argument based on observation- teleological Flashcards
explain paley’s design qua purpose
the complexity and purpose seen in natural objects and beings is best explained by a designer
illustrated with watch example: a watch has not always been lying about, also composed with parts which are intricately formed, it has complexity which is arranged to perform a purpose,
a watch could not have come about by chance- it must have a designer
similar to real things in the universe which have complexity and purpose= human eye fufils its purpose to help us see
also has to be evidence of a designer who has a mind - design requires a designer to have a purpose in mind e.g. knowing the arrangements of different parts for purpose
how does hume reject the analogy made by Paley
Hume argues that it doesn’t follow from the similarity of two effects that they must have had similar causes. For example, the smoke produced by fire and dry ice is very similar, but their causes not similar.
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
Hume argues that even if we had evidence of design in the universe, that would not support the claim that it was designed by the God of classical theism. It could have been made by a junior God, apprentice God – or even a God who died. There could be multiple designers – ‘a committee of Gods’. So, the design argument doesn’t even justify monotheism
strengths of the design qua argument?
A strength of the design argument is its basis in Aquinas’ Natural theology
advantage is that Aquinas positioned his arguments to not claim too much. Paley adopts the same approach. They both accept that the design argument at most shows there is some designer of great power, but it doesn’t prove the Christian God in particular.
explain using aquinas’ 5th way
Aquinas observed that natural objects/beings do not behave randomly, but moved towards a certain goal or purpose (end/telos).
The idea is that things we observe in the world are goal-directed.An acorn can grow into an oak tree
Aquinas wants us to notice that objects do not behave randomly but with regularity in a goal-directed way. This shows that it is not mere chance that objects behave in this way.
things in the world cannot have directed themselves towards their end. This is because they are either non-intelligent or insufficiently intelligent.
To illustrate this point, Aquinas draws our attention to the fact that we humans can direct an objects behaviour through exerting physical force on it, just as an archer does with an arrow.
An arrow hits a target even though it isn’t intelligent and cannot comprehend what it’s doing. There must be something which can comprehend the goal/end of the arrow and influenced/designed it to move in the way it does: the archer (who has intelligence) did this by shooting the arrow in a particular way while having the goal/end in mind.
God’s ability to direct the behaviour of things in the world is of a much greater type than our ability, God directs the behaviour of objects by creating natural laws which govern and regulate the behaviour of all objects by directing them towards the end that God has in mind for them.
Just as an archer has the power to make an arrow goal-directed, God has the power to make everything in the world goal-directed. So, there must be an archer for the arrow of the universe, which must be a God.
Natural laws cannot have been created by objects themselves, since they are non-intelligent or insufficiently intelligent.
Natural laws must have an intelligent designer. ‘That thing we call God.’
explain the problem of evil
Hume aims to show that a posteriori observation of the world cannot provide a basis to conclude that a perfect God exists because the world contains imperfections like evil. The use of the problem of evil against the design argument tends to focus on cases of natural evil and animal suffering as informed by modern science and the theory of evolution.
Hume puts the argument more philosophically:
P1. We are only justified in believing what the evidence suggests (empiricism).
P2. We only have evidence of imperfection (a world with both good and evil).
C1. We are only justified in believing that imperfection exists.
C2. So, belief in a perfectly good being is not justified.
Once we consider all of the a posteriori evidence, including natural evil, we see it cannot justify belief in a perfect God.
Darwin and Hume aren’t trying to show that there is no designer, just that a posteriori evidence cannot be used to show that the designer must be the God of classical theism (omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent).
Darwin’s theory of evolution vs the design argument
Darwin’s theory of evolution by the process of natural selection showed that order in nature was not necessarily evidence of purpose and design but could instead be explained by natural scientific means. Proponents of the design argument are wrong to think that apparently purposeful features of animals must have been created by a designer.
There is genetic diversity within all species so that some members are better adapted to their environment than others. Natural selection refers to the increased chance for better adapted members of a species to survive and pass on their genes
This explains how incredibly complex organisms can come to exist through the process of evolution by natural selection. It’s not an organism coming about by random chance, but nor does it require a designer
