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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aquinas, T. (1920). Summa Theologica, QQ 1–26 (2nd revised Edn, Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province). London: Burns Oates and Washbourne.
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.
Carroll J. (1994) Laws of nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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 Dame
Dawkins R. (1989) The selfish gene (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford
Frederick D (2010a) Unmotivated intentional action. Philosophical Frontiers 5/1: 21–30
Frederick D. (2010b) Popper and free will. Studia Philosophica Estonica 3.1: 21–38
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 170–175
Hornsby J. (1980) Actions. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Hume, D. (1739/1888). A treatise of human nature, L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hume, D. (1779/1970). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, N. Pike (Ed.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Kant, I. (1781/1933). Critique of pure reason (Trans. N. Kemp Smith, corrected edition). London: Macmillan.
Kuhn T. (1957) The copernican revolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Kuhn, T. (1964/1977). A function for thought experiments. In The essential tension (240–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mackie J. (1982) The miracle of theism. Clarendon, Oxford
Newton, I. (1687/1846). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy (3rd Edn., Trans. A. Motte). New York: Daniel Adee.
Popper K. (1982a) The open universe. Routledge, London
Popper K. (1982b) Quantum theory and the schism in physics. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, NJ
Popper K. (1983) Realism and the aim of science. Routledge, London
Popper K. (1959/2002) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, London
Popper K., Eccles J. (1977) The self and its brain. Springer, London
Priest G. (2006) In contradiction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ridley M. (1994) The red queen. Penguin, London
Russell, B. (1927/1957). Why I am not a Christian. In Why I am Not a Christian (13–26). London: George Allen & Unwin.
Russell, B. (1925/1969). ABC of relativity, 3rd Edn. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frederick, D. A puzzle about natural laws and the existence of God. Int J Philos Relig 73, 269–283 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-012-9343-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-012-9343-8