--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As I understand his point, he's asking why there should > be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in > the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we > learn more is beside the point.) > > Or to put it another way, why *don't* we reify the > laws of physics? > > It's similar to the old question, Why is there something > rather than nothing? except that Davies's question is, > Why is there something orderly rather than something > random? > > We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly > as a given; but how is that different from taking the > existence of God as a given? > > The only real difference is that religionists label the > big question mark "God," whereas science doesn't put a > label on it. > > But that doesn't make the question disappear. Davies > finds it odd that all of science rests on that > unanswered question.
I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of "Unity" and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol*
