, even a default. There is some merit to that claim as the earthly religious distribution testifies greatly to it.
Theists are often stereotyped to inheriting their religious beliefs or being indoctrinated from childhood to believing in God. Contemporary intellectuals by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have constantly used the following premises as arguments against the cosmological proof for God’s existence:Īs appealing as their argument may seem at face value, upon brief critical thinking, it is easily refutable. The question of who created God, a rather simple question, is often reiterated by neo-Atheists in order to disprove God’s existence. Most of the time, judges seem to understand their task pretty well, so long as they don't overthink it.Problem of Infinite Regression: Who Created God? Third, even if it's true that there remain some unprovided-for cases under the Law of Interpretation, we don't see that as a fatal flaw so much as some fraying around the edges. When courts encounter two potentially conflicting federal statutes, they don't simply throw up their hands and say "dueling statutes!" So, too, it should be with conflicting canons. When the canons are understood as maxims, proverbs or pieces of advice, it's easy to see them as vaguely conflicting, like the sayings that "haste makes waste" and that "he who hesitates is lost." But how different legal rules interact with one another is itself a question to be settled by law. Second, understanding the canons as law also helps us to see how seemingly contradictory canons can fit together. In the paper, we argue:įirst, the law of interpretation has devices for resolving residual indeterminacy-that's what closure rules do, as well as the more practical "authority rules" like the rules that courts resolve disputed cases as best they can. And so on.Īs a specific matter, I'm not convinced that there's an infinite regress problem in the law of interpretation. Folks who dispute the validity of the judgment can agree on the jurisdictional statute. Folks who dispute the validity of the debt can agree on the judgment. We often have a thick nesting of legal rules-a debt obligation that comes from a judgment that comes from a court's judicial power that comes from a jurisdictional statute that comes from Congress that comes from an election that comes from the Constitution that comes from some kind of popular will, to take a simple example.īut the regress isn't infinite. (Indeed, here's a short essay laying out the criticism.) As I understand it, the argument is that the law of interpretation will itself need to be interpreted, and so we will have new interpretive disputes, which will need new laws of interpretation, and so on.Īs a general matter, I think it's important to distinguish regress from infinite regress. Several readers have suggested that The Law of Interpretation is vulnerable to a problem of infinite regress.
0 kommentar(er)
