Arguments Based On Observation Flashcards
AQUINAS’ FIFTH WAY
teleological/ design
Focus: regularity & purpose
Analogy of an Arrow: an arrow flying towards a traget has purpose (aimed at target) and regularity (flies steadily).
It must therefore have been put into motion by an Intelligent Being.
PAYLEY’S DESIGN ARGUMENT
teleological/ design
Focus: complexity of science
Detailed complexity always serves a purpose
This is used as evidence for the deign of a designer.
Analogy of a Watch: a watch found on a hearth must have been designed by an intelligent designer.
AQUINAS’ FIRST WAY
cosmological
The Unmoved Mover (similar to Aristotle)
All things are in a constant state of change.
There cannot be an infinite sequence of cause & change.
Thus, there must have been an unmoved mover to begin the change
AQUINAS’ SECOND WAY
cosmological
The Uncaused Causer (Aristotle’s Efficient cause)
There is ‘an order of efficient causes’ in the World
Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
There must have been a first cause: ‘to which everyone gives the name God’
AQUINAS’ THIRD WAY
cosmological
Contingency
All nature is ‘possible to be and not to be’.
So, at a point in time, it could “not have been”.
However, something independent being would still have to have been so that other things may exist from it (cause).
Something necessary must have existed, whose existence is CONTINGENT
LEIBNITZ’S ‘PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON’
‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’
If something exists, there must be a reason why.
It does not matter whether we know what this reason is or not.
Even if the universe is an infinite chain of cause & effect, there must still be an explanation.
The explanation must lie outside our universe so that it is not contingent to change
HUME’S CRITICISMS OF O.A.
Paley’s ‘Watch Analogy’ cannot be supported
The universe could be more like a growing vegetable.
The growing could be unpredictable
DAVIES’ RESPONSE
The issue is not whether the universe is like a machine, the comparison is that of complex order.
Vegetables are also complex in themselves, and ordered in an ecosystem.
HUME’S CRITICISM OF O.A.
Even is the universe is ordered, we cannot conclude its design.
We have no other universe to compare it to- ours maybe be very unordered.
We don’t know of any other way our universe could have developed.
ADDITION- EPICUREAN THEODICY
The order of the universe could have come about by chance.
There must have been a time in which the randomly wandering matter of the world could have come together in the same way.
HUME’S CRITICISMS OF O.A.
We can only see the effects of the creator, not the designer itself.
The universe if finite, so could the creator also be.
There could be multiple creators.
The creator could be maleficent given the apparent defects in the universe
DAVIES: the creator must be transcendent because nothing within the universe could create it.
If he is transcendent then he must be infinite.
It is more logical to believe in a single, good-willing god than a committed of malicious designers.
SWINBURNE: this universe reflects the kind of creator behind it.
A universe with: the development of intelligent life with a moral capacity, genuine freedoms for humans
HUME’S CRITICISM OF C.A.
Although elements of the universe have a reason to exist, this cannot be extrapolated onto the universe itself.
ADDITION- RUSSELL
Just because every human has a mother, does not mean the human race in its entirety must have a mother
HUME’S CRITICISM OF C.A.
Why can the universe not be its own explanation?
The universe could just be eternal and the cause of all things in it.
Hume rejects the Principle of Sufficient; it is not impossible to imagine that a thing does not have a cause at all.
It is more reasonable to believe in an Uncaused Cause than to accept the idea of infinite regression.
Just because it is possible to imagine something does not mean it could in fact exist.
SWINBURNE: Ockham’s Razor- the simplest explanation tends to be true
EVOLUTION- DARWIN
The theory of evolution by natural selection is the basis of all modern evolutionary sciences.
All living things develop without a divine design but by chance alone.
Combinations of random mutations enable certain creatures to survive better: the survival of the fittest.
DAWKINS:
The belief in design stems from the problem that ‘humans are obsessed with purpose’- we see what we want to see.
Evolution gives the appearance of purpose (the detail of adaptions) we assume there is a greater reason.
In reality, evolution = the behaviour of ‘selfish genes’.
AGAINST DAWKINS:
F.R. TENNANT & THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
There are dozens of physical laws and constants in the universe that require the exact precision of our condition to enable intelligent life.
‘Cosmic fine tuning’ gives no credit to chance (astronomically unlikely)
SWINBURNE: ‘design by spatial order’. Evolution itself a matter of chance but its biology is extraordinarily complex and ordered.
This makes it unlikely to be a result of chance.
