بررسی برهان خداناباورانهٔ نیکلاس اوِریت مبتنی بر شواهد ابعاد حیات؛ با تمرکز بر روایت تراویس دامزدی | ||
| پژوهشهای فلسفی -کلامی | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 23، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 88، تیر 1400، صفحه 155-172 اصل مقاله (1.74 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22091/jptr.2021.6782.2516 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| محمود مختاری* | ||
| استادیار، پژوهشکده مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| یکی از نقدهای خداناباوران بر تبیین غایتشناختی خداباوران از جهانِ پذیرای حیات، این است که حیات در جهان فعلی، پدیدهای «بسیار نادرْ» است و نسبت به ابعاد فضا۔ زمانی جهان، از مقیاس بسیار کوچکی برخوردار است و بنابراین، نمیتواند به عنوان غایت یک «طراح هوشمند» در نظر گرفته شود؛ اگر خداوند، طراح و خالق جهان است و حیات را بهعنوان غایت و هدف خلقت مدِّ نظر داشته، چرا حیات و حیات انسانی، با این همه تأخیر نسبت به آغاز جهان و تنها در بخش بسیار ناچیزی از گسترۀ جهان، پدید آمده است؟ این اِشکال و انتقاد به صورت ضمنی و پراکنده در نوشتههای برخی خداناباورانْ طرح شده، اما اولینبار از سوی نیکلاس اوِریت، صورتبندی شد. در این مقاله، ضمن شرح و بررسی «برهان مقیاس» اوِریت و روایتهای مشابه مبتنی بر شواهد ابعاد حیات، با تمرکز بر روایت بازنویسیشدۀ تراویس دامزدی - فیلسوف خداباور کانادایی - با نام «برهان حیات دیرهنگام؛ delayed life argument»، دو ادعا را مطرح کرده و از آنها دفاع میکنیم: ۱) هر برهان خداناباورانهٔ مبتنی بر ابعاد حیات در جهان، میتواند برهانی در مقابل «برهان تنظیم ظریف» تلقی شود؛ ۲) «برهان مقیاس» از نظر کارکردْ مورد نظر خداناباوران، قابل تحویل به برهان حیاتِ دیرهنگام است. بنابراین، پاسخهای خداباوران به «برهان حیات دیرهنگام» را میتوان در پاسخ به «برهان مقیاس» نیز ارائه کرد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| خداباوری؛ خداناباوری؛ برهان تنظیم ظریف؛ برهان حیات دیرهنگام؛ برهان مقیاس؛ نیکلاس اوِریت؛ تراویس دامزدی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Study of the Atheistic Argument from Scale Focusing on the Narrative of Travis Dumsday | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mahmoud Mokhtari | ||
| Assistant Professor in the Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The theistic argument for an intelligent and purposeful designer, in addition to receiving critiques from great philosophers such as Hume and Kant, was influenced by Darwin's theory that explains life based on a single cell, which itself is the product of explicit natural material processes. In response, theists point out the fact that the evolution of life was not inevitable, and that it was much more likely that the physical constants and initial conditions of the universe could be preventing life. Accordingly, one of the most important arguments for theism is formed, the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA). However, atheists make two basic criticisms of the theistic teleological explanation of the life-accepting universe. First, life is not, in principle, an “improbable” phenomenon that needs to be explained, and life can emerge and evolve in any other world with different laws, physical constants, or initial conditions. Second, life in our universe is a very “rare” phenomenon and has a very small scale in relation to the space-time dimensions of the universe and therefore, it cannot be considered as the ultimate goal of an intelligent designer. The present article discusses the second claim. The question is, if God is the Designer and the Creator of the universe and has considered life, and especially human life, as the goal and purpose of creation and its jewel, why did he create life (and human life) so late to the beginning of the universe, and in a very small part of it? This issue against theism, which is based on scientific evidence of the dimensions of life in the world, can be found in many atheistic writings; however, it was first formulated explicitly by the English atheist philosopher Nicholas Everitt and was titled "The Argument from Scale” (AS) in his book The Non-Existence of God. The present article, while describing the original argument and its variant narratives, focuses on a narrative rewritten by the Canadian theist philosopher Travis Dumsday, called the “Delayed Life Argument” (DLA). Dumsday himself thinks that the Delayed Life Rrgument is an independent argument from the Argument from Scale, a claim which I will reject. In this article, I defend two claims: First, any atheistic argument based on the dimensions of life in the world can be considered as an argument against the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA), because the Fine Tuning Argument is, in principle, vulnerable to any evidence of the rarity of life in the world. Second, despite Dumsday’s claim, the Argument from Scale is not independent of the argument from the Delayed Life Argument and can be reduced to it. Thus the theists’ answers to the Delayed Life Argument can also be presented against the Argument from Scale. Meanwhile, I present an idea based on scientific evidence and theoretical reflections of modern cosmology, to question the underlying assumption of the Argument from Scale. It can be shown that we humans have a privileged position in the universe, both spatially and temporally according to some interpretation of the new cosmological evidence and theories. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Theism, Atheism, Fine Tuning Argument, Life Permitting Universe, Argument from Scale, Delayed Life Argument, Nicholas Everitt, Travis Dumsday | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Collins, R. (2009). The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe. In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 202–281). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334.ch4 Collins, R. (2012). The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos. In The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity (pp. 207–219). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118241455.ch19 Cordry, B. S. (2006). Theism and the Philosophy of Nature. Religious Studies, 42(3), 273–290. Dumsday, T. (2017). Does a Delayed Origin for Biological Life Count as Evidence Against the Existence of God? Sophia, 56(4), 649–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0574-0 Evans, C. S. (2010). Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments (Reprint edition). Oxford University Press. Everitt, N. (2004). The Non-Existence of God (1st edition). Routledge. Gonzalez, G., & Richards, J. (2020). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. Gateway Editions. Halvorson, H. (2017). Fine-Tuning Does Not Imply a Fine-Tuner. Nautilus. Retrieved from http://cosmos. nautil. us/short/119/fine-tuning-does-not-imply-a-fine-tuner Haught, J. (2012). Science and Faith: A New Introduction. Paulist Press. Haught, J. F. (2015). Resting on the Future: Catholic Theology for an Unfinished Universe. USA: Bloomsbury Publishing. Horn, T. (2013). Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity: CATHOLIC ANSWERS. Hunter, H. (2015). The Scale of the Universe and the Religious View. Retrieved from https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/01/the-scale-of-the-universe-and-the-religious-view Krauss, L. (2012). A Universe from Nothing. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc. Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. New York: Routledge. Mulgan, T. (2015). Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Philipse, H. (2012). God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sober, E. (2018). The Design Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,393 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 872 |
||