DOCSLIB.ORG

God and Design: the Teleological Argument and Modern Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
God and Design: the Teleological Argument and Modern Science GOD AND DESIGN Is there reason to think a supernatural designer made our world? Recent discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biochemistry have captured the public imagination and made the design argument—the theory that God created the world according to a specific plan—the object of renewed scientific and philosophical interest. Terms such as “cosmic fine-tuning,” the “anthropic principle,” and “irreducible complexity” have seeped into public consciousness, increasingly appearing within discussion about the existence and nature of God. This accessible and serious introduction to the design problem brings together both sympathetic and critical new perspectives from prominent scientists and philosophers including Paul Davies, Richard Swinburne, Sir Martin Rees, Michael Behe, Elliott Sober, and Peter van Inwagen. Questions raised include: • What is the logical structure of the design argument? • How can intelligent design be detected in the Universe? • What evidence is there for the claim that the Universe is divinely fine-tuned for life? • Does the possible existence of other universes refute the design argument? • Is evolutionary theory compatible with the belief that God designed the world? God and Design probes the relationship between modern science and religious belief, considering their points of conflict and their many points of similarity. Is God the “master clockmaker” who sets the world’s mechanism on a perfectly enduring course, or a miraculous presence continually intervening in and altering the world we know? Are science and faith, or evolution and creation, really in conflict at all? Expanding the parameters of a lively and urgent contemporary debate, God and Design considers the ways in which perennial questions of origin continue to fascinate and disturb us. Neil A.Manson is Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, and a former Gifford Research Fellow in Natural Theology at the University of Aberdeen. He has a long standing interest in the science and religion debate. GOD AND DESIGN The teleological argument and modern science Neil A.Manson LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2003 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © 2003 Neil A.Manson for selection and editorial material; individual contributors for their contributions All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 0-203-39826-2 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-39960-9 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-26343-3 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-26344-1 (pbk) CONTENTS List of illustrations x Notes on contributors xi Preface xiv Introduction 1 NEIL A.MANSON Classifying the design argument 1 The resurgence of the design argument in the late twentieth 2 century The logic of the design argument 5 Specifying for what the Universe is designed 11 What should we expect from a supernatural designer? 14 The much-maligned multiverse 17 PART I General considerations 24 1 The design argument 25 ELLIOTT SOBER What is the design argument? 26 Clarifications 27 Other formulations of the design argument, and their defects 31 Three objections to the likelihood argument 34 The relationship of the organismic design argument to 40 Darwinism Anthropic reasoning and cosmic design arguments 41 A prediction 47 2 The meaning of design 54 JOHN LESLIE v The miraculous and the natural 56 The place of evil in a designed universe 60 Explaining God: the Platonic approach 62 3 The design inference: old wine in new wineskins 65 ROBERT O’CONNOR Introduction 65 The distinctive strengths of LDA 67 Empirical evidence for design 68 The philosophic assumptions of intelligent design 76 Conclusion 82 4 God by design? 88 JAN NARVESON “Natural” theology and the design argument 88 The cosmological argument 89 Arguments from design: telling creation from non-creation 90 Clarifying “design” 92 The argument from design: mechanisms 93 Design and cosmic purpose 94 Three examples 97 The goodness of God and the badness of theological 100 explanations A note on religion as a social phenomenon 103 5 The argument to God from fine-tuning reassessed 106 RICHARD SWINBURNE Why a world with human bodies is likely if God exists 108 Why a world with human bodies is unlikely if there is no God116 6 Perceiving design 125 DEL RATZSCH Background: Reid 126 Reid and design 128 vi Assessment 132 Implications 137 Some prospects 138 PART II Physical cosmology 146 7 The appearance of design in physics and cosmology 147 PAUL DAVIES 8 Design and the anthropic fine-tuning of the Universe 155 WILLIAM LANE CRAIG Introduction 155 Examples of wider teleology 155 The inference to design 161 The design argument examined 165 Conclusion 175 9 Evidence for fine-tuning 178 ROBIN COLLINS Introduction 178 Definition of and criteria for fine-tuning 179 Six solid cases of fine-tuning 180 Conclusion 190 Appendix: seriously problematic claims in the literature 191 10 Probabilities and the fine-tuning argument: a skeptical 200 view TIMOTHY MCGREW, LYDIA MCGREW, AND ERIC VESTRUP The structure of the argument 201 The normalizability problem 203 Rescues and replies 204 PART III Multiple universes 209 11 Other universes: a scientific perspective 210 MARTIN REES Many “universes”? 210 vii A special recipe? 211 Three interpretations of the apparent “tuning” 211 Are questions about other universes part of science? 213 Scenarios for a multiverse 215 Universal laws, or mere bylaws? 217 Testing multiverse theories here and now 218 12 Too many universes 221 D.H.MELLOR Universes and the multiverse 221 Existence, location, and ultimate explanations 222 Explanations and probabilities 223 A prerequisite of chances 225 An improbable argument 225 Facing the firing squad 226 13 Fine-tuning and multiple universes 229 ROGER WHITE Introduction 229 Probabilistic confirmation 230 Our universe versus some universe 233 Carter’s hypothesis 234 The observational selection effect 235 Improbable and surprising events 238 Leslie’s shooting analogy 240 Conclusion 242 Postscript 243 14 The chance of the gaps 251 WILLIAM DEMBSKI Probabilistic resources 251 Universal probability bounds 253 The inflationary fallacy 255 viii Four widely discussed inflatons 257 Explanatory power and independent evidence 260 Arthur Rubinstein—consummate pianist or lucky poseur? 263 Independent evidence for a designer 265 Closing off quantum loopholes 268 PART IV Biology 275 15 The modern intelligent design hypothesis: breaking 276 rules MICHAEL BEHE Differences from Paley 276 Darwinism and design 278 An “evolved” operon 281 Blood clotting 285 Falsifiability 287 16 Answering the biochemical argument from design 291 KENNETH R.MILLER An exceptional claim 292 Mr Darwin’s workshop 294 Getting to the heart of the matter 297 Whips and syringes 297 Disproving design 299 Caught in the mousetrap 302 Breaking the chain 302 Paley’s ghost 304 17 Modern biologists and the argument from design 307 MICHAEL RUSE Intelligent design 308 The explanatory filter 310 Intelligent design criticized 314 Explanatory filters 317 ix The blind watchmaker 318 Pain 320 Redundancy? 324 Conclusion 325 18 The paradoxes of evolution: inevitable humans in a 328 lonely universe? SIMON CONWAY MORRIS What is best? 329 Hallmarks of creation? 331 What is inevitable? 333 Focusing on convergence 335 Converging brains? 337 Rare Earth? 339 Inevitably lonely? 342 19 The compatibility of Darwinism and design 347 PETER VAN INWAGEN Index 363 ILLUSTRATIONS Tables 1.1 Probabilities of four possible orders, conditional on who orders 49 Figures 11.1 Horizons of observability214 16.1 The Biochemical Argument from Design294 16.2 The Evolution of Biochemical Machines296 16.3 A Living Contradiction to “Irreducible Complexity”298 16.4 Putting Design to the Test300 16.5 The Reducible Flagellum301 16.6 The Reducible Mousetrap303 CONTRIBUTORS Michael Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and the author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Robin Collins is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania. He has written widely on the argument from fine- tuning and is working on a book tentatively entitled The Welltempered Universe: God, Fine-tuning, and the Laws of Nature. Simon Conway Morris is Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Royal Society. He is author of The Crucible of Creation and of Life’s Solution. His search for fossils has taken him to many parts of the world, including China, Mongolia, Australia, and Greenland. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He is author of many journal articles and several books, including Reasonable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
    AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS SCOTT F. AIKIN & NICHOLAOS JONES Vanderbilt University University of Alabama in Huntsville Author posting. (c) European Journal of Philosophy of Religion 7.1 (Spring 2015). This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version is available at http://www.philosophy-of- religion.eu/contents19.html This is a penultimate draft. Please cite only the published version. Abstract The theistic argument from beauty has what we call an ‘evil twin’, the argument from ugliness. The argument yields either what we call ‘atheist win’, or, when faced with aesthetic theodicies, ‘agnostic tie’ with the argument from beauty. 1 AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS I. EVIL TWINS FOR TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS The theistic argument from beauty is a teleological argument. Teleological arguments take the following form: 1. The universe (or parts of it) exhibit property X 2. Property X is usually (if not always) brought about by the purposive actions of those who created objects for them to be X. 3. The cases mentioned in Premise 1 are not explained (or fully explained) by human action 4. Therefore: The universe is (likely) the product of a purposive agent who created it to be X, namely God. The variety of teleological arguments is as broad as substitution instances for X. The standard substitutions have been features of the universe (or it all) fine-tuned for life, or the fact of moral action. One further substitution has been beauty. Thus, arguments from beauty. A truism about teleological arguments is that they have evil twins.
    [Show full text]
  • The Teleological Argument Looks at the Purpose of Something and from That
    The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way The Third Way: contingency and necessity William Paley (1742 – 1805) observed that complex objects work from that he reasons that God must exist. Aquinas (1224 – 1274) the universe works and from there these try to explain why the with regularity, (seasons, gravity, etc). This order seems to be the gave five ‘ways’ of proving God exists and this, his teleological universe exists. Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological Aquinas’ point here is that everything in the universe is result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and arguments, starting with three different (although similar) argument, is the fifth of his five ways. contingent – it relies on something to have brought it into order into place deliberately and with purpose. For example, the observations: motion, causation and contingency. Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things have a existence and also things to let it continue to exist. eye is constructed perfectly to see. For Palely, all of this pointed to purpose, but we cannot achieve that purpose without something The First Way: the unmoved mover a designer, who is God. In nature, there are things that are possible ‘to be’ and to make it happen – some sort of guide, which is God. Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas noticed that the ways in which things ‘not to be’ (contingent beings) The analogy of the watch move or change (changing state is a form of motion) must mean These things could not always have existed because that something has made that motion take place.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing and Strengthening Belief in God I
    DEVELOPING AND STRENGTHENING BELIEF IN GOD I First Cause (Cosmological) and Design (Teleological) Arguments he cornerstone of Jewish belief is that God created the universe ex nihilo with Tthe Torah as His Divine plan and that He continually guides and supervises His creation. Nevertheless, there are many people who do not share this belief, or at least question it. There is a need, therefore, to present a range of approaches to developing and strengthening belief in God. The traditional Jewish approach to belief in God is based on the Exodus from Egypt and hashgachah pratit (Divine Providence). These approaches are discussed in the Morasha classes on Passover, Torah M’Sinai, and Hashgachah Pratit. The goal of this series of classes is to present additional approaches to belief – those based on logic and science – to help strengthen one’s belief in God. Specifically, this series will present three arguments for the existence of God. The first class, after defining the aim of the series on the whole, will explore two deductive arguments for the existence of God, namely the First Cause or Cosmological Argument, and the Design or Teleological Argument. The second class in the series will explore the inductive approach, focusing on the Moral Argument. In order to help students digest the logical force of the arguments presented, the series will conclude with an exploration of the decision making process. In this first class we will explore the following questions: Where did the world come from? Does it make sense that the world always existed? What does modern science have to say about the subject? Does the design found in nature imply that there is a Divine Designer? Does the Theory of Evolution explain this phenomenon? 1 Core Beliefs DEVELOPING & STRENGTHENING BELIEF I Class Outline: Section I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Design Argument
    The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is noting that things we observe in nature, like plants and animals, typically act in ways which are advantageous to themselves. Think, for example, of the way that many plants grow in the direction of light. Clearly, as Aquinas says, plants don’t do this because they know where the light is; as he says, they “lack knowledge.” But then how do they manage this? What does explain the fact that plants grow in the direction of light, if not knowledge? Aquinas’ answer to this question is that they must be “directed to their end” -- i.e., designed to be such as to grow toward the light -- by God.
    [Show full text]
  • Gce a Level Marking Scheme
    GCE A LEVEL MARKING SCHEME SUMMER 2018 A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES - COMPONENT 2 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A120U20-1 © WJEC CBAC Ltd. INTRODUCTION This marking scheme was used by WJEC for the 2018 examination. It was finalised after detailed discussion at examiners' conferences by all the examiners involved in the assessment. The conference was held shortly after the paper was taken so that reference could be made to the full range of candidates' responses, with photocopied scripts forming the basis of discussion. The aim of the conference was to ensure that the marking scheme was interpreted and applied in the same way by all examiners. It is hoped that this information will be of assistance to centres but it is recognised at the same time that, without the benefit of participation in the examiners' conference, teachers may have different views on certain matters of detail or interpretation. WJEC regrets that it cannot enter into any discussion or correspondence about this marking scheme. © WJEC CBAC Ltd. Marking guidance for examiners, please apply carefully and consistently: Positive marking It should be remembered that candidates are writing under examination conditions and credit should be given for what the candidate writes, rather than adopting the approach of penalising him/her for any omissions. It should be possible for a very good response to achieve full marks and a very poor one to achieve zero marks. Marks should not be deducted for a less than perfect answer if it satisfies the criteria of the mark scheme. Exemplars in the mark scheme are only meant as helpful guides.
    [Show full text]
  • Robin Le Poidevin, ARGUING for ATHEISM: an INTRODUCTION to the PHILOSOPHY of RELIGION
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 16 Issue 2 Article 14 4-1-1999 Robin Le Poidevin, ARGUING FOR ATHEISM: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Andrew Eshleman Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Eshleman, Andrew (1999) "Robin Le Poidevin, ARGUING FOR ATHEISM: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 16 : Iss. 2 , Article 14. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199916231 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol16/iss2/14 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. 272 Faith and Philosophy the materialist paradigm, at least with regard to the probJem of continu­ ity between the inorganic and the organic. Griffin might have strength­ ened his thesis by discussing and offering his reasons for rejecting the current work in theoretical biology. Second, for most of us the panexperimentalist solution is so radical that it is hard to imagine what kind of sentience is spread throughout the universe. For example, it is much easier to think of such conditions arising on Earth, but what about the sentience that forms the basis of the nuclear-fusion reactions of the sun, the magma of volcanic eruptions or the vast regions of empty space? In this connection, I doubt many will be persuaded by Griffin's insistence on the distinction between true individuals and aggregational composites of such individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Fermi Estimates: from Harry Potter to ET
    Fermi Estimates: from Harry Potter to ET David Wakeham May 30, 2019 Abstract Some notes on Fermi estimates and methods for doing them, presented at the UBC Physics Circle in May, 2019. We’ll look at various applications, including global computer storage, the length of the Harry Potter novels, and the probability of intelligent aliens in the galaxy. Note: This is a rough draft only; I hope to polish these and add pictures and additional exercises at some point. For any comments, suggestions, or corrections, please get in touch at <[email protected]>. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Why Fermi problems? . 2 1.2 Powers of 10 . 2 2 Fermi problems 4 2.1 Comparison . 4 2.2 Factorisation . 6 2.3 Units . 7 2.4 Piano tuners . 10 3 Aliens 11 3.1 Counting aliens . 12 3.2 Cosmic numbers . 13 1 Introduction I’m going to be talking about Fermi problems: what they are, methods for solving them, and if there’s time, a fun application to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, i.e. aliens we can talk to. Who knows what a Fermi problem is? Has anyone done one before? A Fermi problem is an order of magnitude estimate. Roughly speaking, it means to guess an answer to the nearest power of 10. 1 1.1 Why Fermi problems? Fermi problems are great because the nearest power of 10 is a very forgiving notion of correct- ness, and because they’re so forgiving, we can accurately estimate many things which seem impossible at first sight.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Notation Versus Scientific Notation
    ESTIMATION Chapter 5 Estimation Problems Number of hair on your head? Drops of water in a lake? HafiZ of Quran in the world? Estimation Problems •How many cubic yards of concrete are needed to pave one mile of interstate highway (two lanes each direction) ? •How many feet of wire are needed to connect the lighting systems in an automobile? Enrico Fermi Brilliant scientist and engineer Worked in Manhattan Project Development of Nuclear weapons Witnessed Trinity Test First atomic bomb explosion Enrico Fermi •Nobel laureate •Taught at University of Chicago • Gave students problems: • Much information missing • Solution seemed impossible •Such problems: Fermi problems Trinity Test • After the explosion •Brighter than in full daylight • After a few seconds • Rising flames lost their brightness • Huge pillar of smoke • Rose rapidly beyond the clouds • A height of the order of 30,000 feet Trinity Test •About 40 seconds after the explosion • Dropped small pieces of paper • From a height of 6 feet • Measured displacement of pieces of paper • Shift was about 2½ meters •Fermi estimated the intensity of explosion: • As from ten thousand tons of T.N.T. Trinity Test • calculated the explosion to be 19 kilotons. • By observing the behavior of falling bits of paper ten miles from the ground zero, Fermi's estimation of 10 kilotons was in error by less than a factor of 2. • After the war, Fermi taught at the university of Chicago where he became famous for his unsolvable problems FERMI PROBLEMS • Fermi's problems require the person considering them to determine the answer with far less information than would be necessary to calculate an accurate value.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Argument's for God's Existence Kant's Criticisms O
    Kant’s Arguments for God’s Existence Introduction Background: Three Argument’s for God’s Existence Kant’s criticisms of these three arguments Ground vs. Cause: Kant’s reason for rejecting constructive proofs of God’s existence Kant’s first argument for God’s existence: God’s existence as the foundation of causal explanation Kant’s second argument for God’s existence: Natural orderliness as being grounded in the coherence of God’s mind Kant’s third argument for God’s existence: morality as grounded in the coherence of God’s mind Kant’s arguments for God as transcendental arguments Introduction Kant puts forth three arguments for God’s existence---or, what might be more accurate, three very different versions of a single such argument. Each is original and none has any obvious flaws. This is not to say that they prove what they are meant to prove, only that, if they fail to do so, it is not immediately clear why. Background: Three Argument’s for God’s Existence When philosophers try to prove God’s existence, it is almost always by way of one of the following three arguments: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. Kant rejects each of these arguments, and his own arguments are to be understood in terms of this fact. Right now, I will state and evaluate these arguments, and then I will state and evaluate Kant’s arguments. The ontological argument: God is by definition perfect; failure to exist is an imperfection; therefore, God must exist. Analysis: This argument is a total failure, since all it shows is the truism is that if God existed, then, having as he would every conceivable perfection, he would exist— since, in other words, all it shows is that if God existed, then God would exist.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Heaven Is for Real John 14:1-3 / 10-28-20 / Wed I. Why
    1 HEAVEN IS FOR REAL JOHN 14:1-3 / 10-28-20 / WED I. WHY DON’T NON-RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BELIEVE HEAVEN IS REAL OR THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE? A. For us Baptists and other Christians the Bible is proof enough. But what about people who don’t accept our Bible? B. There are at least six non Biblical arguments for the existence of God, heaven and the afterlife. 1. The Argument From Design also called the “Teleological Argument”. 2. The Argument From Anthropology. 3. The Argument from Cause-Effect also called the “Cosmological Argument”. 4. The Argument From Ontology. 5. The Argument From Morality . 6. Pascal’s Wager. II. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TELL US ABOUT THE REALITY OF HEAVEN? A. There are many people who have said they had a “near-death” experiences then went on to write books and make movies about them. B. Although such movies tickle our curiosity, Billy Graham once said “GoD may give some people a glImpse of heaven, although I belIeve such Instances are rare and need to be treated with caution.” (Answers Dec. 6, 2012). C. Let’s consider 7 things the Bible says about heaven. 1. First, Jesus is in heaven right now—1 Peter 3:21-22. 2. Second, Jesus is preparing a place in heaven for Christians—John 14:2. 3. Third, there millions of angels in heaven—Heb. 12:22. 4. Fourth, our ultimate residence as Christians is to be heaven—Phil. 3:20-21. 5. Fifth, heaven is a place where there will be no more sorrow or pain—Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Gamma Ray Bursts: Back to the Blackboard
    Gamma Ray Bursts: back to the blackboard Maxim Lyutikov Department of Physics, Purdue University, 525 Northwestern Avenue, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2036 Abstract Exceptional observational breakthroughs in the field of Gamma Ray Burst research are not paralleled by theoretical advances. In this re- view, based on the introductory talk given at the "The Shocking Uni- verse" meeting, I argue that any present day model of GRBs, especially of Short type, is grossly incomplete. I will highlight various contradic- tions with observations that many models face and briefly mention a number of ideas that might or might not work. In particular, I will discuss (i) a possibility that early X-ray afterglows are coming from internal dissipation, and not from the forwards shock; (ii) that prompt radiation is beamed in the outflow frame. It is impossible to obtain wages from a republic [...] without having duties attached. [...] so long as I am capable of lecturing and serving, no one in the republic can exempt me from duty arXiv:0911.0349v4 [astro-ph.HE] 3 Feb 2010 while I receive pay. I can hope to enjoy these benefits only from an absolute ruler. 1 Galilei, Opere x, 348 ff 1In modern words, Galilei did not want to teach and write grant applications in the Re- public of Venice, thinking that only monarchy in Florence can give him scientific freedom. As we know, years later he was proven wrong. 1 1 Instead of introduction The launch of Swift satellite (Gehrels, 2004) and ensuing discoveries, recent Fermi results (e.g. on GRB080916C Abdo, 2009), combined with maturing of the fast response GRB observations at other wave lengths, are shaking the foundation of the GRB science (for a recent review, see Gehrels et al., 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Islamic Thought on the Existence of God: Contributions and Contrasts with Contemporary Western Philosophy of Religion
    Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series IIA, Islam, Volume 16 Islamic Thought on the Existence of God: Contributions and contrasts with Contemporary Western Philosophy of Religion by Cafer S. Yaran The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy Copyright © 2003 by The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy Gibbons Hall B-20 620 Michigan Avenue, NE Washington, D.C. 20064 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Yaran, Cafer S. Islamic thought on the existence of God : with contributions from contemporary Western philosophy of religion / by Cafer S. Yaran. p.cm. – (Cultural heritage and contemporary change. Series IIA Islam; vol. 16) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. God (Islam). 2. Islamic cosmology. 3. Philosophy, Islam. 4. Philosophy, Comparative. 5. Philosophy and religion. I. Title II. Series. B745.g63y37 2003 2003015390 212’.1—dc21 CIP ISBN 1-56518-192-1 (pbk.) Table of Contents Foreword V Preface VII Introduction a. Belief in God in Islamic Thought 1 b. The Role of Arguments in Belief in God 4 Part One. The Argument from Religious Experience Chapter I. The Argument from Religious Experience 11 a. Evidence: Experience of the Presence and Activity of God b. Evaluation: Illusion or Reality? Part Two. The Teleological Arguments Chapter II. The Argument from Wisdom (Óikmah) 33 a. Evidence: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe and Its Scientific Laws b. Evaluation: The Many-Worlds Hypotheses, and Divine Design Chapter III. The Argument from Providence (‘Ināyeh) 89 a. Evidence: The Anthropic Nature of the World and Its Beauty b.
    [Show full text]