Observation: Teleological Argument Flashcards
What type of argument is the Teleological Argument?
It is inductive and a posteriori, based on observation. It is referred to as the ‘design argument.’
What is Aquinas’ 5th Way?
1.) The behaviour of objects is goal-oriented towards an end because they follow natural laws (i.e. a flower moves throughout the day to get more sun, an acorn turns into a tree etc.)
2.) These laws cannot have been created by the objects themselves because they lack intelligence and reason.
3.) Natural laws must have an intelligent designer: “that which we call God.”
What is Aquinas’ analogy of the archer and arrow?
An arrow hits a target even though it lacks the intelligence to do it alone or understand why it must do it. There must be something that directed the arrow and understood why it had to hit the target. In this case, the archer is the intelligent one, that understands why the arrow must hit the target.
God is like the archer and the arrow is non-intelligent beings; he guides these beings to their purpose through natural laws.
How does Paley demonstrate his design qua Purpose argument?
The watch analogy.
If you were walking along a grassy plain and came across a rock, you could easily assume that it had always been lying there.
But, if you came across a watch, you’d assume that it had been placed there intentionally. You would also assume that it had been designed by a watchmaker due to its intricacy and mechanisms.
The watch can be metaphorical for many natural things, like the human eye, or the wings of a bird. The existence of these things implies an intelligent designer.
How does Paley argue his design qua Regularity argument?
Paley points to the rotations of the planets in the solar system and how they obey the same universal laws as shown by Newton’s laws of motion and gravity. How do these laws maintain regularity without falling into chaos? It is such a small boundary that it cannot happen by chance.
How does Hume criticise the use of analogy in Paley’s watch analogy?
The watch and the universe are not similar things. The watch is a mechanical product and we know logically there is a watchmaker. However, the world is organic and comparatively more complex.
Just because both the watch and the world have complexity and purpose, doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a guaranteed designer in the latter’s case.
How could Paley’s design argument be defended from Hume’s criticism of its analogy?
Modern philosophers don’t see Paley’s design argument as an analogy between watch and universe. His argument is that there are properties which require a designer - complexity and purpose. Nature requires a designer because it is complex and purposeful, not because it is similar to a man-made thing.
How does Hume criticise the teleological argument based on the uniqueness of the universe?
We cannot know that complexity and purpose infers a designer in the case of the universe. If we want to infer a designer as the cause of something, we have two options:
1.) experience the thing being made and its designer
2.) experience similar things being made and their designers
But the universe is a unique case. We did not experience the birth of the universe, nor did we experience the birth of other universes. It follows that we cannot logically infer that the universe has a designer.
What is a criticism of Hume’s ‘unique case’ argument, and why does it fail?
It could be said that the unique case argument doesn’t apply to the watch because someone could infer it was designed from its complexity, purpose and nature, without seeing it being made.
But even if someone gets that idea, their knowledge isn’t justified. They just made an inference, they have no way of knowing if that inference is actually true. The only way to know a watch was truly designed is to see it being made.
Why would Hume say god isn’t the only answer?
Even if we have evidence of design in the universe, this would not support the idea that the God was the God of classical theism. It could have been a junior God, a dead God, or even a “committee of Gods.” The design argument is useless as it can’t even prove monotheism.
Why would Swinburne argue against the idea that God isn’t the only answer?
He applies Ockham’s Razor. It would be simpler to say that a single god made the universe over multiple. Swinburne also points to the uniform laws of physics.
The nature of God is also irrelevant. The design argument seeks to provide evidence that a God might exist, not what that God is like. It is inductive.
What is the Epicurean Hypothesis?
In an infinite amount of time, the universe will arrange itself into an orderly one. In an infinite amount of time, no matter the probability, an ordered universe will be 100% guaranteed to happen.
This is further evidenced by the multiverse theory. In an infinite multiverse, ordered universes will come about alongside chaotic ones.
How does Darwin’s Theory of Evolution disprove the Teleological Argument?
Paley argues that complexity implies a designer, yet evolution is complex and it diversifies over time. It does not require a designer, as many traits are adapted in response to threats or needs and were not present upon creation.
Things such as extinction, useless adaptations, chance and mutations suggest a chaotic nature of the universe.
What is the anthropic principle?
Too much has gone right in the world to be random chance.
However, we should still consider the size of the universe. There could be similar planets that have ‘gone right’ by chance.
What is Tennent’s aesthetic principle?
Evolution could not have produced humans without God’s interference with evolution. How does Darwinian evolution explain our changing perception of beauty? It has no survival purpose, yet it evolved.
