Arguments ForGod From Observation

Question 1

What view do teleological arguments take?

Answer 1

Teleological arguments take the view that purpose can be observed in the world, therefore the world must have been designed, with a purpose in mind, by a designer. These arguments are also known as design arguments.

Question 2

What is a posteriori argument?

Answer 2

Claims are based on human experience of the world around us.
Uses inductive reasoning.
Can show that the existence of God is probable but cannot be conclusively proven.

Question 3

What are a priori arguments?

Answer 3

Prior to experience (independent of experience).
Uses deductive reasoning
Claim to provide conclusive proof of God’s existence as long as the premises are valid.

Question 4

Are teleological arguments a priori or a posteriori arguments?

Answer 4

A posteriori

Question 5

Because teleological arguments come from looking at the natural world what are they known as?

Answer 5

Natural theology

Question 6

What do supporters of natural theology claim?

Answer 6

That the world around us enables us to draw inferences about God (in the same way we might deduce something about the painter from an anonymous painting). They particularly point to the:
• Order in the world (everything works properly)
• Beauty of nature
• Purpose (everything seems to have an ultimate purpose)
• Complexity (diversity, adaptability).

It is extremely unlikely all these features would occur by chance - therefore they produce strong evidence for the existence of God.

Question 7

What was Aquinas’ teleological argument?

Answer 7

He puts forward his teleological argument in his vast masterpiece Summa Theologica in which he attempts a complete understanding of God (drawing on ancient Greek, Hebrew, Muslim, Christian and pagan sources).

This is considered to be the definitive Christian understanding of God; all theological discussion today is connected to something Aquinas said.

Question 8

What was Aristotle’s influence on Aquinas’ teleological argument?

Answer 8

-Aquinas lived at a time when the works of Aristotle had been rediscovered by Europeans and were considered immensely impressive because of their common-sense logic.

-He wanted to know where Aristotelian thought and Christian thought could be compatible – how reason and faith can work together.

-So, Aquinas takes over Aristotle’s four causes theory, in particular the final cause - purpose - to develop the idea that everything in the universe has a purpose.

Question 9

What were the two ways that Aquinas believed the existence of God could be demonstrated in?

Answer 9

1. Natural theology-His teleological argument
2. Revelation-using what God has shown to humans through the Bible and direct revelations

These two are complementary and equally important

Question 10

What did Paul write in Romans 1:19?

Answer 10

“God’s power and divinity is clear from what has been made.’

He wrote this because for him it was obvious that we can draw conclusions about God from the beauty of the world we see around us

Question 11

What was Aquinas’ teleological argument: the fifth way?

Answer 11

-It looks at the purpose of something and from that he reasons that God must exist. He gave 5 ways of proving God exists and this is the 5th of his 5 ways.
-Aquinas entitles his argument ‘from the governance of the world’
-He says that things that lack knowledge (e.g natural bodies) acr for a purpose/end (this is his observation from which he will now reason)
-This acting for an end always leads to the best result
-This must happen, not by luck but by design (here design means ‘intention’ or by ‘deliberate act’)
-Anything that lacks knowledge needs something with knowledge to guide it- just like an arrow needs an archer (to get it to it’s target)
-Therefore, there is an intelligent being that directs all natural things to their end
-This being is what we call God
So for Aquinas the world is governed by God, who is the guiding force that makes things achieve their purpose deliberately. Natural bodies are all things of less intelligence than God

Question 12

What are arguments from analogy?

Answer 12

-The use by Aquinas of an illustration (that of the archer and it’s arrow) to make his point is the first example of a number of analogies through this chapter. It is important to think about whether it is valid to use an analogy to do complicated philosophy to try to prove (or disprove) the existence of God.
-Aquinas’ point is that in the same way that the archer guides the arrow to where they are meant to go, God guides natural bodies to where they are meant to go. The natural body needs to get it’s purpose and the arrow needs to get to the target;the arrow needs an archer and the natural body needs something to direct it- and this is God
-Some argue that the arguments from analogy are weak. At best they can only suggest something probably shares a characteristic. Others say they are useful ways to illustrate a complex argument but are on their own not sufficient.

Question 13

What does regularity have to do with Paley’s teleological argument?

Answer 13

-Paley observed that complex objects work with regularity. The seasons of the year happen with order, the planets rotate with order etc.
-This order seems to be the result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and order into place deliberately

Question 14

What does purpose have to do with Paley’s teleological argument?

Answer 14

-The eye seemed to Paley to have been constructed deliberately with the purpose to see
-The wings of a bird operate with such intricacy and with the purpose to aid flight that there seems to be a designer behind them
For Paley all this pointed to a designer, who is God. Paley used the science of his day to show that on both small and large scales, there is evidence of design; God’s creative action is continuous and God will look after humans on a small and a large scale

Question 15

What is Paley’s analogy of the watch?

Answer 15

He asks his readers to imagine walking in a heath:
-If I were to come across a rock, I could explain it’s origins referring to natural causes
-If I were to come across a watch (an old fashioned pocket watch), there couldn’t be a natural explanation
-The watch is made up of cogs and springs and so on and this design couldn’t have come about by chance- there must be a watchmaker who designed it with the purpose of telling the time

Paley also said
-Whether or not we had seem a watch before, it is clearly different to the rock in nature and proton
-Even if the watch is broken, there is enough design to suggest a watchmaker: he is not commenting on the quality of the design
-Even if we didn’t fully understand the watch, we would still identify design

Question 16

What is the conclusion of Paley’s analogy of the watch

Answer 16

The argument uses the understanding of his day about machines to conclude that, by analogy, the world must be a machine with a designer and creator. Paley uses regularity, order, irritacy, purpose and design to make his points

Question 17

What are cosmological arguments?

Answer 17

-Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way the universe works and from these try to explain why the universe exists:
-‘Why is there something, rather than nothing?’ Leibiniz in the seventeenth century said that there must be sufficient (good enough) explanation for the existence of the universe-everything must happen for a reason
-Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological arguments, starting with 3 different observations: motion, causation and contingency

Question 18

What is the first way?

Answer 18

The unmoved mover

Question 19

What is the second way?

Answer 19

The uncaused causer

Question 20

What is the third way?

Answer 20

Contingency and necessity

Question 21

What is the unmoved mover?

Answer 21

-Everything is in a state of actuality and potentiality
-All things are moved (the potentiality becomes the new actuality) are moved by something else and then something else again
-This cannot go on to infirmary because otherwise there would be no first mover and so nothing would have started moving at all
-So there must be a first mover
-This first unmoved mover is what everyone understands to be God

Question 22

What is the uncaused causer?

Answer 22

-Nothing can be it’s own efficient cause because it cannot have existed before itself
-Things that are causes must themselves be caused, otherwise the effect would be taken away
-We cannot go back to infinity because that would mean there was no diets cause of everything and so all later effects and causes wouldn’t have happened
-Therefore, there must be a special case, a first efficient that is not itself caused
-This first uncaused causer is what everyone understands to be God

Question 23

What is contingency and necessity?

Answer 23

-In nature, there are things that are possible ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ (contingent beings)
-These things could not always have existed because they must have not existed at some point because they rely on something for their existence
-If we trace this back, then we get to a point where nothing existed, but then nothing existed, but then nothing would have begun to exist as nothing can come from nothing
-Therefore, there must be a type of being that is not contingent- a necessary beibgn
-Perhaps necessary beings could have their necessity come from another being
-Therefore, there must be a being that has of itself it’s own necessity which causes other beings
-This is what people call God

Question 24

Who is a key critic of the arguments from observation

Answer 24

David Hume

Question 25

What are Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument?

Answer 25

First he challenges analogies as a way of argument
-It is not necessarily true that the world is like a watch
-It might be true that a watch looks as if it is designed, but it is harder to say that the world has these characteristics. Hume therefore is rejecting the idea that the analogous is suitable
-In fact, the world could be said to be more like a vegetable that has characteristics of intricacy (a complex natural object), rather than a machine like watch
The teleological argument does not prove, according to Hume, that the only way in which the world could be as it is comes from God

Question 26

What points does Hume make about the nature of God who is supposedly proven?

Answer 26

-Our world is finite and imperfect; why should God be infinite and perfect- why couldn’t God be finite and/or imperfect too?
-Hume uses the example of a pair of scales here one side is hidden: just because we know one side of the scales is heavier than the other, we don’t know the exact weight of the other side
-In the same way, just because we might see evidence of a designer, we do not know anything about the nature of the designer
-The designer could have created this world thorough a series of trial and error experiments (just like a watchmaker would in fact)
-The world could even be the first attempt of an ‘infant deity’ who then abandoned the world
-Hume uses the example of a shipbuilder who makes a wonderful ship, but when we meet him turns out to be a ‘stupid mechanic’ who has imitated others and copied an art form that has been through many failed attempts
-There could be a number of designers-after all, a ship or house is created by a number of people; why should there only be one God?
-The designer could be immoral (after all, the creator(s) of a perfect ship aren’t necessarily perfect people! Just because a watch is perfect, it doesn’t mean the watchmaker is a good person)

Question 27

What are Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument?

Answer 27

-Hume questioned whether it is possible to make the jump from what Aquinas observed and the God that Christian’s believe in. The effect cannot immediately point towards a particular cause.
-For example, when you get the grade that you want in your re exam, will it come from the book, your hard work or your teacher?
-Hume said that causation is a psychological concept and we cannot make links between cause and effect that is beyond our experience
-Equally, he said that it is not necessary to suppose that everything has a cause at all, which rejects the whole approach of Aquinas
-Hume argued that we cannot make the jump from the idea that just because everything in the universe has a reason to exist then the entire universe must have a cause or reason to exist (this is called the fallacy of composition). He said that just because you can explain the cause of each of a collection of 20 particles of matter, it does not mean that you can explain the cause of the group of particles
-In the context of Aquinas’ third way, Hume said it is illogical to suppose there is any being whose nature requires a contradiction
-Why does God have to be necessary: why can’t the universe be necessary

Question 28

How would we examine Hume?

Answer 28

-Just because we cannot fully understand God, why should the logic of the arguments be dismissed?
-It is reasonable to look for total explanations of all events- so why not look for a reason for all 20 particles being grouped together?
-Modern science suggests that there is a definite beginning to the universe
-We need faith to make the final leap to understanding God
-A vegetable only grows because the laws of biology work- where do these laws come from?
-Just because we have no experience of something, it does not mean that our current understanding cannot explain it
-God does not have to share all the same characteristics as a human designer; for example, God does not have a body
-The creation of the world/universe is a unique event; why shouldn’t there be a special case, such as God, to explain it?

Question 29

What is Darwin’s challenge of evolution?

Answer 29

-He wrote the origin of the species, which has defined evolutionary thinking ever since. Darwin’s theory of evolution was evolution by natural selection- things exist as they are because of natural methods, selecting what will survive and what will not; some suggest there seems to be no space for God in this approach
-Twentieth century discoveries about genetics have only supported his underlying principles

Question 30

How does survival of the fittest challenge the teleological argument?

Answer 30

-The teleological argument claims that a designer is what effects change
-The survival of the fittest says that it is nature competing against nature for survival that is what makes the change
-Therefore, brutal nature is responsible for how we see the world around us, not a designer

Question 31

How does adaptation challenge the teleological argument?

Answer 31

-This removes the guiding nature of a God is intricately involved with his creation
-Paley’s fascination with birds’ wings, for example, might be now explained by the need for an early form of bird to be able to fly in order to escape predators

Question 32

What is a key quote from Richard Dawkins, the blind watchmaker?

Answer 32

In the case of living machinery, the ‘designer’ is unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker

Question 33

What is a logical fallacy?

Answer 33

An error in logic

Question 34

What are logical fallacies from Hume’s argument?

Answer 34

-The assumption that all things are moved or have a cause or are contingent or have a purpose can be argued to be a logical fallacy because it is just an assumption
-Infinite regression: Aquinas maintains that things cannot go back to infinity. Arguably, things van go back to infinity, such as numbers on a number line going back -1,-2,-3 etc. However this does not answer the fundamental question about why there is anything in the first place
-The jump to a transcendant creator: we have seen that Hume does not accept that we can move from the observations in the world to the idea of a creator who is the God of religious faith. The conclusions of each of Aquinas’ ways seem to move from a very narrow observation of o a declaration that the uncaused cause (or mover or necessary being) is the Christian God. It could be argued that this is an error in logic because it is a jump too far. However, some might say that all Aquinas is trying to do is to point towards an aspect of God and he is not trying to prove all of God’s attributes in such a short part of his work
-The cosmological argument suggests that there must be a special case who is an unmoved mover, uncaused cause or necessary being. This assumption could be a logical fallacy because it is not clear why God has to be the special case. There is nothing like the universe in existence, so why can the universe not be the special case? However, the universe it still a ‘thing’, made up of matter. This point may not fully explain where the matter comes from