eval challenges to inductive arguments Flashcards
criticism for inductive arguments - Hume
- not enough empirical evidence
- hume = empiricist, accepts things as true where there is empirical evidence for it
- there is EE for cause/effect and design, but no EE for god
criticism for inductive arguments and aquinas - Hume
- argument makes a huge leap from saying there is a first cause / designer to saying it is god
- even if there is a first cause / designer why must it be god? why not a team of designers?
- there may be a number of causes for the universe
- what explanation do we have for the designer / unmoved mover
what is a strength of humes criticisms for inductive arguments
- empirical evidence is valued more in contemporary society
criticism for inductive arguments about design being apparent
- there is order but no evidence of intention
- inductive arguments begin with something within our experience (universe) and reaches conclusions about something outside of it (god)
strength of inductive arguments - based on observation of empirical evidence
- TA: our experience of CROP (eg aquinas design qua regularity) - observation of apparent design to arrive at its conclusion of a designer
- CA: eg we can witness universal laws of cause and effect, motion and contingency- everything has a cause and depends on something to bring it into existence. also based on cause and effect - we can all observe these things in the universe, in this sense the arguments are applying the scientific method
criticism of inductive arguments being based on observation of empirical evidence
- not satisfactory for empirical evidence, science is more valid
support for inductive arguments being based on observation of empirical evidence
- it is objective, we can all share in this experience
- uses scientific method
criticism of inductive arguments - scientific arguments are very strong
- CA: big bang and multiverse theory
- TA: darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection
support for scientific explanations disproving inductive arguments
- modern society - science is more respected as it is objective, reaches definite conclusions instead of probable, widely accepted and extremely valid evidence (eg fossils)
evidence against scientific explanations disproving inductive arguments
- CA: even with science, unless you accept infinite regress there must be a first cause. aquinas rejects infinite regress - there must be an uncaused cause the start the chain of existence (god)
- TA: swinburnes probability argument: the apparent order in the universe makes the existence of god more probable than the alternative of pure chance
- god may have began the process of big bang or may control evolution (eg aquinas acorn / oak tree analogy, objects must be directed by an intelligent being to reach their purpose)
evidence against inductive arguments - science is limited
- there are still many things that science cannot explain
- explains how but not why
- an omnipotent, eternal, necessary creator and designer would explain why
evidence against scientific explanations overriding gods existence
- science can co-exist with religion
- polkinghorne: the big bang / evolution are part of gods design, god may have caused the big bang as he is omnipotent
weakness - god of gaps
- kalam argument - explain things which cannot be explained as god
- as our scientific understanding develops the need for god to explain things is becoming less and less
why is god of the gaps a weak criticism?
- it may be the opposite and that god does fit all the attributes
oaklahams razor evidence against scientific explanations
- the simplistic explanation is the best
- the scientific theories still leave unanswered questions
- if god is the answer then all questions are answered
