'Paley's iPod: The cognitive basis of the design argument within natural theology'

lukeprog

De Cruz & de Smedt (2010) tries to explain, using cognitive science, why many people find design arguments so compelling. Abstract:

The argument from design stands as one of the most intuitively compelling arguments for the existence of a divine Creator. Yet, for many scientists and philosophers, Hume’s critique and Darwin’s theory of natural selection have definitely undermined the idea that we can draw any analogy from design in artifacts to design in nature. Here, we examine empirical studies from developmental and experimental psychology to investigate the cognitive basis of the design argument. From this it becomes clear that humans spontaneously discern purpose in nature. When constructed theologically and philosophically correctly, the design argument is not presented as conclusive evidence for God’s existence but rather as an abductive, probabilistic argument. We examine the cognitive basis of probabilistic judgments in relationship to natural theology. Placing emphasis on how people assess improbable events, we clarify the intuitive appeal of Paley’s watch analogy. We conclude that the reason why some scientists find the design argument compelling and others do not lies not in any intrinsic differences in assessing design in nature but rather in the prior probability they place on complexity being produced by chance events or by a Creator. This difference provides atheists and theists with a rational basis for disagreement

De Cruz & de Smedt (2010) tries to explain, using cognitive science, why many people find design arguments so compelling. Abstract:

The argument from design stands as one of the most intuitively compelling arguments for the existence of a divine Creator. Yet, for many scientists and philosophers, Hume’s critique and Darwin’s theory of natural selection have definitely undermined the idea that we can draw any analogy from design in artifacts to design in nature. Here, we examine empirical studies from developmental and experimental psychology to investigate the cognitive basis of the design argument. From this it becomes clear that humans spontaneously discern purpose in nature. When constructed theologically and philosophically correctly, the design argument is not presented as conclusive evidence for God’s existence but rather as an abductive, probabilistic argument. We examine the cognitive basis of probabilistic judgments in relationship to natural theology. Placing emphasis on how people assess improbable events, we clarify the intuitive appeal of Paley’s watch analogy. We conclude that the reason why some scientists find the design argument compelling and others do not lies not in any intrinsic differences in assessing design in nature but rather in the prior probability they place on complexity being produced by chance events or by a Creator. This difference provides atheists and theists with a rational basis for disagreement

I don't find "it's different priors" a "rational basis for disagreement" at all! It's merely a conversation-stopper. Peoples' assignments of priors have causal histories, and sometimes even actual reasoning behind them! Find those and at least we can start talking again. Assigning priors isn't some mystical process - probability always comes from the information you have, some people just start with different sets of information.

I read that as the point that was being made - instead of arguing cross-purposes, a theist and an atheist might actually be able to agree that the point on which they diverge is that prior, and then argue about that instead.

4

'Paley's iPod: The cognitive basis of the design argument within natural theology'

4

4

4

'Paley's iPod: The cognitive basis of the design argument within natural theology'

4

4