> The ground here is even shakier because ancient philosophy/natural science
> did not really think in terms of natural laws. I'm not even sure the Greeks
> used the word "nomos" with reference to nature at all, or the Romans "lex."
> I think that starts in the Middle Ages, when they believed in a Law-Giver,
> which the pagans did not. Modern science tends to use the Law-Giver
> metaphysical framework whether it's conscious of it or not, as can be seen
> in the Intelligent Design debate (where it seems to be assumed that
> order-imposed-from-wthout and order-spontaneously-arising-from-within are
> the only two options).
>
>
Yeah, you're absolutely right - which is one reason that I always get
annoyed when people relatives the important advances made by Christianity
and other monotheistic religions in favour of some stagnant Eastern
hocus-pocus.
What I think you'll find in non-monotheistic religions is reference to forces in nature - even if they don't use those terms - which resemble what we would today recognise as spirits of some sort. Our hard scientific laws aren't too dissimilar from these belief/epistemological systems, but - like monotheism - they are a structural advance, the result of a variety of epistemological breaks.