Teleological Argument Flashcards
Paleys argument qua purpose:
Analogical argument which compared a watch to an eye and postulate that the universe must have a designer through the method of reasoning that ‘like effects have like causes’. This is because a watch, like an eye, seems to exhibit properties of order, complexity, and intricacy so the existence of an intelligent designer is probable.
Hume to Paley’s argument qua purpose
Hume applies ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’ to paleys analogy. Hume believed the comparison of an eye, and a watch were to dissimilar to warrant the comparison as the watch, for example is mechanical whereas the eye is organic. By comparing manmade things to natural things/the universe, we arrive to an anthropomorphized idea of god. The watch analogy does not actually allow us to arrive to the conclusion of the god of classical theism. For starters, a watch may have multiple designers, so does this suggest multiple gods? Does god merely design the watch, and not make it? Does the watchmaker exhibit qualities of the god of classical theism? Such reasoning does not provide a clear argument for the existence of god.
Moreover, We only arrive at this conclusion as we as humans have observed the creation of a watch, but we haven’t actually observed the creation of the universe, so we cannot assume the universe has a creator. Overall, Hume argues unless we have empirical evidence for an intelligent designer, then it is irrational to assume there is one, especially as we have no direct experience with a designer.
swimbirnes defence of arguments qua purpose- paley and Aquinas’ 5th way
Swinburne defends analogical style arguments by suggesting objects being compared can be successfully linked. For example, according to Swinburne, the fact that As are caused by Bs and As are similar to As can mean that Bs are similar to Bs, allowing for the logical argument that A* is caused by B*.
BUT, Swinburnes argument merely defends the use of analogies but does not solve other implications of Paley’s argument like how do we arrive to the god of classical theism (something Paley clearly wanted to convey)
argument Qua regularity:
Swinburne’s teleological argument from the fine-tuning of the universe suggests that the existence of an intelligent designer is stipulated to explain the order and complexity of the universe. According to Swinburne, the universe exhibits a degree of regularity and complexity that cannot be dismissed on the basis of chance. The best explanation for this is an intelligent designer that created the universe for a specific telos.
Tennants Anthropic Principle:
provides an additional piece of evidence that the fine-tuning of the universe is not merely coincidental (e.g fine tuning of laws of physics; we are existing in the vey unlikely conditions of the universe being biophilic, if any of the scientific constants-like the cosmological constant- were to be changed, then the universe would not be able to support life), but rather the result of intelligent design
Humes response to anthropic principle/argument qua purpose
However, Hume argues against Swinburne by suggesting that fine-tuning irrationally makes assumptions about what a non-designed universe would look like. Hume asserts there is a standard of empirical evidence that is salient to infer design, yet the anthropic principle does not fulfill this. Essentially, Swinburne’s argument for a designer derives from the lack of scientific evidence for the laws of nature (as scientific explanations just assume the laws of nature to describe them and that is circular). Therefore, Swinburne reasons the personal explanation is the best explanation for the universe- God
How does Hume misunderstand Swinburne’s argument qua regularity?
Hume’s criticism is based on a misunderstanding of Swinburne’s argument; it does not claim that the existence of a designer is the only possible explanation for the universe, but it is simply the best explanation given our current evidence (considering the argument is probabilistic).
how do arguments qua regularity violate occhams razor
Occhams razor suggests we should value a naturalistic approach to the fine-tuning of the universe rather than a supernatural or transcendental explanation as a naturalistic explanation does not stipulate an additional entity (god)
Humes claim of a dysteleological universe:
Hume presents an argument against the teleological argument by suggesting that the universe lacks evidence of purposeful design, making it dysteleological. Hume points out that the apparent order and regularity observed in the natural world could be attributed to the operation of impersonal, natural laws rather than an intelligent designer. He argues that the presence of imperfections, irregularities, and instances of suffering in the world runs discrepant with the notion of a perfectly designed universe. Hume challenges the teleological argument by asserting that our limited understanding and the human tendency to impose patterns and purpose onto phenomena cannot provide conclusive evidence for the existence of a deliberate cosmic order
how does Paley respond to claims of a dysteleological universe
Paley’s response attempts to reconcile the imperfections and suffering in the world by suggesting that they are a necessary part of a grander plan (perhaps to maintain free will) or beyond human comprehension, rather than negating the overall teleological argument
multiverse against telos and the Epicurean hypothesis
Hume argues why should we assume reason governs the creation of the universe? Reason may be something that belongs to humans alone. For example the epicurean hypothesis suggests the universe is governed based on a set of natural laws, rather than by the will of a supernatural or divine force. This, amalgamated with the multiverse hypothesis could explain why randomness could stabilise into order. To elucidate, take an infinite series of monkeys at typewriters, unintentionally hitting keys with no sense of complexity or intention. Given there are infinite monkeys, eventually, it is inevitable that one would unintentionally type out the entire works of william shakespeare. If we apply this to a multiverse, then it is evident that our universe which appears to exhibit complexity and by virtue, telos, may really be the result of spontaneity and luck.
natural selection against a universe designed with telos?
Moreover, Darwin argues that design is only apparent. He proposed that over time, through natural selection, individuals with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes and eventually, these traits become more prevalent in the population, leading to the appearance of purpose. This challenged the teleological argument by providing a naturalistic explanation for the complexity and diversity of life, instead of invoking some ‘conscious designer’
Aquinas fifth way
- Everything has a telos (end goal).
- In nature many things act unconsciously towards their end (e.g. cells multiply).
- Nothing unconscious can act towards its end unless it is caused by something intelligent.
- There must be intelligence moving all things towards their purpose.
C. god is that intelligence
The analogy of the archer: the arrow is directed towards the target by the action of the archer
problems with Aquinas’ fifth way
- undermines evolutionary processes
- satre; things don’t appear to be goal driven
