CRITICISMS + RESPONSES for teleological arguments

Question 1

List of all criticisms to the TELEOLOGICAL argument:

Answer 1

1. HUME: The analogy is weak
2. HUME + PALEY: The problem of spatial disorder
3. HUME: The design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case
4. Whether God is the best or only explanation
   > DARWIN: Natural selection

Question 2

HUME’s CRITICISM: The analogy is weak

Answer 2

• Man-made items (e.g. watches) are very different from nature
• We can observe these items being designed, but we have no such experience with nature
• Therefore its a WEAK JUMP to go from man-made items being designed to the universe also being designed.

A watch isn’t an appropriate analogy
Instead he claims the analogy of the eye = more like a naturally forming vegetable
- Some things form naturally and randomly, with no designer or pattern
- The eye = more akin to a vegetable (that comes about naturally)
- If a carrot comes about naturally, why not other aspects of nature (eye)?
- Therefore, we should infer through closer analogy that all parts of nature are not designed.

Question 3

PALEY’s RESPONSE: to Hume saying the analogy is weak

Answer 3

• REPLICATING WATCH EXAMPLE:
• If a watch was able to replicate, making more watches from itself (like human reproduction) this would be a complex process with a specific purpose.
• Arguing a watch is created by a previous watch isn’t a good explanation of causation.
• They have been programmed to create another watch and so we still require a designer to programme this replication/reproduction.
• In the same way Humes argument argues that reproduction of vegetables comes about naturally, (and so an eye could in the same way) only provides further evidence that this process needs a designer.

Question 4

POSSIBLE RESPONSE TO PALEY’s RESPONSE to Humes argument the analogy is weak

Answer 4

• Is a single, perfect God the simplest explanation?

- Why is that simpler then, on analogy, that many beings often design regularity?

Question 5

HUMES’s CRITICISM: The problem of spatial disorder (poor design)

Answer 5

• Hume argues there are plenty examples of bad design in the world
• Instead of spatial disorder there seems to be disorder
• e.g. ostriches have wings and humans have appendixes. These play no part in any function.
• Therefore either we don’t need a designer or at the very least, this shows a poor designer which cannot be omnipotent or omniscient (cannot be God)

Question 6

PALEY’s RESPONSE: to the problem of spatial disorder

Answer 6

• If someone came across a watch lying in a field, they would still infer that it was designed even if it contained defects
• A badly designed object is still a designed object
• He acknowledges that imperfections might still call God’s power or benevolence into question
• BUT ARGUES - countering evidence of God’s omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence could outweighs the evidence against.

Question 7

HUME PROBLEM: he design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case

Answer 7

• The universe is a unique case
• It cannot be compared to human objects as we have lots of human objects to compare and work from, but only one observable universe
• Therefore, an analogy can’t be drawn between the two as to do so would be a ‘category mistake’ (as they’re not in the same logical category’
• and so design arguments fail

Question 8

WHETHER GOD IS THE BEST OR ONLY EXPLANATION CRITICISM:

DARWIN: Evolution by Natural selection

Answer 8

• When we understood very little about the world, it made more sense that the appearance of defusing in nature was a good reason to believe in God, but now we know better.
• Darwins theory of natural selection provides an alternative theory to spatial order
• Given enough time and genetic mutations - its inevitable organisms with spatial order will adapt to their environment
• This creates the appearance of design
• when in fact the universe was designed to fit life, but rather life evolved to fit it
• Therefore changes in spatial order can be explained without an intelligent being (God)

Question 9

SWINBURNE RESPONSE: to evolution

Answer 9

• Evolution explains spatial order
• However it doesn’t explain temporal order
• These natural laws are brute and so cannot be explained further by science
• Therefore, evolution isn’t a problem for his theory, in fact it may even support it as evolution relies on temporality consistent laws of nature for it to work.
• The cause of these laws must be a ‘personal agent’ (as shown in his argument)

Question 10

DAWKINS RESPONSE TO SWINBURNE on evolution

Answer 10

• “god is not the ‘simplest’ explanation” - Dawkins argues God isn’t an explanation at all.
• we might as well simply say ‘we don’t know’

Question 11

SWINBURNE’s RESPONSE: to Dawkins response (evolution

Answer 11

• Swinburne’s argument is an inductive argument
• If it was aiming to be deductive we could accept the criticism we should simply say “we don’t know”.
• However, it’s aiming to prove the existence of God is highly probable and God is still the simplest explanation we have.