So true, PH! Yet it seems that we are glossing over important distinctions here: If all things are "determined" by natural law, what is it that "determines" natural law such that it "governs" all things? In other words, if natural law operates as a cause, what caused it? Or are we even sure that natural law is a cause? I thought it was very perceptive of Wolfhart Pannenberg (in the essay at the top of this thread) to suggest that natural laws are not themselves causes; rather they are descriptions of regularies that arise in nature as the result of contingent events that are constantly taking place (e.g., Brownian motion).
I think you're on to something when you say that "given the laws of nature, one might even say that the appearance of life is inevitable." Indeed, one might say that. But in saying it, one is suggesting a certain teleology is at work in nature, that nature seeks as its goal the rise of life. If we are speaking of nature having "goals," then what do we really mean by this? Only self-conscious beings seem to have goals. Is nature a self-conscious being? Or could it be the manifold or medium in which a supernatural consciousness works to achieve its goal or purpose?
Please note this last question is not a "religious question," strictly speaking. Though it has implications for theology, and also for a consideration of the possibility whether this universe has a metaphysical extension.
I knew when I posted that piece that someone might look it over and say: "Aha! For things to be determined requires a Determiner!" This is right in line with "Natural laws require a law-giver." But neither is true. At least not necesarily true.
If, as I've said before, natural laws are inherent in the very fact of existence (a photon is a photon and thus behaves as a photon behaves), then things are merely doing what they do, and not as some external Determiner directs that they should do. In other words, a photon doesn't need to be reminded that it's a photon, and not an electron.
Indeed, one might say that [life is inevitable]. But in saying it, one is suggesting a certain teleology is at work in nature, that nature seeks as its goal the rise of life. If we are speaking of nature having "goals," then what do we really mean by this? Only self-conscious beings seem to have goals. Is nature a self-conscious being?
Not necessarily. It's not only the emergence of life which is (or which may be) inevitable. Stars are inevitable too. And planets. And rocks. Everything flows naturally from the moment of creation. Nothing is necessarily the result goal-seeking (which gratuitously introduces what may be an unnecessary Goal Seeker). Is it really required that the Great Determiner (or Goal-Seeker) must ordain that rocks shall exist?
Stars, planets, rocks, and life are all, in my (limited?) Aristotlean view, the natural (and perhaps inevitable) consequences of pre-existing conditions. I'm suggesting that only causality is at work, not teleology. Sometimes, when we look back on a long sequence of natural cause-and-effect events, teleology may seem to have been involved, but this may be an illusion of the retrospective viewpoint.
There is room in my billiard-ball, totally determined universe (and maybe also a necessity) for some kind of First Cause at the moment of creation. But after that, the apparent necessity gets fuzzy. At least in my current thinking. I'm talking about science here. Religion is a separate matter.