Synaesthesia

Certainly how the universe produces order is of interest to the naturalist, even if we assume the universe's regularity. Theories like biological evolution have been developed for this very reason.

As to the question of WHY the universe can be described according to laws, I for one would not respond "just because." I would say, "I think we need to find a better question."

The solipsist position is not nearly as strong as the naturalistic one. Simply because we cannot establish the correspondence of our perception to our ontology with absolute certaintly, the solipsist assumes that nothing is at all like it seems. It is a reactionary and self-defeating position.

Occam's razor is an essential component of our epistemic methodology, it certainly applies to our belief in objects, in a material world. Yes, solipsism involves fewer entities. However, since it is an approach that results from and yields only confusion, that fact alone isn't grounds for accepting it as more parsimonious.

The solipsist can therefore accepts scientific theories as corresponding, being isomorphic, to some internal state of affairs. The solipsist simply makes the additional assumption that the appearence of independant reality is a complex and systematically deceptive illusion. The solipsist is in a position very similar to that of the conspiracy theorist. Both can be defended ad hoc ad nausiem, but neither ultimately have anything to offer in the way of understanding.

Yet solipsists eat and sleep and have relationships. Human beings are truly brilliant bringing idiocy to new levels. I suspect we could compete with even the most advanced extra terrestrial race in that respect.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Transworldly Depraved

Tercel:

You said:

This would seem to suggest another atheological argument.

1. Created entities have features A, B, C, and D
2. The universe does not have A, B, C, and D
(Because it "is not sufficiently similar" to
created entities)
3. Therefore it is unlikely that the universe
was created.

With regard to panentheism, you said:

Here is a quote from William Hasker's Metaphysics:

Later, he says:

Further, the kind of "dualism" espoused by some panentheists is called "panexperientialism". If I understand them correctly, it is simply a form of "panpsychism". The latter basically claims that everything that exists has both mental and physical properties (or some similar claim). I am not sure whether panentheism requires any sort of panpsychist view however.