David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Sophia 51 (1):31-57 (2012)
Richard Dawkins has a dilemma when it comes to design arguments. On the one hand, he maintains that it was Darwin who killed off design and so implies that his rejection of design depends upon the findings of modern science. On the other hand, he follows Hume when he claims that appealing to a designer does not explain anything and so implies that rejection of design need not be based on the findings of modern science. These contrasting approaches lead to the following dilemma: if he claims that Darwinism is necessary for rejecting design, he has no satisfactory response to design arguments based on the order in the laws of physics or the fine-tuning of the physical constants; alternatively, if Humean arguments are doing most of the work, this would undermine one of his main contentions, that atheism is justified by science and especially by evolution. In any case, his Humean arguments do not provide a more secure basis for his atheism because they are seriously flawed. A particular problem is that his argument for the improbability of theism rests on a highly questionable application of probability theory since, even if it were sound, it would only establish that the prior probability of God’s existence is low, a conclusion which is compatible with the posterior probability of God’s existence being high
|Keywords||Design argument Probability Evolution Fine-tuning Darwin Hume|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Erik Wielenberg (2009). Dawkins's Gambit, Hume's Aroma, and God's Simplicity. Philosophia Christi 11 (1):113-127.
Richard Swinburne (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press.
David Hume (2007). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophical Review. Blackwell Pub. Ltd. 338-339.
Daniel C. Dennett & Jon Hodge (1997). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (3):435-438.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Graham Oppy (1996). Hume and the Argument for Biological Design. Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):519-534.
Laura L. Garcia (2010). Teleological and Design Arguments. In A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Second Edition). Wiley Blackwell
Victoria Harrison (2005). Arguments From Design: A Self-Defeating Strategy? Philosophia 33 (1-4):297-317.
Richard Swinburne (2004). Design Defended. Think 6 (6):13 - 17.
Bruce H. Weber (2011). Design and its Discontents. Synthese 178 (2):271 - 289.
Trent Dougherty & Ted Poston (2008). A User's Guide to Design Arguments. Religious Studies 44 (1):99-110.
Helen de Cruz & Johan de Smedt (2010). Paley's Ipod: The Cognitive Basis of the Design Argument Within Natural Theology. Zygon 45 (3):665-684.
John Kronen & Sandra Menssen (2012). Hylomorphism and Design. Modern Schoolman 89 (3-4):155-180.
David B. Myers (2000). New Design Arguments: Old Millian Objections. Religious Studies 36 (2):141-162.
Joseph M. Zycinski (1996). The Weak Anthropic Principle and the Design Argument. Zygon 31 (1):115-130.
Jonathan Loesberg (2007). Kant, Hume, Darwin, and Design: Why Intelligent Design Wasn't Science Before Darwin and Still Isn't. Philosophical Forum 38 (2):95–123.
Jürgen Friedrich (1996). Design Science 97. AI and Society 10 (2):199-217.
Added to index2011-03-28
Total downloads69 ( #61,926 of 1,906,922 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #129,894 of 1,906,922 )
How can I increase my downloads?