1.2 Arguments from Observation Flashcards
COMPLETED
what is the teleological argument?
looks at the purpose of something and from that reasons that God must exist
what is Aquinas’ reasoning for the teleological argument?
- things that lack knowledge act for a purpose (inspired by Aristotle) and needs something with knowledge to guide it to its purpose, just as an arrow needs an archer to get to its target
- therefore there must be an intelligent being that directs all natural things to their end
- this being is what we call God
what was Paley’s reasoning in his teleological argument?
Design qua regularity
- complex objects work with regularity
- this order seems to be the work of a designer who has put this regularity and order into place deliberately
Design qua purpose
- the eye has been constructed with the purpose to see
- the wings of a bird operate with such intricacy for flight
- cells are so complex
- all this points to a designer who is God
- he uses his analogy of the watch to further demonstrate this
what is the cosmological argument?
- starts with observations about the way the universe works and from these tries to explain why the universe exists
- why is there something rather than nothing
- Leibniz said that there must be a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe
what is the first way of the cosmological argument
the unmoved mover
- everything has a state of actuality and potentiality
- all things that move into their state of actuality are done so by something else
- there must be a first mover else nothing would have started moving at all
- this first unmoved mover is what we call God
what is the second way of the cosmological argument?
the uncaused causer
- nothing can be its own efficient cause because it cannot have existed before itself
- things that are causes must themselves have been caused otherwise the effect would be taken away
- we cannot go back to infinity else there would be no first cause and so all later effects wouldn’t have happened
- there must be a special case, a first efficient cause that is not itself caused
- this is what everyone understands to be God
what is the third way of the cosmological argument?
the argument from contingency and necessity
- contingent beings could not have always existed as they must have not existed at some point because they rely on something else for their existence
- if we trace this back we get to a point where nothing existed but then nothing would have begun to exist because nothing can come from nothing
- therefore there must be a necessary being which relies on nothing else for its existence
- this is what we call God
how did Hume criticise the teleological argument?
- challenged analogies as a way of argument: they only suggest something shares a characteristic, it is more suitable to say the world is like a vegetable than a watch
- used the Epicurean hypothesis from 200 BCE which says given an infinite amount of time all the particles in the universe would be able to combine in every possible combination. this randomness explains the universe not a creator (though doesn’t explain where the particles come from)
how does Hume criticise arguments from observation generally
- our world in finite and imperfect therefore why should God be infinite and perfect
- just because we can see evidence of a designer doesn’t mean we can infer anything about the designer
- the designer could have created this world through a series of trial and error experiments
- there could be a number of designers
- the designer could be immoral
how did Hume criticise the cosmological argument?
- you can’t make the jump from what Aquinas observed to the God Christians believe in
- it is not necessary to suppose that everything has a cause at all
- the fallacy of composition
- similar to the ontological argument, it is illogical to suppose that there is any being who’s nature requires a contradiction - there cannot be a being that cannot exist because something that exists (by definition) could not exist
what are some counter-arguments to Hume’s challenges?
- modern science suggests there is a definite beginning to the universe
- we need faith to make the final leap to understanding God
- just because we have no experience of something doesn’t mean that out current understanding cannot explain it, Hume was a firm empiricist but you could take a rationalist standpoint instead
what is one of the biggest counter-arguments to arguments from observation?
the challenge of evolution
- there does not seem to be a need for a designer if evolution is accepted
- charles darwin (1809-1882) origin of species
- 20th century discoveries about genetics support this principle
what are some arguments in defence of both the cosmological and teleological argument?
F.R. Tennant proposed the aesthetic and anthropic principles in his 1930 work ‘Philosophical Theology’
Anthropic principle
- there is too much that has gone right in the world leading to the existence of humankind for it to have come about by chance (however this makes the mistake of assuming humans are special in coming about)
Aesthetic principle
- the ability to recognise beauty is not something that would have come about by evolution and so must suggest a divine creator (although challenged by Dawkin’s memes)
- but just because arguments don’t fulling explain the existence of God doesn’t mean he can’t exist
- Hume wasn’t able to prove the non-existence of God (but Ockham’s razor suggests it is no longer the easiest explanation)
what are some logical fallacies for the cosmological and teleological arguments?
- infinite regression: things can go back to infinity unlike what Aquinas says
- the jump to a transcendent creator: why the Christian God?
- the cosmological argument maintains that God must be a ‘special case’ as the unmoved mover, how can you jump to this assumption?
Kant teleological argument
- in critique of pure reason
- our judgments about the design and purpose in nature are projections of our own human intellect and not necessarily indicative of an actual divine designer
