A puzzle about natural laws and the existence of God

Article

Abstract

The existence of natural laws, whether deterministic or indeterministic, and whether exceptionless or ceteris paribus, seems puzzling because it implies that mindless bits of matter behave in a consistent and co-ordinated way. I explain this puzzle by showing that a number of attempted solutions fail. The puzzle could be resolved if it were assumed that natural laws are a manifestation of God’s activity. This argument from natural law to God’s existence differs from its traditional counterparts in that, whereas the latter seek to explain the fact of natural laws, the former seeks to explain their possibility. The customary objections to the traditional arguments cannot be successfully adapted to counter this new argument, with one exception which has only limited effect. I rebut four claims that the theistic solution to the puzzle about natural laws is paradoxical, though I concede that one of these claims has merit. I consider four objections to the new argument but find three of them more or less unsatisfactory. The fourth, if successful, would undermine our claims to know the truth about the world.

Keywords

Ceteris paribus Chance Commands God Natural laws Necessity Possibility Science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aquinas, T. (1920). Summa Theologica, QQ 1–26 (2nd revised Edn, Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province). London: Burns Oates and Washbourne.Google Scholar
  2. Berkovitz, J. (2008). Action at a distance in quantum mechanics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Downloaded on 30 January 2011 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/qm-action-distance.
  3. Carroll J. (1994) Laws of nature. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartwright N. (2009) God’s order, man’s order and the order of nature. In: Bersanelli M., van Inwagen P., Harper C. (eds) Science, reason and truth. University Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawkins R. (1989) The selfish gene (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Frederick D (2010a) Unmotivated intentional action. Philosophical Frontiers 5/1: 21–30Google Scholar
  7. Frederick D. (2010b) Popper and free will. Studia Philosophica Estonica 3.1: 21–38Google Scholar
  8. Hempel C. (1958) Some reflections on “the case for determinism”. In: Hook S. (eds) Determinism and freedom in the age of modern science. Collier Macmillan, London, pp 170–175Google Scholar
  9. Hornsby J. (1980) Actions. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hume, D. (1739/1888). A treatise of human nature, L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hume, D. (1779/1970). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, N. Pike (Ed.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  12. Kant, I. (1781/1933). Critique of pure reason (Trans. N. Kemp Smith, corrected edition). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn T. (1957) The copernican revolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. (1964/1977). A function for thought experiments. In The essential tension (240–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mackie J. (1982) The miracle of theism. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Newton, I. (1687/1846). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy (3rd Edn., Trans. A. Motte). New York: Daniel Adee.Google Scholar
  17. Popper K. (1982a) The open universe. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Popper K. (1982b) Quantum theory and the schism in physics. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. Popper K. (1983) Realism and the aim of science. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Popper K. (1959/2002) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Popper K., Eccles J. (1977) The self and its brain. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Priest G. (2006) In contradiction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ridley M. (1994) The red queen. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Russell, B. (1927/1957). Why I am not a Christian. In Why I am Not a Christian (13–26). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  25. Russell, B. (1925/1969). ABC of relativity, 3rd Edn. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BostonUK

Personalised recommendations