editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "{{Author |First Name=Graham |Last Name=Oppy |DOB Approximate=No |DOD Approximate=No |Brief=an Australian philosopher whose main area of research is the philosophy of religion...."
{{Author
|First Name=Graham
|Last Name=Oppy
|DOB Approximate=No
|DOD Approximate=No
|Brief=an Australian philosopher whose main area of research is the philosophy of religion. He currently holds the posts of Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean of Research at Monash University and serves as Associate Editor of the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, and serves on the editorial boards of Philo, Philosopher's Compass, Religious Studies, and Sophia.
|Summary=There seems to be a widespread conviction - evidenced, for example, in the work of Mackie, Dawkins and Sober - that it is Darwinian rather than Humean considerations which deal the fatal logical blow to arguments for intelligent design. I argue that this conviction cannot be well-founded. If there are current logically decisive objections to design arguments,
they must be Humean - for Darwinian considerations count not at all against design arguments based upon apparent cosmological fine-tuning. I argue, further, that there are good Humean reasons for atheists and agnostics to resist the suggestion that apparent design - apparent biological design and/or apparent cosmological fine-tuning - establishes (or even strongly supports) the hypothesis of intelligent design.
|Page Status=Stub
}}
|First Name=Graham
|Last Name=Oppy
|DOB Approximate=No
|DOD Approximate=No
|Brief=an Australian philosopher whose main area of research is the philosophy of religion. He currently holds the posts of Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean of Research at Monash University and serves as Associate Editor of the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, and serves on the editorial boards of Philo, Philosopher's Compass, Religious Studies, and Sophia.
|Summary=There seems to be a widespread conviction - evidenced, for example, in the work of Mackie, Dawkins and Sober - that it is Darwinian rather than Humean considerations which deal the fatal logical blow to arguments for intelligent design. I argue that this conviction cannot be well-founded. If there are current logically decisive objections to design arguments,
they must be Humean - for Darwinian considerations count not at all against design arguments based upon apparent cosmological fine-tuning. I argue, further, that there are good Humean reasons for atheists and agnostics to resist the suggestion that apparent design - apparent biological design and/or apparent cosmological fine-tuning - establishes (or even strongly supports) the hypothesis of intelligent design.
|Page Status=Stub
}}
