Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:55:11.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A user's guide to design arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2008

TRENT DOUGHERTY  and
TED POSTON
TRENT DOUGHERTY
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627
TED POSTON
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that there is a tension between two types of design arguments: the fine-tuning argument (FTA) and the biological design argument (BDA). The tension arises because the strength of each argument is inversely proportional to the value of a certain currently unknown probability. Since the value of that probability is currently unknown, we investigate the properties of the FTA and BDA on different hypothetical values of this probability. If our central claim is correct this suggests three results: (1) It is not very plausible that a cumulative case for theism include both the FTA and the BDA (with one possible qualification); (2) Self-organization scenarios do not threaten theism but in fact provide the materials for a good FTA; (3) A plausible design argument of one sort or another (either FTA or BDA) will be available for a wide variety of values of the key probability.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 99 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Collins, R. (1999) ‘A scientific argument for the existence of God: the fine-tuning design argument’, in Michael, Murray (ed.) Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans).Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. & Rosenkrantz, G. S. (2002) The Divine Attributes (Malden MA: Blackwell)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhl, C. (2006) ‘Fine-tuning is not surprising’, Analysis, 66, 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, J. (1989) Universes (New York NY: Routledge).Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1993) The Origins of Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1995) At Home in the Universe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
McGrew, T., McGrew,, L. & Vestrup, E. (2001) ‘Probabilities and the fine-tuning argument: a sceptical view’, Mind, 110, 1027–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monton, B. (2006) ‘God, fine-tuning, and the problem of old evidence’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1993) Warrant and Proper Function (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poston, T. and Dougherty, T. (2007) ‘Divine hiddenness and the nature of belief’, Religious Studies, 43, 183–198.Google Scholar
Richards, J. W. (2002) ‘Howard J. Van Till's “robust formational economy principle” as a critique of intelligent design theory’, Philosophia Christi, 4, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (2004) Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1991) The Existence of God, revd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1994) The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2004) The Existence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2006) ‘Sobel on arguments from design’, Philosophia Christi, 8, 227–234.Google Scholar
Van Till, H. J. (2002) ‘Is the creation's formational economy incomplete? A response to Jay Wesley Richards’, Philosophia Christi, 4, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierenga, E. (1989) The Nature of God (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar