The Argument from Personal Incredulity
In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins gives a theoretical support
for slow-
increment evolution (against creationism, intelligent design,
punctuationism, Lamarck, and all comers). At one point, he makes fun of
an English bishop who uses what Dawkins calls the weak Argument from
Personal Incredulity. “It seems implausible to me…. I cannot believe
that… Could it possibly happen that…” Dawkins does a good job of
making fun of it.
My first thought was that the Argument is nonetheless okay. What we
often do is to describe a situation and then say, “I don’t think that’s
plausible.” It, of course, can’t really be just an argument from
Personal incredulity. Rather, we are trying to share our doubts. And
this is a rational argument, that can be refuted. The opposing view can
try to present explanations or evidence that will overcome the
doubts.
My second thought, though, was that Dawkins relies on a very similar
argument, but one that sounds even worse. What he relies on is the
Argument from Personal Credulity. His answer to the bishop is “It seems
plausible to me, … I believe that,… It could easily happen that… ”
And, of course, that is an equally legitimate argument. It can be
refuted by evidence or explanation that undermines Dawkins’s beliefs.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Dawkin’s assertion that God does not exist is grounded in his own Argument from Personal Incredulity. So too is his attitude toward intelligent design.