Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:34:45.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mellor's ‘Bridge–Hand’ Argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

B. L. Hebblethwaite
B. L. Hebblethwaite
Affiliation:
Queens' College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his article ‘God and Probability’, 1 Hugh Mellor introduced the notion of the ‘bridge-hand fallacy’, allegedly committed by those who think they can appeal to probabilities in arguments for design. I should like to give this notion another airing, partly because of its recent criticism in two interesting books - R. G. Swinburne' The Existence of God and D. J. Bartholomew's God of Chance - and partly because it seems worth asking how it fares in relation to the most recent examples of design argument, namely those which appeal to the so-called ‘anthropic principle’ in cosmology.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 3-4 , September 1986 , pp. 473 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 473 note 1 Religious Studies, V (1969), 223–34.

page 473 note 2 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, pp. 112f.

page 473 note 3 SCM Press, 1984, pp. 60–3.Google Scholar

page 475 note 1 Bartholomew also thinks that Mellor commits an elementary mistake in the way he converts statistical probability into inductive probability. However, since this does not actually affect the main argument, I shall not pursue the point.

page 476 note 1 See Peacocke's, A. R. discussion of the work of M. Eigen in Creation and the World of Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), pp. 101ff.Google Scholar

page 476 note 2 See Bartholomew, chapter five.

page 476 note 3 Swinburne, , pp. 137f.Google Scholar, Bartholomew, , pp. 64f.Google ScholarMackie, Even J. L. concedes this. See The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 141.Google Scholar

page 477 note 1 Hume, D., Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, ed. Smith, N. Kemp (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), P 235Google Scholar

page 477 note 2 American Philosophical Quarterly, XIX, 2 (04 1982).Google Scholar

page 477 note 3 E.g. The Accidental Universe (Cambridge University Press, 1882);God and the New Physics (London: Dent, 1983, Penguin Books, 1984).

page 477 note 4 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

page 477 note 5 Bartholomew, , p. 64.Google Scholar

page 477 note 6 Mellor, , p. 227.Google Scholar

page 478 note 1 Swinburne, R. G., The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977).Google Scholar

page 478 note 2 p. 141.