Free-will. Hamilton erroneously
identified this theory with the fact that we possess a moral sense. His
resulting dilemma.
21. Although Hamilton was wrong in thus identifying genuine fact with
spurious theory, yet his Argument from the fact of our having a moral sense
remains to be considered.
22. The question here is merely as to whether or not the presence of the
moral sense can be explained by natural causes. _A priori_ probability of
the moral sense having been evolved. _A posteriori_ confirmation supplied
by Utilitarianism, &c.
23. Mill's presentation of the Argument a resuscitation of Paley's. His
criticism on Paley shown to be unfair.
24. The real fallacy of Paley's presentation pointed out.
25. The same fallacy pointed out in another way.
26. Paley's typical case quoted and examined, in order to illustrate the
root fallacy of his Argument from Design. Mill's observations upon this
Argument criticised.
27. Result yielded by the present analysis of the Argument from Design. The
Argument shown to be a _petitio principii_.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ARGUMENT FROM GENERAL LAWS.
28. My belief that no competent writer in favour of the Argument from
Design could have written upon it at all, had it not been for his
instinctive appreciation of the much more important Argument from General
Laws. The nature of this Argument stated, and its cogency insisted upon.
29. The rational standing of the Argument from General Laws prior to the
enunciation of the doctrine of the Conservation of Energy. The Rev. Baden
Powell quoted.
30. The nature of General Laws when these are interpreted in terms of the
doctrine of the Conservation of Energy. The word "Law" defined in terms of
this doctrine.
31. The rational standing of the Argument from General Laws subsequent to
the enunciation of the doctrine of the Conservation of Energy.
32. The self-evolution of General Laws, or the objective aspect of the
question as to whether we may infer the presence of Mind in Nature because
Nature admits of being intelligently interrogated.
33. The subjective aspect of this question, according to the data afforded
by evolutionary psychology.
34. Correspondence between products due to human intelligence and products
supposed due to Divine Intelligence, a correspondence which is only
generic. Illustrations drawn from prodigality in Nature. Further
illustrations. Illogical manner in which natural theologians deal with such
difficult
|