Tracing the evidence of design: Natural theology through an unpublished manuscript by William Stanley Jevons

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-05-15 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.008
Eleonora Buono
{"title":"Tracing the evidence of design: Natural theology through an unpublished manuscript by William Stanley Jevons","authors":"Eleonora Buono","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper takes its cue from an unpublished manuscript by the Victorian polymath William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882). I elucidate how he attempted to integrate science and religion through natural theology. I argue that Jevons’s manuscript shows that he took the theory of probability to be the most appropriate tool for finding evidence of divine design in natural phenomena. Jevons thus took part in the nineteenth-century natural theology debate, specifically between William Whewell and Charles Babbage. This debate was about both how to interpret the analogy between natural and human contrivances, and about the tools which should be used in natural theology. After introducing the manuscript, I present Jevons’s religious ideas about Unitarianism and the relationship between chance and design in his writings. I show Jevons’s commitment to natural theology and his idea that humans, due to their finite intellect, should use the theory of probability to investigate divine providence. I then compare Jevons’s position to Whewell’s and Babbage’s <em>Bridgewater Treatises</em>. I show how they had different conceptions of natural theology compared to Jevons, and different ideas about the tools that should be used to investigate natural laws.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812400044X/pdfft?md5=9a1b575206d94497b26d58106e7834b0&pid=1-s2.0-S003936812400044X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812400044X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper takes its cue from an unpublished manuscript by the Victorian polymath William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882). I elucidate how he attempted to integrate science and religion through natural theology. I argue that Jevons’s manuscript shows that he took the theory of probability to be the most appropriate tool for finding evidence of divine design in natural phenomena. Jevons thus took part in the nineteenth-century natural theology debate, specifically between William Whewell and Charles Babbage. This debate was about both how to interpret the analogy between natural and human contrivances, and about the tools which should be used in natural theology. After introducing the manuscript, I present Jevons’s religious ideas about Unitarianism and the relationship between chance and design in his writings. I show Jevons’s commitment to natural theology and his idea that humans, due to their finite intellect, should use the theory of probability to investigate divine providence. I then compare Jevons’s position to Whewell’s and Babbage’s Bridgewater Treatises. I show how they had different conceptions of natural theology compared to Jevons, and different ideas about the tools that should be used to investigate natural laws.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
追踪设计的证据:通过威廉-斯坦利-杰文斯未发表的手稿看自然神学
本文以维多利亚时代的多面手威廉-斯坦利-杰文斯(William Stanley Jevons,1835-1882 年)未发表的手稿为线索。我阐释了他如何试图通过自然神学将科学与宗教融为一体。我认为,杰文斯的手稿表明,他认为概率论是在自然现象中寻找神的设计证据的最合适工具。因此,杰文斯参与了十九世纪的自然神学辩论,特别是威廉-惠威尔和查尔斯-巴贝奇之间的辩论。这场争论既涉及如何解释自然与人类创造之间的类比,也涉及自然神学应该使用的工具。在介绍了手稿之后,我介绍了杰文斯关于一神论的宗教思想以及他的著作中偶然性与设计之间的关系。我展示了杰文斯对自然神学的承诺,以及他认为人类由于智力有限而应使用概率论来研究神意的观点。然后,我将杰文斯的立场与惠威尔和巴贝奇的《布里奇沃特论文集》进行比较。我将展示与杰文斯相比,他们对自然神学有着怎样不同的概念,以及对研究自然规律应使用的工具有着怎样不同的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
The philosophical coming of age of science. Euler’s role in Cassirer’s early philosophy of space and time Freud, bullshit, and pseudoscience Kant on the logical form of organized being Gauge invariance through gauge fixing Mathematics and society reunited: The social aspects of Brouwer's intuitionism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1