Balet Dawkinsa w ogrodzie Teologii. Uwagi krytyczne w sprawie racjonalności głównych twierdzeń dotyczących wymiaru poznawczego twierdzeń o Bogu, zawartych w książce Richarda Dawkinsa Bóg urojony (cz. II)
Abstract
DAWKINS’ BALLET IN THE GARDEN OF THEOLOGY. A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD DAWKINS’ EPISTEMOLOGICAL THESES ON THEISTIC BELIEFS FROM THE GOD DELUSION. PART II
My paper presents an analysis and assessment of Richard Dawkins’ assumption from his book The God Delusion that there are no reason against treating belief in God as a scientific hypothesis, because even if the God existence is not disprovable, we could and maybe should ask if His existence is probable or highly improbable. My first aim is to examine Dawkins' argumentation against if he is aware multiple possible ways interpretation of the claim that religious belief in God, construed as the hypothesis that existence of Creator may be treated as a scientific kind of hypothesis. My second aim is to show a nature of relation between his scientific God-hypothesis and his criticism of Thomas Henry Huxley agnosticism. I maintain that the he can't treat his probabilistic account of theism/atheism controversy as a ground for possible evidence for his controversial claim, that scientific knowledge could solve the problem of God's existence. As the matter of facts , things are just the opposite. I argue for claim that his construal of belief in God in terms of probabilistic scientific hypothesis is normatively weak and he can't use it in argumentation against rationality of belief in God even if he would be succesfully show that God-hypothesis is very weak and improbable explanation of origins and complexity of life.
Keywords: Agnosticism, Atheism, Belief in God, Religious Belief, God-hypothesis, science and religion, Richard Dawkins, probabilistic account of atheism, probabilistic account of theism.
My paper presents an analysis and assessment of Richard Dawkins’ assumption from his book The God Delusion that there are no reason against treating belief in God as a scientific hypothesis, because even if the God existence is not disprovable, we could and maybe should ask if His existence is probable or highly improbable. My first aim is to examine Dawkins' argumentation against if he is aware multiple possible ways interpretation of the claim that religious belief in God, construed as the hypothesis that existence of Creator may be treated as a scientific kind of hypothesis. My second aim is to show a nature of relation between his scientific God-hypothesis and his criticism of Thomas Henry Huxley agnosticism. I maintain that the he can't treat his probabilistic account of theism/atheism controversy as a ground for possible evidence for his controversial claim, that scientific knowledge could solve the problem of God's existence. As the matter of facts , things are just the opposite. I argue for claim that his construal of belief in God in terms of probabilistic scientific hypothesis is normatively weak and he can't use it in argumentation against rationality of belief in God even if he would be succesfully show that God-hypothesis is very weak and improbable explanation of origins and complexity of life.
Keywords: Agnosticism, Atheism, Belief in God, Religious Belief, God-hypothesis, science and religion, Richard Dawkins, probabilistic account of atheism, probabilistic account of theism.
Pełny tekst:
PDFAdministracja Cytowania | Strony czasopism