3. Arguments based on observation - Teleological Flashcards
Teleological arguemnt - first arguements
Plato’s
- Put foward 1st design arguement.
- ‘The Timaeus’ = suggests cosmic craftsman, brought together materials of universe to make it orderly and beautiful.
Teleological arguemnt - first arguements
Cicero
- 106-43BC
- Roman
- “What could be more clear or obvious when we look up to the sky and contempted the heavens, that there is something divinely or intelligent.”
Teleological arguement
Teleological arguements
An attempt to prove the existence of God that begins with the observation of the purposiveness of nature
Teleological arguement
Aquinas
1225-1274, Italy
Teleological arguement - 5th way
Premesis and conclusion
P1: The behaviour of objects is goal-directed towards an end (telos), because they follow natural laws.
P2: Natural laws cannot have been created by objects themselves, since they are non-intelligent or insufficiently intelligent.
C1: Natural laws must have an intelligent designer. ‘That thing we call God.’
Teleological arguement - 5th way
Aquinas’ arrow example
- Arrow hits a target even though it’s not intelligent and cannot comprehend its actions.
- There must be something which can comprehend the telos of the arrow and influenced/designed it to move in the way it does = the archer.
- Archer = God
Teleological arguement - 5th way
How God interacts with the world
God directs the behaviour of objects by creating natiral laws which govern and regulate behaviour of all objects by directing them towards telos God has in mind.
Teleological arguement - 5th way
Aquinas quote
“God is the devine designer of everything.”
Teleological arguemnt - Paley
Paley dates + country
1743-1805
British philosopher and clergyman.
Teleological arguemnt - Paley
Paley book
Natural Theology 1802
Teleological arguemnt - Paley
Paley quote 2x
“Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.”
“Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.”
Teleological arguement - Paley
Watchmaker analogy
- If someone found a watch on a heath, due to the complexity of its design, would assume it had a creator.
- If the parts were themselves any differently shaped, composed of other materials, or were placed in any other arrangement, the purpose of telling the time would not have resulted.
- Not by chance.
Teleological arguement - Paley
Human eye
- Complex and has purpose.
- Arranged to fill purpose of sight.
Teleological arguement - Paley
Designer’s role
- This designer must have a mind, because design requires a designer who has a purpose in mind and know how a certain arrangement of particular parts will bring about that purpose.
Teleological arguement
Use of analogy - strengths
- Provided best explaination style.
- When we cannot directly observe the cause of something, it is empirically valid to turn to analogy.
- Used by scientists during animal testing before human testing.
- SWINEBURNE = claims arguments by analogy are “common in scientific inference”.
Teleological arguement
Use of analogy - Hume, weakness
- just because two things look alike doesn’t mean they were caused by the same thing. Similar effects might come from different causes, so we can’t assume sameness just from appearances.
- e.g. smoke produced by fire and dry ice simular but not the same.
- just because the effect of the universe and the effect of a man-made thing like a house (Hume’s example) or a watch (Paley) are like each other in that they both have complexity and purpose, it doesn’t follow that the cause of the universe must be like the cause of a house/watch i.e., a designer. Two effects which are alike (analogous) might in fact have very different causes.
Teleological
Hume’s counter arguement
- Hume’s criticism of Paley’s argument might not hold because Paley’s argument isn’t necessarily based on an analogy.
- Paley’s argument isn’t about comparing artifacts to the universe; it’s about a specific property: complexity and purpose.
- Paley argues that when intricate parts come together in a precise way for a purpose, chance isn’t a likely explanation; a designing mind makes more sense.
Teleological
Strength - it’s basis in Aquinas’ Natural theology
- A. positioned his arguements to not claim too much, Paley followed suit.
- Both accept design argument at most shows some designer of great power, but it doesn’t prove Christian God in particular.
- HUME ~ God isn’t only explaination, even with evidence of design, doesn’t support claim it was God of Classical Theism.
Teleological arguement
Swineburne’s defence
- Thinks that Ockham’s razor can be used against some of Hume’s claims here.
- One God being responsible for the design of the universe is a simpler explanation than multiple.
- Points to the uniformity of the laws of physics as suggesting a single designer.
Teleological arguement - Weakness
Darwin’s evolution
- Natural selection.
- Order in nature not necessarily evidence of purpose and design but instead be explained by natural scientific means.
- Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins book where he criticised the design argument “The Blind Watchmaker”.
- Dawkins is accepting that yes there is a watchmaker of the universe, but it is blind, meaning the mechanical forces of nature.
Teleological arguement - evaluation
Disteleological arguement
God = cruel designer, meant to be omniscient, just, transendent, OmniB and omniP.
Hume + JSM offer version where problem of evil seen as absense of order. e.g. fly, childbirth, disabilities, ocean.
Teleological arguement - evaluation
Strengths
We can all see the world around us and appreciate elements of beauty, order, purpose - those elements on a global scale could be best explained by God’s existance.
Teleological arguement - evaluation
Weaknesses
- Darwin’s evolution.
- Hume = watch analogy is weak, world isn’t like a watch in it mechanisms. Universe - unique, no way of knowing how they’re usually made or if ours is unusually ordered.
- Not everyone sees world as orderly and beautiful, but chaotic, ugly and pointless.
- Chance = another possibilties, may be considered better than God hypothesis.
Teleological arguement - evaluation
Posterori criticism.
Can only lead to probable conclusions and doesnt prove anything.
