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)|
References found in this work BETA
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.David Hume - 2007 - In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophical Review. Blackwell. pp. 338-339.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.Daniel C. Dennett & Jon Hodge - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (3):435-438.
Dawkins's Gambit, Hume's Aroma, and God's Simplicity.Erik Wielenberg - 2009 - Philosophia Christi 11 (1):113-127.
Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles.John Earman - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hume and the Argument for Biological Design.Graham Oppy - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):519-534.
Teleological and Design Arguments.Laura L. Garcia - 2010 - In A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Second Edition). Wiley-Blackwell.
Arguments From Design: A Self-Defeating Strategy?Victoria Harrison - 2005 - Philosophia 33 (1-4):297-317.
A User's Guide to Design Arguments.Trent Dougherty & Ted Poston - 2008 - Religious Studies 44 (1):99-110.
Paley's Ipod: The Cognitive Basis of the Design Argument Within Natural Theology.Helen de Cruz & Johan de Smedt - 2010 - Zygon 45 (3):665-684.
The Weak Anthropic Principle and the Design Argument.Joseph M. Zycinski - 1996 - Zygon 31 (1):115-130.
Kant, Hume, Darwin, and Design: Why Intelligent Design Wasn't Science Before Darwin and Still Isn't.Jonathan Loesberg - 2007 - Philosophical Forum 38 (2):95–123.
Added to index2011-03-28
Total downloads73 ( #71,854 of 2,168,938 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,364 of 2,168,938 )
How can I increase my downloads?