1.1 Teleological Argument - concepts Flashcards
Aquinas’ Inductive Argument / Fifth Way
- observe beneficial order in the universe
- this could not happen by chance ‘not fortuitously, but designedly’
- objects do not have the intelligence to work towards a purpose or end
- ‘some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end’
- ‘and this being we call God’
The Inductive Leap
the seemingly large stretch between Aquinas stating the need for an intelligent designer, and then identifying this designer as God
Design Qua Regularity
the order and consistency observable in the universe (eg Newtonian physics) is evidence of a designer
Design Qua Purpose
the universe and everything in it seem to fulfil a purpose - this is evidence of a designer
Paley’s Analogical Argument overview
- if you see a rock on a heath, you would likely assume it has always been there in that state due to its simplicity
- if you were to see a watch, even if you had never come across one before, you would assume it had an intelligent maker due to its complexity
- the universe too is intricate and complex, so implies an intelligent designer
- ‘the marks of design are too strong. design must have a designer. that designer is God.’
Paley’s 5 criteria for a complex item
- specific materials
- several parts
- works to a purpose or end
- regular motion
- indispensable parts
the crux of Paley’s Analogical Argument
‘like effects have like causes’
the type of argument Paley’s Analogical Argument is
inductive; a posteriori; argument by analogy
argument by analogy
inductive argument which likens familiar situation to less similar situation and suggests that to maintain consistency, the same conclusions must be drawn about them
telos
Greek term meaning purpose/aim/end
According to Aristotle: the ‘final cause’ required for something to exist, and the goal it naturally tends towards
teleology
account of a given thing’s purpose as an explanation of the cause of the thing
inductive reasoning / arguments
cannot prove, but try to persuade by providing evidence from human experience in support of the conclusion
a posteriori
knowledge gained by logical deductions made from observation and experience of the material world
3 general weaknesses of Paley’s analogical argument
- appears to be assuming order in the universe simply because there is order in a watch
- unclear if the watch is analogous to the world or whole universe
- is the world not too different to the watch to withstand comparison
Paley’s response to evidence of bad design
watches often go wrong, this does not mean they were not designed. it may simply be we do not understand the full workings of the world and less competent then the designer
Cleanthes & views
character in Hume’s ‘Dialogues’ who using natural theology argues from the world to God, stating there are parallels between design present in the world, and design of the world, and like effects have like causes
Philo & views
character in Hume’s ‘Dialogues’ who acts as a spokesperson for Hume’s own views. Comments on how the universe may well have come about through chance, and that even if there are the grounds to assume the universe was designed, there are not the grounds to make claims about the character or nature of the designer
Paley’s analogical argument assumptions
3
- assumes analogy is appropriate
- assumes effects are predictable
- assumes existence of god from evidence of design
Hume: limitation of the design argument
the argument may be able to ‘assert the universe arose sometime, from something like design: but beyond that position he cannot ascertain one single circumstances’
Hume on the nature of a universal designer
cannot confidently make any claims - for all we know we could be ‘the first rude essay of some infant deity’, or many deities cooperating together
Paley v Hume view of nature
sees the design and creation of a benevolent God vs sees ‘nothing but the idea of a blind nature’
Hume: infinite regress as criticism of teleological arg
Hume’s argument that if human-like intelligence appears designed and humans have a designer, then so must the designer of humans and so forth to infinity
analogical argument premises
1 - there exists an object in nature (n) resembling a manmade artifact (m) in a significant way (R)
2 - m has R because it was created deliberately by human design
3 - similar effects have similar causes
conclusion: probable that n has R because was designed by something with human-like intelligence
Hume objection to analogical argument premise 1
that nature resembles a man made artifact
universe more similar to a living thing than an artifact. nature is alive and self sustaining, an artifact is not
Hume objection to analogical argument premise 3
the universe appears to be, and therefore is, designed
there are other ways to explain away design. the universe may be a product of chance - if matter is eternal then there may be enough possible worlds that all possibilities are realised
Hume: rejection of animal / plant adaptations as evidence of design
if they did not adapt they would not survive (essentially predicted the findings of Darwin)
3 dangers of anthropomorphism
- removes divine distinctiveness
- emphasises limitedness, changeability, fallibility
- implies god is then non-moral, limited, fallible
Swinburne: regularities of co-presence
spatial order - the observable tendency for things to be arranged in ordered ways eg a town with roads all at right angles to each other
Swinburne: regularities of succession
temporal order - simple patterns of behaviour of objects over a time period - eg behaviour in accordance to Newton’s laws
18th century spatial argument
animals are similar to machines made by rational agents. it therefore seems probable that the first animals were made by a rational agent since couldnt have come to be via generation
adaptations to spatial argument since theory of evolution
since evolution is only able to occur due to presence of specific laws within nature, nature itself can be compared to a machine which makes machines. rational agent -> machine-making machine (nature) -> machine
Swinburne: ineffectiveness of spatial argument
analogy between nature and ‘machine-making machine’ is weak - nature only behaves in this way under rare circumstances. can be argued we only see order in the universe since we try to impose it and coincidence has thus far allowed it
Swinburne: temporal argument
- temporal order continues despite varying initial conditions and interference from humans, therefore is independent of man and a genuine part of the nature of the universe
meaning of Swinburne’s card-shuffling analogy
of course we see order in need of explanation since without that order we probably wouldnt exist. however this doesnt mean the order is not extraordinary or not in need of explanation: the presence of order is not remarkable because we perceive it, but simply because of its objective existence at all
the anthropic principle
moderns design argument that accepts scientific theories including the big bang and evolution. focuses on the idea that chance alone is exceedingly unlikely to have produced conditions required of the universe for evolution of human life
Swinburne: what the success of science reveals
and what this provides
argues that the success of science in showing us how deeply ordered the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing there is a deeper cause for that order
the strong anthropic principle
+ common arguments / evidence used
claims the entire universe was designed to produce human life. arguments often include physics / astronomy eg the goldilocks zone, ozone, gas giants
tennant: the strong anthropic principle
states as we identify all the physics that has worked together for our benefit ‘it seems as if the universe must in some sense have known we were coming’
strong anthropic principle criticism: anthropocentric attitudes
with reference to cause and effect
- assumes the laws of the universe are as they are because of human existence when surely it is actually that we are as we are since we evolved within the conditions of the universe - confuses cause and effect to favour humans
strong anthropic principle criticism: Adams’ intelligent puddle analogy
compares believing the inverse was made for humans to an intelligent puddle considering how perfectly it fits the hole it is in and hence incorrectly concluding the hole must have been made for the purpose of the puddle filling it
strong anthropic principle criticism: chaos not order
science suggest entire universe not determined by conditions at Big Bang since too many random / chaotic factors at work
the aesthetic principle
beauty is present and we perceive it. there is no reason for the universe to be beautiful and no evolutionary need for humans to be capable of appreciating it. this suggests a designer who arranged for universe to not only be habitable but beautiful
Augustine of Hippo: the aesthetic principle
‘who made these beautiful changeable things, if not one who is beautiful and unchangeable’
criticisms of aesthetic principle: cause and effect
confuses causes with effects - we probably find universe beautiful because it is what we evolved around. if it looked different we would find that beautiful instead
criticisms of anthropic principle: Richard Dawkins
Beethoven and Shakespeare’s works are sublime, and would be with or without the presence of God. They do not prove the existence of God, they prove the existence of Beethoven and Shakespeare
the weak anthropic principle
accepts creatures like us may have evolved on other planets. holds the universe is set up to form planets, some of which will support life. once life appears, evolution will ensure some of it becomes intelligent and self aware
Argument from Fine-Tuning
surprising the universe is biophilic due to the amount of factors which if slightly different would not support life. the universe is like a radio that must be tuned to a specific frequency to ‘pick up’ life
fine tuning argument: Leslie’s firing-squad analogy
- you are to be executed by a firing squad of 100
- you hear the sound of guns, then silence, they missed
- if they had not missed, you would not be able to reflect on the failed execution
- you are right to be amazed they all missed
argument against designer: minimally biophilic universe
most of the universe is inhospitable. surely designer would create an optimally biophilic universe
Bertrand Russel: against the fine tuning argument
universe is ‘brute fact’ we should accept it how it is without looking for reasons
Dawkins’ criticism of Paley’s argument
evolution has no long term goal. the criteria for natural selection is based on short term reproductive benefit
Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’
‘we are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes’
Dawkins’ on DNA
compares DNA to seeds in the air, literally spreading instructions for making themselves. ‘It is raining DNA outside … it’s raining programmes’
Peter Williams on limits of Darwinian evolution
while evidence strongly supports Darwinism from the starting point of simple molecular biochemical machines, it has not proposed a route for these systems to form in the first place
problem with Fine Tuning Argument: improbability does not mean impossibility
- assumption that there must be a designer due to the improbability of the universe occurring by chance is entirely intuitive and hence unsound
Hume and Mill: dysteleological argument
absence of order, and presence of poor design
- appendix is pointless and can be fatal
- genetic disorders
- wings on flightless birds
Mill: the problem of evil - the nature of cosmic forces
‘they go straight to their end, without regarding what or whom they crush’
Mill: wills of a world maker
if the maker of the world can do all that he will, he wills misery and there is no escaping that conclusion
Darwin: problem of evil - the nature of God
i cannot persuade myself that a beneficient and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae or that a cat should play with mice
Michael Behe: intelligent design within biology
observing cells is ‘like going into an automobile factory’. in biology many terms implicit of design eg ‘molecular machines’ are used, and all biologists acknowledge appearance of design
Michael Behe: bacterial flagellum
has the structure of rotary motor - too elegant and intricate to not have required design
Michael Behe: Darwinism outdated
was more probable when it was proposed, before the realisation we are dealing with complex molecular machines
Krauss: against intelligent design
no evidence, no studies, experiments, research to support it, so irrelevant from scientific perspective. appearance of design is subjective
Michael Behe: irreducible complexity - the flagellum
evolution claims things become more complex in stages, but the flagellum could not have had a simpler stage - with any part missing it would not function. ‘any precursor that is missing a part is by definition non-functional’
DeGrasse Tyson: stupid design
if the universe was designed for us (which it was not), the design is stupid due to the hostility life faces
DeGrasse Tyson: examples of stupid design on universal scale (3)
- most places kill life instantly due to extreme temperatures and radiation
- Milky Way galaxy will collide with Andromeda
- ‘one way universe will wind down to oblivion’
DeGrasse Tyson: examples of stupid design on Earth (3)
- cannot live on 2/3 of the surface
- 99% of all life that ever existed is extinct
- located in a ‘shooting range’ of comets and asteroids
DeGrasse Tyson: examples of stupid design within humans (3)
- genetic / birth defects
- lose bodily functions as we age
- breathe and eat through the same hole
Ken Miller criticism of Behe intelligent design: the flagellum
arguably would actually have a function if it was simpler - the same proteins serve varying functions in different arrangements
Miller opposition to Behe intelligent design: pseudo-science
incompatible with scientific method and blurs lines between legitimate and unfounded knowledge - eg it relies on the inductive leap
Robin Collins’ Confirmatory Argument
version of the argument from fine tuning claiming the observation of fine-tuned properties provides reason to prefer the Design Hypothesis
Collins’ Prime Principle of Confirmation
If observation O is more probably under hypothesis H than H2, then O provides evidence for preferring H over H2
Confirmatory Argument: probabilities of fine-tuned properties
assuming the Design Hypothesis to be true: approaches 1
assuming Atheistic Single-Universe Hypothesis: probability very small
Confirmatory Argument criticism from Himma: insufficiency alone
relies on an inference strategy that presupposes we have independent evidence for thinking the right kind of intelligence agency exists - not convincing without this
Confirmatory Argument criticism from Himma: John winning the lottery
Theistic Hypothesis that God wanted John to win the lottery & intervened grants much higher probability of John winning than Chance Hypothesis. Confirmatory Argument would therefore prefer John’s lottery winning to be result of divine intervention
