Religious Studies:1-7 (forthcoming)

Authors
Joel Ballivian
Western Michigan University
Abstract
There are at least two kinds of design arguments for theism: fine-tuning arguments and biological design arguments. Dougherty and Poston have argued that the success of one requires the failure of the other, and vice versa. The reason is that the success of these arguments hinges on the following crucial probability: the probability that biological life exists somewhere in the universe given that our universe is finely tuned and that biological development is unguided by intelligence. According to Dougherty and Poston, fine-tuning arguments require that the crucial probability is high while biological design arguments require that the crucial probability is low. As a result, at most one of these design arguments can factor into a cumulative case argument for theism. I argue that this is mistaken. Specifically, I show that fine-tuning arguments can succeed even if the crucial probability is low.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0034412519000374
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,944
External links

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

A User's Guide to Design Arguments.Trent Dougherty & Ted Poston - 2008 - Religious Studies 44 (1):99-110.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A User's Guide to Design Arguments.Trent Dougherty & Ted Poston - 2008 - Religious Studies 44 (1):99-110.
Four (Or So) New Fine-Tuning Arguments.Lydia McGrew - 2016 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 8 (2):85--106.
Hume and the Argument for Biological Design.Graham Oppy - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):519-534.
Fine-Tuning Fine-Tuning.John Hawthorne & Yoaav Isaacs - 2018 - In Matthew A. Benton, John Hawthorne & Dani Rabinowitz (eds.), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 136-168.
Should We Care About Fine-Tuning?Jeffrey Koperski - 2005 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):303-319.
The Design Argument.Elliott Sober - 2019 - Cambridge University Press.
A Theological Critique of the Fine-Tuning Argument.Hans Halvorson - 2018 - In Matthew A. Benton, John Hawthorne & Dani Rabinowitz (eds.), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 122-135.
An Introduction to Design Arguments.Benjamin C. Jantzen - 2014 - Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-08-24

Total views
40 ( #281,191 of 2,498,160 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #80,465 of 2,498,160 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes