What does Fodor’s “anti-darwinism” mean to natural theology?

Research Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

In the current dialogue of “science and religion,” it is widely assumed that the thoughts of Darwinists and that of atheists overlap. However, Jerry Fodor, a full-fledged atheist, recently announced a war against Darwinism with his atheistic campaign. Prima facie, this “civil war” might offer a chance for theists: If Fodor is right, Darwinistic atheism will lose the cover of Darwinism and become less tenable. This paper provides a more pessimistic evaluation of the situation by explaining the following: Fodor’s criticism of adaptationism (as the backbone of Darwinism), viz., his refutation of any counterfactual-supporting laws on the macro-evolutionary level, implies that a law-maker is dispensable on this level. This will either encourage skepticism against the omniscience (at least that concerning the future of macro-evolution) of the Creator, or render the notion of God less appealing.

Keywords

adaptationism algorithm atheism counterfactual-supporting laws Darwinism Fodor law-maker natural theology 

References

  1. Boden, M. (2006). Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life. New York: Simon & SchusterGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennett, D. (2008). “Fun and Games in Fantasyland.” Mind and Language, 23(1): 30–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fodor, J. (2007). “Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings?” London Book Reviews, retrieved from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html
  5. Fodor, J. (2008). “Anti-Darwinism.” Mind and Language, 23(1): 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fodor, J., and Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010). What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and GirouxGoogle Scholar
  7. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2008). “Explanation in Evolutionary Biology: Comments on Fodor.” Mind and Language, 23(1): 32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. (1979). “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205(1161): 581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewens, T. (2007). “Adaptation,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, eds. by Ruse, M., and Hull, D. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Richard, D. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Searle, J. (1980). “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3: 417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyFudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations