Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-pvkqz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-27T22:36:39.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fundamentality and the prior probability of theism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2018

LUKE WILSON
LUKE WILSON*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Purdue University, West LafayetteIN, 47907, USA
*
e-mail: wilso761@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Paul Draper has recently developed an account of intrinsic probability according to which a theory's intrinsic probability is determined by its modesty and coherence. He employs this account in an argument that Source Physicalism (SP) and Source Idealism (SI) are equally intrinsically probable. Since SP and SI are not exhaustive, and Theism is one very specific version of SI, it follows that the intrinsic probability of Theism is very low. I argue here that considerations of fundamentality show that more work needs to be done to defend the claim that P(SP) = P(SI).

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 169 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baron, S. & Tallant, J. (forthcoming) ‘Do not revise Ockham's Razor without necessity’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2013) ‘Reflections on explanation and Draper's argument’, in McBrayer, J. & Howard-Snyder, D. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 75–82.Google Scholar
Draper, P. (2001) ‘Seeking but not believing: confessions of a practicing agnostic’, in Howard-Snyder, D. & Moser, P. (eds) Divine Hiddenness: New Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, P. (2013) ‘Humean arguments from evil’, in McBrayer, J. & Howard-Snyder, D. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 67–75.Google Scholar
Draper, P. (2016) ‘Simplicity and natural theology’, in Bergmann, M. & Brower, J. (eds) Reason and Faith: Themes from Richard Swinburne (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, P. (2017) ‘God, evil, and the nature of light’, in Meister, C. & Moser, P. (eds) Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 65–84.Google Scholar
Markosian, N. (2000) ‘What are physical objects?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61, 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markosian, N. (2015) ‘The right stuff’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93, 665–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2015) ‘What not to multiply without necessity’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93, 644–664.10.1080/00048402.2014.992447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaffer, J. (2016) ‘Grounding in the image of causation’, Philosophical Studies, 173, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1997) Simplicity as Evidence of Truth (Milwaukee MI: Marquette University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2004) The Existence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2011) ‘Gwiazda on the Bayesian argument for God’, Philosophia, 39, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar