Why do many, if not most contemporary philosophers (especially naturalist

Why do many, if not most contemporary philosophers (especially naturalist

Why do many, if not most contemporary philosophers (especially naturalist analytical ones à la Quine) believe in the existence of a set of unchanging natural laws despite the fact that this assertion has not, and probably cannot, be substantiated? By 'natural laws,' I mean laws like those associated with physics, etc. rather than laws dictating which sorts of inferential deductions are valid/invalid. Would this belief fare better when faced with a Russell's teacup-style argument than theism does?

Read another response by Yuval Avnur
Read another response about Science