151
The basic difference between modern and historic positions on rules above human
law has become evident by now: the contemporary authors basically have an immanent approach, while the traditional authors had a transcendental approach to higher
laws. Furthermore, it is also important that different type of superior rules (eternal
law, universal principles, natural law) can be discerned. Therefore, in the following
when I talk about eternal law it is considered transcendental in its nature, when I refer
to universal law/principle or natural law, I consider them to be immanent in their nature.
2.3 Creating One from the Two Standpoints
As was shown, with regards to the content of higher rules, the modern environmental law standpoints and classical natural law approaches do not match each other
perfectly. Only traditional authors were talking about transcendental eternal laws.
What happened with these laws? Two answers are possible here. First, traditional
theorists were wrong and there are no eternal laws above human law at all. Second,
there are eternal laws, but most contemporary scholars ignore them. I’ll argue here
that transcendental eternal laws exist. Furthermore, I’ll also hold that beside transcendental laws, there are also immanent rules above man-made laws. Thus, my
opinion is that the reality in this question is not ‘or-or’, but ‘so-so’. To support this
opinion, in the next section I’ll integrate the findings of several natural sciences.
Finally I will also refer to the theory of the sociologist Pitrim Sorokin.
2.4 Bridging Science and Revelation
In order to show that there are eternal laws above human law, first of all the basic
characteristic of such a legal order should be cleared. If we are just thinking logically, there are at least three requirements which help us to determine what eternal
laws should look like (see Fig. 1).
1. They have to be independent from time. It means that eternal laws should be the
same now, 5000 years ago or 100,000 years into the future. Additionally,
Augustine argues that eternal law can never be altered by any circumstance that
is unchangeable law.
2. Eternal law should be independent from space, which means that these rules
have to be the same everywhere on the Earth, or even in universe(s).
3. Eternal laws have to be independent from the way they are known. It means that
both science and revelation have to lead us, at least to a certain level, to the same
eternal and universal truths.
Based on this presumption the reasoning can be continued by referring to the
findings of natural sciences. In natural sciences there were radical improvements in
the last hundred years; even those cannot be considered as mainstream ideas.
According to a new scientific wave nowadays a paradigm-shift is occurring (Dossey
Quantum Mechanics and Law: What Does Quantum Mechanics Teach Us?
The basic difference between modern and historic positions on rules above human
law has become evident by now: the contemporary authors basically have an immanent approach, while the traditional authors had a transcendental approach to higher
laws. Furthermore, it is also important that different type of superior rules (eternal
law, universal principles, natural law) can be discerned. Therefore, in the following
when I talk about eternal law it is considered transcendental in its nature, when I refer
to universal law/principle or natural law, I consider them to be immanent in their nature.
2.3 Creating One from the Two Standpoints
As was shown, with regards to the content of higher rules, the modern environmental law standpoints and classical natural law approaches do not match each other
perfectly. Only traditional authors were talking about transcendental eternal laws.
What happened with these laws? Two answers are possible here. First, traditional
theorists were wrong and there are no eternal laws above human law at all. Second,
there are eternal laws, but most contemporary scholars ignore them. I’ll argue here
that transcendental eternal laws exist. Furthermore, I’ll also hold that beside transcendental laws, there are also immanent rules above man-made laws. Thus, my
opinion is that the reality in this question is not ‘or-or’, but ‘so-so’. To support this
opinion, in the next section I’ll integrate the findings of several natural sciences.
Finally I will also refer to the theory of the sociologist Pitrim Sorokin.
2.4 Bridging Science and Revelation
In order to show that there are eternal laws above human law, first of all the basic
characteristic of such a legal order should be cleared. If we are just thinking logically, there are at least three requirements which help us to determine what eternal
laws should look like (see Fig. 1).
1. They have to be independent from time. It means that eternal laws should be the
same now, 5000 years ago or 100,000 years into the future. Additionally,
Augustine argues that eternal law can never be altered by any circumstance that
is unchangeable law.
2. Eternal law should be independent from space, which means that these rules
have to be the same everywhere on the Earth, or even in universe(s).
3. Eternal laws have to be independent from the way they are known. It means that
both science and revelation have to lead us, at least to a certain level, to the same
eternal and universal truths.
Based on this presumption the reasoning can be continued by referring to the
findings of natural sciences. In natural sciences there were radical improvements in
the last hundred years; even those cannot be considered as mainstream ideas.
According to a new scientific wave nowadays a paradigm-shift is occurring (Dossey
Quantum Mechanics and Law: What Does Quantum Mechanics Teach Us?