Arguments from observation Flashcards
what is one of the teleological arguments presented by Aquinas?
-what does it state
Aquinas’ fifth way (summa theologica)
- The world appears to be governed and designed with a purpose in a way that could not appear by chance
-When discussing non-thinking beings, Aquinas supposes that there must be an intelligence behind them, they move in predictable ways that appear to show design. as they are non-thinking beings and yet have set behaviours (e.g.an acorn always grows on an oak tree), but they have no notion of how to set behaviour, so this must be set, likely by an intelligent being directing them to their purpose - this intelligence is God
What example does Aquinas use to further explain his argument?
An archer, the arrow wouldn’t achieve its purpose of hitting the target without an archer. In the same way a human would’t achieve its purpose without the guidance of God. For example, an oak tree is an ‘end’ to which an acorn ‘aims’ to achieve - it has a purpose (telos) to which it strives to achieve, it is either because it is intelligent or there is something intelligent guiding it.
What is meant by a design argument - Aquinas uses this?
A design argument observes the world and points to evidence that suggests that our world works well/ it was designed in a specific way. Therefore someone or something must have designed it, with a purpose in mind.
What is meant by teleological arguments?
The teleological argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God that begins with the observation of the purpose of the world and the living things within. If things have a purpose, it suggests that a designer has designed the object with that purpose in mind.
strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas’ Fifth way
(+)Examples in nature of non-thinking beings that act to achieve a purpose e.g.acorn
(-)Other explanations for apparent purpose. They have evolved to suit their environment. It may look like design but has occurred because less well-adapted beings have died out.
(+)It is correct that an arrow (non-thinking) needs an archer to direct it.The arrow could not move in a particular way and hit the target without the archers guidance. Suggesting that things in nature move in a particular way to achieve a purpose, and God is suited to this description, someone who can guide us to achieve our end purpose (telos).
(-)Aquinas makes assumptions about purpose. What we assume to be ‘purpose’ could be by chance, or perhaps natural things do not have an innate purpose and it is a human construct. Or possible, it is wrong to assume that we all only have one purpose, or any.
Define logical fallacy
An error in logical reasoning
Paley’s teleological (design) argument
uses an old fashioned pocket watch to suggest that purpose (telos) must mean a designer
-Intentional design, carefully constructed, for Paley, this is God
-Can see design in natural things
What is the fallacy of composition?
what is observed about the parts cannot be assumed to be the same for the whole
What is the epicurean fallacy?
Finite particles give infinite time will eventually form order. Hume adapted this idea for Epicurus.
What are Humes criticisms of teleological arguments?
-Hume criticises the use of observation ( a posteriori arguments) :
*while we can observe order or purpose in parts of the natural world. We cannot apply the same criteria to the whole world. This is the fallacy of composition.
Weakness of the teleological argument
(-)Evolution - adaption to the environment, there is no need for a designer or God
Aquinas’ first three ways
1) argument from motion - Aquinas argued that nothing can move or change by itself; there cannot be an infinite regression of movers. There must be an unmoved mover which itself cannot be moved or changed but which started the chain of movement and change. For Aquinas, this unmoved mover is God.
2) argument from cause - everything within the universe is the result of a succession of causes. As nothing can be its own cause, there cannot be an infinite chain of regression of cause. There must be a first cause which itself uncaused that began the chain of cause and effect. This uncaused cause is God.
3) argument from contingency - everything in the universe is contingent: it can exist or not exist. If there was a time where nothing existed, but there is now, then how could it come from nothing? There must have been a different type of being a necessary being that brought everything into existence. Aquinas claims this necessary being is God.
weaknesses of Aquinas’ first three ways
(-)Assumes that this necessary being is God, there could be another necessary being, something other than a God, or maybe a different type of God.
(-)Existentialists would argue that asking ‘why the universe exists’ is an unanswerable question. So we shouldn’t even ask the question
(-)Aquinas makes a leap in his logic. Just because things in the universe are contingent, that doesn’t mean that the universe is also contingent.
(-)It is just as reasonable to assume that there could be an infinite regress of movers/changes rather than an unmoved mover who started the chain of movement.
Humes criticisms of cosmological arguments
- We don’t need to assume that everything needs a cause. Th universe just exists, there is no need to ask why.
-Infinite regress does not have to be as impossible to image as Aquinas suggests. Just because Aquinas finds it difficult to image it, it does not mean it is factually impossible.
What is a problem with Paley’s use of a watch to demonstrate the existence of God?
A watch is a mechanisms which shows a clear design and purpose, to tell time. Paley’s use of analogy is inevitably going to lead to the conclusion of a designer, his choice of comparison is undeniably influence by his belief in the existence of a God.
Hume uses a better comparison than Paley’s watch, what is it and why is it better?
A cabbage, which also has a clear structure, yet we would not be inclined to assume a cabbage maker. In fact, Hume believed that the world and a cabbage are similar in their organic nature.
Do the cosmological and teleological successfully demonstrate the existence of God? include Hume’s quote on who he believes to be responsible
No, we cannot assume than a infinite, perfect God is responsible for the creation of this imperfect, finite world. Hume instead suggests that it is instead ‘only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterward abandoned it, ashamed of his performance.’
Does the cosmological argument jump to the conclusion of a transcendent God without sufficient explanation?
-Aquinas’ first way
Yes - Aquinas first way (the argument from motion) postulates the existence of God as he rejects infinite regression and concludes that there must be an unmoved mover which itself cannot be moved or changed but which started the chain of movement and change. He called this unmoved mover God.
How does Aquinas’ first way (cosmological argument) jump to the conclusion of God without sufficient explanation?
There is a logical fallacy, or an error in reasoning, using the fallacy of composition. Just because the parts within the universe have a cause, it does not follow that the whole universe has a cause. Furthermore, the only relevant evidence for the universe having a cause would be observing the origin of our or other universes. We can’t assume conditions within the universe are like its ultimate origin. So, there seems no logical nor evidential basis for the universe having a cause.
What is Aquinas’ second way?
the argument from cause - everything in the universe is the result of a succession of causes. As nothing can be its own cause, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. There must be a first cause which itself uncaused the began the chain of causes and effect. This uncaused causer is God.
What is Aquinas’ third way?
The argument from contingency - everything in the universe is contingent; it can exist or not exist. It is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. But there is something now, which couldn’t have come rom nothing. There must be a necessary being which brought things into existence, this necessary being is God.
weaknesses of Aquinas’ first three ways (not including the fallacy of composition)
-Dawkins may be correct in implying that believers often fill gaps of knowledge, by default, with God (God of the gaps). However, these gaps are shrinking as science becomes more advanced. For example, the causation of the universe may be more convincingly explained by the big bang and evolution.
-There is a a leap in assumption that this uncaused causer, unmoved mover and necessary being must be a God of classical theism, when in fact it aligns much closer to a diestic God or a necessary being that is in line with Aristotles prime mover.
